J-A02036-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 KRISTA J. BAXTER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ELIYAHOU WENICK : : Appellant : No. 431 WDA 2021 Appeal from the Order Entered March 4, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County Civil Division at No(s): A.D. 76 of 2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: January 28, 2022 Eliyahou Wenick (Wenick) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County (trial court) granting Krista J. Baxter’s (Baxter) petition for a protection of abuse (PFA) order. We affirm.

Wenick and Baxter are former romantic partners who had a child together (G.B.) in 2019. On February 17, 2021, Baxter petitioned for a PFA order, seeking to limit Wenick’s contact with her and G.B. A temporary PFA order was entered to that effect on February 19, 2021, following an ex parte hearing.

At the hearing on the final PFA, Baxter testified to a series of interactions with Wenick which she claimed put her in reasonable fear of imminent harm,

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

J-A02036-22

justifying a PFA order. First, she testified that in early 2019, when she and Wenick were still residing as a couple in Arizona, Wenick choked her while she was pregnant with G.H. This violent act prompted Baxter to move back to Warren County, Pennsylvania, where her parents reside.

Baxter next described an incident in late 2019 when Wenick visited her and G.H. at her parents’ home. Wenick, at one point, tightly grabbed Baxter’s wrists and told her that he would “kill her in court.” After the incident, Baxter testified that she sought counselling and reported what happened to the police.

A third incident took place that same year, as Baxter was backing her car out of her parents’ driveway. Wenick was sitting in the back seat with G.H. and discussing their respective living arrangements. Baxter testified that when the conversation between Wenick and she grew heated, he reacted by grabbing the back of Baxter’s seat and shaking it violently. As he did so, Wenick directed several profanities at Baxter, and when she asked if he intended to strike her, Wenick said, “I would, but . . . you are worthless.” See Trial Court Opinion, 5/11/2021, at 7.

Finally, Baxter testified concerning the incident which precipitated her petition for a PFA order on February 17, 2021. By that time, the custody

-2- J-A02036-22

proceedings had begun,1 and the trial court had ordered Wenick not to directly contact Baxter or G.H. Instead, Wenick had to communicate with Wenick through a secure online application called Our Family Wizard. Nevertheless, on the above date, Wenick appeared without advance notice at Baxter’s place of work in Jamestown, New York, and called her cellular phone. He also left voice messages which Baxter did not respond to. When Baxter began her drive home that night, someone in an unknown vehicle drove past her while repeatedly flashing the headlights and honking the car horn.

Later that evening, Baxter contacted Wenick through Our Family Wizard.

Baxter learned that Wenick had been the motorist who had accosted her, and that he had been attempting to schedule a visit with G.H. Baxter testified that Wenick’s conduct had greatly alarmed her because he had flouted the terms of the custody order as to how and when he could contact her and make visitation arrangements.

Wenick gave a very different account as to the nature of his interactions with Baxter. He testified that he did not grab Baxter’s wrists in 2019 as she had alleged, and that he had only tried to warn Baxter against the stress of custody proceedings by pointing out figuratively that, “people kill each other

____________________________________________

1 Baxter and Wenick stipulated to a custody order in December 2020 which afforded Wenick the right of unsupervised custody, but this right was contingent on Wenick using the mandated channels to make the necessary arrangements with Baxter.

-3- J-A02036-22

in court.” Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, 3/3/2021, at pp. 72-73. He also denied that the other episodes in 2019 ever took place.

As to the Jamestown incident on February 17, 2021, Wenick claimed that he was living in California at the time, and that he and Baxter had communicated extensively about scheduling a visit with G.H. in Pennsylvania.

When Wenick arrived in Pennsylvania as planned, he was unable to get in touch with Baxter, so he rented a car and drove to Jamestown, New York, where Baxter worked. According to Wenick, he was upset about having incurred the expense of his trip and the risk of a Covid-19 infection, insisting that the incident in Jamestown only occurred because he was desperate to see his child.

Largely finding Wenick’s testimony not credible, the trial court entered a final PFA order restricting Wenick’s contact with Baxter for a period of three years. However, the trial court denied the portion of Baxter’s petition seeking additional contact restrictions between Wenick and G.H. because the child had never been harmed or in danger from harm during the subject incidents.2 Wenick timely appealed, and in his appellate brief, he raises two issues for our consideration: 1. Whether the [trial] court erred in granting [the final PFA order] against [Wenick] although he did not cause physical injury or

____________________________________________

2Baxter does not appeal the scope of the final PFA order, and the partial denial of her petition is not now at issue.

-4- J-A02036-22

place [Baxter] in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or sexual assault?

2. Whether the [trial] court erred in granting a protection from abuse order when it lacked jurisdiction over the matter?

Appellant’s Brief, at 7 (suggested answers omitted).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable case law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, which comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented, we find that the trial court did not err in granting the final PFA order.

Wenick’s second appellate issue is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

He argues in his brief that the trial court had no authority to enter the final PFA order because he resides in another state, not all the incidents giving rise to the order occurred in Pennsylvania, and the order does not relate to the underlying custody dispute that was the initial basis for the trial court’s jurisdiction.

However, a trial court in this Commonwealth “may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly . . . as to a cause of action or other matter arising from such person causing harm or tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(a)(3). “Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over child custody matters is conferred by 23 Pa.C.S.

§ 5422(a) on the court which has made an initial custody determination and endures until the child’s connection with the Commonwealth is severed.”

B.T.W. ex rel T.L. v. P.J.L., 956 A.2d 1014, 1016 (Pa. Super. 2008). “[A]n

-5- J-A02036-22

action for protection from abuse may be brought in a county in which (1) the plaintiff resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is employed, or (2) that defendant may be served, or (3) the abuse occurred.” 231 Pa. Code Rule 1901.1(a).3 In this case, the initial custody order as to G.B. was entered in 2020 by stipulation of the parties in Warren County, Pennsylvania. The alleged instances of abuse were related to those custody proceedings.4 Accordingly, the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the parties at the outset, and thereafter retained jurisdiction because the connection between G.H. and the Commonwealth had not been severed. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5322(a)(3), 5422(a).

Additionally, because several of the alleged incidents prompting the final PFA order occurred in Pennsylvania and Baxter has resided in Warren County, Pennsylvania, at all relevant times, her action for protection from abuse was properly brought in that forum. See 231 Pa. Code Rule 1901.1(a).

____________________________________________

3 A child custody proceeding is defined as “a proceeding in which legal custody, physical custody or visitation with respect to a child is an issue. The term includes a proceeding for divorce, separation, neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of parental rights, and protection from domestic violence, in which the issue may appear.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 5402.

4 The temporary PFA order identified the child as a protected party, and the final PFA order directed that all communication between Wenick and the child would have to made via the online application, Our Family Wizard. The PFA proceedings were, therefore, related to the underlying custody proceedings.

-6- J-A02036-22

As to the merits, Wenick contends that there was an insufficient factual basis for the final PFA order because Baxter was not subject to “abuse” for the purposes of the Protection From Abuse Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-6122. The term is defined in pertinent part as follows: (1) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury, serious bodily, injury, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, or incest with or without a deadly weapon.

(2) Placing another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

**** (5) Knowingly engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts toward another person, including following the person without proper authority, under circumstances which place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

23 Pa.C.S. §6102(a).

In its opinion, the trial court fully detailed four incidents which could have reasonably put Baxter in fear of serious bodily injury. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/11/2021, at 6-9. She was at various times choked, grabbed, verbally threatened and harassed by Wenick. Even if Baxter did not sustain serious physical injury due to those interactions, they were certainly enough to put her in fear of serious bodily injury.

Wenick contends Baxter’s allegations against him are fabricated, misinterpreted or simply exaggerated versions of what really transpired. Yet, to the extent that Wenick’s own testimony differed from that of Baxter, we

-7- J-A02036-22

are bound by the trial court’s determination that Baxter’s account was the more credible of the two.5 Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the final PFA order was warranted.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/28/2022

____________________________________________

5 The purpose of the PFA Act is to protect victims of domestic violence from those who perpetuate such abuse, with the primary goal being the prevention of physical and sexual abuse. Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A.2d. 1260, 1262 (Pa. Super. 2008); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108 (enumerating forms of relief availing under the Act). “A PFA order may be justified if the trial court finds that it is supported by a preponderance of evidence.” K.B. v. Tinsley, A.3d.123, 128 (Pa. Super. 2019). The trial court’s exclusive role as the finder of fact is to assess the demeanor and credibility of witness testimony.

