Pennsylvania’s Protection From Abuse Act: You’ll Lose The House, The Kids, and Now The Dog

By: Peter E. Kratsa

Pennsylvania’s Protection from Abuse Act provides a mechanism for people alleging abuse¹ to initially obtain a temporary emergency court order on an ex parte basis, i.e. without providing notice to the alleged perpetrator of abuse. This puts the defendant behind the eight ball from the outset, as the plaintiff is given free rein to vilify them before the Court without any opportunity for the defendant to be heard.  While a subsequent hearing in which a “permanent order” is sought is to be scheduled within ten (10) days at which hearing the petitioner need prove their allegations of abuse by a preponderance of evidence (basically, “more likely than not”) and the defendant is given their opportunity to defend against the allegations, the defendant is swimming upstream from the outset of this litigation.  

Sometimes this procedural hardship is necessary and justified (for instance in the circumstance of concurrent police-charged allegations of criminal physical or sexual violence). However sometimes the process is not fair at all (for instance when one spouse seizes the opportunity to jettison the other from the marital residence during the pendency of a divorce action absent any formal police involvement).  This ex parte procedure tasks our judges to make impactful credibility determinations while hearing only one side of the story.  Understandably, the judges tend to err on the side of caution, credit the allegations and issue the temporary order.  

Court intervention, or “Relief”, on the basis of a temporary or permanent order (lasting up to three years) typically involves directing the defendant to refrain from abusing (and in most cases, contacting at all) the plaintiff or minor children, granting exclusive possession of the residence or household to the plaintiff and excluding the defendant from it, mandating that the defendant continue to provide financial support to plaintiff or minor children, awarding temporary (often times exclusive) custody of the children to the plaintiff², prohibiting the defendant from acquiring or possessing firearms, providing restitution to the plaintiff for any reasonable losses suffered as a result of the abuse, and “granting any other appropriate relief sought by the plaintiff”. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §6108. 

Now, “Relief” will also include the family pet(s). Act 164 of 2024 amends the PFA Act to provide for additional relief: “Granting temporary ownership rights over a companion animal³ directing the defendant to refrain from possessing, contacting, attempting to contact, transferring or relocating the companion animal or contacting or entering the property of any person sheltering the companion animal.” The Act, in fact, includes a provision allowing for the inclusion of the “companion animal” as a protected party and directing the defendant from “abusing, harassing, stalking, threatening or attempting or threatening to use physical force against … the companion animal.” 

One can only wonder why our legislature, in its infinite wisdom, decided it was so important to amend this Act to include pets?  One thing is certain, this will add another layer of litigation to a process that is already rife with issues involving fairness and common sense.   

As an attorney with over 30 years of experience, I have seen the Protection from Abuse Act frequently weaponized to obtain leverage in matters of divorce and custody. The Act is obviously well-intentioned and necessary; however, it is itself frequently abused by opportunistic petitioners and their counsel.  It is incumbent on the lawyers trying these cases to defend them by developing evidence which will alert judges to ulterior motives and differentiate these cases from those truly involving abusive behavior.   

While this attorney has often called for the PFA process to be reformed, this amendment is not what I had in mind. I can envision the case captions now: Jane Doe, on behalf of herself, Minor Children and Cuddles the Cat, v. John Doe.  A frequently circus-like atmosphere now will include animals.  

Act 146 goes into effect on January 17, 2025. 

Attorney Peter Kratsa is the Chair of MacElree Harvey’s Criminal Defense Group and a member of the firm’s Family Law Group. Pete and Caroline Donato provide further insight into Pennsylvania’s PFA process in Episode 39 of their Podcast Subject to Cross. Listen wherever you listen to podcasts.

1. “Abuse” is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members, sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood: (1) attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury, serious bodily injury, rape, or other sexual offenses without or without a deadly weapon. (2) Placing another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury. (3) The infliction of false imprisonment. (4) Physically or sexually abusing minor children. (5) Knowingly engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts toward another person, including following the person, without proper authority, under circumstances which place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury[.] 23 Pa.C.S. §6102.  ↩︎
2. Any award of custody can later be superseded by a subsequent Custody Order in Family Court. ↩︎
3. A companion animal is defined as a domesticated animal not used in commercial agriculture or production.  ↩︎