Gifford v. Kelley – DN 338778 – May 17, 2018

In this matter the trial court issued a PPO which in the relevant part prohibited the respondent from “owning or possessing any dogs at his residence other than a Cocker Spaniel and a Miniature Pinscher.” The PPO was between neighbors and originated after the Respondent’s dog attached the petitioner’s minor child. The COA upheld the trial Court’s PPO. This is the only case that I am aware of that used a PPO to regulate a person’s ownership/possession of a dog and also addressed the respondent’s claim that the dog was an emotional support animal. (To be honest it seems a bit strange to me that the PPO statute could be used to regulate a respondent’s ability to own certain breads of dogs – Don’t get me wrong, he probably under the circumstances should not have the dog, but that seems outside the scope of relief permitted under the statute – I don’t see anything under MCL 600.2950a which gives the trial court authority to restrain the ownership or possession of a dog)