See C.H.L. v. W.D.L., 214 A.3d 1272, 1276-77 (Pa. Super. 2019). When reviewing the propriety of a PFA order, an appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard and must defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations. Id. All record evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party for whom a PFA order was granted. Id. -8- 05:02 PM Circulated 01/19/2022 05-02

IN THE COURT WURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLC OF THE 37 ni JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA C01UNTY BRANCH WARREN COUNTY -.. a • CIVIL DIVISION . ., . __z-:, - z � n -p- - KRWA J.

KRISTA BAXTM J. BAXTER, e r Plaintiff, Plaintiff, v V. A.D.76 A.D. or -.. ,.

76 of 2621 ZA1I .... .r 'y � G cJ

ELIYAHOU WENIM WENICK, Defendant.

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM OPINION PURSUANT PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A-'. 19250) PA. R.AP, 1925(b) Before the Court Before Court are are Defendant's Defendant's Notice Notice of Appeal and of Appeal and Concise Statement of of the Etrors Errors Complained of on Appeal Appeal filed in response response to to this Court's Final Protection Protection from Abuse Abuse (PRA") ("PPA") Oder granting, Order granting, in in part, part, the Petition filed the Petition filed by Plaintiff. by Plain&ff.

FACTUAL AND FACTUAL PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff and Defendant Defendant wcte were in a a relationsMp relationship for aayear and and aahalf and never married.

They are parents They are to G.B., parents to G.B., born born in June 2019, in June 2019, and and lived together in Arizona until lived together until their separation separation in September September 2019, with Plaintiffand 2019, with Plaintiff and C.B.

G.B. ruling returning to Pennsylvania to to Pennsylvania to reside reside with with Plaintiff's Plaintiffs parents. parents.

Can February 19, On February 19, 2021, 2021, Plaintiff Plaintiff fled filed a a Petition fvr PFA Petition for PFA on on behalf behaltof herself and 0.B. of herself G.B. as as against Defendant on grounds against grounds that that as as the the most rccwt incident of most recent of abuse, ab ,where where lckadant, who Defendant, who tun-entiy resides in Califoria, currently California, drove past Jamestvvoc, New past Plaintiff as she was leaving work in Jamestown, York, rapidly York, rapidly flashing flashing his headlights and honking his headlights honking his horn, Plaintiff his horn. Plaintifalso descn`bed an alleged also described history history of of past abusc, including past abuse, an incident including an incident in in 2019 2019 Where Defendaia grabbed where Defendant grabbed Plaintiffs Plaintifrs wrist wrist and ant thm tend to threatened "Iall her in court, to kill cout", an incident in in aa vehicle vchicle while Plaintiff was was driving, where where

Defendant grabbed Defendant grabbed her by the her by and shook the shoulders and shook her her aggressively aW=ively with G.B. present, an incident where incident Defendant left a where Defendant a used diklo in aabag dildo and lubrication in bag given to to Plaintiff with with aanote note stating, "This "This is how(0.B.) how (G.B.) was made, made", and =nem,% numerous incidents where Defendant verbally verbally abased Plaint. abused Plaintiff.

Following an er-parte Following exparte hearing hearing held on February 19, 2021, presided over by by President Judge Maureen Judge Maureen A. Skc rda, a A. Skerda, aTemporary Tenipormy PFA PFA 0Tder Order was entered. The was entered. The PFA PFA. hearing Was held on hearing was on March 3, March 3, 2021, 21321, presided presided over over by Judge Gregory by Judge Gmgory J.

J. Hammon( where Plaintiffs Hammond,;where Plaintiffs PFA PFA Petition Petition was was granted as granted as to to herself herself and denied as and denied as to G.B.i The to GB.' The Final Final P1aA. entered on PFA Order was entered on March March 3, 3, 2021, 21321, to be to effective for be effective three (3) for three (3) years. years )DISCUSSION DISCUSSION Defendant raises four four (4) (4) issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial (T) whether court had jurisdiction to trial court enter enter aaP)+A order, (2) whether PFA order, whether the trial court erred in in detormiuing determining there was sufficient evidence there was evid of abuse of eater aaPA W enter abuse to PFA order; order; (3) w-tether the () whether the trial trial court erred in court erred finding that in finding that Defendant Defendant contradicted himself in contradicted himself in bis his testimony at the testimony at the time time of of hearing; and (4) hearing; and (4) whether the the trial court court erred erred in determining that Defendant's testimony was not credible. credibie.2 The First first issue presented asserts that that the trial trial court lacked jurisdiction over the instant PFA matter because: becauso. (I"the (l )"the alleged i, cident which precipihftd incident Plaintiff's filing precipitated Plaintiffs filing of the PFA York" and (2)most Petition occurred in Jamestown, New Yark" (2) "most of the other €after alleged incidents occurred in Arizona" occurred Arizona."" To To begin, begin, Plaintiff Plaintiff and and G.B.

