5.7Procedures for Issuing PPOs

MCR 3.701 provides for “[p]rocedure related to [PPOs] against adults [to be] governed by [subchapter 3.700].” MCL 600.1021(1)(k) provides the family division of circuit court with sole and exclusive jurisdiction over personal protection proceedings under MCL 600.2950 and MCL 600.2950a.

“Procedure for the issuance, dismissal, modification, or recision of minor [PPOs] is governed by subchapter 3.700.”¹ MCR 3.981.² Issuance of a PPO against a respondent under the age of 18 is subject to the Juvenile Code, MCL 712A.1 et seq. MCL 600.2950(27); MCL 600.2950a(28). MCL 712A.2(h) provides the court with “[j]urisdiction over a proceeding under . . . MCL 600.2950 and [MCL] 600.2950(a), in which a minor less than 18 years of age is the respondent[.]”

“A judge must preside at a proceeding on the issuance, modification, or termination of a minor [PPO].” MCR 3.912(A)(4). Note, however, that a nonattorney referee may conduct a preliminary hearing for the enforcement of a PPO, and a referee licensed to practice law in Michigan may preside at a hearing to enforce a minor PPO. MCR 3.913(A)(2)(d).

A.Filing a Petition

“A personal protection action is an independent action commenced by filing a petition with a court.”³ MCR 3.703(A). MCR 3.703(A) prohibits an individual from filing a personal protection action as part of an existing case or by joinder of a personal-protection claim to another action.

Note: MCR 3.703(A) abrogates the statutory provisions of MCL 600.2950(1) and MCL 600.2950a(1)-(2), which permit the filing of a petition for a PPO as a motion in a pending action or joined as a claim with another action. See MCR 1.104, which provides for the “[r]ules of practice set forth in any statute, if not in conflict with any of these rules, [to be] effective until superseded by rules adopted by the Supreme Court.”

MCL 600.2950b(1) requires “[t]he state court administrative office [(SCAO)] [to] develop and make available forms for use by an individual who wishes to proceed without an attorney.”⁴ See also, MCR 3.701(B), which requires “[t]he state court administrator [to] approve forms for use in personal protection act proceedings[,]” and make these forms “available for public distribution by the clerk of the circuit court.” For commencing a personal protection action, see the following SCAO-approved forms:

• Petition for Domestic Relationship PPO

•SCAO form Petition for Personal Protection Order (Domestic Relationship).

• SCAO form Petition for Personal Protection Order Against a Minor (Domestic Relationship).

•Petition for Nondomestic Stalking PPO

•SCAO form Petition for Personal Protection Order (Nondomestic).

• SCAO form Petition for Personal Protection Order Against a Minor (Nondomestic).

• Petition for Nondomestic Sexual Assault PPO

•SCAO form Petition for Personal Protection Order (Nondomestic Sexual Assault).

• SCAO form Petition for Personal Protection Order Against a Minor (Nondomestic Sexual Assault).

“The court shall provide a form prepared under [MCL 600.2950b] without charge[, and] [u]pon request, the court may provide assistance, but not legal assistance, to an individual in completing a form prepared under [MCL 600.2950b] and the [PPO] form if the court issues such an order, and may instruct the individual regarding the requirements for proper service of the order.” MCL 600.2950b(4). For a discussion on entry of a PPO, see Section 5.8.

“There are no fees for filing a personal protection action, and no summons is issued.”⁵ MCR 3.703(A).

1.Petition for PPO Requirements

Pursuant to MCR 3.703(B), a petition for a PPO must:

“(1) be in writing;

(2) state with particularity the facts on which it is based;

(3) state the relief sought and the conduct to be restrained;

(4) state whether an ex parte order is being sought;^[6]

(5) state whether a [PPO] action involving the same parties has been commenced in another jurisdiction; and

(6) be signed by the party or attorney as provided in MCR 1.109(E). The petitioner may omit his or her residence address from the documents filed with the court, but must provide the court with a mailing address.”⁷

If the petition for a PPO involves a minor-respondent, the petition must also contain:

“(1) the minor’s name, address, and either age or date of birth; and

(2) if known or can be easily ascertained, the names and addresses of the minor’s parent or parents, guardian, or custodian.” MCR 3.703(C).

“An individual who knowingly and intentionally makes a false statement to a court in support of his or her petition for a [PPO] is subject to the contempt powers of the court.” MCL 600.2950(24); MCL 600.2950a(24).

