MEMORANDUM
PANELLA, P.J.
Seth J.
Manning ("Father") appeals from the August 9, 2022
order, in the York County Court of Common Pleas, granting in
part and denying in part his petition to terminate/modify a
final Protection from Abuse ("PFA") order. After
review, we affirm.
On
October 15, 2021, Tanya A. Manning ("Mother") filed
a PFA petition against Father on behalf of herself and her
two sons shared with Father. Subsequent to entry of a
temporary protection order, the court held a hearing on
November 8, 2021, November 12, 2021, and December 3, 2021.
Based on the testimony presented during the November 8, 12,
and December 3, 2021[] hearing, the trial court found that
[Father] committed abusive conduct towards [Mother and]
granted her request for a final PFA against
[Father].[1] It was
established through testimony that [Mother] has a significant
allergy to citrus that causes an anaphylactic reaction when
she is exposed, including: throat closing, shortness of
breath, wheezing in her lungs, vomiting, swelling, and poor
circulation. It was further established that [Father] was
aware of [Mother's allergy and had even been to the
hospital with her after she had experienced an anaphylactic
reaction.
We found that [Mother] suffered a severe reaction after an
encounter with [Father] on October 13, 2021. On that date,
[Father] came to a child's football practice during
[Mother's custodial time. He gave the child a dartboard
and repeatedly attempted to hand a dart to [Mother]. He then
handed her a paper bag that she said had an overwhelming
smell of citrus, and her throat began to swell up
"within moments." She further described symptoms
including wheezing and shortness of breath. [Mother] also
described being in sudden fear. She testified that she wanted
to get rid of the bag immediately but thought that [Father]
would respond angrily based on her experience with him. She
was forced to take Benadryl and use her EpiPen and had to
stay overnight at the Hanover Hospital ICU for further
treatment.
Additionally, [Father] has a history of providing items to
the parties' children that have a strong scent and
causing [Mother] to have an allergic reaction. This testimony
from [Mother] was bolstered by testimony from her father, who
described an incident where [Father] gave a guitar to one of
the children that was oily and had a strong aroma. While
there was no specific indication that the guitar was covered
in citrus, [Mother's father was suspicious of the
circumstances and removed the guitar from her presence.
However, even if [Father] did not give [Mother] an item that
was actually laced with citrus, he certainly engaged in a
course of conduct that placed her in reasonable fear of
serious bodily injury and a risk of death. [Father] offered
no evidence that [Mother] does not continue to be in fear of
him nor any other evidence to support further modification
allowing contact or early termination of the PFA. On previous
instances, while the parties were still in a relationship,
[Father] would leave citrus beverages spilled in their living
room and filled their garage with alcoholic beverages
containing citrus despite [Mother] frequently warning him of
her allergy. Additionally, [Father] made threats to [Mother]
specifically stating that "[i]t would be easy to kill
you. All I have
to do is open an orange and nobody would ever believe it
wasn't an accident," and "I would get your life
insurance so easily, so don't do anything to upset
me." [Father] also made previous threats to [Mother]
that she "was going to suffer for what [she] put him
through, and that [she] was going to wish she had never
messed with him." Also, prior to their separation,
[Father] physically assaulted [Mother] by pushing her and
twisting her arm behind her back. He also previously took
apart her EpiPens. After their separation, [Father] left
citrus soap near [Mother]'s garage sink and car.
. . .
PFA Court Opinion, 10/11/22, at 2-7 (citations to record
omitted) (footnote omitted).
Following
the retrieval of evidence, including the paper bag, from the
local police and laboratory testing and
examination,[2] as well as an interview of Father, the
criminal investigation closed due to lack of evidentiary
support. See N.T., 8/8/22, at 15-16, 19. Thereafter,
Father filed a petition to terminate/modify the final PFA
order and request for discovery order on June 2, 2022. Father
requested that the PFA be terminated or, in the alternative,
modified "as [Mother's] claims of abuse have now
been unfounded by after[-]acquired evidence." Petition
to Amend PFA Order, 6/2/22. Father further sought
authorization for discovery in order to subpoena the lab
report and
investigation documents from the Pennsylvania State Police.