G.B. are are residenu of Pennsylvania, residents of Pennsylvania, while while Defendant is a a resident The parties resident of California. The parties formerly resided in Arizona together together until

=As Court indicated at the conclwdon A the Count conclasior ofof the hearing hearing no o incidents involving the parties parties' minor were rinor child wen alleged alleged to have occurred after the Custody Custody Order was entered by by stipuknicn in December stipulation ir 13e nber 2020_ 2020, whereby whemby Defendant Defcnciant :was granted was granted unsupervised periods of custody, usopervised periods custody. Te The allegation allegation that That the child had the cbld uffDefendant bad slipped off Defendant onto the the floor did not did not annont amount oto abuse. a0bu4 Issues lesues reordered for ease of disposition, for eate disposition. sMfendanCs Concise Defendant's Concise Statement at 1.2. at 1.2.

September 2019, when September when Plaintiff and G.B. returned to to Pennsylvania to Plaints to reside with Plaintiffs parents. The Court relied on four (4) parents. (4) incidents in support tho incident for support of its decision. First, the which the the PFA was initially initially filed, where on February where on Febnmaty 17, 2021, as as Plaintiff was was leaving leaving work in work in Jamestown, NY, Jamestown, Defendaat drove NY, Defendant drove past her repeatedly past her honking the horn and flashing repeatedly honking flashing his headlights headlights at her. He then repeatedly repeatedly messaged messaged hex her through the Family the Our Fam i Wizard application ly application requesting to see requesting G.B. and told Plaintiff that see G.B. that he he had driven driven by by her, her. PFA PFA Transcript, Tr,anwr ,Mar.

Nor. 3, 3,202f 2021 at 8:9--23 to 9:1-14. at 8:9-25 91-14. Secondly, Plaintiff described an incident which occurred in Arizona Anna in early early 2019, where 2019, where Defendant Defendant "slowly started started to to put put pressure (Plaintiffs) neck pressure on (Plaintiff's) ne£k end and start(ed) started) strangling (her)." strangling (her)." Id at at 18:1-5. Next, Neat, Plainjiff described an Plaintiff described an incident which occurred occuw:d in in her her parent's home parent's home in Warren, Pmnsylvania in Warren, Pennsylvania in the the Fall Fall of of 2019, 2019, why "grabbed (her) where Defendant grabbed (her) when (they) when (they) were were alone, alone, very, very, very, very, very very hard and pulled (her) bard and (her) toward him by toward him by the wrist. And the wrist. And he he said, IIam am, going going to kill you in court coum And he he wouldn't wouldn't let (her) (her) go." go." Id M at I1: .H. 20-25.

2&23. Finally, Finally, Plaintiff described another incident which occurred at her parent's home in Warren, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania in the Fall of 2011, 2019, where driving out of ber where Plaintiff was driving her parent's parent's driveway driveway with G.B. in the back Defendant and 0.B. `Gmbbed (Plaintiff) back seat where Defendant Grabbed (Plaines and the back of the (de seat and he started shaking (her) aggressively. car seat aggressively. And And he called me all sorts sorts of profanities." profanities." Id at 12: at 12: 1-5 J-5.

The Court The Court clearly cicarly has jurisdiction with bas jurisdiction with respect respect to the third and to the srcd fourth fourth incidents incidents described described above above as they wed occurred in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, although although Defendant Defendant is a resident of California. Pursuant a resident Pursuant C.S.A.. § to 23 Pa. CS.A. tom ), jurisdiction 861030)(2), judscliction is not affected by defendant's "defeadant's non-residence nojnr-Ycsidence in #Ids this Commonwealth, provided that the court court hn.-, has personal jurisdiction over the the defendant in accordance with accordance 42 Pa. with 42 Pa. C.S.

C.S. §5322." $5322.° Pursuant Pursuant to to 42 Pa. C.SA.

