Motion to terminate a PPO; PF v JF; Domestic relationship PPO (MCL 600.2950(1)); Engaging in conduct that violates MCL 750.411h; Hayford v Hayford

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s motion to terminate the domestic relationship PPO obtained by petitioner. The parties were previously in a dating relationship. The court noted that engaging “in conduct that violates MCL 750.411h supports issuing a PPO.” Petitioner alleged in her ex parte petition for the PPO “that respondent induced someone to copy her apartment key and that he would enter her residence to take things or move them. She stated that [he] had his friends follow her and that a woman scratched her car at [his] request. She alleged that respondent had access to her cell phone and e-mail account, and used this access to read her messages and delete her photographs. After the PPO was filed, [she] received multiple text messages from unknown numbers that she believed were sent by [him]. She presented evidence of those text messages at the hearing. [They] came from three different phone numbers. Two of the texts referenced inviting petitioner over for grilled fish and wine, suggesting that the same person sent them. No one picked up the phone when [she] called the phone numbers, and she stated that respondent’s texting style matched that of the three texts sent from unknown numbers.” She also stated that she is afraid of him. The “text messages were electronic communications sent from a series of unknown phone numbers without petitioner’s consent, after she had changed her phone number multiple times. [They] came from a former dating partner who [she] alleged had sent other people to follow and harass her, repeatedly accessed her apartment, viewed personal emails and messages, and deleted personal photographs. Text messages from several unknown numbers, when received under the circumstances presented here, would undoubtedly cause a reasonable person to experience mental distress.” And there was record evidence that she “was in fact distressed by the continued contact.” The trial court determined her “testimony was credible, and that it was clear that she was frightened by the text messages.” The court deferred to its credibility findings and concluded they were not clearly erroneous. Affirmed.