KE.B.-W. v. J.W.
KE.B.-W. v. J.W. No. 287 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Mother filed a PFA petition in Allegheny County (Jan 2016) alleging Father sexually abused two children (son A., born 2008; daughter K., born 2013); a temporary PFA issued on Sept 19, 2016.
- CYF and police investigated; CYF later classified allegations regarding K. and A. as "unfounded" and police declined charges; custody litigation stemming from a California custody order was ongoing.
- Evidence at the PFA hearing included live testimony by A. (graphic allegations of anal abuse and insertion of an object), videotaped forensic interviews, multiple therapists and pediatric clinicians, and Dr. Stan Katz’s prior California custody evaluation excerpts.
- Father denied all abuse; several defense witnesses (including medical exams finding normal ano-genital results and CYF staff testimony) undermined or contradicted abuse allegations.
- Trial court credited Father, found A.’s testimony not credible, vacated the temporary PFA and denied relief (Jan 31, 2017); Mother appealed raising (1) improper admission of character/taint evidence and (2) improper reliance on other agencies’ determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of alleged character/taint evidence (Dr. Katz’s testimony) | Mother: Dr. Katz’s testimony introduced impermissible character/taint evidence (suggesting Mother coached/tainted children), which infected credibility findings. | Father: Testimony addressed factual events and credibility (proper impeachment); credibility is for the factfinder and impeachment is permitted under Pa.R.E. 607. | Court: No Rule 404 character evidence shown; Katz described events, not a trait of Mother. Even if error, court did not rely on Katz and any error was harmless. |
| Reliance on determinations by CYF/police | Mother: Trial court improperly relied on CYF’s unfounded findings and police decision not to charge, improperly delegating factfinding. | Father: Trial court considered CYF/police conclusions as part of the total record, but did not defer its decision to them. | Court: Distinguishes Boykin; trial court did not abdicate factfinding or make its decision contingent on agencies; consideration of agency findings as evidence was permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court benefit from observing witnesses supports credibility findings)
- Delbridge, 855 A.2d 27 (Pa. 2003) (taint allegations regarding child witnesses can trigger competency concerns; competency v. credibility distinction)
- Boykin v. Brown, 868 A.3d 1264 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court erred by deferring PFA decision to prosecutor/police)
- Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)
- Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2008) (credibility and weight of evidence are exclusively for the trial court)