42 Pa. C.Q.A. $5$322(a)63), §5322(a)(3), A"A tribunal trial of of this this Commonwealth may exercise personal personal jurisdiction over aaperson acts directly...as person who acts directly ... as to a a

a cause of action or other matter matter arising person causing arising from such peon cawing harm ham or torrious tortious inter injury by an act or omission in or in this Commonwealth," With respect this Commonwealth." respect to the the first incident, which occurred in New York and the second incident, which occurred in Arizona, the Court Court still spit has jurisdiction even though though these acts sots occurred outside .ofPetuisylvania and of Pennsylvania and Defendant is aaresident. CaRf€rnia resident of California.

Exclusivc, continuing "Exclusive, ,̀ conflnuingjurWiction gild custody matters jurisdiction over child math is conferred by 23 Pa. C.S.A_ CS.A.

§5422(x) on $5422(a) coin which on the court whieb has has made an an initial initial custody detertnination and endures unfil custody determination until the child's connection with the Commonwealth is severed." severed:' BT.w,ere4T.Lv.PL T .ex tel T.L. v. P.J.L., 956 A.2d 1014, 1016 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2008). Pursuant to 23 Pa. ".A►. "2, a CS.A. 85402, achild custody cusWdy proceeding is defined as, "a proceeding proceeding in which Iegal custody, physical custody or visitation with respect to aa legal custody, child is is an an issue. The term includes includes a a proceeding for abuse, for divorce, separation, neglect, abuse, dependency, guarchanship. paternity, dependency, guardianship, tern ucntion of paternity, termination ofparen parental . rights, and protection from from domestic violence, in which the issue may appear." In the presd•it mutter, President present matter, A.

Presided Judge Maureen A Skerda entered Skerda entered a acustody custody Order, Order, upon upon stipulation stipulation of of the in December 2021 parties, in the parties, 2021.a Plaintiff and Plaintiff and G.B. continue to 0.B. to reside in in Pennsylvania and as such, this CmM has this Court has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over child jurisdiction over child custody custody matters. matters. The The present present PFA action involved PFA action involved several custody custody issues: (1) G.B. (1) G.B. was an an alleged alleged victim; (2) aatemporary PFA order granted sole sale custody to Plaintiff; Plaints (3) this PFA. Order this Court's final PFA Order m"Bed Judge Skerda's modified Judge Skerdars custody custody Order Order to to only allow allow corrurication through the Our Family communication through Feily Wizard application. application. "Thus, the the hearing bearing on Appetlee's Appellee's request falls directly request falls di=tty under under the the aegis aegis of the statutory of the statutory definition, definition, and the court's and the court's authority to enter authority to entef the the order under review is order under is clearly clem yestablished." estabUshedl "B.T.Wey_rel RT.W ex rel TL.P_JL T.L. v. P.J.L at at 1016. As As the the Court Court

4 The Court The Court is taking judicial is taking judicial notice notice of the custody of the custody action and temporary action and temporary PA wn respect PFA with respect to to the issue of the issue of jurisdiction. jurisdiction, As suds, this Court will As such, wHI heave leave the tho ro=rd record fiew from both actions amps trans.cited transmitted to the Sopeior Superior Court Gout to form fonn a .a complete, record complete record.

W has exclusive, =dig continuing jurisdiction over the parties' = 9tody matters parties' custody h ers and the present PFA present PPA hivolved custody action involved custody issues, this Court Coin clearly had jur enter the Final PFA Order. sdiclion to eater jurisdiction The second second issue presented asserts tea# that tho the trial court coteterred erred in detennining tbx,= in determining there was suf Rcient evidence sufficient evidenee of abuse to enter a aPFA PFA order Dtfendant did not cause physical order because Defendant physical injury or puce place Plaintiff in reasonable fear of setts boft irjury serious bodily ijixr5° or sexual assault. Pursuant to P. CSA.

23 Pa. C.S.A. $6102(a), §6102(a), the term terra "apse' "abuse" in the context contest# ofa PIA is defined in pertinat of aPFA pertinent part part as follaWs: follows: (I (1) Attempting Atternpfmg to cause or to cause or intentionally, intentionally, knovhngly, or recklessly knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury, causing bodily injury, serious serious bodily injury, injury, rte, involuntary rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, statutory statutory sexual assault, assails, aggravated indecent aggravated indecent assault, assault, inde=t indecent assauk or incest assault, or incest with with or or wfthout a without adeadly weapon; (2) Placing Planing another in reasonable fear of irniuinent irninent serious sedom b€7dily bodily =jury; and injury; (S ( Knowingly engaging in a a cove course of conduct of repeatedly conduct or repeatedly acts toward another person, including committing acts including following following the person washout proper authority, person without proper authority, under circumstances which place which place the person the person in reasonable fear of bodily bodily inju ry- injury.

