PFA Weaknesses and How to Fill In the Gaps
Pennsylvania was the second state in the nation to provide a civil remedy for domestic violence. Since 1976 when the initial law was passed the Protection From Abuse Act at Pa. C.S.A. 6100. et sec. has evolved into a comprehensive statute package.
June 29, 2017 at 04:16 PM
7 minute read
Pennsylvania was the second state in the nation to provide a civil remedy for domestic violence. Since 1976 when the initial law was passed the Protection From Abuse Act at Pa. C.S.A. 6100. et sec. has evolved into a comprehensive statute package. The Joint State Government Commission was recently authorized to study the PFA Act by 2015 House Resolution 735. The commission issued a report, “Protection From Abuse in Pennsylvania: a Staff Study” on Nov. 15, 2016. The PFA Act provides immediate relief, but may be “inadequate” when it comes to enforcement of a protection from abuse order. To be utilized, the parties must meet certain relationship requirements and there must be a finding of abuse. Once this criterion has been met, a protection order can be entered for up to 36 months.
The PFA Act and its package of laws touch on many areas of law outside what many presume to be the family law realm. Protection for victims under the PFA Act touch on insurance law, criminal law, landlord/tenant law, housing, social services, health care and medical treatment, employment and education.
The report also looks in to the “frequent” and “anecdotal” allegations that PFAs are misused as tactics in divorce and custody matters. The report points out that there are remedies for misuse and bad faith filings. Temporary orders were dismissed almost one-third of the time because the plaintiff/victim failed to appear at the final hearing. Almost a quarter of the temporary orders were either withdrawn or settled prior to hearing. In 2015, 37,387 temporary PFA orders were granted. Of those 5,817 final PFAs were granted and 1,571 final orders were denied. It appears that when cases when to trial, PFAs were granted five times more than they were denied. In 7,167 instances the parties entered into a stipulation or agreement. Another 7,685 withdrew the PFAs. It is hard to compare the withdrawn orders and stipulations entered. Each county has different procedures for PFAs. Not all counties allow for the same ability to enter into stipulations or agreements.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All$8M Settlement Reached in Wrongful Death, Negligence Suits Against Phila. Foster Agency
4 minute readState Supreme Court Clarifies Special Immigrant Juvenile Practice in Pa.
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250