M.Y. v. A.D.P.
M.Y. v. A.D.P. No. 486 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 9, 2017Background
- Appellant (A.D.P.) and Appellee (M.Y.) were engaged, cohabited, and share a minor child.
- On Nov. 16, 2015, an altercation escalated into physical violence: Appellant punched, pulled Appellee by the hair, banged her head, kicked her, broke her phone, and strangled her until she nearly lost consciousness.
- Appellee later sought emergency treatment and was diagnosed with closed head trauma, abrasions, bruising, and other injuries; photographs corroborated injuries.
- Appellee obtained an ex parte temporary PFA, then filed for a final PFA and a related contempt petition (the contempt petition was later denied).
- After a bench trial where both parties testified, the court entered a three-year final PFA; Appellant appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence and that a less restrictive remedy was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported entry of a final PFA | Appellee argued the assault and prior abuse established abuse by a preponderance of the evidence | A.D.P. contended the evidence was insufficient and that a full three-year PFA was unnecessary; a less restrictive remedy (eviction/order to quit shared domicile) would suffice | Court affirmed: testimony and corroborating injuries met the Act’s definition of abuse; trial court credibility findings upheld |
| Whether remedy (three-year PFA) was an abuse of discretion | Appellee sought cessation of abuse via full PFA protections | A.D.P. argued the remedy was excessive, would harm his employment, and a targeted order would be adequate | Court found appellant waived this argument by inadequate briefing; alternatively, court concluded remedy was within trial court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hood-O'Hara v. Wills, 873 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standards for appellate review of PFA legal conclusions and discretion)
- Ferri v. Ferri, 854 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 2004) (reviewing sufficiency of evidence for PFA under preponderance standard)
- Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2004) (deference to trial court credibility findings in PFA cases)
- Snell, 737 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Super. 1999) (trial court discretion in fashioning remedies under the Protection from Abuse Act)
- Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2007) (prior instances of abuse and lingering injury can support PFA)
- Knox, 50 A.3d 732 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate briefing requirements and waiver for inadequately developed arguments)