While Defendant WBile Defendant avers that he neithe that be neitherr eaus ed physical caused physic Injury injury nor placed placed Plaintiff in in reasonable reasonable physic 14JUTy, fear of physical "Whe PFA injury, "[the trot seek to determine criminal FFA act does not cnlpabrlity. A crIri irW cnlpability.

petitioner is not required to establish establish, abuse occurred beyond beyond a areaso reasonable doubt, but only nable doubt, only to to by a establish it by a preporAer=e preponderance of the the evidence." v, JR.A_, 237 eviden e." ER.K.v,LA, 237 A M 509 A.3d ;539 (Pa. 509,519 (Pa. Super. Super. Zf#Z0) (ciring 2020) tcitft K.B K.B. V. 7Ins Y. Tinsley, 208 A.3d 123, 123,129 (Pa. Super. 2019)). "prepoyiderance of the 2019)). A "preponderance evidence evidence standard is defined as is defied as the the greater greater weight weight of of the the evidenee, jenouglq to evidence, i.e. [enough] to tip tip a ascale she slightly." Id v. Raker, I at 519 (citing Raker • lekes 847 A.2d 7211, 7.24 (Pa. 720, 724 eft Super. Supef. 2004).

2•#). Te `•'he Coat's Cot's objective is to determine whether the victim is in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily bodily injury_" Id injury." Id (citing (citixtg Raker, 847 A-2d at A2d at 725.)

325.) n In making making this determination, the this determination, Court ca the Court can rely rely on on

testimony testirony regarding past acts regarding past €tf abuse ads of abuse as as they are "40ficartt they are in determining significant in deter the the reasoWN reasonableness CDM

of aPFA ofa (citing SK...

PPA petitioner's fear." Id (tbng KB.. 208 A.3d at 128).

A.3 a1 128).

Phdntifftestifled acts Plaintiff testified to four (4) significant acts of abuse which caused her her pbysitl injwy plysical injury placed her and/or placed her in fear of physical Miury, The first event injury. The event occurred in Arizona AlizoM in in ea * 2pi 9 early 2019 whew Defendant choked Plaintiff where Plaintiff while while she she was was prep t, "I pregnant, "I thought thoug& he he was was just just like hoMing like holding my neck. And he slowly started to put pmssure pressure on my my neck and strangling me." FA and start strangling .PFA Tr, Tr. at at 1893-5. This was one of the early incidents of abuse which 18:34. wMch ultimately led Plaintiff to to leave Arizona and return to her parents' home in.

Admna in Pennsylvania. "He 1̀1csew saw me get get really, really, Bice emotional. like emotional And he stopped. And it it was the, aavery peculiar peculiar incident. Like, IZhave nevtr embody look never had anybody look at me like that before." [Mare." I4 Id at 18:6-9 18:6-91 .Not only did Defendant cause bodily bey injury injiny by sing by strangling Plaintiff, but he also placed her in fear of serious seriousbodily bodily injury. injury.

Ocz=ed in Pennsylvania in late The second incident occurred fate 2419 2019 where Defendant grabbed grabbed Plaintiff by the wrist and end threatened Seer her in her parents' grubbed me when parents' home. "He grabbed when we were we were alone, very, very, hard and very, very, and pulled pulled ine me toward him by toward him by the wrist. And the wrist. And he said, I'm he said, "ITm going to going to kill kill you in you court! t! And he in court.' he Wouldn't let me wouldn't let me go" Id at go." Id at 11:22-25. At the time Defendant 11:22-25. At Defendant made this made tie threat to PlaintiA there was no active custody to Plaintiff, custody action. Defendant's PA PPA counsel wunsel opined opined that this this was Defendant's way of telling PlainglYthat Plaintiff that he was going going to file aacustody custody action against agahist her her.

However, Plaintiff testified that she did did not not know wlrat what Defendant meant meat by by his statement statement and and tW aggremve when he Made that he was aggressive made it. Id at 32.16-19 10 322-$.

