214 A.3d 1272
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Husband and Wife married after a brief courtship; they have a four‑year‑old daughter and a lengthy history of litigation, protective orders, contempt violations, and criminal charges.
- Wife filed a PFA petition alleging extensive domestic abuse; trial court found a "calculated, complex" pattern of abuse and manipulation by Husband.
- The PFA court entered a two‑year protection order granting Wife exclusive possession of the marital residence and temporary sole custody of the child pending a custody conference. The child was not named as a protected party.
- Husband appealed, raising five issues: weight/sufficiency and credibility of evidence; exclusion of evidence (texts/letters); right to occupy residence based on a settlement agreement; improper eviction; and error in awarding temporary custody.
- After the PFA order, custody was temporarily altered multiple times (including a separate PFA by Husband and a CYS investigation); an interim custody order and subsequent custody proceedings followed, prompting the appellate court to consider mootness and the propriety of temporary custody relief in a PFA.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Weight/credibility of evidence supporting PFA | Court should defer to trial court credibility findings; evidence viewed in petitioner's favor | PFA was against the weight/credibility of evidence; he disputes Wife's testimony | Waived by Husband for inadequate briefing; even if preserved, court would defer to trial court credibility and find no merit |
| 2. Exclusion of evidence (texts/letters) | No improper exclusions; court allowed Husband to present evidence and sustained no objections against him | Court prevented Husband from introducing texts/letters and other evidence | Waived for failure to identify specific rulings/record citations; trial court record shows no exclusion against Husband |
| 3. Right to possess marital residence under settlement agreement | PFA court may award exclusive possession as relief to provide suitable housing for petitioner/child under §6108(a)(3) | Settlement agreement (pre‑divorce) granted Husband exclusive possession, so Wife lacked entitlement | Court may order exclusive possession despite title; Wife requested suitable housing, so award was authorized and not an abuse of discretion |
| 4. Eviction/remedy scope — must relief be requested expressly in petition? | Petition’s request for "other suitable housing" put Husband on notice; PFA grants broad discretionary relief | Wife did not check box specifically asking for eviction/exclusion; court lacked authority to evict absent explicit request | Court need not limit relief to specific checked box; requested housing relief authorized exclusive possession; no abuse of discretion |
| 5. Temporary custody awarded in PFA — required best‑interests analysis? | PFA court may grant temporary custody to protect petitioner/child and consider risk to child; full best‑interests (§5328) analysis is for final custody proceedings | Court should have applied Child Custody Act best‑interests factors before altering custody | PFA court need not perform full §5328 best‑interests analysis for temporary emergency custody under §6108(a)(4); relief aimed at immediate safety and later custody court resolves final best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykai v. Young, 83 A.3d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PFA orders and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2008) (credibility determinations are for the trial court)
- S.W. v. S.F., 196 A.3d 224 (Pa. Super. 2018) (view evidence in light most favorable to PFA petitioner)
- Shandra v. Williams, 819 A.2d 87 (Pa. Super. 2003) (PFA court may not effect a final custody modification without proper custody procedures)
- Dye for McCoy v. McCoy, 621 A.2d 144 (Pa. Super. 1993) (PFA orders may alter preexisting custody as emergency relief to prevent domestic violence)
- Lawrence v. Bordner, 907 A.2d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2006) (PFA orders can conflict with custody orders to protect victims)
- Ferko‑Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa. Super. 2013) (purpose of PFA Act is to protect victims of domestic violence)