2.Petition Must Specify Other Pending Actions or Prior Orders or Judgments

MCR 3.703(D) requires “[t]he petition [to] specify whether there are any other pending actions in this or any other court, or orders or judgments already entered by this or any other court affecting the parties, including the name of the court and the case number if known.” For the requirements set out under MCR 3.703(D), see Section 5.7(C).

3.Notification to Court if Respondent Has License to Carry Concealed Weapon

“[T]he petitioner shall notify the court of the respondent’s occupation before issuance of the [PPO],” “[i]f the respondent is a person who is issued a license to carry a concealed weapon and is required to carry a weapon as a condition of his or her employment, a police officer licensed or certified by the Michigan commission on law enforcement standards act, . . . MCL 28.601 to [MCL] 28.615, a sheriff, a deputy sheriff or a member of the Michigan department of state police, a local corrections officer, department of corrections employee, or a federal law enforcement officer who carries a firearm during the normal course of his or her employment[.]” MCL 600.2950(2); MCL 600.2950a(5).

The notice requirement under MCL 600.2950(2) and MCL 600.2950a(5) does not apply to a petitioner who does not know the respondent’s occupation. 

For additional information on statutory firearm restrictions in domestic violence cases, see Chapter 6.

4.Personal Protection Action Initiated By E-Filing

“Where e-filing is implemented, a partially-completed personal protection order must be prepared on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office and submitted at the same time as the petition.” MCR 3.703(A). The petitioner or a person assisting the petitioner must complete “only the case caption and the known fields with identifying information, including protected personal identifying information of the respondent[.]” Id. For the information to be entered in LEIN, the form must include, at a minimum, the respondent’s “race, sex, and date of birth or age [.]” Id.

B.Venue

The petitioner may file a petition for a PPO:

•“in any county in Michigan regardless of residency” if the respondent is an adult. MCR 3.703(E)(1).

•“in either the petitioner’s or [the] respondent’s county of residence” if the respondent is a minor. MCR 3.703(E)(2). “If the [minor] respondent does not live in [Michigan], venue for the action is proper in the petitioner’s county of residence.” Id. See also MCL 712A.2(h), which contains substantially similar language.

C.Other Pending Actions or Prior Orders or Judgments

MCR 3.703(D)(1) requires a petitioner to specify in a petition “whether there are any other pending actions in this or any other court, or orders or judgments already entered by this or any other court affecting the parties, including the name of the court and the case number if known.”

“If the petition is filed in the same court as a pending action or where an order or judgment has already been entered by that court affecting the parties, it shall be assigned to the same judge.” MCR 3.703(D)(1)(a). “If there are pending actions in another court or orders or judgments already entered by another court affecting the parties, the court should contact the court where the pending actions were filed or orders or judgments were entered, if practicable, to determine any relevant information.” MCR 3.703(D)(1)(b).

“If the prior action resulted in an order providing for continuing jurisdiction of a minor, and the new action requests relief with regard to the minor, the court must comply with MCR 3.205.”⁸ MCR 3.703(D)(2).

In domestic relations proceedings, the issuance of a domestic relations order, divorce judgment, order for separate maintenance, or decree of annulment does not preclude the court from also issuing a PPO to protect one of the parties from the other. See MCL 552.14; MCR 3.207(A). For additional information on domestic relations proceedings, see Section 5.14.

D.Existing Custody and Parenting Time Orders

MCL 600.2950(1)(d) permits the court to enjoin a respondent from “[r]emoving 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.” “Proceedings to modify custody and parenting time orders are subject to subchapter 3.200.” MCR 3.706(C)(3)(b).

Before issuing a PPO in a case where a custody or parenting time order already exists between the parties, the court “must contact the court having jurisdiction over the parenting time or custody matter as provided in MCR 3.205,^[9] and where practicable, the judge should consult with that court, as contemplated in MCR 3.205(C)(2), regarding the impact upon custody and parenting time rights[.]” MCR 3.706(C)(1).

“If the respondent’s custody or parenting time rights will be adversely affected by [a] [PPO], the issuing court shall determine whether conditions should be specified in the order which would accommodate the respondent’s rights or whether the situation is such that the safety of the petitioner and [the] minor children would be compromised by such conditions.” MCR 3.706(C)(2).

“A [PPO] takes precedence over any existing custody or parenting time order until the [PPO] has expired, or the court having jurisdiction over the custody or parenting time order modifies the custody or parenting time order to accommodate the conditions of the [PPO].” MCR 3.706(C)(3).