32:16-19 to 33-:2-5. This event caused Plaintiff Phfln iffto to contact the the Safe where she Safe Place where receivod counseling site received sessions for counseling sessions fbr two two (2) (2) months. months. Id Id at d9:4-1L at 48s4-1I Further, this event Further, this caused Plaintiff event caused to contact Plaintiff to contact the the Pennsylvania Mate Police Pennsylvania State Police and and file file charges charges against Defendant. Id at 48.12-25. Defmdant not onty 48:12-25. Defendant only .caused bodily injuyr cased bodily by aggressively injury by aggressively

plan her grubbing Plaintiff by the wrist, but he placed grabbing her in such fear in such fewof seriow bodily of serious bodily i4ury that she injury that she

filed filed aapolice report reps mid and also had to to parEioipate counseling to participate in CO=Wffng deal with to dea with this this feat. fear.

The third incident The tird incid= occurred in Penn Occurred in wlvaaia in Pennsylvania in late late 2019 2i#19 wherte where D fendant aggressively Defendant aggressively shock PIairttiff shook Plaintiff while grabbing the the ba& seat while she back of her seat she was driving driving her her vehicle. vehicle. Put±LAT P fainW was actively actively backing out of of her hu parents' pwww driveway • was backing out driveway while while Defendant Defendant wm in the was in the back back seat with seat we, G-B. Plaintiff and G.8, and Defendant w= were having having a wren Defendant a discussion when grabbed the Defendant grabbed the bace. lack er of Plain ifrs car seat and Plaintiftrs and Plkntiffherselfand Plaintiff' herself and began began shaking shaking t₹t themm both aggressively. aggtC=vely. IdM at at 12.•,2-9, 12e2.9 Further, Further, during this shaking inckIw 4w incident, I ith his. with his infarct chid sitting infant child sitting beside him, him, Defendant Defendant rePeatedlY called repeatedly called Plaintiff Plaintiff aastupid, "stupid, fucking bitcV, a fucking bitch", a "fucking bitch", `fucking bitch°31 and and "stupid". "stupid" Id Id at at 498- O.9 -10.

I0. C3nce Ooce fhe shaking ceased, the shaking ceased, plAintiffasked Plaintiff asked Defendant Defendant ifhe going to if he was going to hit hit la and. Defendant her and Defendant responded by saying, responded by saying, "I "i would, would, hut... you are but...you are worthless." wol thiess."qd Id sri j2:12While et 12:12. Plaintiff was WHe Plaintiff was clearly placed placed in enough fear of serious bodily W-ury injury that she €tiredly asked Defendant directly asked Defender if if he he wee was going to hit her, she did not report this incident incident to police and did not police and not file file a aPFA PFA petition at that petition at dmt €ime. time. "A PFA pe#itivner petitioner is not required to Me file a polio report, a police repor₹, nor is it necessary vec=wy forfor her her to to introduce medical introduce evidence of medical evidence of an an i4jwy." injury." niaz Div. v.N bWev, 235 Nabiye, A.3d 1270, 235 A.3d 1273 (pa. Super. 1270, 1273 (P%. Super. 2€12{1} (citing Hood-O'Hara v. 2020) (citing y,Fitts, 973 4.24 Wik. 873 A,2-d 757, 760 (Pa. (Pa. 5aper.

Super 2005)).

NO)). Plainer% Plaindfrs testimtmy regarding Defendant testimony regarding Defendant agg ively sag aggressively shaking her while she ber while she was was driving driving caused cam e her Physic physical injury inu and it also Calsed j ry end caused Plaintffto Plaintiff to be in feat- fear of substantial physic injury substautW physical injury to to the the paint point where she directly where she di=* asked asked Defendant Dcfen&nt during during this this altercation altercation if if he wag going to was going to hit hit her, per, The fourth The fourth incident precipitated the incident precipitated the filing filing of the instant of the nstant PFA i PFA action wbere Defendant action wbere Defendant drove past drove Plate as past Plaintiff she was as she was leaving leaving work work and and repeatedly repeatedly flasW flashed hi lights and hisslights and benkked his honked his horn at her, While this event .any ad her. surface, when may sound harmless on the surface, when taken taken into context wit into context with pending custody action, Defmdant's the peading Defendants inability inability to follow ]10w this tltis Count's cun=t custody COIUV3 current custody order, order,

