Lastovka, N. v. Berila, A.

J-A20029-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

NATALLIA LASTOVKA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ALEXANDER BERILA : : Appellant : No. 1109 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered March 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2023-60772

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 3, 2024

Alexander Berila (“Father”) appeals from the order entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas on March 15, 2024, granting a final protection from abuse (“PFA”)1 order pursuant to a petition brought by Natallia Lastovka (“Mother”) in favor of the parties’ minor child. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the well-written trial court opinion.

Father and Mother were married in March 2004, and divorced in June 2023. The parties share two minor children, A.A.B. (born March 2014) (“the child”) and A.E.B. (born December 2019) (who is not subject to the instant PFA order). ____________________________________________ 1 Protection from Abuse Act (“PFA Act”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101 et seq.

J-A20029-24

On February 5, 2024, the trial court issued a temporary PFA order in favor of Mother on behalf of both minor children against Father. The temporary PFA order was amended on February 6, 2024. At a PFA hearing on February 14, 2024, the matter was continued by agreement of the parties, and the temporary order was extended to February 28, 2024.

On February 28, 2024, a PFA hearing was held, during which testimony was taken on the record from the child during an in-camera interview with counsel and the Judge. The temporary order was extended at the conclusion of the hearing until March 6, 2024.

Subsequently, three more PFA hearings were held, on March 6, 12, and 15, 2024, during which extensive testimony was taken and video evidence was submitted. The temporary PFA was extended to each relisted date.

Upon the conclusion of testimony, the trial court entered a final PFA order for a term of 9 months in favor of the child. The final order did not afford protection to either Mother or the parties’ other minor child, as the record was devoid of evidence alleging abuse against either of them. The final order stipulates Father may have supervised visitation with the child and telephone contact. The final order superseded a prior custody order between the parties as it relates to the child.

On March 25, 2024, Father filed a motion for reconsideration of the final PFA order, alleging Mother had failed to meet her burden of proof. See Motion

-2-

J-A20029-24

for Reconsideration, 3/25/24. The trial court denied the motion. This timely appeal followed.

Father raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or abused its discretion in entering a nine-month final [PFA] order under Section 6102(a)(2) of the Act where the order is not supported by the evidence?

2. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or abused its discretion in entering a nine- month final [PFA] order by failing to consider a parent’s right to corporal punishment under the PA Crime Code where a parent can use force to promote the welfare of the child, including preventing or punishment for his misconduct and the force was not designed to cause serious bodily injury.

See Appellant’s Brief, at 8 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

When an appellant challenges the granting of a PFA petition, as Father does here, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions to see whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. See K.B. v. Tinsley, 208 A.3d 123, 127 (Pa. Super. 2019).

Father’s first issue challenges the court’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the PFA was warranted in this case. Father argues the evidence was insufficient to support the PFA order because the child’s testimony was not credible and Mother’s evidence was not sufficient.

If the appellant’s claim specifically alleges the evidence was not sufficient to support the PFA order, “we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner … [to] determine whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial court’s conclusion by a preponderance of the

-3-

J-A20029-24

evidence.” Karch v. Karch, 885 A.2d 535, 536-37 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). We defer to the credibility determinations of the trial court. See id.

The purpose of the PFA Act “is to protect victims of domestic violence from those who perpetrate such abuse, with the primary goal [being the prevention of abuse].” K.B., 208 A.3d at 127 (citation omitted). The PFA Act defines “abuse,” in relevant part, as the occurrence of one or more acts, including “[p]lacing another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102(a)(2).

“In the context of a PFA case, the court’s objective is to determine whether the victim is in reasonable fear of bodily injury. The intent of the alleged abuser is of no moment.” K.B., 208 A.3d at 128 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Given the PFA’s goal of preventing abuse, “a victim does not have to wait for physical or sexual abuse to occur for the Act to apply.” Id. (citation omitted).

Here, the trial court granted the final PFA petition pursuant to Section 6102(a)(2) of the PFA Act. The PFA Act is clear that the court need only find that the petitioner has established that one of the acts constituting “abuse” under the Act applies, see 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6102(a).

The trial court concluded, in accordance with the statute and in consideration of all testimony presented throughout the PFA hearings, that “abuse” had been established by a preponderance of the evidence as

-4-

J-A20029-24

proscribed by § 6102. Father essentially argues the trial court erred by reaching this conclusion because the child’s testimony was not credible.

In its May 17, 2024 opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant law, see Trial Court Opinion, 5/17/24, at 6-7, addressed Father’s sufficiency challenge,2 and determined that it lacks merit, explaining as follows:

This determination was firmly grounded in the evidentiary record, which encompassed documented instances by [Father] against the child. Specifically, credible testimony from all parties (including [Father]) attested to incidents wherein he struck the child repeatedly with a stick, where the minor child was repeatedly smacked on or around his head, where Father struck the child with a slingshot loaded with acorns, and various additional occurrences that would reasonably induce fear in the child. Subsequent to the culmination of these events, the child testified to fearing his Father[], extending beyond mere apprehension of parental discipline. The court credited testimony which showed the child suffered substantial pain, reasonably causing in him a fear that continues today. [Father] was represented by counsel at a hearing where he provided extensive testimony and was able to cross- examine the parties through counsel. [Father] himself did not contest most of these occurrences, but rather, had a different perspective on them. He denied striking the child with acorns using a slingshot. Notably, no findings were made regarding abuse directed toward [Mother] or the younger female minor child. ____________________________________________

2 Father initially raised 7 issues in his 1925(b) concise statement. Finding there

was “significant overlap or convergence” among the issues presented, the court conducted a consolidated analysis of the issues. Specifically, the court addressed issues 1 through 3 together, as those issues generally challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. Next, the court addressed issues 4 through 6 together, as those issues all related to a parent’s use of corporal punishment. The court addressed issue 7 alone, pertaining to the court’s evaluation of custodial factors, which the court aptly found is not relevant in this PFA case.

On appeal, Father has presented one issue from each of the first two consolidated analysis sections. As such, the courts’ analysis from those sections is still directly on point even without the additional, overlapping, issue statements.

-5-

J-A20029-24

An appeal does not serve as a platform to re-litigate the facts of a prior PFA Hearing or to introduce new facts. Nor is it a venue to debate the discretion afforded to the trial court judge in finding testimony credible. Instead, its purpose is to review the cold record to determine if the judge adhered to applicable laws and rules of evidence during the hearing. To satisfy its burden of proof, a movant must specify any errors committed by the judge in the application of law or legal procedures that influenced their decision in the Protection from Abuse hearing.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court will only overturn a judgement if such errors are present and have demonstrably influenced the outcome of the Final Order. Nevertheless, Appellant has failed to provide adequate rationale to justify a review or refute the credibility of any witness. On the contrary, Appellant conceded and substantiated many of Petitioner’s allegations. Instead, he rationalized them as a reasonable form of discipline based on his own opinion.

