L.A.W. v. W.R.W
1477 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 16, 2016Background
- Mother and Father divorced; their son B.W. (b. 2008) lived primarily with Mother; Father had supervised visitation after admitting mental-health problems and sending a suicide-related text/photo.
- Father had two car accidents (one he admitted was a suicide attempt while intoxicated), and later engaged in escalating contacts (calls, texts, emails) in December 2014 that Mother characterized as harassment and threatening.
- Police told Father to stop contacting Mother; Father told police he would instead "show up" at her house and later said he would not comply with a temporary PFA and would not be kept from his child.
- Mother obtained a temporary PFA (dec. 23, 2014). While the PFA was pending, Father secretly recorded an October 2014 call with Mother and disseminated it, leading to criminal wiretap charges and a guilty plea.
- At the April 16, 2015 PFA hearing Mother testified and introduced exhibits; Father proceeded pro se, presented witnesses, but did not admit his marked exhibits. The court entered a three-year final PFA prohibiting Father from contacting Mother and B.W., subject to existing custody orders. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was biased | Court acted impartially; rulings supported by record | Court showed bias: admonitions, evidentiary rulings, unequal treatment of pro se Father | No bias; record shows evenhanded rulings and some court assistance to pro se Father |
| Right to court-appointed counsel in PFA | No statutory right; notice of right to counsel satisfied due process | Father asserted due-process right to appointed counsel because he was indigent | No right to appointed counsel in PFA; Father was advised of right and did not request appointment |
| Sufficiency / burden of proof under PFA (preponderance) | Preponderance is statutory and appropriate to protect victims | Preponderance is too low given liberty interests and insufficient evidence of abuse | Burden of proof valid; Mother met preponderance showing course of conduct causing reasonable fear under §6102(a)(5) |
| Whether evidence established "abuse" under PFA statute | Mother proved course of conduct placing her in reasonable fear (harassment, threats, police involvement) | Father argued lack of imminent serious bodily injury and insufficient evidence | Court found Father’s repeated contacts, threats, and history sufficient to establish abuse under §6102(a)(5) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa. Super. 2013) (purpose of PFA is to protect domestic-violence victims; petitioner bears preponderance burden)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (definition of abuse of discretion and limits on judicial discretion)
- Weir v. Weir, 631 A.2d 650 (Pa. Super. 1993) (no legislatively-created right to court-appointed counsel in PFA proceedings)
- Varner v. Holley, 854 A.2d 520 (Pa. Super. 2004) (PFA proceedings do not require appointment of counsel as a constitutional matter)
- In re In the Interest of S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (mere adverse ruling does not demonstrate judicial bias)
- In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2011) (issues not developed with authority are waived on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768 (Pa. Super. 2014) (pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules; courts need not aid self-represented parties)
- Coker v. S.M. Flickinger Co., 625 A.2d 1181 (Pa. 1993) (quoted definition of abuse of discretion)