Pennsylvania adopted the Protection From Abuse Act (PFAA) in 1976 to provide fast relief to victims of domestic violence and their children.  Although studies have revealed that domestic violence affects people from all races, social classes, ages, religions, and sexual orientations, the vast majority (ninety-five percent) of all adult victims of domestic violence are women, and most of those accused of abuse are men.  Because domestic violence causes such damage to the family and poses great physical risk to the abused, the process to obtain a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order is quick and uncomplicated.  The courts, the legislature, and most assistance agencies appropriately focus upon protecting victims of violence.  However, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently recognized, there is a potential for unscrupulous parties to use the power of the Protection From Abuse Act improperly and so a remedy for those unfairly accused of committing domestic violence was created.

In the typical PFA case, a petition is filed seeking a Protection From Abuse Order and a hearing is scheduled within ten days of the filing.  In order to protect the alleged victim until the hearing is held, most petitions include a request for a temporary “ex parte” protection order generally prohibiting the defendant from having any contact with the victim and/or any minor children.  The term “ex parte” means that the alleged abuser is not notified of the temporary order nor given an opportunity to challenge it.

Often, protection from abuse cases are settled by the parties or the petition is withdrawn before a hearing is held.  However, the fact that a petition for protection was filed and that a temporary protection order was issued will likely have a negative effect upon the reputation of the accused.  No matter how the case was ultimately resolved, the fact that a protection order was entered against the accused will remain on file with the court and will be a matter of public record.  The Protection From Abuse Act makes no provision for protecting the reputation of a party against whom a temporary ex parte order is issued where the order is later dismissed or withdrawn.  Moreover, there are instances where a party files a petition containing false claims of abuse in order to gain some advantage in the divorce action – for example, to obtain sole custody or to blackmail the alleged abuser into agreeing to increased alimony. 

Enter the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 798 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2002).  In that case, the court determined that allowing such an order to remain a matter of public record could damage a person’s reputation.  According to the Court, allowing the record of the dismissed PFA petition to stand would open up possibilities for blackmail:  “[a] petitioner could threaten any partner . . . by filing a petition and then fail to follow up on the petition, knowing that in doing so, a court record would be kept as a sort of behavioral check.”  The Court went on to state that “[t]o allow such a result would completely thwart the underlying goals of the PFAA – namely, to protect spouses, intimate partners, and children from imminent physical abuse.”  Thus, the Court determined that the defendant (generally the husband) in a PFA case has a right under the Pennsylvania Constitution to petition for expungement of a dismissed Protection From Abuse record in order to protect his reputation. 

At Bennett & Doherty, P.C., we are experienced in defending individuals against a petition under the PFAA where the circumstances do not warrant the granting of a PFA order.  We are also able to represent individuals seeking to expunge the record of a PFA order in accordance with the Carlacci opinion.