Considering the evidence presented and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, the trial court found that the offenses necessitating protection had been duly established, as supported by the record.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/17/24, at 7-8.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mother, and deferring to the trial court’s explicit credibility findings, we do not find any error in the court’s finding that there was sufficient evidence to enter a PFA order under Section 6102(a)(2) of the PFA Act, and Father’s arguments to the contrary do not persuade us otherwise. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court and affirm on this basis as to Father’s first issue. See id.

In Father’s second issue, he argues the trial erred in failing to consider a parent's right to corporal punishment under the PA Crime Code.

The Pennsylvania Crime Code permits the justifiable use of force if:

-6-

J-A20029-24

(1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor or a person acting at the request of such parent, guardian or other responsible person and:

(i) the force is used for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the preventing or punishment of his misconduct; and

(ii) the force used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or mental distress or gross degradation.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 509(1).

In rejecting Father’s argument, the trial court reasoned as follows:

In the present case, the court heard testimony that [Father], in his actions, exceeded permissible discipline of his child. Credible testimony was heard in that [Father] would frequently hit or strike his minor child, with acorns, with his hands, or with a stick. Many of which left injury or markings on the child. It is clear from the record and the uncontroverted testimony that [Father] frightened the minor child on more than one occasion in his use of what he views as corporal punishment. The child articulated instances of wrongdoing that were met with disproportional force from [Father], and other times when [Father] used force on the child for no reason at all. This court maintains, as do nearly all Courts on this issue, that “[c]orporal punishment is not the blanket justification that [Father] suggests, and when administered in anger, it may in fact, warrant a PFA.” Corporal punishment is permitted to discipline one’s child “so long as the force used is not designed or known to create a substantial risk of death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or mental distress or gross degradation.”

…

[Father] substantiated many of the allegations that [Mother] leveled against him, arguing he did them in a way that was to discipline his child. It is important to note the intent of the alleged abuser is irrelevant to the trial court’s determination. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, it is also imperative to

-7-

J-A20029-24

recognize that, “the PFA Act does not require actual physical harm before issuing a PFA order.” Pennsylvania jurisprudence on this topic is unambiguous and dictates that there are several ways to convey a threat of physical harm, therefore, a showing of “reasonable fear’ is sufficient.”

The record belies any outcome advocated for by [Father]. All relevant cases presented (and not presented) support the same principle: discipline is acceptable if it’s a reasonable and measured response to correct an action. [Father]’s “discipline” against the child were either excessive, or not corresponding to anything the child did to warrant discipline, such that the child’s “mental distress” reasonably made him fear his Father’s abuse. The court heard extensive testimony demonstrating [Father] exceeded the bounds of reasonable discipline, and in doing so, caused the child to fear him. Whether it was intentional or not (as noted, [Father]’s intent is largely irrelevant), his unreasonable or excessive actions brought about that fear. A fear the court deemed reasonable based on the testimony provided.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/17/24, at 9-12 (citations omitted).

In its opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant law, addressed Father’s corporal punishment challenge, and determined that it lacks merit. Once again, we agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court and affirm on this basis as to Father’s final issue. See id.

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s comprehensive and cogent opinion filed on May 17, 2024.

Order affirmed.

-8-

J-A20029-24

Date: 12/3/2024

-9-

Circulated 2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. 11/21/2024 (PA. R.A.P. 03:34 Page 1925(A)), PM 1

IN IN THE THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF BUCKS BUCKS COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY DIVISION FAMILY DIVISION

NATALLIA NATALLIA LASTOVKA LASTOVKA ( : Plaintiff/Appellee, Plaintiff/Appellee, Wi No. No. A06-2023-60772-A__ A06-2023-60772-A >: 1109 EDA 20241 1109 EDA 202 PN SETI V. V. : ;

ALEXANDER ALEXANDER BERILA BERILA Defendant/Appel/ant. Defen dant/Ap p ellant. � yy .RI8NW | || tails 2023.60772-0086 AA 13658279 Case #:# 2023-60772-0086 Case 13658279 || Main Main (Public) (Public) Code: Code: 5214 5214 Judge:42 Judge:42 4:25.41 PM N Rept: Z2809540 5/17/2024 Rcpt 22809540 TRIAL COURT' TRIAL COURT'S 1925(a) OPINIO S 1925(a) OPINION 5/17/2024 4.25:41 PM

Alexander Alexander Berila Berila (“Defendant/Appellant”) ("Defendant/Appellant") now now appeals appeals following following the the Protection Protection

from from Abuse Abuse (“PFA”) (PFA") Hearing Hearing which which ended ended on on March March 15, 15, 2024, 2024, inin the the Bucks Bucks County County Court Court

of of Common Common Pleas, Pleas, granting granting aa Final Final Protection Protection Order Order (“Final ("Final Order”) Order") for for aa span span of of nine nine (9) (9)

months months on on behalf behalf of of Defendant’s Defendant's minor minor son son expiring expiring December December 15, 15, 2024. 2024. AA Motion Motion for for

Reconsideration Reconsideration was was denied denied on on March March 26, 26, 2024. 2024. OnApril On April 12, 12, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant submitted submitted

Notice Notice of of Appeal Appeal with with his his Concise Concise Statement Statement of of Matters Matters Complained Complained of, of, raising raising various various

contentions contentions for for appellate appellate review. review. Defendant Defendant now now advances advances this this appeal, appeal, invoking invoking Pa. Pa.

R.A.P. R.A.P. §S 904(f) 904() as as aa Children’s Children's Fast Fast Track Track Appeal. Appeal.

Pursuant Pursuant to to Pa. Pa. R.A.P. RAP. §§ 1925(a), 1925(a), this this Trial Trial Court Court submits submits its its Opinion Opinion herewith herewith as as

aa supplementary supplementary component component to to the the record, record, reiterating reiterating its its determinations determinations and and the the

consequent consequent Final Final Order. Order.

