97 A.3d 387
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Trout sought a temporary PFA against Strube on August 6, 2010, resulting in a temporary PFA with custody proxy provisions.
- A final PFA was issued August 26, 2010 for three years after Strube failed to appear at the hearing.
- Strube was convicted of indirect criminal contempt in 2011 for sending letters to Trout and their daughter in violation of the 2010 PFA.
- In June 2013 Trout filed a pro se petition to extend the 2010 PFA for three more years, arguing continued risk and past abuse.
- At the August 15, 2013 hearing, Trout argued for extension under 6114(b)(4); Strube urged analysis under 6108(e).
- The trial court denied the extension on August 26, 2013; Trout timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 6114(b)(4) mandate extension after ICC conviction? | Trout argues 6114(b)(4) requires extension following ICC conviction. | Strube contends 6114(b)(4) does not apply because of timing and non-communicated request. | 6114(b)(4) does not apply here; extension must be requested during ICC proceedings. |
| May court grant extension under 6108(e) after ICC conviction if 6114(b)(4) is inapplicable? | Trout should receive extension under 6108(e) based on continued risk. | Court should not use 6108(e) if 6114(b)(4) is applicable or not properly invoked. | Yes; court may consider 6108(e) if conditions for extension are met, but here no extension was warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Snell, 737 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Super. 1999) (PFA contempt allows extension within contempt proceeding)
- Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard for reviewing PFA orders is abuse of discretion or error of law)
- Scott v. Shay, 928 A.2d 312 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statutory interpretation framework for PFA provisions)