Extending a PPO; Nondomestic PPO; MCL 600.2950a(2)(b); Interference or impairment with petitioner’s educational environment; MCL 600.2950a(3)(e) & (k); Claim that respondent had no option but to attend the same school as petitioner; MCL 380.1311(2) & (6) (petition for reinstatement of an expelled student); Educational alternatives; MCL 380.1311(4)

Holding that the trial court did not err in extending or continuing the PPO at issue given that respondent-BD “insisted on attending the same high school as” petitioner-EM, the court affirmed. The trial court issued the order after an evidentiary hearing on BD’s motion to terminate the PPO, which was originally entered based on “EM’s allegations that BD had sexually assaulted her during class while in middle school. In part, the PPO prohibited BD from interfering with EM at school and from engaging in conduct that impaired her educational relationship and environment. Although no criminal charges were ever pursued, BD was expelled from school for a year after a Title IX investigation.” The school district later permitted him to return, resulting in the two attending the same high school. The trial court concluded reasonable cause existed to continue the PPO. It “reasoned that because of the severe anxiety and migraines suffered by EM upon seeing BD, his mere presence at the high school constituted conduct impairing EM’s educational environment when the evidence” showed that they regularly crossed paths. The court found “no clear error in the trial court’s factual findings,” and no error as to its “reasoning and legal analysis. The trial court properly operated on the premise that BD had sexually assaulted EM in class by way of digital-vaginal penetration when she was 13 years old. Under those circumstances, it is quite understandable that EM would suffer severe anxiety upon seeing BD. Indeed, there was no evidence contradicting or undermining EM’s claims regarding the effect that BD had on her when she saw him, even from a distance.” As to BD’s argument he had no option but to re-enroll in the school district, there “are options available to an expelled student such that he or she can still obtain an education without returning to the classroom or school from which” he or she was expelled. And the court saw “nothing in the plain language of MCL 380.1311 that would bar his enrollment in a different school district.” As a result, it rejected his “argument that his observation of EM was not his fault because he was required to” attend that high school “or because his parents were forced to seek” his reinstatement. It added that he “could not escape the reach of the PPO even assuming he otherwise had a right to be reinstated at and attend” the high school.