To:

From:
Re:
Date:

Susan L. DeJarnatt
Rafaela Schneider
Goodman, Standard for Obtaining Protection Order
August 20, 2014

QUESTION PRESENTED:
In Pennsylvania, can a woman obtain a civil protection order against her intimate partner
where she is frightened by her partners threatening comments to her and others, he recently
threw a book near her, and he has shoved her in the past?
BRIEF ANSWER:
Yes. In Pennsylvania, a woman is entitled to a protection order against her intimate
partner if the partners behavior has placed her in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily
injury. Violence directed near her, past physical abuse and past threats meet the definition of
abuse under the Protection from Abuse Act, even if the partner has not recently physically
attacked the woman. However, past threats against third parties and past threats to engage in
conduct that is not physically threatening will likely not be taken into account by the trial court.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Diana Goodman is a resident of Philadelphia. She wants to petition the court for a court
order that will force her boyfriend, George Walker, to leave her alone. Walker has made
comments in the past that Goodman finds threatening, has hurt her in the past, and has recently
engaged in violent behavior, although he did not hurt her. She needs to know if she has grounds
to obtain a civil protection from abuse order even though Walker physically hurt her only once,
almost a year ago.
Goodman and Walker have been involved in an intimate relationship for a year. They
have no children and do not live together. Goodman is a nurse in the Emergency Room of the

Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Walker is a Philadelphia police officer in the district
near the hospital. They met through work.
Early in their relationship, Walker showered Goodman with attention. He called her three
or four times a day, sent her flowers every day, and came by her work unexpectedly. She first
enjoyed the attention but then became concerned about it and asked him to cool off. Walker was
sad but responded appropriately; he called no more than once a day and came to the hospital only
after making plans with Goodman. Once, however, after they had been dating for about a month,
she was delayed by a work emergency and could not meet him for dinner. Walker was waiting at
her apartment when she got home. He was furious, accused her of cheating, and shoved her
against a bookshelf. He immediately apologized and swore he would never hurt her again.
Goodman forgave Walker and did not seek medical attention, despite sustaining some minor
bruises.
About six months ago, Walker began pressuring Goodman to move in with him. When
she refused, he made comments that now concern her. He said, "You better not be seeing anyone
else. You know I cant stand for that. You will get hurt." "I cant live without you and you cant
live without me; we are meant for each other forever." "Sometimes I think you dont realize that
your life is my life."
Walker suspects that Goodman is seeing someone else, which is true. He has told
Goodman that, if he discovers that she is seeing someone else, Ill make that guy wish he never
met you. Walker also told Goodman that if she is seeing someone else who also works at the
hospital, he will contact her supervisor and attempt to have her fired. He has also recently talked
of a past girlfriend who left him and has said that he should do something to the former girlfriend
so she knows what pain is.

Last weekend, during an argument in Goodmans apartment, Walker threw a heavy

medical book at the wall a few feet away from where Goodman was standing. The force of the
throw dented the wall and Goodman fled her residence. She has not been home since that
incident occurred.
Goodman is involved in another relationship with a radiologist at the hospital. She has
not yet told Walker of her new relationship or that she wants to break up with Walker. She is
afraid he will become more violent when he learns of her plans. Walker carries a gun because he
is a police officer.
DISCUSSION OF AUTHORITY:
Diana Goodman is entitled to a protection order against George Walker because his
recent behavior, combined with past physical abuse and verbal threats, has reasonably put
Goodman in fear that Walker may cause her imminent serious bodily injury. In Pennsylvania, a
protection order may be issued to stop abuse between intimate partners. 23 Pa. Consol. Stat.
Ann. 6102(a), 6108(a) (West 2008). Abuse includes conduct that places another "in
reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury." 23 Pa. Consol. Stat. Ann. 6102(a)(2).
Physical contact or injury is not required so long as the victims fear of serious bodily injury is
reasonable. Fonner v. Fonner, 731 A. 2d 160, 163 (Pa. Super. 1999). Walkers violence towards
her property, combined with his past physical attack and threats to her, should satisfy the
statutory definition of abuse and justify entry of a protection order.
Goodman is qualified to seek a protection order because she has an intimate relationship
with Walker, even though they do not live together. Pennsylvanias Protection from Abuse Act
(the Act) authorizes civil courts to enter protection orders where necessary to stop abuse
between defined classes of people. 23 Pa. Consol. Stat. 6108(a). The Act applies to conduct
between current or former sexual or intimate partners. 23 Pa. Consol. Stat. 6102(a). There is
3

