Court Opinion

ID: 9388637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 05:05:14.961732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.490320
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                    revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                             STATE OF MICHIGAN

                              COURT OF APPEALS

In re DFM.

AMM,                                                                    UNPUBLISHED
                                                                        April 20, 2023
                 Petitioner-Appellee,

v                                                                       No. 361778
                                                                        Delta Circuit Court
DFM,                                                                    Family Division
                                                                        LC No. 22-003114-PP
                 Respondent-Appellant.

Before: O’BRIEN, P.J., and MURRAY and LETICA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

         Respondent appeals as of right his conviction of criminal contempt of court,
MCL 600.1715(1), for which he was sentenced to serve 10 days in jail. He also appeals as of right
the trial court’s order denying his motion to terminate a domestic personal protection order (PPO)
issued ex parte at the request of petitioner AMM, respondent’s wife. We affirm.

                         I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        In March 2022, petitioner sought an ex parte PPO under MCL 600.2950 (domestic
relationship). She alleged that petitioner and respondent were married but their divorce action was
pending and they no longer lived in the same home. They shared a minor child together, but
petitioner had full legal custody of the child. Despite the pending divorce and a prior PPO,
petitioner contended that respondent continued to contact her and her children1 by sending them
text messages, calling them, and uploading photographs of himself holding weapons to petitioner’s
family share site. Petitioner further alleged that respondent’s behavior was unstable and manic
due to his untreated mental illness, that respondent’s family informed her that he was “out of
control” and going to hurt himself and others, and that respondent still believed that he, petitioner,

1
    Petitioner has two children, but respondent is only the father of petitioner’s youngest child.

                                                   -1-
and the children were a family. In a statement accompanying the petition, she expressed her
concern that respondent would harm her and her children because of his unstable mental state, and
she felt that neither she nor her children were safe around respondent.

        On the basis of those allegations, the court granted the petition and issued an ex parte
domestic PPO against respondent. The PPO prohibited respondent from (1) entering onto the
property where petitioner lived, (2) assaulting her or her children, (3) stalking behavior as defined
by MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i, (4) removing the minor children from her custody,
(5) threatening to injure or kill her or her children, (6) interfering with her at her place of
employment, (7) having access to records concerning her children, (8) intentionally causing her
distress or exerting control over her, and (9) purchasing a firearm. Respondent then filed a motion
to terminate the ex parte PPO, asserting that petitioner had not met the statutory requirements for
the PPO. He also denied all the allegations contained in the petition.

        At the hearing to address respondent’s motion, petitioner testified in detail about the events
leading up to her filing the petition for a PPO. Petitioner testified that while respondent had never
physically abused her, he threatened to physically harm her and her children several times, to burn
her house down with her inside of it, and to hire another individual to assault her eldest child for
disrespecting him. She also averred that respondent frequently threw objects at her, punched
things next to her, and destroyed much of her real and personal property, including walls, windows,
doors, and various electronics. Respondent’s violent behavior caused petitioner to call the police
on several occasions. Petitioner also testified that the trial court had issued a PPO against
respondent the previous year for similar behavior, and he violated that PPO by messaging and
calling her and her children on several occasions. Petitioner stated that she did not feel safe around
respondent and that she did not believe her children were safe around respondent. She opined that
respondent was fully capable of driving to her home to harass or harm her or her children.

        Respondent appeared in propria persona by video conference. He personally cross-
examined petitioner, and he repeatedly asked improper questions and used the questions to testify
about his version of events. Despite the trial court’s repeated instructions on how to ask proper
questions and reminders that he would have a chance to testify, respondent refused to comply.
Respondent then continually interrupted the trial court every time it attempted to address him. The
trial court held respondent in criminal contempt of court for disrupting the administration of
justice. Respondent continued to interrupt the court as it sentenced him and read him his appellate
rights, and he voluntarily left the hearing during redirect examination. The court then made its
findings in relation to respondent’s motion and found petitioner to be a credible witness, and it
concluded that the statutory requirements for a domestic PPO had been satisfied. The trial court
ordered that respondent serve 10 days in jail for criminal contempt, and it denied his motion to
terminate the ex parte PPO. This appeal followed.

