PES v. KL

• Decision Date: 15 October 1998
• Parties: P.E.S., Appellee, v. K.L., Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

720 A.2d 487

P.E.S., Appellee, v. K.L., Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted November 14, 1997.

Filed October 15, 1998.

K.L., appellant, pro se.

P.E.S., appellee, pro se.

Before CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus, and SCHILLER and HOFFMAN¹, JJ.

CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus:

K.L. appeals from an order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County denying his motion to expunge his docket record after the court granted his motion to dismiss a Protection from Abuse petition. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

On November 22, 1996, P.E.S. filed a "Petition for Protection from Abuse" against K.L.² A request for a Temporary Protection from Abuse Order was denied on the same day of filing. A hearing on the petition was scheduled for November 27, 1996, however the parties failed to appear and no action was taken on the Petition. Nonetheless, a court record was created on the petition and the case was designated as "active" in the court computer system.

On March 7, 1997, K.L. filed a "Motion to Dismiss and Expunge the Record." At a hearing, before the Honorable S. Gerald Corso, K.L. claimed the "active" case was damaging to his reputation as a custody evaluator and a guardian ad litem. K.L. currently holds the position of Director for the Child Custody Evaluation Services of Philadelphia, Inc. His specialty is in interstate child custody matters and he is a member of several professional and national organizations relating to this subject. K.L. has been appointed as guardian ad litem in several states; he has testified before several legislative bodies on child custody issues and he has given expert testimony before a number of state courts. Furthermore, he has been approved as a custody mediator by several state courts. K.L. stated his reason for expungement was to avoid continued embarrassment that the case designation might cause him as a child custody specialist.

Following the hearing, an Order was entered on March 18, 1997, granting K.L.'s Motion to Dismiss and denying the Motion to Expunge. K.L.'s "Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dated March 18, 1997" was denied by Order dated April 4, 1997. This appeal followed.

On appeal, K.L. raises the following issues for our review:³

(1) Did the trial court err in its opinion that there is no statutory authority for expungement of a Protection from Abuse record?

(2) Did the trial court err by not accepting other civil expungement cases as authority to expunge a Protection from Abuse record?

(3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the Appellant's inherent right to protect his reputation?

(4) Did the trial court err by not expunging the Protection from Abuse record because the record was created by denial of due process?

(5) Did the trial court err by not adducing sufficient facts upon which to determine expungement as an appropriate remedy?

From the outset, we must note that the learned Judge Corso correctly dismissed P.E.S.'s petition brought under the Protection From Abuse Act (PFAA), 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6101 et seq. Pursuant to the PFAA, once a petition is filed a hearing shall be held within 10 days. Heard v. Heard, 418 Pa.Super. 250, 614 A.2d 255 (1992). If a hearing is not held, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief to the filing party. Id. at 258, 614 A.2d at 260. Here, no hearing was held within the 10-day period of limitations. Judge Corso, therefore, correctly granted K.L.'s motion to dismiss; the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant relief. Heard, supra.

On appeal, K.L. first alleges the trial court erred in finding no statutory authority for expungement of a Protection From Abuse record. Specifically, K.L. contends expungement is included in section 6117 of the PFAA as an "Other Remedy." We disagree.

In Pennsylvania, it is well-settled that a court must construe the words of a statute according to their plain meaning. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903(a); Commonwealth v. Stanley, 498 Pa. 326, 335, 446 A.2d 583, 587 (1982); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 317 Pa.Super. 497, 502, 464 A.2d 431, 434 (1983). When the words of a statute are unambiguous, they are not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit of the statute. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(a); Heard, supra.

Therefore, we must examine whether this issue may be resolved by reference to the express language of the PFAA.

