Motion to terminate a nondomestic personal protection order (PPO); Due process; Absence of an offer of proof

Concluding that respondent failed to show plain error requiring reversal based on his claim the trial court violated his right to due process, the court affirmed the order denying his motion to terminate a nondomestic PPO. He claimed the trial court violated his right to due process by preventing his “counsel from completing his cross-examination of petitioner, preventing respondent’s counsel from conducting the direct examination of respondent, and denying [his] counsel the opportunity to present proposed exhibits and call additional witnesses.” But he did not raise any of these issues in the trial court, rendering his appellate arguments unpreserved. In addition to his failure to raise any objections in the trial court on the grounds he now asserted, the court found it more important that he did not make “any statement to the trial court during the hearing indicating that he had further cross-examination questions for petitioner, that he” wanted his counsel to directly examine him, that he had more testimony to offer “that had not already been placed on the record, that he was moving to admit additional exhibits into evidence, or that he was actually requesting to call additional witnesses to testify. Thus, there is no indication in the record that the trial court denied any of these opportunities to respondent; respondent’s counsel never made such requests that could have been denied.” And respondent failed to “cite any legal authority for the proposition that his own failure to make certain requests of the trial court is equivalent to the trial court denying him due process of law.” Thus, his arguments were abandoned. Further, because the record did not support his assertion he was denied “any opportunity to elicit testimony or present evidence during the hearing,” he did not show any basis on which the court could find “he was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” He also failed to make any offer of proof as to the substance of any evidence he claimed would have been admitted via further cross-examination of petitioner, more testimony from himself, “additional witness testimony, or evidentiary exhibits.”