To: Susan L. DeJarnattFrom: Rafaela SchneiderRe: Goodman, Standard for Obtaining Protection OrderDate: ugust !", !"#$%&'ST(O) PR'S')T'D:(n Penns*l+ania, can a ,oman obtain a ci+il -rotection order against her intimate -artner ,here she is frightened b* her -artner.s threatening comments to her and others, he recentl* thre, a boo/ near her, and he has sho+ed her in the -ast0 1R('F )S2'R:3es.(n Penns*l+ania, a ,oman is entitled to a -rotection order against her intimate -artner if the -artner.s beha+ior has -laced her in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodil* in4ur*.5iolence directed near her, -ast -h*sical abuse and -ast threats meet the definition of 6abuse7 under the Protection from buse ct, e+en if the -artner has not recentl* -h*sicall* attac/ed the ,oman.8o,e+er, -ast threats against third -arties and -ast threats to engage in conduct that is not -h*sicall* threatening ,ill li/el* not be ta/en into account b* the trial court.STT'9')T OF F:TSDiana Goodman is a resident of Philadel-hia.She ,ants to -etition the court for a court order that ,ill force her bo*friend, George 2al/er, to lea+e her alone. 2al/er has made comments in the -ast that Goodman finds threatening, has hurt her in the -ast, and has recentl* engaged in +iolent beha+ior, although he did not hurt her.She needs to /no, if she has grounds to obtain a ci+il 6-rotection from abuse7 order e+en though 2al/er -h*sicall* hurt her onl* once,almost a *ear ago.Goodman and 2al/er ha+e been in+ol+ed in an intimate relationshi- for a *ear.The* ha+e no children and do not li+e together.Goodman is a nurse in the 'mergenc* Room of the #8os-ital of the &ni+ersit* of Penns*l+ania.2al/er is a Philadel-hia -olice officer in the district near the hos-ital.The* met through ,or/.'arl* in their relationshi-, 2al/er sho,ered Goodman ,ith attention.8e called her threeor four times a da*, sent her flo,ers e+er* da*, and came b* her ,or/ une;-ectedl*.She first en4o*ed the attention but then became concerned about it and as/ed him to cool off.2al/er ,as sad but res-onded a--ro-riatel*< he called no more than once a da* and came to the hos-ital onl*after ma/ing -lans ,ith Goodman.Once, ho,e+er, after the* had been dating for about a month,she ,as dela*ed b* a ,or/ emergenc* and could not meet him for dinner.2al/er ,as ,aiting ather a-artment ,hen she got home.8e ,as furious, accused her of cheating, and sho+ed her against a boo/shelf.8e immediatel* a-ologi=ed and s,ore he ,ould ne+er hurt her again.Goodman forga+e 2al/er and did not see/ medical attention, des-ite sustaining some minor bruises.bout si; months ago, 2al/er began -ressuring Goodman to mo+e in ,ith him.2hen she refused, he made comments that no, concern her.8e said, >3ou better not be seeing an*oneelse. 3ou /no, ( can.t stand for that.3ou ,ill get hurt.>>( can.t li+e ,ithout *ou and *ou can.t li+e ,ithout me< ,e are meant for each other fore+er.>>Sometimes ( thin/ *ou don.t reali=e that *our life is m* life.>2al/er sus-ects that Goodman is seeing someone else, ,hich is true.8e has told Goodman that, if he disco+ers that she is seeing someone else, 6(.ll ma/e that gu* ,ish he ne+er met *ou.72al/er also told Goodman that if she is seeing someone else ,ho also ,or/s at the hos-ital, he ,ill contact her su-er+isor and attem-t to ha+e her fired.8e has also recentl* tal/edof a -ast girlfriend ,ho left him and has said that he should do something to the former girlfriend6so she /no,s ,hat -ain is.7!Last ,ee/end, during an argument in Goodman.s a-artment, 2al/er thre, a hea+* medical boo/ at the ,all a fe, feet a,a* from ,here Goodman ,as standing.The force of the thro, dented the ,all and Goodman fled her residence.She has not been home since that incident occurred.Goodman is in+ol+ed in another relationshi- ,ith a radiologist at the hos-ital.She has not *et told 2al/er of her ne, relationshi- or that she ,ants to brea/ u- ,ith 2al/er.She is afraid he ,ill become more +iolent ,hen he learns of her -lans. 2al/er carries a gun because he is a -olice officer.D(S:&SS(O) OF &T8OR(T3:Diana Goodman is entitled to a -rotection order against George 2al/er because his recent beha+ior, combined ,ith -ast -h*sical abuse and +erbal threats, has reasonabl* -ut Goodman in fear that 2al/er ma* cause her imminent serious bodil* in4ur*.(n Penns*l+ania, a -rotection order ma* be issued to sto- abuse bet,een intimate -artners.!? Pa. :onsol. Stat. nn. @@ A#"!BaC, A#"DBaC B2est !""DC.buse includes conduct that -laces another >in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodil* in4ur*.>!? Pa. :onsol. Stat. nn. @ A#"!BaCB!C.Ph*sical contact or in4ur* is not reEuired so long as the +ictim.s fear of serious bodil* in4ur* is reasonable.Fonner +. Fonner, F?