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

On On February February 5,5, 2024, 2024, the the Bucks Bucks County County Court Court of of Common Common Pleas Pleas issued issued aa

Temporary Temporary PFA PFA Order Order (“Temporary (''Temporary Order’) Order") inin favor favor of of Petitioner/Plaintiff Petitioner/Plaintiff and and on on behalf behalf of of

her her minor minor children children against against Defendant. Defendant. This This Temporary Temporary Order Order was was amended amended February February 6,6,

2024. 2024. At At aa PFA PFA Hearing Hearing on on February February 14, 14, 2024, 2024, the the matter matter was was continued continued by by agreement agreement

of of the the parties, parties, and and the the Temporary Temporary Order Order extended extended to to February February 28, 28, 2024. 2024. On On February February 28, 28,

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 2

2024, aa PFA 2024, PFA Hearing Hearing began began where where testimony testimony was was taken taken on on the the record record from from the the minor minor

child during child during an an out out of of court court examination examination by by counsel counsel and and the the Judge, Judge, conducted conducted under under oath, oath,

and recorded and recorded by by a a stenographer. stenographer. The The Temporary Temporary Order Order was was extended extended at at the the conclusion conclusion

of testimony of testimony and and hearing hearing continued continued until until March March 6, 6, 2024. 2024. Subsequently, Subsequently, the the PFA PFA Hearing Hearing

spanned aa period spanned period of of three three days, days, during during which which extensive extensive testimonial testimonial and and video video evidence evidence

was adduced was adduced on on March March 6, 6, 12, 12, & & 15, 15, 2024. 2024. Notably, during Notably, during this this process, process, the the

aforementioned examination aforementioned examination of of the the child child was was conducted conducted on on the the record, record, and and testimony testimony was was

adduced from adduced from both both litigants. litigants. ,

Testimony at Testimony at the the PFA PFA Hearing Hearing established established that that Defendant Defendant and and Petitioner Petitioner were were

married on married on March March 8, 8, 2004, 2004, and and separated separated on on or or about about June June 27, 27, 2023. 2023. See N.T., See N.T.,

03/12/2024, at 03/12/2024, at 5-6:21-4). 5-6:21-4). The The parties parties share share two two minor minor children, children, A.A.B. A.A.B. (DOB (DOB 03/17/2014) 03/17/2014)

(‘the child") ("the child”) and and A.E.B. A.E.B. (DOB (DOB 12/03/2019). 12/03/2019). Id. at 6:5-7. Id. at 6:5-7. The The parties parties no no longer longer reside reside

together, and together, and itit is is evident evident from from the the proceedings proceedings they they don't don’t communicate communicate or or maintain maintain an an

amicable relationship. amicable relationship.

Upon the Upon the conclusion conclusion of of testimony, testimony, this this court, court, presided presided over over by by the the Honorable Honorable

Matthew D. Matthew D. Weintraub, Weintraub, found found credible credible evidence evidence sufficient sufficient to to justify justify the the issuance issuance of of a a Final Final

Order for Order for a a term term of of nine nine (9) (9) months months to to protect protect A.A.B, A.A.B, aa minor. minor. The The Final Final Order Order did did not not

afford protection afford protection to to either either the the Petitioner Petitioner or or to to her her other other minor minor child, child, as as the the record record was was

devoid of devoid of evidence evidence alleging alleging abuse abuse against against either either of of them. them. The The Final Final Order Order stipulates stipulates that that

Defendant may Defendant may have have supervised supervised visitation visitation with with the the child child and and telephone telephone contact, contact, as as

appropriate. Furthermore, appropriate. Furthermore, the the parties parties were were advised advised to to begin begin in in Court Court Conciliation Conciliation and and

Evaluation Services Evaluation Services ("CCES") (“CCES”) in in the the pursuit pursuit of of the the best best interests interests of of the the children. children. This This

amended the amended the Custody Custody Order Order that that was reached by was reached by agreement agreement dated dated May May 15, 15, 2023. 2023.

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 3

On On March March 25, 25, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant submitted submitted aa Motion Motion for for Reconsideration Reconsideration of of this this Final Final

Order. Order. This This Motion Motion merely merely sought sought to to re-litigate re-litigate the the facts facts and and credibility credibility determinations determinations

previously previously addressed addressed inin the the PFA PFA Hearing. Hearing. Defendant Defendant alleged alleged “the "the Court Court erred erred and/or and/or

abused abused its its discretion discretion inin this this nine-month nine-month order order as as Respondent Respondent failed failed to to meet meet her her burden burden

of of proof proof inin this this matter,” matter," contending contending because because Petitioner/Appellee Petitioner/Appellee failed failed to to produce produce any any

photographic photographic evidence evidence of of abuse, abuse, the the Final Final Order Order must must be be vacated. vacated. Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion

for for Reconsideration, Reconsideration, 3/25/2024. 3/25/2024. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this Court Court denied denied the the Motion Motion for for

Reconsideration Reconsideration on on March March 26, 26, 2024, 2024, as as supported supported by by the the credibility credibility determinations determinations made made

on on the the record record set set forth forth below. below. On On April April 12, 12, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant timely timely initiated initiated an an appeal appeal

before before the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Superior Superior Court Court inin accordance accordance with with Pa. Pa. R.A.P. R.A.P. §§ 1925(a)(2), 1925(a)(2),

invoking invoking §§ 905(a)(2) 905(a)(2) to to now now hasten hasten proceedings. proceedings.

STATEMENT STATEMENT OF OF ERRORS ERRORS COMPLAINED COMPLAINED OF OF ON ON APPEAL APPEAL

InIn his his appeal, appeal, Appellant Appellant raises raises numerous numerous issues: issues:

1.1. The The trial trial court court erred erred and/or and/or abused abused its its discretion discretion inin entering entering this this nine-month nine-month order order

as as [Petitioner/Appellee] [Petitioner/Appellee] failed failed to to meet meet her her burden burden of of proof proof inin this this matter. matter. At At the the

time time the the Order Order was was entered, entered, the the Honorable Honorable Matthew Matthew D. D. Weintraub Weintraub indicated indicated his his

finding finding was was based based on on 23 23 Pa. Pa. C.S. C.S. §§ 6102(a)(2), 6102(a)(2), “placing "placing another another inin reasonable reasonable fear fear

. of of imminent imminent serious serious bodily bodily injury.” injury."

2.2. The The trial trial court court committed committed an an error error of of law law and/or and/or abuse abuse of of discretion discretion when when entering entering

the the March March 15, 15, 2024, 2024, final final protection protection from from abuse abuse order order by by failing failing to to consider consider [that] [that]

the the PA PA Crime Crime Code Code also also permits permits corporal corporal punishment punishment where where the the parent parent uses uses force force

to to promote promote the the welfare welfare of of the the child child including including [[ ]] punishment punishment for for misconduct misconduct and and

[that] [that] the the force force used used was was not not designed designed to to cause cause serious serious bodily bodily injury. injury.

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 4

3.3. The The trial trial court court abused abused its its discretion discretion [in] [in] entering entering its its Order Order contrary contrary to to the the “best "best I interests” interests" standard standard of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania witout without full full knowledge knowledge of of the the facts facts of of the the case, case, I necessary necessary to to enter enter such such an an Order. Order.

