Ferko-Fox v. Fox
68 A.3d 917
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Wife petitioned for protection from abuse and was granted a temporary PFA on March 22, 2011, which evicted Husband and barred contact and harassment.
- A March 28, 2011 hearing was continued so Wife could obtain counsel; a property-collection issue was addressed by directing Husband to hire a moving company to remove his property.
- Husband sought access and related relief; the interim order remained in effect while the final PFA hearing proceeded.
- The final PFA was issued on November 23, 2011, and was effective for 1 year and 6 months.
- Husband appealed, challenging ex parte procedures, continuance timing, evidentiary sufficiency, and a cross-examination issue at the May 9, 2011 hearing.
- The court affirmed the final PFA order, holding the ex parte process in Lancaster County did not meet due process requirements, but that the final order was properly supported after adversarial proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex parte procedure compliance under §6107(b) | Husband argues no valid ex parte proceeding was conducted before the temporary PFA. | Husband contends ex parte review requires in-person testimony and safeguards not present. | Lancaster County ex parte practice violated due process; however, final PFA sustained after full hearing. |
| Timeliness of final hearing when continuance granted | Husband asserts failure to hold final hearing within ten days violates §6107(a). | Wife needed counsel; continuance appropriate; discretion to continue acknowledged. | No reversible error; trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the continuance. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support final PFA | Husband claims evidence did not meet the preponderance standard. | Wife's testimony plus corroborating witnesses establish abuse under the statute. | Sufficient evidence supported the final PFA; credibility determinations favored Wife. |
| Admission of evidence concerning relatives in court | Presence of relatives was relevant to Wife’s support network and credibility. | Relatives' presence had no bearing on abuse determination. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; cross-examination of relatives was properly limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613 (Pa. Super. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard and review principles in PFA matters)
- In re Penny, 509 A.2d 338 (Pa. Super. 1986) (temporary orders and due-process considerations for ex parte actions)
- Heard v. Heard, 614 A.2d 255 (Pa. Super. 1992) (ten-day evidentiary hearing requirement under §6107(a))
- Lanza v. Simconis, 914 A.2d 902 (Pa. Super. 2006) (adversarial hearing requirements and due process in PFA context)
- Burke ex rel. Burke v. Bauman, 814 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 2002) (error in vacating temporary PFA without mandatory hearing)
- Drew v. Drew, 870 A.2d 377 (Pa. Super. 2005) (requirement of evidentiary hearing before denying PFA petition)
- Boyle v. Boyle, 12 Pa.D. & C.3d 767 (1979) (ex parte procedures and in-person observation to support ex parte orders)
- Shandra v. Williams, 819 A.2d 87 (Pa. Super. 2003) (reviewing mootness and appellate review of PFA rulings)