                                          II. ANALYSIS

                            A. CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT

       First, respondent submits that the trial court abused its discretion by finding him in criminal
contempt of court. Specifically, respondent argues that the trial court clearly erred by finding him
in criminal contempt because he did not engage in willful acts of disorderly, contemptuous,

                                                 -2-
disrespectful, or insolent behavior. We disagree.

       “The issuance of an order of contempt rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and is
reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.” In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App 656, 671; 765
NW2d 44 (2009). A trial court has not abused its discretion when its decision is within the range
of principled outcomes. Id. This Court reviews a trial court’s factual findings in a criminal
contempt proceeding for clear error and must affirm its findings “if there is competent evidence to
support them.” Id. at 668. This Court “may not weigh the evidence or the credibility of the
witnesses in determining whether there is competent evidence to support the findings.” Id.

        “Contempt of court is a willful act, omission, or statement that tends to impair the authority
or impede the functioning of a court.” In re Contempt of Murphy, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___
NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 360560); slip op at 1 (quotation marks and citation omitted). A
court has inherent and statutory authority to punish a person for contempt of court. See
MCL 600.1701 et seq.; In re Moroun, 295 Mich App 312, 331; 814 NW2d 319 (2012). Courts of
record “have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, persons” who engage in
“[d]isorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during its sitting, in its immediate
view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or impair the respect due to its
authority.” MCL 600.1701(a). “When any contempt is committed in the immediate view and
presence of the court, the court may punish it summarily by fine, or imprisonment, or both.”
MCL 600.1711(1). “This is called ‘direct contempt,’ ” and this Court has explained that it does
not require “ ‘a separate hearing before the court imposes any proper sanctions because all facts
necessary to a finding of contempt are within the personal knowledge of the judge.’ ” Murphy,
___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 2 (citation omitted).

        In this case, the trial court found that respondent “tremendously” disrupted the court
proceedings by intentionally asking inappropriate questions and interrupting the court despite
being repeatedly instructed on how to ask proper questions and the directive that he must follow
the court’s rules. The court also found that respondent disregarded all of its instructions meant to
ensure the hearing was held in an orderly fashion and had a “complete disregard for the proper
procedure and decorum in a courtroom.” The court found that respondent’s continually disruptive
behavior heavily interfered with its ability to maintain a proper record. There is an ample amount
of “competent evidence” in the record to support the trial court’s factual findings. See Henry, 282
Mich App at 668. Respondent repeatedly asked petitioner improper questions during cross-
examination despite the trial court’s repeated instructions on how to ask proper questions and
reminders that he would have a chance to testify. Respondent continually interrupted the court as
it explained the court rules, sentenced him for contempt, and read him his appellate rights. We are
not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a mistake by finding that respondent’s
conduct at the hearing constituted criminal contempt, and we conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by issuing an order of criminal contempt because its decision was within the
range of principled outcomes. See id. at 671.

                        B. ISSUANCE AND CONTINUATION OF PPO

        Respondent alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the ex parte PPO
because petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory requirements. Further, he contends that the trial
court abused its discretion by denying his motion to terminate the ex parte PPO. We disagree.

                                                 -3-
         This Court reviews a grant or denial of a PPO for an abuse of discretion, and we review
the trial court’s factual findings for clear error. Hayford v Hayford, 279 Mich App 324, 325; 760
NW2d 503 (2008). MCL 600.2950(1) provides, in relevant part:

       [B]y filing a motion in an action in which the petitioner and the individual to be
       restrained or enjoined are parties, an individual may petition the family division of
       circuit court to enter a personal protection order to restrain or enjoin a spouse, a
       former spouse, an individual with whom he or she has had a child in common . . . ,
       or an individual residing or having resided in the same household as the petitioner
       from doing 1 or more of the following:

               (a) Entering onto premises.