4.4. The The trial trial court’s court's conclusions conclusions were were unreasonable unreasonable [based [based upon] upon] the the evidence evidence of of

record record and and [therefore [therefore its] its] decision decision was was not not supported supported by by the the evidence. evidence.

5.5. The The trial trial court court abused abused its its discretion discretion by by entering entering aa final final order order when when Plaintiff Plaintiff was was

unable unable to to produce produce any any evidence evidence of of abuse abuse other other than than the the child child being being afraid afraid of of

Father’s Father's corporal corporal punishment. punishment.

6. 6. The The trial trial court court committed committed an an error error of of law law by by ruling ruling that that an an isolated isolated corporal corporal

punishment punishment incident incident was was grounds grounds to to issue issue aa Protection of Abuse Protection of Abuse Order Order [sic] for the [sic]for the

protection protection of of the the child. child.

7.7. The The trial trial court court committed committed an an error error of of law law [[ ]] by by not not applying applying the the evaluation evaluation of of 16 16

custody custody factors factors when when making making its its decision. decision.

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION

InIn accordance accordance with with Pennsylvania’s Pennsylvania's Domestic Domestic Relations Relations Act Act (“the ("the PFA PFA Act”) Act") §$ 6102, 6102,

an an Appellate Appellate Court Court isis vested vested with with the the authority authority to to “review[] "review[] appeals appeals from from PFA PFA orders orders for for

an an abuse abuse of of discretion discretion or or error error of of law.” law." Diaz Diaz v.v. Nabiyev, Nabiyev, 235 235 A.3d A.3d 1270, 1270, 1273 1273 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super.

Ct. Ct. 2020). 2020). This This review review process process necessitates necessitates aa “review "review [of] [of] the the evidence evidence inin the the light light most most

favorable favorable to to the the petitioner petitioner and, and, granting granting her her the the benefit benefit of of all all reasonable reasonable inferences, inferences,

determine determine whether whether the the evidence evidence was was sufficient sufficient to to sustain sustain the the Trial Trial Court’s Court's conclusion conclusion by by

aa preponderance preponderance of of the the evidence.” evidence." Hood-O'Hara Hood-O'Hara v.v. Wills, Wills, 873 873 A.2d A.2d 757, 757, 760 760 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super.

Ct. Ct. 2005). 2005). InIn order order to to successfully successfully petition petition for for aa PFA PFA order, order, “the "the petitioner petitioner must must establish establish

abuse abuse by by aa preponderance preponderance of of the the evidence, evidence, that that is, is, ‘the 'the greater greater weight weight of of the the evidence,

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 5

i.e., i.e., enough enough to to tip tip aa scale scale slightly.” slightly."' E.K. E.K. v.v. J.R.A., J.R.A., 237 237 A.3d A.3d 509, 509, 519 519 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct.

2020). 2020). Keeping Keeping inin mind mind that that “the "the intent intent of of the the alleged alleged abuser abuser isis not not relevant relevant to to our our

determination.” determination." Buchhalter Buchhalter v.y. Buchhalter, Buchhalter, 959 959 A.2d A.2d 1260, 1260, 1263 1263 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2008). 2008).

InIn aa PFA PFA proceeding, proceeding, trial trial judges judges are are granted granted the the authority authority as as the the trier trier of of fact, fact,

thereby thereby possessing possessing the the inherent inherent discretion discretion to to make make credibility credibility determinations determinations of of witnesses witnesses

presented presented before before the the court. court. Karch Karch v.v. Karch, Karch, 885 885 A.2d A.2d 535, 535, 537 537 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2005); 2005);

Thompson Thompson v.v. Thompson, Thompson, 963 963 A.2d A.2d 474, 474, 477 477 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2008). 2008). This This deferential deferential

stance stance isis particularly particularly distinct distinct inin the the context context of of evidence evidence introduced introduced during during hearings hearings or or

trials. trials. As As highlighted highlighted inin Soda Soda v.v. Baird, Baird, 600 600 A.2d A.2d 1274 1274 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 1991), 1991), “[qJuestions "[q]uestions

concerning concerning the the admission admission or or exclusion exclusion of of evidence evidence are are within within the the sound sound discretion discretion of of the the

trial trial court court and and may may be be reversed only when reversed-only when a a clear clear error error of of discretion discretion was was present.” present."

InIn accordance accordance with with established established legal legal precedent, precedent, the the scope scope of of evidence evidence considered considered

inin cases cases of of this this nature nature extends extends beyond beyond the the confines confines of of the the Petition Petition itself. itself. Petitioners Petitioners “will "will

not not be be rigorously rigorously limited limited to to the the specific specific allegations allegations of of abuse abuse found found inin the the Petition." Petition." Snyder Snyder

v.v. Snyder, Snyder, 629 629 A.2d A.2d 977, 977, 981 981 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 1993). 1993). Pennsylvania Pennsylvania jurisprudence jurisprudence

recognizes recognizes that that the the previous previous history history of of the the defendant defendant isis relevant, relevant, emphasizing emphasizing that that “past "past

abusive abusive conduct conduct on on the the [defendant's] [defendant's] part part [is] [is] aa crucial crucial inquiry inquiry necessary necessary for for entry entry of of aa

proper proper order.” order." Custer Custer v.v. Cochran, Cochran, 933 933 A.2d A.2d 1050, 1050, 1059 1059 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2007), 2007), quoting quoting

Raker Raker v.v. Raker, Raker, 847 847 A.2d A.2d 720, 720, 726 726 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2004). 2004).

Moreover, Moreover, itit isis imperative imperative to to acknowledge acknowledge that that the the burden burden of of proof proof rests rests upon upon the the

petitioner, petitioner, as as affirmed affirmed inin Hood-O’Hara. Hood-O'Hara. The The sufficiency sufficiency of of petitioner’s petitioner's testimony testimony isis

deemed deemed established established ifif itit isis found found credible credible by by the the trial trial court. court. Hood-O’Hara, Hood-O'Hara, 873 873 A.2d A.2d at at

761. 761. This This principle principle reflects reflects the the long-standing long-standing caselaw caselaw that that permits permits the the trier trier of of fact, fact, in in

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 6

assessing assessing the the credibility credibility ofof the the witnesses witnesses and and the the weight weight ofof the the evidence evidence presented, presented, “to "to

believe believe all, all, part part oror none none ofof the the evidence.” evidence." Kaur Kaur v.v. Singh, Singh, 259 259 A.3d A.3d 505, 505, 509 509 (Pa. (Pa. 2021). 2021 ).

