E.K. v. J.R.A.
237 A.3d 509
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2020Background:
- Parents (Mother E.K. and Father J.R.A.) share two children; they separated after a long relationship and engaged in multiple custody and PFA proceedings beginning in 2018.
- June–August 2018: temporary PFA entered then resolved by agreement; August 2018 custody order provided 50/50 custody.
- January 2019: Mother filed additional emergency custody and PFA petitions after an incident in Father’s home involving Father and his girlfriend (criminal charges were later reduced); an earlier PFA on behalf of the children was dismissed in August 2019.
- October 22, 2019 custody hearing: court issued a temporary order limiting Father’s contact (no contact with Daughter; limited supervised contact with Son).
- Two days later Father posted a public, angry Facebook message threatening “retribution tenfold”; Mother filed a PFA petition (Oct. 25, 2019). On Nov. 6, 2019 the trial court granted Mother a three‑year PFA (broad prohibitions and custody relief) and, sua sponte, found Father in contempt of the Oct. 22 custody order and ordered incarceration with a purge condition.
- Superior Court: affirmed the PFA Final Order (Nov. 6, 2019) but vacated the custody contempt adjudication because Father had no notice or opportunity to be heard; the opinion also criticized the trial judge’s demeaning on‑the‑record comments.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for PFA (reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury) | Mother: Facebook threat plus long history of past abuse and recent stalking created reasonable fear | Father: Post was transient anger; no recent proximity or direct threats to workplace; insufficient to show reasonable fear | Court: Affirmed—viewing evidence in petitioner’s favor, past abuse + stalking + public threat supported PFA by preponderance |
| Res judicata / collateral estoppel re past abuse testimony | Mother: Past abuse is admissible to show reasonableness of present fear | Father: Prior PFA litigation and rulings preclude re‑litigation of the same abuse allegations | Court: Rejected—prior matters involved different claims/parties or were settled/did not fully litigate past abuse; doctrines do not bar testimony here |
| Remoteness of prior abuse evidence | Mother: Entire history is relevant to current fear and need not be corroborated | Father: Incidents decades old are too remote and unfairly prejudicial | Court: Waived by Father for lack of contemporaneous objection; on merits, past abuse is relevant and admissible to assess present fear |
| Inclusion of boyfriend and co‑workers as protected persons in PFA | Mother: Seeks prohibition on stalking/harassment of persons close to her to help cease abuse | Father: No evidence he threatened or could reach these persons; improper to include them | Court: Affirmed inclusion only as subjects of stalking/harassment prohibitions under §6108(a)(9); plaintiff need not prove direct abuse of those persons |
| Inclusion of children and custody relief under PFA | Mother: PFA may grant temporary custody or visitation relief to protect plaintiff and children even if children not directly abused | Father: Earlier PFA court found children not abused; no testimony justified granting PFA relief for children now | Court: Affirmed—PFA time‑sensitivity allows new findings; Act permits custody relief to protect plaintiff/children without proof children were directly abused |
| Sua sponte contempt adjudication for custody violation (due process) | N/A (Mother did not file contempt) | Father: Contempt adjudicated sua sponte at PFA hearing without notice or opportunity to be heard; denied due process | Court: Vacated contempt—holding violated due process because Father lacked notice and a meaningful opportunity to litigate contempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykai v. Young, 83 A.3d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PFA orders)
- K.B. v. Tinsley, 208 A.3d 123 (Pa. Super. 2019) (PFA petitioner need only prove abuse by preponderance)
- Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2004) (past abuse considered in assessing reasonable fear)
- Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2008) (purpose of PFA Act and evidence discretion)
- Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2007) (past abusive conduct is crucial in PFA inquiries)
- C.H.L. v. W.D.L., 214 A.3d 1272 (Pa. Super. 2019) (PFA may grant temporary custody to protect plaintiff/children)
- Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2009) (due process elements and procedure for contempt adjudication)
- In re N.A., 116 A.3d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2015) (time‑sensitive petitions and res judicata limits)
- Miller ex rel. Walker v. Walker, 665 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 1995) (remoteness of prior abuse does not bar its admission)
- Vignola v. Vignola, 39 A.3d 390 (Pa. Super. 2012) (collateral estoppel elements)