              (b) Assaulting, attacking, beating, molesting, or wounding a named
       individual.

               (c) Threatening to kill or physically injure a named individual.

               (d) Removing minor children from the individual having legal custody of
       the children, except as otherwise authorized by a custody or parenting time order
       issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.

               (e) Purchasing or possessing a firearm.

                                             * * *

              (g) Interfering with petitioner at petitioner’s place of employment or
       education or engaging in conduct that impairs petitioner’s employment or
       educational relationship or environment.

                                             * * *

               (i) Having access to information in records concerning a minor child of both
       petitioner and respondent that will inform respondent about the address or
       telephone number of petitioner and petitioner’s minor child or about petitioner’s
       employment address.

            (j) Engaging in conduct that is prohibited under [MCL 750.411h or
       MCL 750.411i].

Under MCL 600.2950(4), the trial court shall issue a PPO if it determines that “there is reasonable
cause to believe that the individual to be restrained or enjoined may commit 1 or more of the acts
listed in subsection (1).” In determining whether reasonable cause exists, the trial court must
consider the proffered testimony, documents, and other evidence and whether the respondent had
previously committed or threatened to commit any of the acts listed under MCL 600.2950(1).
MCL 600.2950(4). “[A] petitioner bears the burden of proof when seeking to obtain an ex parte
PPO.” Pickering v Pickering, 253 Mich App 694, 697; 659 NW2d 649 (2002). That burden
continues when the respondent seeks to terminate an ex parte PPO. Id. at 697-698.

                                                -4-
        The acts listed in MCL 600.2950(1) include engaging in conduct that constitutes stalking
as defined by MCL 750.411h. “ ‘Stalking’ means a willful course of conduct involving repeated
or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel
terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes the
victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.”
MCL 750.411h(1)(d). “ ‘Course of conduct’ means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of
2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose.” MCL 750.411h(1)(a).
“ ‘Harassment’ means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated
or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional
distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not
include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.”
MCL 750.411h(1)(c). “ ‘Unconsented contact’ means any contact with another individual that is
initiated or continued without that individual’s consent or in disregard of that individual’s
expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued.” MCL 750.411h(1)(e). An example
of unconsented contact includes sending electronic communications to the protected person.
MCL 750.411h(1)(e)(vi).

        Contrary to respondent’s argument, there was testimony presented at the evidentiary
hearing demonstrating reasonable cause to believe that respondent engaged in conduct that
constituted stalking. MCL 600.2950(1)(j). Petitioner testified that respondent threatened to
physically harm her and her children multiple times, to burn her house down with her inside of it,
and to hire another individual to assault her eldest child for disrespecting him. Petitioner testified
that respondent repeatedly threw objects at her and punched things near her. Petitioner testified
that respondent destroyed property, including walls, windows, doors, and various electronics, and
she had called the police three or four times as a result. The trial court had issued an ex parte PPO
against respondent a year prior for similar behavior, and respondent violated that PPO by
messaging or calling petitioner on several occasions. Petitioner read into the record multiple text
messages that respondent sent her while the previous PPO was active, described the voice
messages that respondent left her, and described messages that respondent sent to her and her
daughter threatening to hire an individual to assault petitioner’s daughter. Petitioner stated that
she felt that neither she nor her children were safe around respondent. The trial court expressly
found the petitioner’s testimony, which mirrored the allegations contained in her petition, to be
credible and that petitioner had satisfied the statutory requirements for a domestic PPO. We defer
to the trial court’s determination of credibility. Pickering, 253 Mich App at 702. Under these
circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the ex
parte PPO or by denying respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.

       Affirmed.

                                                              /s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
                                                              /s/ Christopher M. Murray
                                                              /s/ Anica Letica

                                                 -5-