InIn light light ofof the the significant significant overlap overlap oror convergence convergence apparent apparent among among several several ofof the the

errors errors challenged challenged on on appeal, appeal, itit isis judicious judicious toto conduct conduct aa consolidated consolidated analysis analysis ofof these these

issues. issues.

A. A. The The trial trial court court erred erred and/or and/or abused abused its its discretion discretion inin entering entering this this nine-month nine-month order order asas [Petitioner/Appellee] [Petitioner/Appellee] failed failed toto meet meet her her burden burden ofof proof proof inin this this matter. matter. At the time the Order was entered, the Honorable Matthew D. At the time the Order was entered, the Honorable Matthew D. Weintraub Weintraub indicated indicated his his finding finding was was based based on on 23 23 Pa. Pa. C.S. C.S. §§ 6102(a)(2), 6102(a)(2), “placing "placing another another inin reasonable reasonable fear fear of of imminent imminent serious serious bodily bodily injury.” injury."

B. B. The The trial trial court’s court's conclusions conclusions were were unreasonable unreasonable [based [based upon] upon] the the evidence evidence of of record record and and [therefore [therefore its] its] decision decision was was not not supported supported by by the the evidence. evidence.

C. C. The The trial trial court court abused abused its its discretion discretion [in] [in] entering entering its its Order Order contrary contrary to to the the “best "best interests” interests" standard standard of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania without without full full knowledge knowledge ofof the the facts facts of of the the case, case, necessary necessary to to enter enter such such an an Order. Order.

InIn considering considering the the initial initial arguments arguments presented presented by by Appellant, Appellant, itit isis evident evident that that he he alleges alleges

that that the the court court erred erred inin matters matters of of both both credibility credibility and and exercise exercise of of discretion. discretion. Defendant Defendant

contends contends that that the the trial trial court court erred erred inin its its exercise exercise of of discretion discretion inin its its determination determination that that the the

actions actions of of Defendant Defendant led led toto the the child’s child's reasonable reasonable fear fear of of imminent imminent serious serious bodily bodily injury. injury.

As As articulated articulated inin Custer, Custer, the the fundamental fundamental purpose purpose of of the the PFA PFA Act Act isis to to “protect "protect

victims victims of of domestic domestic violence violence from from those those who who perpetrate perpetrate such such abuse, abuse, with with the the primary primary goal goal

of of advancing advancing prevention prevention of of physical physical and and sexual sexual abuse.” abuse." Custer, Custer, 933 A.2d at 933A.2d at 1054. 1054. Under Under

§$ 6102(a) 6102(a) of of the PFA Act, abuse the PFAAct, abuse isis unequivocally unequivocally defined defined as as encompassing encompassing at at least least one one

of of five five specified specified actions: actions:

“Abuse.” "Abuse." TheThe occurrence occurrence of of one one or or more more of of the the following following acts acts between between family family or or household household members, members, sexual sexual or or intimate intimate partners partners or or persons persons who who share share biological biological parenthood: parenthood:

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 7

23 23 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §§ 6102. 6102.

This This isis not not aa subjective subjective standard. standard. 18 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §§ 2301 2301 clearly clearly defines defines bodily bodily injury injury

as as an an “impairment "impairment of of physica! physical condition condition or or substantial substantial pain.” pain."

InIn accordance accordance with with the the statute statute and and after after having having thoroughly thoroughly considered considered all all testimony testimony

presented presented throughout throughout the the PFA PFA Hearing, Hearing, the the court court found found “abuse” "abuse" had had been been established established by by

aa preponderance preponderance of of the the evidence, evidence, and and that that Appellant Appellant engaged engaged inin actions actions proscribed proscribed by by §§

6102. 6102. Raker, Raker, 847 847 A.2d A.2d at at 725 725 (“Explaining ("Explaining that that defendant's defendant's actual actual intent intent with with regard regard to to

his his or or her her actions actions toward toward PFA PFA petitioner petitioner isis ‘of 'of no no moment’; moment'; proper proper inquiry inquiry isis whether whether the the

circumstances circumstances placed placed the the victim victim inin reasonable reasonable fear’). fear").

This This determination determination was was firmly firmly grounded grounded inin the the evidentiary evidentiary record, record, which which

encompassed encompassed documented documented instances instances by by Appellant Appellant against against the the child. child. Specifically, Specifically, credible credible

testimony testimony from from all all parties parties (including (including Appellant) Appellant) attested attested to to incidents incidents wherein wherein he he struck struck the the

child child repeatedly repeatedly with with aa stick, stick, where where the the minor minor child child was was repeatedly repeatedly smacked smacked on on or or around around

his his head, head, where where Father Father struck struck the the child child with with aa slingshot slingshot loaded loaded with with acorns, acorns, and and various various

additional additional occurrences occurrences that that would would reasonably reasonably induce induce fear fear inin the the child. child. See See N.T., N.T.,

03/12/2024, 03/12/2024, at at 9:7-17; 9:7-17; 11:13-21; 11:13-21; 13-14:25-24; 13-14:25-24; 15-19:10-3; 15-19:10-3; 47:9-23; 47:9-23; 85:1-13; 85:1-13; 87:13-20; 87:13-20;

88:17-21; 88:17-21; 106:4-15; 106:4-15; 115:6-24; 115:6-24; 117-19:23-24; 117-19:23-24; 121:14-23; 121:14-23; 124-25:11-2; 124-25:11-2; 130:19-25; 130:19-25; 132:7- 132:7-

25. 25. Subsequent Subsequent to to the the culmination culmination of of these these events, events, the the child child testified testified to to fearing fearing his his

Father/Appellant, Father/Appellant, extending extending beyond beyond mere mere apprehension apprehension of of parental parental discipline. discipline. The The court court

credited credited testimony testimony which which showed showed the the child child suffered suffered substantial substantial pain, pain, reasonably reasonably causing causing

inin him him aa fear that continues fear that continues today. today. See See N.T., N.T., 03/15/2024, 03/15/2024, at at 22-24:23-20. 22-24:23-20. Defendant Defendant was was

represented represented by by counsel counsel at at aa hearing hearing where where he he provided provided extensive extensive testimony testimony and and was was able able

to to cross-examine cross-examine the the parties parties through through counsel. counsel. Appellant Appellant himself himself did did not not contest contest most most of of

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 8

these these occurrences, occurrences, but but rather, rather, had had aa different different perspective perspective on on them. them. He He denied denied striking striking

the the child child with with acorns acorns using using aa slingshot. slingshot. Notably, Notably, no no findings findings were were made made regarding regarding abuse abuse

directed directed toward toward Petitioner Petitioner oror the the younger younger female female minor minor child. child.

