K.B. v. Tinsley, T., 208 A.3d 123

K.B. (petitioner) and Terrence Tinsley (appellant) dated from Sept 2017; they did not live together. K.B. ended the relationship in May/June 2018 after escalating verbal abuse and an incident where Tinsley used a butcher knife to cut an air mattress in her presence.
After the breakup, Tinsley allegedly persisted: frequent uninvited visits, repeated calls/texts, notes left on her door, apparent tracking of her movements, and multiple confrontations outside her home and workplace.
K.B. presented testimony of fear, an incident at a gym where Tinsley grabbed her shirt and pushed her, and several post-breakup texts; she sought a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order.
The trial court issued a temporary PFA on July 11, 2018, held a hearing July 16, 2018, found K.B. credible, and entered a two-year final PFA prohibiting contact.
Tinsley (pro se) appealed, arguing the court ignored portions of K.B.’s testimony, the evidence was insufficient, and the court curtailed his opportunity to present evidence. The Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	K.B.’s Argument	Tinsley’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by allegedly ignoring parts of K.B.’s testimony	Trial court properly credited K.B.’s testimony; credibility is for the factfinder	Court ignored/discounted certain testimony, prejudicing result	Rejected — credibility determinations are for the trial court; no error shown
Whether evidence was sufficient to support PFA under §6102(a)(5) (course of conduct/placing victim in reasonable fear)	K.B.: repeated following, uninvited contacts, threatening conduct, and past violent/menacing act supported reasonable fear	Tinsley: disputes timing, motives; claimed contacts were limited/benign and that petitioner was vindictive	Affirmed — viewing evidence in petitioner’s favor, preponderance supports PFA
Whether the trial court improperly curtailed Tinsley’s ability to present evidence (e.g., a FMLA note)	K.B.: court allowed full examination; petitioner testified and record reflects his claims	Tinsley: court interrupted him, refused to view his note, limited inquiry into petitioner’s motive for filing PFA	Rejected — court acted within discretion; note’s content was testified to and no prejudice shown; motive was explored
Whether the trial court exhibited bias or denied fair procedure	K.B.: court conducted neutral, active questioning to elicit testimony	Tinsley: alleged bias and unequal opportunity to finish testimony	Rejected — record shows impartial examination and ample opportunity to present evidence

Boykai v. Young, 83 A.3d 1043 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard of review for PFA legal conclusions and abuse of discretion)
Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2008) (purpose of PFA Act and significance of past acts in assessing fear)
Fonner v. Fonner, 731 A.2d 160 (Pa. Super. 1999) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)
Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2004) (definition of preponderance standard in PFA context)
Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 (Pa. Super. 1993) (PFA requires preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt)
T.K. v. A.Z., 157 A.3d 974 (Pa. Super. 2017) (repeated following and tracking can establish reasonable fear)
R.G. v. T.D., 672 A.2d 341 (Pa. Super. 1996) (repeated unwanted calls/emails that cause fear support PFA)
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishes weight vs sufficiency review; weight review is discretionary)
Schuenemann v. Dreemz, LLC, 34 A.3d 94 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court has broad discretion on admissibility)
Ettinger v. Triangle-Pacific Corp., 799 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. 2002) (erroneous evidentiary rulings require prejudice to warrant reversal)