IN Re: C.J.B., Appeal of: S.W., a minor, 307 A.3d 644

Victim (R.N.), age 16, and respondent (S.W.), age 17, were classmates on a school orchestra bus; while R.N. slept under a blanket with S.W., he placed his hand on her clothed vaginal area and continued despite her resistance.
S.W. sent multiple texts apologizing and admitting he had sexually assaulted her; R.N. reported the incident to school staff and police the next day.
R.N. testified at the SVPO hearing about emotional distress, reluctance to leave her room, fear of being touched, and difficulty seeing S.W. at school; she was the only witness at the hearing.
The trial court found R.N. credible but concluded her testimony did not prove "sexual violence" under the Act because the conduct was not sufficiently "violent," and denied the SVPO without addressing continued risk at the hearing (the court later raised continuing-risk reasons in its Rule 1925(a) opinion).
Appellant (R.N.’s guardian) appealed; the Superior Court held the trial court erred as a matter of law by requiring physical violence beyond an enumerated Chapter 31 offense and found the evidence supported both elements of the Act, reversing and remanding for entry of an SVPO.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Act requires proof of physical violence in addition to a Chapter 31 offense to establish "sexual violence"	Indecent assault (touching without consent) and S.W.’s admissions satisfy the Act; no separate violence element required	The conduct was non-violent, brief, and R.N.’s timeline/credibility undermine a Chapter 31 offense finding	Reversed: court erred as a matter of law; an enumerated Chapter 31 offense (e.g., indecent assault) suffices — no separate physical-violence requirement
Whether appellant proved a continued risk of harm under the Act	R.N.’s subjective fear, apprehension, and emotional distress (testimony) show continued risk and need for protection	School reassignment and R.N.’s social-media posts undercut her fear; harm attributable to peers, not respondent	Reversed: evidence of subjective fear and distress satisfied continuing-risk element; trial court erred in concluding otherwise
Whether the continuing-risk claim was waived by procedural omissions	Issue was litigated at hearing and briefed; trial court first raised it in Rule 1925(a), so appellant could not have anticipated waiver	Appellant failed to include the issue in the Rule 1925(b) statement and statement of questions, which could be deemed waiver	Not waived: appellate court exercised review because both parties and the trial court addressed the substance and defendant did not press waiver on appeal

Commonwealth v. Gamby, 283 A.3d 298 (Pa. 2022) (defines indecent assault as touching sexual/intimate part without consent for sexual gratification)
E.A.M. v. A.M.D., 173 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. 2017) (plaintiff’s credible assertion of an enumerated offense can satisfy first element of SVPO)
K.N.B. v. M.D., 259 A.3d 341 (Pa. 2021) (victim’s subjective fear controls; defendant’s intent is irrelevant for continued-risk analysis)
Commonwealth v. Ricco, 650 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Super. 1994) (the existence of clothing between assailant and intimate area is not a defense to indecent assault)
J.J. DeLuca Co. v. Toll Naval Assocs., 56 A.3d 402 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility findings absent manifest error)