An An appeal appeal does does not not serve serve as as a a platform platform toto re-litigate re-litigate the the facts facts ofof aa prior prior PFA PFA Hearing Hearing

oror toto introduce introduce new new facts. facts. Nor Nor isis itit aa venue venue toto debate debate the the discretion discretion afforded afforded toto the the trial trial

court court judge judge inin finding finding testimony testimony credible. credible. Instead, Instead, its its purpose purpose isis toto review review the the cold cold record record

toto determine determine ifif the the judge judge adhered adhered toto applicable applicable laws laws and and rules rules ofof evidence evidence during during the the

hearing. hearing. To To satisfy satisfy its its burden burden ofof proof, proof, aa movant movant must must specify specify any any errors errors committed committed by by

the the judge judge inin the the application application ofof law law or or legal legal procedures procedures that that influenced influenced their their decision decision inin the the

Protection Protection from from Abuse Abuse hearing. hearing.

The The Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Superior Superior Court Court will will only only overturn overturn aa judgement judgement ifif such such errors errors are are

present present and and have have demonstrably demonstrably influenced influenced the the outcome outcome of of the the Final Final Order. Order. Nevertheless, Nevertheless,

Appellant Appellant has has failed failed toto provide provide adequate adequate rationale rationale toto justify justify aa review review or or refute refute the the

credibility credibility of of any any witness. witness. On On the the contrary, contrary, Appellant Appellant conceded conceded and and substantiated substantiated many many

of of Petitioner’s Petitioner's allegations. allegations. Instead, Instead, he he rationalized rationalized them them as as aa reasonable reasonable form form of of

discipline discipline based based on on his his own own opinion. opinion.

Considering Considering the the evidence evidence presented presented and and all all reasonable reasonable inferences inferences drawn drawn

therefrom, therefrom, the the trial trial court court found found that that the the offenses offenses necessitating necessitating protection protection had had been been duly duly

established, established, as as supported supported by by the the record. record.

D. D. The The trial trial court court committed committed an an error error of of law law and/or and/or abuse abuse ofof discretion discretion when when entering entering the the March March 15, 15, 2024, 2024, final final protection protection from from abuse abuse order order by by failing failing to to consider consider [that] [that] the the PA PA Crime[s] Crime[s] Code Code also also permits permits corporal corporal punishment punishment where where the the parent parent uses uses force force to to promote promote thethe welfare welfare of of the the child child including including [[]] punishment punishment for for misconduct misconduct andand [that] [that] the the force used was force used not designed was not designed toto cause serious bodily injury. cause serious bodily injury.

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 9

E. E. The The trial trial court court committed committed anan error error of of law law by by ruling ruling that that an an isolated isolated corporal corporal punishment punishment incident incident was was grounds grounds to to issue issue aa Protection Protection of of Abuse Abuse Order Order [sic] [sic} for for the the protection protection of of the the child. child.

F. F. The The trial trial court court abused abused its its discretion discretion by by entering entering aa final final order order when when Plaintiff Plaintiff was was unable unable toto produce produce any any evidence evidence ofof abuse abuse other other than than the the child child being being afraid afraid ofof Father’s Father's corporal corporal punishment. punishment.

Defendant Defendant next next asserts asserts that that the the court court failed failed to to consider consider that that the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania

Crimes Crimes Code Code permits permits corporal corporal punishment punishment as as aa form form of of discipline discipline and and suggests suggests that that his his

actions actions should should not not be be regarded regarded as as aa form form of of abuse. abuse. The The Trial Trial Court Court considered considered this this

defense defense and and rejected rejected itit at at the the hearing’s hearing's conclusion. conclusion.

23 23 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §§ $$ 6301-6388 6301-6388 of of the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Child Child Protective Protective Services Services Law Law

(“CPSL’), (CPSL"), which which governs governs Child Child Protective Protective Services Services Organizations, Organizations, excludes excludes from from its its

definition definition of of “child "child abuse” abuse" the the use use of of reasonable reasonable force force inin aa few few defined defined situations, situations, including including

instances instances of of discipline. discipline. However, However, this this doesn’t doesn't mean mean that that any any form form of of discipline discipline isis allowed. allowed.

Instead, Instead, itit must must be be “the "the use use of of reasonable reasonable force force on on or or against against aa child child by by the the child’s child's own own

parent parent or or person person responsible responsible for for the the child’s child's welfare...” welfare..." and and must must only only be be “(1) "(1) the the use use of of

reasonable reasonable force force [which] [which] constitutes constitutes incidental, incidental, minor, minor, or or reasonable reasonable physical physical contact contact with with

the the child child or or other other actions actions that that are are designed designed to to maintain maintain order order and and control.” control." 23 23 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §§

6304(c) 6304(c) (emphasis (emphasis added). added). The The Crimes Crimes Code Code permits permits similar similar uses uses of of force force “for "for the the

purpose purpose of of safeguarding safeguarding or or promoting promoting the the welfare welfare of of the the minor, minor, including including the the preventing preventing

or or punishment punishment of of his his misconduct...” misconduct..." 18 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 509(1). 509(1).

In In the the present present case, case, the the court court heard heard testimony testimony that that Defendant, Defendant, inin his his actions, actions,

exceeded exceeded permissible permissible discipline discipline of of his his child. child. Credible Credible testimony testimony was was heard heard inin that that

Defendant Defendant would would frequently frequently hit hit or or strike strike his his minor minor child, child, with with acorns, acorns, with with his his hands, hands, or or

with with aa stick. stick. See See N.T., N.T., 03/12/2024, 03/12/2024, at at 15-19:14-3. 15-19:14-3. Many Many of of which which left left injury injury or or markings markings

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 10

onon the the child. child. ItIt isis clear clearfrom from the the record record and and the the uncontroverted uncontroverted testimony testimony that that Defendant Defendant

frightened frightened the the minor minor child child onon more more than than one one occasion occasion inin his his use use ofof what what hehe views views asas

corporal corporal punishment. punishment. The The child child articulated articulated instances instances ofof wrongdoing wrongdoing that that were were met met with with

disproportional disproportional force force from from Appellant, Appellant, and and other other times times when when Appellant Appellant used used force force onon the the

child child for for nono reason reason atat all. all. This This court court maintains, maintains, asas do do nearly nearly allall Courts Courts onon this this issue, issue, that that

“IcJorporal "(c]orporal punishment punishment isis not not the the blanket blanketjustification justification that that [Defendant] [Defendant] suggests, suggests,

and and when when administered administered inin anger, anger, itit may may inin fact, fact, warrant warrant aa PFA.” PFA." Miller Miller ex ex rel. rel. Walker Walker

v.v. Walker, Walker, 665 665 A.2d A.2d 1252 1252 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 1995) 1995) (emphasis (emphasis added). added). Corporal Corporal punishment punishment

isis permitted permitted toto discipline discipline one’s one's child child “so "so long long asas the the force force used used isis not not designed designed oror known known

toto create create aa substantial substantial risk risk ofof death, death, serious serious bodily bodily injury, injury, disfigurement, disfigurement, extreme extreme pain, pain,

oror mental mental distress distress oror gross gross degradation.” degradation." Chronister Chronister v.v. Brenneman, Brenneman, 742 742 A.2d A.2d 190, 190, 191 191

(Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 1999) 1999) (emphasis (emphasis added). added).

The The Court Court inin Chronister Chronister similarly similarly held, held, where where “the "the trial trial court court inin the the case case sub sub judice judice

made made aa specific specific finding finding that that J.F. J.F. was was terrified terrified toto return return toto Mother’s Mother's home home and and the the

aggregation aggregation ofof Mother’s Mother's acts acts committed committed against against her her son son amounted amounted toto a a finding finding ofof abuse abuse

under under the PFA Act.” Fialkowski the PFAAct." Fialkowski v.v. Carrelli, Carrelli, No. No. 995 995 MDA MDA 2023, 2023, 2024 2024 Pa. Pa. Super. Super. Unpub. Unpub.

LEXIS LEXIS 458, 458, atat *18 18 (Feb. (Feb. 21, 21, 2024). 2024).

Appellant Appellant substantiated substantiated many many ofof the the allegations allegations that that Petitioner Petitioner leveled leveled against against him, him,

arguing arguing he he did did them them inin aa way way that that was was toto discipline discipline his his child. child. ItIt isis important important toto note note the the

intent intent ofof the the alleged alleged abuser abuser isis irrelevant irrelevant toto the the trial trial court’s court's determination. determination. Bucchalter, Bucchalter, 959 959

A.2d A.2d atat 1263. 1263. Notwithstanding Notwithstanding the the aforementioned, aforementioned, itit isis also also imperative imperative toto recognize recognize that, that,

“the PFA Act does "the PFAAct require actual not require does not physical harm actual physical before issuing harm before order." E.K., PFA order.” issuing aa PFA E.K,

237 A.3d 237 Pennsylvania jurisprudence 522. Pennsylvania A.3d atat 522. this topic on this jurisprudence on and dictates unambiguous and topic isis unambiguous dictates

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 11

that that there there are are several several ways ways to to convey convey aa threat threat of of physical physical harm, harm, therefore, therefore, aa showing showing of of

“reasonable '"reasonable fear’ fear' isis sufficient.” sufficient." S.W. S.W. v.v. S.F.. S.F.. 196 A.3d 224, 196A.3d 231 (Pa. 224,231 (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2018). 2018).

The The record record belies belies any any outcome outcome advocated advocated for for by by Appellant. Appellant. All All relevant relevant cases cases

presented presented (and (and not not presented) presented) support support the the same same principle: principle: discipline discipline isis acceptable acceptableif if it’s it's

aa reasonable reasonable and and measured measured response response to to correct correct an an action. action. Appellant’s Appellant's “discipline” "discipline"

against against the the child child were were either either excessive, excessive, or or not not corresponding corresponding to to anything anything the the child child did did to to

warrant warrant discipline, discipline, such such that that the the child’s child's “mental "mental distress” distress" reasonably reasonably made made him him fear fear his his

Father’s Father's abuse. abuse. The The court court heard heard extensive extensive testimony testimony demonstrating demonstrating Appellant Appellant exceeded exceeded

the the bounds bounds of of reasonable reasonable discipline, discipline, and and inin doing doing so, so, caused caused the the child child to to fear fear him. him.

Whether Whether itit was was intentional intentional or or not not (as (as noted, noted, Appellant's Appellant's intent intent isis largely largely irrelevant), irrelevant), his his

unreasonable unreasonable or or excessive excessive actions actions brought brought about about that that fear. fear. AA fear fear the the court court deemed deemed

reasonable reasonable based based on on the the testimony testimony provided. provided. See See N.T., N.T., 03/12/2024, 03/12/2024, at at 24:1-5. 24:1-5.

Following Following the the presentation presentation of of evidence, evidence, the the court court opined: opined:

|I find find [A.A.B] [A.A.B] to to be be credible. credible. ForFor that that reason reason —-- and and | I will will place place my my reasons reasons on on the the record record —- |I am am going going to to enter enter aa nine-month nine-month protection protection from from abuse abuse order order as as pertains pertains toto [A.A.B] [A.A.B] only. only. | I find find [A.A.B] [A.A.B] to to bebe inin need need of of protection protection under under 6102(a)(2) 6102(a)(2) where where |I do do believe believe he he isis reasonably reasonably inin fear fear ofof serious serious bodilybodily injury. injury. NotNot that that serious serious bodily bodily injury injury waswas caused, caused, but but |I dodo believe believe despite despite the the corporal corporal punishment punishment that that the the lawlaw permits, permits, thatthat [A.A.B] [A.A.B] was was reasonably reasonably inin fear fear because because of of the the daily daily inflictions inflictions potentially potentially by by his his father father toto him.him. |I do do find find [A.A.B] [A.A.B] toto be be credible credible with with respect respect to to the the stick stick incident, incident, to to the the slap slap incident, incident, andand both both were were conceded conceded by by father. father. And And | I also also find find [A.A.B] [A.A.B] to to be be credible credible with with respect respect to to the the slingshot slingshot incident. incident.

See See N.T., N.T., 03/15/2024, 03/15/2024, at at 23-24:17-11. 23-24:17-11.

InIn its its Final Final Order, Order, the the court court recognized recognized that that the the Appellant's Appellant's conduct conduct exceeded exceeded

acceptable acceptable bounds bounds of of reasonable reasonable corporal corporal punishment, punishment, thus thus instilling instilling aa reasonable reasonable fear fear

inin the the child child for for his his life life or or safety. safety. The The court court made made clear: clear:

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 12

My My findings findings as as they they relate relate toto [A.A.B] [A.AB] are are not not based based onon any any ofof the the evidence evidence that | heard for the following facts: Regarding the chickens, the groundhogs, that I heard for the following facts: Regarding the chickens, the groundhogs, lack lack ofof food, food, forced forced parenting parenting ofof [A.E.B], [A.E.B], branding branding ofof tattoos, tattoos, the the ropes, ropes, oror the the guns. guns. And And | I do do not not find find that that any any ofof those those materially materially contributed contributed toto the the need need forfor protecting protecting [A.A.B] [A.AB] fromfrom abuse. abuse.

Id. Id. atat 25:9-18. 25:9-18.