no requirement that the plaintiff share a residence with the alleged abuser. Custer v. Cochran,
933 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2007). Because Goodman and Walker have been intimately involved,
their relationship is covered by the Act.
Pennsylvania case law shows that Goodman will not have to prove that Walker actually
hurt her physically in order to qualify for a Protection from Abuse order. The definition of abuse
includes conduct that places "another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury. 23
Pa. Consol. Stat. 6102(a)(2). The plaintiffs fear must be reasonable for the court to find abuse.
Fonner, 731 A. 2d at 163. Physical contact between the plaintiff and defendant is not required.
Id. at 163. Fonner stressed that, because the purpose of the Act is to prevent abuse, alleged abuse
victims do not have to wait until they are physically attacked before obtaining Protection from
Abuse orders. Id. at 163.
Walkers threats towards Goodman and his violence in her presence should meet the
definition of abuse. Fonner found a protection order warranted against a husband who, during a
loud, angry argument over their pending divorce, restrained his wife by standing in front of her,
held her arm, and punched the wall near where she was standing. Id. at 162. The court found that
the wifes fear of imminent serious bodily injury was in fact reasonable, and specifically rejected
the husbands argument that his conduct did not constitute abuse because he had punched the
wall rather than his wife. Id. at 162-163. Likewise, in Lloyd v. Clarke, 80 Pa. D. & C. 4th 420
(Pa. Delaware County Comm. Pl. Ct. 2006), affd, 919 A.2d 983 (Pa. Super. 2007), a court found
abuse where a man kicked in the door of his childrens mothers home. The court found that the
mans actions, combined with past threats against the woman, were sufficient to cause the
woman to experience reasonable fear of serious bodily injury. Id. at 424-425.

Walkers

conduct, including threatening to hurt Goodman and violently destroying property in Goodmans

presence, is similar to the conduct found sufficient in Fonner and Lloyd; therefore, Goodman
should be able to obtain a Protection from Abuse order under 23 Pa. Consol. Stat. 6102(a)(2).
Goodman should also be able to introduce some evidence of Walkers past allegedly
abusive conduct in her protection order proceeding. The focus of the Act is on prevention of
future abuse, rather than punishment of past conduct. Fonner, 731 A. 2d at 160. Thus, evidence
of past behavior is relevant only where it will assist the court in understanding why a protection
from abuse order is presently needed. Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720, 726 (Pa. Super. 2004). Past
physical abuse can help form a basis for a protection order even where the current abusive
behavior takes the form only of telephone calls. Burke ex rel. v. Burke, 814 A.2d 206, 209 (Pa.
Super. 2002). Courts have also found that past physical abuse can be relevant even where the
alleged abuse occurred relatively far in the past. See Raker v. Raker, 847 A.2d 720 (past abuse
admissible where it occurred seven months before the hearing); Miller on Behalf of Walker v.
Walker, 665 A.2d 1252, 1259 (Pa. Super. 1995) (past abuse occurred admissible where it
occurred six years before the hearing). Walkers past violence shows that Goodmans current
fear is reasonable, so she should be able to introduce the evidence that Walker shoved her in the
past.
However, not all of Walkers past threats may be admissible, either because they were
directed at someone else, or did not threaten violence. Threats to third parties that are not
directed to the victim do not justify entry of a protection order in favor of the victim. See D.H. v.
B.O., 734 A. 2d 409 (Pa. Super. 1999)(finding that former boyfriends threats to hurt plaintiffs
coworker did not create a reasonable fear that the plaintiff faced imminent serious bodily injury).
Threats that do not create fear of physical injury are also insufficient. Id. (finding threats to
expose financial fraud did not constitute abuse). Thus, Walkers threats against his ex-girlfriend
and anyone else who Goodman might be seeing would likely be inadmissible. Likewise,
5

Walkers threat that he will attempt to have Goodman fired will likely not be considered by the
court. However, Walkers threat that Goodman will get hurt is distinguishable from the
communications found inadequate in D.H., 734 A. 2d at 409, and the court should consider it as
evidence of past abuse. Pa. Consol. Stat. Ann. 6102(a)(2).