RP v. TV

Summary

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of respondent’s motion to terminate a personal protection order obtained by her aunt. The court held that the trial court properly credited the petitioner’s testimony concerning repeated assaults and harassment, and that the petitioner’s power of attorney responsibilities supported continuing the PPO.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by continuing the PPO. A trial court may rely on credited testimony, and a PPO may issue or continue whether or not the restrained person has been charged or convicted of stalking.
2. The trial court properly considered petitioner's need to visit her mother's home to perform her duties under the power of attorney as a related reason for continuing the PPO, but the continuation was independently supported by respondent's harassment and assaultive conduct.
3. The challenge failed because respondent produced no evidence supporting the alleged prior baseless PPO, and assessing petitioner's overall credibility was the trial court's role.
4. The issue was abandoned because respondent did not include it in her statement of the issues presented on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by continuing the PPO despite respondent's claims that petitioner's testimony was uncorroborated and inconsistent.
2. Whether the trial court improperly relied on petitioner's power of attorney for her mother in continuing the PPO.
3. Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider petitioner's alleged history of filing unsubstantiated PPO petitions.
4. Whether respondent's assertion that continuation of the PPO impaired her ability to care for petitioner's mother was preserved for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed