B.R.S. v. J.L.

Decision Date31 July 2020
Docket NumberNo. 1939 MDA 2019,1939 MDA 2019
Citation236 A.3d 1167
Parties B.R.S., Appellant v. J.L.
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Timothy Baker Bitler Jr., Birdsboro, for appellant.

James Edward Gavin, Wyomissing, for appellee.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

OPINION BY PANELLA, P.J.:

Appellant, B.R.S., appeals from the order entered in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas dismissing Appellant's petition for protection from abuse ("PFA") for lack of standing. On appeal, we are asked to determine whether a petitioner has standing to seek a PFA order against his wife's sister's husband. We conclude that prior precedent establishes that Appellant has standing, and therefore reverse and remand.

Appellant alleged the incident giving rise to the petition occurred on October 11, 2019, and described the incident as follows.

I was having lunch when I noticed my sister-in-law come in with her grandson. I thought they were there by themselves and continued to eat lunch. I then noticed her husband, [Appellee] walking along the front windows and he was staring at me in a stalking manner. I noticed my sister-in-law and her grandson leave. I finished my lunch and when I walked outside, [Appellee] was waiting for me. He said, "You're an asshole" and with that gave me a hard push with both hands and then punched me in the face. I put my hands out to stop more punches. We wrestled a little and fell on the parking lot. He used his thumbs to gouge my eyes. People from Muhlenberg ambulance stopped and pulled us apart. Muhlenberg police came to the scene and a report was filed.

Id . at 2. On October 15, 2019, Appellant filed a PFA petition against Appellee, in which he described the relationship of Appellee to Appellant as a "Family Member Related by Marriage or Affinity." Petition for PFA, at 2. The trial court entered a temporary PFA order the same day.

On October 22, 2019, a continued temporary PFA order was entered, and a hearing on the matter was rescheduled to October 29, 2019.

At the hearing, the court heard testimony from Appellant, Appellee's wife, and a witness to the altercation. The testimony corroborated the allegations from the petition. However, the court found that Appellant lacked standing to file a PFA action against Appellee and dismissed the matter and the temporary PFA order without prejudice. This timely appeal followed.

Appellant raises the following issue for our review.

Did the trial court err when it dismissed Appellant's Petition for Protection from Abuse for lack of standing by defining a "family or household member," and more specifically a relation by "affinity," to exclude the relationship of a petitioner to the spouse of petitioner's sister-in-law [in an action] pursuant to the Protection From Abuse Act ( 23 Pa.C.S.A. 6101, et seq. ).

Appellant's Brief, at 5.

Our standard of review regarding an issue of standing under the Protection from Abuse Act is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. See McCance v. McCance , 908 A.2d 905, 908 (Pa. Super. 2006).

The goal of the Protection from Abuse Act is protection and prevention of further abuse by removing the perpetrator of the abuse from the household and/or from the victim for a period of time. As for individuals who may seek refuge within the confines of the Act, the statute's protective sphere encompasses [ ] "family or household members." In section 6102 of the Act, the term "family or household members" is defined as,
Spouses or persons who have been spouses, persons living as spouses, parents and children, other persons related by consanguinity or affinity , current or former sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood.

Id . (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Appellant and Appellee are not spouses, persons living as spouses, related by consanguinity, current or former sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood. Consequently, they may only fall under the confines of the PFA Act if we determine they are "persons related by ... affinity." Id .

The Act itself does not define "affinity." However, a prior panel of this Court faced a similar issue in McCance , in which the Court sought to give meaning to all the terms in the PFA statute while preserving its objective. The Court interpreted "affinity" in the Act to include a family relationship of brother-in-law and sister-in-law. The Court specifically found that such an interpretation was consistent with the purpose of the Act, "which is to forestall escalation of disputes among family members where injury may be on the horizon." Id . at 910 (citations omitted).

Merriam-Webster includes multiple definitions of "brother-in-law", among which is "the husband of one's spouse's sibling". Merriam–Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brother-in-law (last visited July 15, 2020). Similarly, among the definitions of "sister-in-law" is "the wife of one's spouse's sibling". Merriam–Webster, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/sister-in-law (last visited July 15, 2020). Therefore, we conclude Appellant and Appellee are related by affinity.

To interpret the Act as Appellee would have us do would lead to absurd results. Despite Appellant not being blood related to Appellee, his relationship with Appellee is no different than his relationship with Appellee's wife, who falls...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • White v. Urban
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • November 22, 2022
    ...is plenary." B.R.S. v. J.L., 236 A.3d 1167, 1168 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing McCance v. McCance, 908 A.2d. 905, 908 (Pa. Super. 2006)). In B.R.S., this Court explained [t]he goal of the PFA Act is protection and prevention of further abuse by removing the perpetrator of the abuse from the hou......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT