On October 23, 2026 the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that a protection order issued by the Wayne Circuit Court against Arizona father Thomas B. in a custody case was unlawful and must be vacated. The order had barred the father from collecting his son after the mother moved the child from Arizona to Michigan and had previously blocked scheduled visits.
The dispute began when the mother relocated the child to Michigan in late 2024. A joint legal‑custody ruling by an Arizona court made the mother the sole physical custodian, but the mother refused to hand the child over as directed. Thomas B. travelled repeatedly to Michigan with advance notice, only to find the child absent, prompting him to file an enforcement action in Oakland Circuit Court in January 2025.
Shortly after the enforcement case was filed, the mother obtained an emergency personal protection order from the Wayne Circuit Court on January 31, 2025, alleging stalking and harassment. The trial judge relied heavily on the mother’s testimony and ignored evidence that Thomas B. was acting within his court‑ordered rights, such as attempting to collect the child with police escorts. The appeals panel found that the judge erred, noting that the mother failed to provide the specific evidence required for an emergency protection order and that the father’s conduct did not equate to unlawful harassment.
With the protection order vacated, Thomas B. can now resume his visitation schedule without the looming threat of a legal restriction and without the reputational harm that a public record of the order could have caused. The Wayne Circuit Court has been instructed to issue a formal order terminating the protection order immediately, and the case will now proceed to the next hearing on the enforcement of the custody arrangement.
The ruling carries weight beyond the parties: it underscores the limits of protection orders in custody disputes and clarifies that lawful attempts to enforce court orders do not constitute harassment. For Thomas B., the decision means he can finally travel to Michigan each month to see his son without fear of police intervention or a court‑issued restraining order. The child, a nine‑year‑old, will continue to benefit from regular visits with both parents, a development the mother’s legal strategy had sought to prevent.
The Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision, delivered at 3:45 p.m. on a Wednesday, will be published in the court’s official docket and is expected to be cited in future cases involving interstate custody and protection orders. The case serves as a reminder that courts must adhere strictly to statutory thresholds when imposing emergency orders, especially where parental rights are at stake.