K.F.P. ex rel. V.I.P. v. J.M.P.

• Decision Date: 01 June 2021
• Docket Number: J-S12017-21,No. 2334 EDA 2020,2334 EDA 2020
• Parties: K.F.P. OBO MINOR V.I.P. Appellant v. J.M.P.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

K.F.P. OBO MINOR V.I.P. Appellant
v.
J.M.P.

J-S12017-21
No. 2334 EDA 2020

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JUNE 1, 2021

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered November 5, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): No. 2020-06408

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS:

K.F.P. (Wife) appeals pro se from the order which granted J.M.P.'s (Husband) petition for special relief to enforce the settlement agreement and vacated the temporary protection order previously entered pursuant to the Protection From Abuse (PFA) Act¹. We affirm.

The trial court, with the Honorable Daniel J. Clifford presiding, set forth the factual and procedural history in this matter in his opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 1/26/21, at 1-5. Relevant to this appeal, Wife filed a PFA petition against Husband on May 26, 2020, on behalf of herself and the parties' son, V.I.P., born in December of 2019. The Honorable Richard Haaz issued a temporary PFA order that same day.

Page 2

The Honorable Melissa S. Sterling held a PFA evidentiary hearing on June 18, 2020, and the parties were represented by their respective counsel. At the start of the hearing, Judge Sterling asked the parties if they had attempted to settle the PFA matter. N.T., 6/18/20, at 3-4. The parties explained that they had previously discussed settlement, but could not reach an agreement. Id. at 4. Judge Sterling took a brief recess so that the parties could engage in further negotiations. Id. at 4-5. The parties did not reach an agreement at that time, and Judge Sterling proceeded with the PFA hearing. Id. at 4-5. The parties, who were then also involved in a pending divorce action, testified regarding Wife's claims of abuse. Id. at 6-57. Upon completion of the testimony, Judge Sterling encouraged counsel for both parties to again discuss a possible agreement during a recess before she issued a ruling. Id. at 66.

The trial court explained:

Upon return from the recess, Wife's counsel informed Judge Sterling that the parties had reached an agreement. Specifically, Wife's counsel stated that "some things are going to be accomplished under the divorce docket, and once those things are accomplished, [Wife] has agreed to withdraw the PFA." It was indicated that Husband's [c]ounsel was "going to create a stipulation containing those terms, the parties are going to circulate it, sign it, it's going to be entered under the divorce action. Once that's done, there will be a [c]ourt [o]rder requiring him to stay away from the house and get counseling."

A handwritten agreement, titled "ORDER", was then signed by the parties, and signed by Judge Sterling, setting forth the following agreed[-]upon terms:

1. The [p]arties will sign an exclusive possession agreement granting [Wife] exclusive possession of [the marital residence]. [Husband] may come to residence to pick up child.

Page 3

2. [Husband] shall be permitted to come to [Wife's] residence at a mutually agreed upon time to retrieve his personal property with third[-]party present.

3. [Husband] shall complete a batterers' intervention course.

4. Parties to communicate via text and email only.

5. Once a stipulation containing the above terms is entered under divorce docket, [Wife] agrees to withdraw the above-captioned PFA petition and vacate the temporary order.

* * *

Order, Sterling, J., 6/18/2020 [(agreed order) (emphases added).]

Prior to closing the record, Judge Sterling reiterated: "[t]here's an agreement."

Trial Ct. Op. at 2-3 (footnotes omitted). Judge Sterling then re-listed the PFA hearing for a later date to give the parties time to draft and sign a final stipulation, and to file it on the divorce docket. Id. at 3.

On October 21, 2020, prior to the re-listed hearing date, Husband filed a petition for special relief to enforce the agreed order. Husband asserted that he complied with the terms of the agreed order, but that Wife refused to sign the final stipulation and withdraw her PFA petition as required under the agreed order. Specifically, Husband contended that he had provided Wife with proof that he had completed a batterers' intervention course. Id. at 3-4.

On October 23, 2020, Wife filed a response denying that Husband "had completed the proper batterers' intervention course in accordance with [her] memory of all of the off-the-record verbal discussions between the parties and

Page 4

counsel in their settlement negotiations during the recess." Id. at 4 (footnote omitted). Wife alleged "that the course Husband was supposed to take was to be more therapeutic in nature as opposed to a one-time course." Id. (footnote omitted).

On October 26, 2020, the parties and their counsel appeared before the trial court for the re-listed PFA hearing. The trial court summarized the hearing as follows:

During the proceeding, the undersigned went through the agreed order of June 18, 2020, point by point, to determine if there had been compliance with all of its terms. Although Wife repeated her dissatisfaction with the type of batterers^['^] intervention course that Husband took, ultimately, it was demonstrated that there had been compliance with each point in the agreed order including, but not limited to, Wife having exclusive possession of the marital residence to the exclusion of Husband (as this was not included as part of the temporary PFA order).

Id. at 5 (footnote omitted and formatting altered).

We add that Wife's counsel explained that, prior to his involvement in the case, Wife, acting pro se, sent an e-mail to Husband's counsel indicating that the type of batterers' intervention course she contemplated him taking in order to settle the PFA matter. N.T., 10/26/20, at 9; see also Ex. P-2 (Wife's e-mail correspondence to Husband's counsel, dated June 4, 2020). Wife's counsel explained that the program his client proposed "was through an organization called Menergy here in . . . southeastern Pennsylvania, and it would be an individualized program. So they wouldn't give an estimation of how long it would take because that would be subject to an initial evaluation

Page 5

that would have to be done." N.T., 10/26/20, at 4; see also Ex. P-1 (paperwork for a Menergy batterers' intervention course attached to Wife's June 4, 2020 e-mail). Husband's counsel stated: "I think part of the issue was we didn't agree to that. That's why we came to a [PFA] hearing [on June 18, 2020]." Id. at 9. Wife's counsel represented that Wife would not have signed the agreed order if the understanding was that Husband would complete a four-hour class and not the course she desired. Id. at 17. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement.

On October 27, 2020, Wife filed a pro se petition for special relief alleging that although the parties had agreed that Husband would complete a specific batterers' intervention course, he instead completed a different program. Pet. for Special Relief, 10/27/20, at 2-4. Wife alternatively argued that because...