J.E.H. v. D.A.H., J.E.H. v. D.A.H. No. 1771 MDA 2016

Appellant (D.A.H.) is the brother of W.H.; petitioner J.E.H. is W.H.’s wife and a daytime caregiver for two family members living in the family home.
After multiple prior confrontations involving threats and at least one incident where Appellant pointed a shotgun at W.H., J.E.H. filed a PFA petition following a September 8, 2016 incident in which Appellant threatened to have J.E.H. and her husband arrested and said to W.H., “I’ll see you in hell.”
Petition alleged a course of conduct including verbal threats, harassing calls, name-calling, escalating physical threats, and access to weapons.
Trial court held an ex parte temporary PFA and, after a full evidentiary hearing on September 26, 2016 with testimony from J.E.H., her husband, and Appellant (pro se), entered a final PFA order.
Appellant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that he committed "abuse" under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6102(a)(2) or (5).
The Superior Court reviewed the record for sufficiency under the preponderance standard and deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings, affirming the final PFA order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence showed "abuse" under § 6102(a)(2) or (5)	J.E.H.: testimony showed a course of conduct (threats, prior gun threat, harassment) placing her in reasonable fear of bodily harm	D.A.H.: denied threatening with a gun, said his actions were to protect mother and brothers and correct alleged neglect	Court: Evidence met preponderance standard under § 6102(a)(5); reasonable fear shown and credibility resolved for petitioner

Fonner v. Fonner, 731 A.2d 160 (Pa. Super. 1999) (PFA sufficiency reviewed under preponderance standard; actual physical harm not required)
Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2004) (defines preponderance of evidence as tipping the scale slightly)
Thompson v. Thompson, 963 A.2d 474 (Pa. Super. 2008) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations in PFA sufficiency review)