See id. Mother filed an answer and motion to dismiss
on June 15, 2022.[3]
On
August 8, 2022, the court conducted a hearing on Father's
petition to terminate/modify final PFA order. Father
presented the testimony of Trooper David Petrosky,
Pennsylvania State Police; Beverly Schuder; and Monica
Vega.[4] He further testified on his own
behalf.[5] Mother likewise testified on her own
behalf.
At the
conclusion of the hearing, the PFA court placed on the record
its determination to deny Father's request for
termination and to grant his request for modification to the
extent mutually agreed. See N.T., 8/8/22, at 96-100.
The court stated, "As such, [t]he [c]ourt will consider
the mutual request by the parties that all communication
occur through OurFamilyWizard. [Mother] may delegate her
communications to a third party to avoid any direct
communication with [Father,] since she does not want any
direct communication with [Father] and is not willing to
agree to the modifications
that he requested." Id. at 100. The court then
entered an amended final PFA order on August 9, 2022.
On
August 22, 2022, Father, through counsel, filed a timely
notice of appeal. By order dated August 23, 2022, the PFA
court directed Father to file a Rule 1925(b) concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal within twenty-one
days. Father complied and filed a concise statement on
September 13, 2022. Thereafter, the PFA court filed a Rule
1925(a) opinion on October 11, 2022.
On
appeal, Father raises the following issues for our review:
I. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred as a matter of law
and/or abused its discretion in using an unprecedented case
law standard for after[-]discovered evidence,
[i.e.,] it could not have been obtained at the trial
by reasonable diligence, must not be cumulative or merely
impeach credibility, and must be such as would likely compel
a different result, with regard to after[-] discovered
evidence?
II. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred as a matter of law in
finding that the police lab report, dated November 5, 2021,
was discoverable to [Father] prior to the final hearing on
December 3, 2021, in that [Father] was unaware the report
existed and the [t]rooper had informed [Father's] counsel
that no information would be provided to [Father] until the
investigation was complete, which did not occur until spring
of 2022?
III. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt committed an abuse of
discretion and erred by making inconsistent rulings on the
relevance and admissibility of evidence, in that the court
prohibited revisiting [Mother's] entire original case
despite the after[-]discovered evidence proved [Mother's]
threshold claim at the original hearing, [i.e.,]
being poisoned by [Father] via a bag containing citrus, to be
false?
IV. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred as a matter of law in
interpreting 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § [6117(a)] to mandatorily
require the consent of both parties to modify or terminate a
[PFA] order, in
that [Pa.R.C.P. No. 1901.8(c)] provides "either
party" may seek a modification and affords the court the
power to "enter an order granting or denying the
petition following an appearance by the petitioner before the
court?"
Father's Brief at 8.[6]
We
review PFA orders with the goals of the PFA Act in mind:
In the context of a PFA order, we review the trial
court's legal conclusions for an error of law or abuse of
discretion. The purpose of the PFA Act is to protect victims
of domestic violence from those who perpetrate such abuse,
with the primary goal of advance prevention of physical and
sexual abuse.
K.B. v. Tinsley, 208 A.3d 123, 127 (Pa. Super. 2019)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see
also C.H.L. v. W.D.L., 214 A.3d 1272, 1276 (Pa. Super.
2019); Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050, 1053-54
(Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc).
We
begin with Father's third issue, as the resolution of
this issue impacts all of Father's issues. Father asserts
that the PFA court erred in not revisiting the original case
as the after-discovered evidence disproved Mother's
underlying claim that Father poisoned her with a bag
containing citrus. See Father's Brief at 18.
Father highlights the PFA court's focus on a course of
conduct, and its failure to reconsider its finding that he
gave Mother an item containing citrus, which was allegedly
disproven by after-discovered evidence. See id. at
19. Looking to the purpose of the PFA Act, Father argues that
the court's dismissal of the after-discovered evidence
and focus on a course of
conduct improperly punishes him for past conduct. See
id. at 20. He maintains:
To accept the [t]rial [c]ourt's explanation that a course
of conduct existing years
...