# . !d #A", #A? BPa. Su-er. #GGGC.2al/er.s +iolence to,ards her -ro-ert*, combined ,ith his -ast -h*sical attac/ and threats to her, should satisf* the statutor* definition of abuse and 4ustif* entr* of a -rotection order.Goodman is Eualified to see/ a -rotection order because she has an intimate relationshi- ,ith 2al/er, e+en though the* do not li+e together.Penns*l+ania.s Protection from buse ct B6the ct7C authori=es ci+il courts to enter -rotection orders ,here necessar* to sto- abuse bet,een defined classes of -eo-le.!? Pa. :onsol. Stat. @ A#"DBaC.The ct a--lies to conduct bet,een 6current or former se;ual or intimate -artners.7!? Pa. :onsol. Stat. @ A#"!BaC.There is?no reEuirement that the -laintiff share a residence ,ith the alleged abuser.:uster +. :ochran, G?? .!d #"H" BPa. Su-er. !""FC.1ecause Goodman and 2al/er ha+e been intimatel* in+ol+ed,their relationshi- is co+ered b* the ct.Penns*l+ania case la, sho,s that Goodman ,ill not ha+e to -ro+e that 2al/er actuall* hurt her -h*sicall* in order to Eualif* for a Protection from buse order.The definition of abuse includes conduct that -laces >another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodil* in4ur*.7 !? Pa. :onsol. Stat. @ A#"!BaCB!C.The -laintiff.s fear must be reasonable for the court to find abuse.Fonner, F?# . !d at #A?.Ph*sical contact bet,een the -laintiff and defendant is not reEuired.(d. at #A?.Fonner stressed that, because the -ur-ose of the ct is to -re+ent abuse, alleged abuse+ictims do not ha+e to ,ait until the* are -h*sicall* attac/ed before obtaining Protection from buse orders.(d. at #A?.2al/er.s threats to,ards Goodman and his +iolence in her -resence should meet the definition of abuse. Fonner found a -rotection order ,arranted against a husband ,ho, during a loud, angr* argument o+er their -ending di+orce, restrained his ,ife b* standing in front of her, held her arm, and -unched the ,all near ,here she ,as standing. (d. at #A!.The court found thatthe ,ife.s fear of imminent serious bodil* in4ur* ,as in fact reasonable, and s-ecificall* re4ected the husband.s argument that his conduct did not constitute abuse because he had -unched the ,all rather than his ,ife.(d. at #A!I#A?.Li/e,ise, in Llo*d +. :lar/e, D" Pa. D. J :. $th $!" BPa. Dela,are :ount* :omm. Pl. :t. !""AC, aff.d, G#G .!d GD? BPa. Su-er. !""FC, a court foundabuse ,here a man /ic/ed in the door of his children.s mother.s home.The court found that the man.s actions, combined ,ith -ast threats against the ,oman, ,ere sufficient to cause the ,oman to e;-erience reasonable fear of serious bodil* in4ur*.(d. at $!$I$!H. 2al/er.s conduct, including threatening to hurt Goodman and +iolentl* destro*ing -ro-ert* in Goodman.s$-resence, is similar to the conduct found sufficient in Fonner and Llo*d< therefore, Goodman should be able to obtain a Protection from buse order under !? Pa. :onsol. Stat. @ A#"!BaCB!C. Goodman should also be able to introduce some e+idence of 2al/er.s -ast allegedl* abusi+e conduct in her -rotection order -roceeding.The focus of the ct is on -re+ention of future abuse, rather than -unishment of -ast conduct.Fonner, F?# . !d at #A".Thus, e+idence of -ast beha+ior is rele+ant onl* ,here it ,ill assist the court in understanding ,h* a -rotection from abuse order is -resentl* needed.Ra/er +. Ra/er, D$F .!d F!", F!A BPa. Su-er. !""$C.Past-h*sical abuse can hel- form a basis for a -rotection order e+en ,here the current abusi+e beha+ior ta/es the form onl* of tele-hone calls.1ur/e e; rel. +. 1ur/e, D#$ .!d !"A, !"G BPa. Su-er. !""!C. :ourts ha+e also found that -ast -h*sical abuse can be rele+ant e+en ,here the alleged abuse occurred relati+el* far in the -ast.See Ra/er +. Ra/er, D$F .!d F!" B-ast abuse admissible ,here it occurred se+en months before the hearingC< 9iller on 1ehalf of 2al/er +. 2al/er, AAH .!d #!H!, #!HG BPa. Su-er. #GGHC B-ast abuse occurred admissible ,here it occurred si; *ears before the hearingC.2al/er.s -ast +iolence sho,s that Goodman.s current fear is reasonable, so she should be able to introduce the e+idence that 2al/er sho+ed her in the -ast.8o,e+er, not all of 2al/er.s -ast threats ma* be admissible, either because the* ,ere directed at someone else, or did not threaten +iolence.Threats to third -arties that are not directed to the +ictim do not 4ustif* entr* of a -rotection order in fa+or of the +ictim.See D.8. +.1.O., F?$ . !d $"G BPa. Su-er. #GGGCBfinding that former bo*friend.s threats to hurt -laintiff.s co,or/er did not create a reasonable fear that the -laintiff faced imminent serious bodil* in4ur*C.Threats that do not create fear of -h*sical in4ur* are also insufficient.(d. Bfinding threats to e;-ose financial fraud did not constitute abuseC.Thus, 2al/er.s threats against his e;Igirlfriend and an*one else ,ho Goodman might be seeing ,ould li/el* be inadmissible.Li/e,ise, H2al/er.s threat that he ,ill attem-t to ha+e Goodman fired ,ill li/el* not be considered b* the court.8o,e+er, 2al/er.s threat that Goodman 6,ill get hurt7 is distinguishable from the communications found inadeEuate in D.8., F?$ . !d at $"G, and the court should consider it as e+idence of -ast abuse.Pa. :onsol. Stat. nn. @ A#"!BaCB!C. A