N.G.C. v. C.J.C., N.G.C. v. C.J.C. No. 2 MDA 2017

Petitioner N.G.C. and respondent C.J.C. were married; incidents of alleged emotional, psychological, and physical abuse (including threats, forced sex, and biting) occurred while they lived in Virginia.
N.G.C. left Virginia for Pennsylvania in June 2016, testified that C.J.C. repeatedly threatened her (including a statement he would "get [her] back in the next ten years") and carried a handgun; they did not see each other thereafter.
After leaving, N.G.C. received constant phone calls (later blocked) and hundreds to thousands of emails from C.J.C.; she testified the emails, though not overtly threatening, made her fear he would find her location.
N.G.C. previously sought a Virginia PFA after the assault charge in May 2015, but no Virginia order issued; a military protective order had been in place at that time.
N.G.C. filed a PFA petition in Centre County, Pennsylvania on October 3, 2016; after a hearing on December 1, 2016, the trial court entered a three-year final PFA order against C.J.C.
On appeal, C.J.C. challenged sufficiency of evidence, arguing the emails were non-threatening and petitioner relied improperly on past abuse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner proved abuse under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §6102(a)(5) by a course of conduct (emails plus past abuse) placing her in reasonable fear of bodily injury	Past violent acts + repeated emails demonstrated reasonable fear and ongoing course of conduct warranting PFA	Emails were non-threatening; petitioner relied on past incidents and thus failed to prove a present course of conduct creating reasonable fear	Affirmed: Court found petitioner proved by a preponderance that past abuse combined with repeated emails placed her in reasonable fear, supporting the PFA order

Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2008) (past violence is relevant to reasonableness of petitioner’s fear)
Burke ex rel. Burke v. Bauman, 814 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 2002) (telephone calls plus prior violence can create reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury)
Fonner v. Fonner, 731 A.2d 160 (Pa. Super. 1999) (PFAA aims to prevent future domestic violence; petitioner bears burden by preponderance)
Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2004) (preponderance standard defined and applied to imminent fear findings)
T.K. v. A.Z., 157 A.3d 974 (Pa. Super. 2017) (stalking/harassment evidence can sustain PFA even without petitioner using the word “fear”)
Drew v. Drew, 870 A.2d 377 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate review standard for PFA legal conclusions and abuse of discretion)
Coda v. Coda, 666 A.2d 741 (Pa. Super. 1995) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
Ferri v. Ferri, 854 A.2d 600 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard for appellate review of PFA matters)
Miller ex rel. Walker v. Walker, 665 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 1995) (reviewing evidence in light most favorable to petitioner)