Bill
HB 6017
Adds animal abuse protections to personal protection orders, letting courts bar abusers from harming, taking, or withholding pets owned by petitioners in domestic cases.
Status: Referred to second reading (introduced Sept. 26, 2024; listed actions continuing into 2025)
Primary subject: Criminal law / animals; amends sec. 2950 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2950)
Purpose
- To update the Revised Judicature Act (MCL 600.2950) to add animal‑related conduct as a basis for personal protection orders (PPOs) and to correct/modify the statutory cross‑reference to section 50 of the Michigan Penal Code (MCL 750.50). The change is intended to strengthen protections for petitioners in domestic/household relationships by explicitly allowing courts to enjoin abusive conduct directed at animals owned by the petitioner.
Key provisions
- Adds a new prohibition in the list of acts that a circuit court may enjoin by PPO where the respondent intends to cause mental distress or exert control over the petitioner via an animal the petitioner owns. Specific enjoinable conduct includes:
- (k)(i) Injuring, killing, torturing, neglecting, or threatening to injure, kill, torture, or neglect the animal. (The bill recognizes lawful killing/uses described in MCL 750.50.)
- (k)(ii) Removing the animal from the petitioner’s possession.
- (k)(iii) Retaining or obtaining possession of the animal.
- Retains existing PPO remedies (e.g., excluding a respondent from premises, prohibiting assault/threats, firearms possession, interference with custody or employment) and folds animal‑based conduct into that statutory framework.
- Makes conforming changes to the Revised Judicature Act to reference the amended Penal Code provisions.
- Effective date as proposed in companion materials: 90 days after enactment (committee analysis); tie‑bar language in companion reports indicates HB 6017 is intended to operate together with HB 6015/HB 6016 which revise the Penal Code’s definition of “suitable shelter” for animals.
Who is affected
- Petitioners in family/divorce/dating/household cases who own animals and fear an abuser will use the animal to threaten, control, or harm them.
- Respondents who may be restrained by a court order from harming, taking, or withholding an animal.
- Courts and law enforcement agencies (responsible for issuing, entering into CJIS, serving, and enforcing PPOs).
- Animal owners, animal care providers, shelters, breeders, and pet‑business operators who may be implicated under the Penal Code provisions referenced by the bill.
- Potential criminal-justice and corrections systems (if the bill leads to more PPO violations or prosecutions under related Penal Code sections).
Procedural/timeline notes
- Bill amends MCL 600.2950 (section 2950 of the Revised Judicature Act).
- Committee analyses tie the bill to companion legislation (HB 6015/HB 6016) that revise section 50 of the Penal Code (animal shelter/neglect standards); HB 6017 is effectively dependent on those companion changes (tie‑bar).
- House Fiscal Agency analysis (for the companion package) estimates an indeterminate fiscal impact: broadened definitions and enforcement could increase violations, prosecutions, and related local/state costs (jail, probation, court workload), but the magnitude is uncertain.
Implications
- The bill explicitly recognizes abuse through harm to animals as a form of coercive control that courts can address via PPOs, closing an express statutory gap.
- By linking PPO relief to Penal Code animal‑welfare standards, the provision aligns civil protection tools with criminal prohibitions on animal neglect/abuse.
- Fiscal and enforcement impacts are uncertain and depend on how often animal‑based abuse is litigated and enforced under the amended statutes.
For full text and statutory placement: amends section 2950 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2950); references Michigan Penal Code section 50 (MCL 750.50).
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
