Whether the referee had the authority to conduct PPO hearings; The issue of the propriety of the initial PPO entry was not necessarily moot; Hayford v. Hayford; Mitcham v. Detroit; Extensions of the PPO; B P 7 v. Bureau of State Lottery; Statutory interpretation and construction of court rules; Ballard v. Ypsilanti Twp.; The Friend of the Court Act (MCL 552.501 et seq.); MCL 552.507; MCL 552.507(2)(a); "Domestic relations matter"; MCL 552.502(m); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co.; The Domestic Violence Prevention and Treatment Act (MCL 400.1501 et seq.); MCL 750.81a(2); MCR 3.215 implements MCL 552.507; MCR 3.201(A); "Relate"; Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Indiana Ins. Co.; MCR 3.706(C)(1); MCR 3.706(C)(3); MCR 3.201(A)(2); MCR 7.215(C)(1); People v. Green; Whether reliance on Baker v. Holloway (Unpub.) was misplaced; Whether the trial court unconstitutionally delegated its authority; Underwood v. McDuffee; Whether the trial court's failure to hold a hearing within 14 days of a motion to terminate the PPO should automatically result in dismissal of the PPO; MCL 600.2950(14); MCR 3.707(A)(2); In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond (On Remand); Whether the petition for an "ex parte" PPO was "facially invalid"; Pickering v. Pickering; Claim that the order granting the 1/27/10 PPO did not contain the reasons for the issuance of the order

The court held, inter alia, that the issue of the propriety of the initial PPO entry was not necessarily moot, a referee is authorized to conduct a PPO hearing, and the original PPO was properly issued. The petitioner-wife filed a petition for a "domestic relationship" PPO against the respondent-husband on 1/27/10. The petition was granted, and orders extending the PPO were later entered on 7/15/10 and 1/18/11. The PPO expired on 7/19/11. Respondent filed motions to terminate each order. His first motion was denied after a hearing. The latter motions were denied without hearings. The court held that "an issue that will continue to have collateral consequences is not moot, and this Court has previously held that an expired PPO may, in fact, have such collateral consequences." The court noted that respondent did not actually articulate what collateral consequences are likely to occur. Ordinarily, the court did not believe it was its duty to contemplate potential collateral consequences for a party. But the court did not doubt that having a PPO on one's record may have some adverse consequences. Any of the challenges respondent made to the extensions of the PPO, as distinct from its initial entry, were moot. The last extension of the PPO expired, and the court was unable to conceive of any possible collateral consequences that respondent might suffer arising solely out of the duration of the PPO. Thus, there was no relief the court could provide to respondent arising out of any possible impropriety in the extensions. Because they were moot, the court declined to consider any of respondent's arguments pertaining to the extensions. The court held that "it is clear, bordering on axiomatic, that PPO proceedings between individuals who have a minor child in common 'have reference or relation' to custody or visitation proceedings." The court further held that MCR 3.700 "plainly references the custody of minor children and appears to recognize that a PPO may relate to an already entered custody or parenting time order. This interpretation is further reinforced by MCR 3.706(C)(2)." "Further, MCR 3.706(C)(3) provides that a PPO 'takes precedence over any existing custody or parenting time order until' the PPO expires or until 'the court having jurisdiction over the custody or parenting time order modifies the custody or parenting time order to accommodate the conditions of the personal protection order.'" The court held that the "foregoing language appears to establish that a PPO proceeding may relate to a matter involving custody or visitation." Affirmed.