In Hayford v Hayford, Docket No 276176, decided June 10, 2008 [For Publication], the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a personal protection order that prohibited a non-custodial parent from contact with his 18-year old son.
In this case, the respondent father apparently had visitation rights with his son, the petitioner, pursuant to an order of custody under the Child Custody Act (“CCA”). The father argued that the PPO impermissibly modified the parenting time order. But the COA held that, under the CCA, once the child attained the age of 18, even though he was still in high school, and even though the father was required to support the child and provide him with medical care until the child’s graduation from high school, the father no longer had a right to parenting time, citing Bert v Bert, 154 Mich App 208, 211; 397 NW2d 270 (1986).
The son had a serious medical condition. He told his father clearly that he wanted no further contact. On the issue of whether the father’s conduct constituted stalking and harassment, the COA said that the trial court properly issued a PPO because of these actions by the father after his son’s request for no further contact:
- He continued to place telephone calls to his son’s cellular telephone and residence.
- He attended a band concert at his son’s school.
- He placed an advertisement in the newspaper with his son’s name, the names of his family members, and other personal information, prompting coworkers of both his son and the son’s mother to question them about the advertisement.
- He contacted his son’s physician’s office sufficient
times to cause the doctor to be
wary of treating his son.
- He visited the hospital on the day of his son’s surgery, causing him stress immediately beforehand.
The COA said that, “at most, the PPO merely temporarily modified respondent’s custody rights in order to prevent continued harassment of petitioner and his family by respondent as petitioner dealt with his difficult medical condition.”
You may read Hayford v Hayford here.