If either party wants to modify the existing custody or parenting time order, the party must file a motion and request a hearing with the court having jurisdiction over that order. MCR 3.706(C)(3)(a). “The hearing must be held within 21 days after the motion is filed.” MCR 3.706(C)(3)(a).

E.Ex Parte Proceedings

MCR 3.705(A)(1) requires “[t]he court [to] rule on a request for an ex parte order within one business day of the filing date of the petition.”¹⁰ 

1.Issuance of Ex Parte Order

If the petitioner specifically requests that the PPO be issued without written or oral notice to the respondent or his or her attorney,¹¹ the court must issue the PPO ex parte if both of the following are met:

•the court determines the petitioner met the statutory requirements set out under MCL 600.2950(4) (domestic relationship PPO), MCL 600.2950a(1) (nondomestic stalking PPO), or MCL 600.2950a(2) (nondomestic sexual assault PPO).¹²

•“it clearly appears from specific facts shown by verified complaint, written petition, or affidavit that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought, [and] . . . immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result from the delay required to effectuate notice or that the notice will itself precipitate adverse action before a [PPO] can be issued.” MCR 3.705(A)(2). See also MCL 600.2950(12) and MCL 600.2950a(12), which contain substantially similar requirements.

If the court considers information that is not contained in a written complaint, petition, or affidavit, MCR 3.705(A)(2) requires that “[a] permanent record or memorandum [] be made of any nonwritten evidence, argument, or other representations made in support of issuance of an ex parte order.”

If the petitioner is petitioning for a nondomestic stalking PPO or a nondomestic sexual assault PPO under MCL 600.2950a, “the court must state in writing the specific reasons for issuance of the [ex parte] order.” MCR 3.705(A)(2). See also, MCL 600.2950a(7), which requires “the court [to] immediately state in writing the specific reasons for issuing or refusing to issue the [PPO].”¹³

“An ex parte order is valid for not less than 182 days, and must state its expiration date.” MCR 3.705(A)(3). See also MCL 600.2950(13) and MCL 600.2950a(13), which also require the ex parte PPO to be “valid for not less than 182 days.”

Once an ex parte order is entered, MCR 3.705(A)(4) requires the petitioner to “serve the petition and order as provided in MCR 3.706(D).”¹⁴ “However, failure to make service does not affect the order’s validity or effectiveness.” MCR 3.705(A)(4).

2.Denial of Ex Parte Order

If the court denies a petition for an ex parte order, it must:

•immediately state, in writing, specific reasons for refusing to issue the ex parte order. MCL 600.2950(7); MCL 600.2950a(7); MCR 3.705(A)(5). “[A] trial court’s conclusory determination that the allegations are ‘insufficient’ for ex parte relief is [not] adequate for appellate review.” PC v JLS, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2023). “Because the trial court failed to state its specific reasons for refusing to issue the PPO, we have no evidence that the ‘trial court was aware of the issues in the case and correctly applied the law.’” PC, ___ Mich App at ___, quoting In re JCB, 336 Mich App 736, 753 (2021).

•advise the petitioner of the right to request a hearing as set out in MCR 3.705(B). MCR 3.705(A)(5). However, the court need not advise the petitioner of the right to request a hearing “if the court determines after interviewing the petitioner that the petitioner’s claims are sufficiently without merit[, and] that the action should be dismissed without a hearing.” MCR 3.705(A)(5).

“If the petitioner does not request a hearing within 21 days of entry of the order, the order denying the petition is final.” MCR 3.705(A)(5).

“There is no procedural due process defect in obtaining an emergency order of protection without notice to a respondent when the petition for the emergency protection order is supported by affidavits that demonstrate exigent circumstances justifying entry of an emergency order without prior notice, . . . and where there are appropriate provisions for notice and an opportunity to be heard after the order is issued.” Kampf v Kampf, 237 Mich App 377, 383-384 (1999) (ex parte PPO issued under MCL 600.2950(12) did not violate the respondent-husband’s due process guarantee of notice and an opportunity to be heard).

F.Hearing Procedures

“[U]nless [the court] determines after interviewing [a] petitioner that the [petitioner’s] claims are sufficiently without merit[, and] that the action should be dismissed without a hearing[,]” the court must schedule a hearing as soon as possible if:

“(a) the petition does not request an ex parte order; or

(b) the court refuses to enter an ex parte order and the petitioner subsequently requests a hearing.” MCR 3.705(B)(1).

