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

• Decision Date: 01 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2334 EDA 2020,2334 EDA 2020
• Citation: 258 A.3d 486 (Table)
• Parties: K.F.P. obo Minor V.I.P. Appellant v. J.M.P.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

258 A.3d 486 (Table)

K.F.P. obo Minor V.I.P. Appellant

v.J.M.P.

No. 2334 EDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed June 1, 2021

Reargument Dismissed June 15, 2021

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.

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.

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 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 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 the parties thought they had reached an agreement, but actually did not reach an agreement with respect to the batterers’ intervention course, their agreement was not valid and the agreed order should be vacated. Id. at 5. Wife also asserted that Husband acted in bad faith during the negotiations. Id. at 4-5. Wife requested that the trial court order Husband "to complete the [b]atterer[s’] intervention program he originally agreed to, or, alternatively, vacate the [agreed order] of June 18, 2020, given that [Husband] does not intend to comply with it, and make a ruling on the merits of the case, granting a final protection from abuse order." Id. at 6.

By memorandum and order entered on November 5, 2020, the trial court made the following factual findings, in part:

F. [Wife] concedes that [Husband] complied with all of the terms of the agreed order[;] however, she does not agree with the type of "batterers[’] intervention course" that [Husband] took.

G. [Husband] completed a four[-]hour "Domestic Violence Class" on June 22, 2020 provided by the North American Learning Institute. The course included a "written knowledge assessment" and is conducted by a certified domestic violence specialist/certified anger management specialist (CDVS-1/CAMS-1). See Exhibit "D-1."³

³ The course description indicates that the class has a number of different names but all reference the same requirements (i.e. [,] "batterers[’] intervention program", "family violence", "DV", etc.).

H. [Wife] does not dispute that [Husband] took the course; rather[,] she indicates that she anticipated that [Husband] would be taking a "therapeutic" type course that would include numerous therapy type sessions (not a one-time class).

I. The parties[’] agreed order does not specify a particular course offered in Montgomery County (or regionally), the course provider, the length, or time period(s) for the course or any particular course criteria.

J. There is no provision in the agreed order that the course to be taken by [Husband] would be "approved" in advance by [Wife].

K. Notably, the agreed order does not indicate that the course would be therapeutic.

L. As acknowledged by [Wife] in her petition, [Husband] completed a psychological evaluation by a licensed professional as part of the pending [child] custody action. The concerns [Wife] raises about [Husband] can be appropriately addressed in the custody case. See [Pet., 10/27/20, at ¶¶ 38-42].⁴

⁴ A two-day hearing on custody is scheduled on November 19 and 20, 2020.

M. Accordingly, the court finds that [Husband's] completion of the course was compliant with the terms of the agreed order.

Trial Ct. Mem. & Order, 11/5/20, at 2-3 (some formatting altered) (emphasis in original). Based on these findings, the trial court granted Husband's petition for special relief and denied Wife's pro se petition for special relief. Id. at 4. Further, the trial court upheld the terms of the June 18, 2020 agreed order and vacated the May 26, 2020 temporary PFA order. Id.

Wife filed a timely pro se notice of appeal and entry of appearance as a self-represented party on November 27, 2020.² Wife filed a timely court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) state...