C.R. v. S.L.P., C.R. v. S.L.P. No. 1272 WDA 2016

Parties are parents; custody exchanges were governed by an existing order requiring Friday daycare pickup by father. On July 8, 2016 the child was not at daycare; father went to mother’s home to get the child.
Father (Appellee) filed an emergency PFA alleging mother (Appellant) punched him in the nose, caused bleeding, and bit his arm; he also alleged an earlier altercation about eight months prior at a public exchange.
Trial court entered a temporary PFA on July 11, 2016, awarding father temporary custody. A final evidentiary hearing occurred July 25, 2016.
At the hearing the court credited father’s testimony that mother punched and bit him and issued a final PFA; after the hearing the court reinstated shared custody to mother.
Mother appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence, reliance on evidence outside the record or inadmissible evidence, and denial of a continuance (due to pending criminal charges and assertion of the Fifth Amendment).

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support PFA	Appellant: evidence insufficient; she acted in self-defense	Appellee: his testimony and prior incident support abuse finding	Court: evidence (Appellee’s credible testimony) sufficient by a preponderance; PFA affirmed
Reliance on evidence outside the record / inadmissible evidence	Appellant: court relied on pictures not admitted and was biased by knowing her family	Appellee: court based decision on admitted exhibits and testimony; no recusal requested	Court: rejected claim; decision based on record; bias allegation waived for lack of recusal request
Relevance of testimony about custody	Appellant: custody testimony irrelevant and prejudicial	Appellee: custody history relevant to exchanges and context	Court: custody testimony relevant; no abuse of discretion
Denial of continuance (due process)	Appellant: continuance required due to pending criminal case and Fifth Amendment invocation; denial prejudiced her	Appellee: denied continuance; temporary PFA already limited mother’s custody; father objected to delay	Court: issue waived because counsel did not properly request continuance at trial; not reviewed on appeal

Thompson v. Thompson, 963 A.2d 474 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review and preponderance test for PFA sufficiency)
Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2007) (petitioner testimony can suffice for PFA even without police report or medical evidence)
Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2004) (admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Soda v. Bard, 600 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Super. 1991) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court discretion to continue PFA hearings and enter temporary orders)
Jahanshahi v. Centura Dev. Co., 816 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Super. 2003) (issues not raised at trial are waived on appeal)
Reilly by Reilly v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 479 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 1984) (recusal must be raised in trial court first)