MCR 3.705(B)(1) requires the court to interview the petitioner or hold an evidentiary hearing before dismissing a PPO petition. Lamkin v Engram, 295 Mich App 701, 709-710 (2012) (the trial court committed reversible error when it treated the petition as a request for an ex parte PPO, denied the order, then dismissed the petition before interviewing the petitioner or conducting an evidentiary hearing, despite repeated requests by the petitioner).

The court must hold a hearing on the record on a petition for a PPO. MCR 3.705(B)(3). “In accordance with MCR 2.407, the court may allow the use of videoconferencing technology by any participant as defined in MCR 2.407(A)(1).” MCR 3.705(B)(3).

“At the conclusion of the hearing[,] the court must state the reasons for granting or denying a [PPO] on the record and enter an appropriate order.” MCR 3.705(B)(6). See also MCL 600.2950(7); MCL 600.2950a(7).¹⁵ If denying the petition, the court must also immediately state, in writing, its specific reasons for the denial. MCL 600.2950(7); MCL 600.2950a(7); MCR 3.705(B)(6). Additionally, if the petitioner was petitioning for a nondomestic stalking or nondomestic sexual assault PPO under MCL 600.2950a, and the court grants the petition, the court must also immediately state, in writing, its specific reasons for issuing the PPO. MCL 600.2950a(7); MCR 3.705(B)(6).

1.Service of Notice of Hearing

MCR 3.705(B)(2) requires the petitioner to arrange for service of the petition and notice of the hearing on the respondent as provided in MCR 2.105(A)¹⁶ within the following timeframes:

•one day before the hearing for a petition for a domestic relationship PPO under MCL 600.2950.

•one day before the hearing for a petition for a nondomestic stalking PPO under MCL 600.2950a(1).

•two days before the hearing for a petition for a nondomestic sexual assault PPO under MCL 600.2950a(2).

“If the respondent is a minor, and the whereabouts of the respondent’s parent or parents, guardian, or custodian is known, the petitioner shall also in the same manner [as provided in MCR 2.105(A)] serve notice of the hearing and the petition on the respondent’s parent or parents, guardian, or custodian.” MCR 3.705(B)(2).

2.Petitioner Fails to Attend Scheduled Hearing

“The petitioner must attend the hearing. If the petitioner fails to attend the hearing, the court may adjourn and reschedule the hearing or dismiss the petition.” MCR 3.705(B)(4).

3.Respondent Fails to Attend Scheduled Hearing

“If the respondent fails to appear at a hearing on the petition and the court determines that the petitioner made diligent attempts to serve the respondent, whether the respondent was served or not, the order may be entered without further notice to the respondent if the court determines that the petitioner is entitled to relief.” MCR 3.705(B)(5).

G.Mutual Orders Prohibited

The court must not issue mutual PPOs. MCL 600.2950(8); MCL 600.2950a(8); MCR 3.706(B). However, correlative separate orders are permitted if both parties properly petition the court, and the court makes separate findings that support an order against each party. MCL 600.2950(8); MCL 600.2950a(8).

Note: A domestic PPO restraining a petitioner issued without separate application and fact finding as to each party will not be accorded full faith and credit in other US jurisdictions. 18 USC 2265(c). See Section 5.16(C) for additional information on full faith and credit for other jurisdictions’ protection orders.

H.Prohibition of Dissemination of PPO Information Over Internet

“Pursuant to 18 USC 2265(d)(3),” MCR 3.705(C) prohibits the court “from making available to the public on the Internet any information regarding the registration of, filing of a petition for, or issuance of an order under [MCR 3.705] if such publication would be likely to publicly reveal the identity or location of the party protected under the order.” 18 USC 2265(d)(3) (provision of Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)) states:

“A State, Indian tribe,^[17] or territory shall not make available publicly on the Internet any information regarding the registration, filing of a petition for, or issuance of a protection order, restraining order or injunction in either the issuing or enforcing State, tribal or territorial jurisdiction, if such publication would be likely to publicly reveal the identity or location of the party protected under such order. A State, Indian tribe, or territory may share court-generated and law enforcement-generated information contained in secure, governmental registries for protection order enforcement purposes. The prohibition under this paragraph applies to all protection orders for the protection of a person residing within a State, territorial, or Tribal jurisdiction, whether or not the protection order was issued by that State, territory, or Tribe.”