G. G. The The trial trial court court committed committed an an error error of of law law inin its its decision decision byby not not applying applying the the evaluation evaluation of of Pennsylvania’s Pennsylvania's 1616 Custodial Custodial Factors Factors pursuant pursuant toto Section Section 5328(a) 5328(a) ofof the the child child Custody Custody Law Law when when making making its its decision. decision.

Appellant Appellant lastly lastly contends contends that that the the trial trial court court failed failed toto consider consider Pennsylvania’s Pennsylvania's 16 16 © '--

Custodial Custodial Factors Factors when when rendering rendering the the Final Final Order. Order. However, However, these these factors factors are are intended intended

for for application application inin custodial custodial proceedings, proceedings, distinct distinct from from the the Protection Protection from from Abuse Abuse action action

presently presently on on appeal. appeal. The The Trial Trial Court Court only only exercised exercised jurisdiction jurisdiction over over the the PFA PFA matter matter atat

the the time time ofof hearing. hearing. ItIt isis also also important important toto note note that that Appellant Appellant didn’t didn't raise raise an an objection objection toto

this this during during the the PFA PFA Hearing, Hearing, and and therefore, therefore, this this issue issue isis waived waived pursuant pursuant toto Rule Rule 302(a). 302(a).

Appellant Appellant proffered proffered case case law law that that states, states, "[albsent "[a]bsent guidance guidance from from our our Legislature Legislature or or

our our Supreme Supreme Court, Court, we we conclude conclude that that aa PFA PFA court court need need not not conduct conduct aa best best interests interests

custody custody analysis analysis toto award award temporary temporary custody custody as as form form of of relief relief under under section section 6108 6108 of of the the

Protection Protection from from Abuse Abuse Act.") Act.") (emphasis (emphasis inin original).” original)." Fialkowski Fialkowski v.v. Carrelli, Carrelli, No. No. 995 995 MDA MDA

2023, 2023, 2024 2024 Pa. Pa. Super. Super. Unpub. Unpub. LEXIS LEXIS 458, 458, atat *19 19 (Feb. (Feb. 21, 21, 2024). 2024). While While indeed indeed denoted denoted

aa Final Final Order Order for for Protection Protection from from Abuse, Abuse, itit isis imperative imperative to to clarify clarify that that itit does does not not constitute constitute

aa conclusive conclusive custodial custodial decree. decree.

Custody Custody wise, wise, aa PFA PFA order order isis not not designed designed toto impose impose anything anything but but emergency emergency relief. relief. To To understand understand this, this, look look no no further further than than the the PFA PFA Act: Act: ‘Nothing in this paragraph relating to temporary custody as a form of relief 'Nothing in this paragraph relating to temporary custody as a form of relief shall shall bar bar either either party party from from filing filing aa petition petition for for custody custody under under Chapter Chapter 53 53 (relating (relating to custody) to custody) or under the Pennsylvania or under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.’ Rules of Civil Procedure.'

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 13

Id. Id. atat 458, 458, atat *20. 20. ItIt isis aa temporary temporary award award ofof physical physical custody. custody. “Simply "Simply stated, stated, the the trial trial

court court isis empowered empowered by by §§ 6108(a)(4) 6108(a)(4) toto award award temporary temporary custody custody with with regard regard toto minor minor

children children inin granting granting relief relief under under the the PFA.” PFA." C.H.L. C.H.L. v.y. W.D.L., 214 A.3d W.D.L,214 A.3d 1272, 1272, 1281 1281 (Pa. (Pa.

Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2019). 2019).

H.H. Children’s Children's fast fast track track appeal appeal pursuant pursuant to to Pa. Pa. R.A.P. R.A.P. §§ 904(f). 904(f).

Defendant Defendant submits submits this this Notice Notice ofof Appeal, Appeal, asserting asserting itit as as aa Children’s Children's Fast Fast Track Track

Appeal Appeal pursuant pursuant toto Pa. Pa. R.A.P. R.A.P. 904(f). 904(f).

While While this this appeal appeal has has been been endorsed endorsed as as aa Fast Fast Track Track Appeal, Appeal, this this court court duly duly notes, notes,

as as explicitly explicitly stated stated on on the the record, record, that that the the nine nine (9) (9) month month duration duration of of this this Final Final Order Order was was

deliberate, deliberate, with with the the understanding understanding that that the the order order remains remains subject subject to to prospective prospective

modification modification inin subsequent subsequent proceedings proceedings associated associated with with this this matter. matter. Id. ld. atat 23-24:13-21; 23-24:13-21;

25:9-18. 25:9-18. The The separate separate custody custody petition petition was was docketed docketed atat the the time time of of the the PFA PFA Hearing, Hearing, and and

the the PFA PFA Order Order was was crafted crafted toto “dovetail” "dovetail" with with future future custodial custodial hearings, hearings, thereby thereby forestalling forestalling

any any avoidable avoidable instability instability for for the the children children involved. involved. During During the the hearing, hearing, itit was was expressly expressly

emphasized emphasized that that the the parties parties should should initiate initiate CCES CCES promptly, promptly, as as itit would would be be aa requisite requisite ©

component component inin the the subsequent subsequent custody custody hearing hearing scheduled scheduled for for aa later later date. date. The The court court

chose chose this this approach approach toto afford afford the the parties parties an an advantageous advantageous head head start start inin engaging engaging with with

the the program program for for an an expeditious expeditious conclusion. conclusion. Id. Id. at at 27:6-19. 27:6-19. The The court’s court's nine nine (9) (9) month month

Order Order aligned aligned itit with with the the anticipated anticipated resolution resolution of of all all other other pending pending matters matters between between the the

parties, parties, i.e. i.e. CCES CCES and and custody. custody. Id. Id. at at 24:16-20. 24:16-20.

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION

InIn conclusion, conclusion, the the Trial Trial Court’s Court's Final Final Order Order was was predicated predicated upon upon aa thorough thorough

examination examination of of the the evidence evidence presented presented and and comprehensive credibility assessments. comprehensive credibility assessments.

2023-60772-0086 FC- OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER FILED. (PA. R.A.P. 1925(A)), Page 14

Appellant's Appellant's appeal appeal fails fails to to demonstrate demonstrate substantive substantive grounds grounds warranting warranting review, review, while while the the

Trial Trial Court’s Court's determinations determinations are are substantiated substantiated within within the the record. record. Accordingly, Accordingly, Appellant's Appellant's

appeal appeal must must be be denied, denied, and and the the Final Final Order Order of of the the court court affirmed. affirmed.

BY BY THE THE COURT, COURT,

Date: o. 5/h Sh iD uy Lt Q/ATT WEINTRAUB, J.

N. B. It isis yo N.B. It ur re your sponsibil responsibility foto no tify all notify all in terested parties interested parties of of th thee ab ove ac above tion. action.