The current version of the PFAA bears no mention of expungement procedures. K.L. contends expungement is included in section 6117 of the PFAA entitled "Procedure and other remedies." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6117. Section 6117 states: "Unless otherwise indicated in this chapter, a proceeding under this chapter shall be in accordance with applicable general rules and shall be in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies." 23 Pa.C.S.A § 6117. We fail to see how section 6117's "other remedies" apply to the present situation. In Cipolla v. Cipolla, 264 Pa.Super. 53, 398 A.2d 1053 (1979), our court summarized the purpose of the PFAA as follows:

The Protection From Abuse Act is a vanguard measure dealing with the problems of wife and child abuse. It is designed to protect against abuse not only between family or household members who reside together, but also between unmarried persons living together. To institute an action, the plaintiff must file a petition with the court alleging abuse by the defendant. If emergency relief is needed, the court may enter a temporary, ex parte order to protect the plaintiff or minor children from abuse. In any event, a hearing must be held within ten days at which time plaintiff must prove the charges. The court is empowered to grant broad relief to bring about a cessation of abuse: an order directing defendant to refrain from abusing plaintiff or the children; evicting defendant from the residence and granting possession to plaintiff; awarding temporary custody of and/or establishing temporary visitation rights with regard to children; and directing defendant to pay support. Any such order entered shall have no effect beyond one year. District Justices are authorized to grant relief during weekend hours. Defendant may be held in indirect criminal contempt for violating the order and may be imprisoned up to six months or be fined $ 1,000.00 or both. An arrest for violation of the order may be made without a warrant even if the violation is not committed in the presence of the officer.

Cipolla, 264 Pa.Super. at 55 n. 1, 398 A.2d at 1054 n. 1 (1979) (citations omitted). Given the nature and construction of the PFAA, we read section 6117 as it pertains to a petitioner and the remedies available to that person seeking protection. We do not read section 6117 so broad as to include the remedy of expungement for a respondent.

K.L. next alleges the trial court erred by not accepting other civil expungement cases as authority to expunge a PFAA record. K.L. also contends, in his third issue, that the trial court abused its discretion by denying K.L. an adequate opportunity to defend and protect his reputation. We find that the trial court did not err as a matter of law by not accepting other civil cases as authority for expungement.⁴ We also find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the expungement proceedings; K.L. was given an adequate opportunity to defend and protect his reputation.⁵ We are, however, persuaded by K.L.'s plea to extend the concept of expungement to the PFAA in limited circumstances where a respondent seeks to protect his or her reputation.

As authority for his argument, K.L. cites to Wolfe v. Beal, 477 Pa. 477, 384 A.2d 1187 (1978), and Commonwealth v. J.T., 279 Pa.Super. 127, 420 A.2d 1064 (1980). In Wolfe, our supreme court concluded that a person who was unlawfully committed to a state psychiatric hospital has a right to the destruction of hospital records that were created as a result of the illegal commitment. The court stated:

The Pennsylvania Constitution specifically provides that "all men ... have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which ... [is] acquiring, possessing, and protecting ... reputation ..." Const. art. 1, s 1. We cannot ignore the fact that many people in our society view mental illness with disdain and apprehension. We, in Commonwealth ex rel. Magaziner v. Magaziner, 434 Pa. 1, 253 A.2d 263 (1975[1969]), approved of the concept of protecting the reputation of a person who was unlawfully thrust into the criminal process by sanctioning the expungement of his criminal record. We should not do less for appellant. The continued existence of the hospital records pose a threat to appellant's reputation.

Wolfe, 477 Pa. 477, 480, 384 A.2d 1187, 1189 (1978) (emphasis added). The court found that the appellant in Wolfe was entitled to a clean and unsullied record and ordered the expungement of all records pertaining to the commitment. Id.

Similarly, in J.T., our court ordered that court records of psychiatric commitment should be expunged after the trial court concluded that its prior commitment order was null and void as having not been entered in compliance with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966, 50 P.S. § 4406 (since repealed). J.T., 279 Pa.Super. 127,420 A.2d 1064 (1980). In J.T., the court specifically addressed the issue of court records:

To be sure, the question of expungement of court records arising from an illegal commitment was not at issue in Wolfe simply because the lower court's decision to order such relief was not challenged. However we think it clear that the Court's reasoning regarding destruction of the hospital records is equally applicable to the issue sub judice. Be they hospital records or court records, the dispositive fact is that they originated as a result of an illegal proceeding subsequently declared null and void; and, in either case, their "continued existence ... pose a threat to appellant's

...