and tht past history of abuse, it is clear that Plaintiff's reasonable fear of serious physical injury and the past historyDf ablm, it is clear tha Plaintiff's reasonable ' of se ri ous Physic ,*

was justified. On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff was at ber place of work in Jamestowa, New was justified.On Februwy 17, 2021,Plaintiff was at herplace of work in 3amestowa, New York. A1 300 p.m. Plaintiff pulled out of the parking lot to take her lunch break. As she was York At 3 m. PlainOffPulled out of the parking lot f•a take her Iunrb break.. p. As she was pulling out of the parking lot, sbe received a call from Defendant, which sbe did not answer. Id pulling out Of the Nrking lot, she remived acaU from Defendant, which she did not answer. fd at 8:9-18. Plaintiff fiished work at 6:0 p.m. and entered her car located in the parking lot at 8:9- 18. Plaintiff . fm ished work at 6.00 p.m,and end her = located in the parking lot where sbe stayed ti 7.00 p.m, after finishing a pbone session with her therapist. About a whm she stayed until 7:00 pm. after fmisliing aphone session with her thwapirt. Aboit a block away from her place of work, as Plaintiff was driving towards her home, she was passed block away fpm her place of work as Plaint iff was driving towards her home,she was gassed by a anknown vehicle with the driver waving at her, continuously honking the horn and by an = known vehicle with the driver waving at her, coutinuous•y bonkjug the htxm and flashing the lights at her. Id at 8-20-23. Plaintiff then received a phone call from Defendant flashing the lights at her. ird at 8.20L2j. Mintiff then eived aphane call hvm De dmu through the Our Family Wierd spplication, which she did not answer and she also received A throes th- Our FamiIy Wm rd apOication, which she did not answer and she also received a message from Defendant where he stated, "You just passed me in Jamestown, can you please age front Defendant inhere he stated, -You just passed, me in Jamtestowr4 can you please bave a heart and let me see my son?" Id at 43:4-. Plaintiff did not respond to the message have aheart and Iet, mt see my Son?" Id a43;4-6. Plaintiff did not reVond to the message because she was freaked out". Id at 45:13, Whea Plaintiff arrived home she sent a mess ge to because she was t*`Cakecl our Id at-M-13 Whea PImnWa €dhome she sent amessage to Defendant through the Our Family Wizard application where she told him that G.8. was sleeping De1•er*dant ugh the C }ur Fatally Wi=d apPlic2don where she told him that G_$, was steeping and that maybe tomorrow would be a better day to video call with him." Id at 92-6. Defendant and tImt 'maybe tomorrow would be abetter clay to video call with hurt", Td at!.2-6. Deferrdmt then responded to Plaintiff ad his responses made her think that he didn't Like that very much then responded to Plain6fF and his responses made her think that he didn't like that v much. ld a4 9-7.8, GB.awoke around 9.00 p.m. that evening and as soon as he awoke, Plaintiff Id a19.-7-8- G.R. awoke around 9: p.m. that evoning and as soon as he awoke, plaintiff received a video call from Defendant and through the application's message previewing mceived avideo call from Defendant and through the appRcatic;ft's message previewing capabilities, Plaintiff could see that Defendant was calling from his vehicle. Id at 9:1-4. The capab hies,Plaintiff could see that Deefendam was cVI&9 from his vCMcic. Id at p;1..4 e callcall video video wentwent unanswered. unanswered.

As of the date of the most recent incident, the parties' current custody order bas s As of the elate of the most recent incident, the palties ,current Cmtcrriy order has a provision regarding contact between Defendant and 6.B. while in Warren County. Defendant is provisiOn regarding contact between Defendant and G.B. while in Warren County. Defendant is supposed to give Plaintiff at least ter (1D) days' notice regarding his requested periods of supposed to give Plaintiff at least tem (10) days' notice regarding his guested perio& 0f

visitation G.B. Defendant is visitation with GB. is supposed to to let Plaice' keow where he will be staying Plaltiff low staying while while in in Warren Warren County as -well County as as the well as specific dates and times. the specific - The parties The parties are mutly agree arc to mutually agree to periods of time for visitation. Id periods M&53:1-23. at 53:1-23. Defendm7t count zted Phantom Defendant had contacted sever days Plaintiff several days prior to his prior to his arrival arrival in At no in Pennsylvania. At time did no time did Defendant ever give Defendant ever give Plaintiff Plaintiff a set sa date date that he would be arriving in Pennsylvania he Pe=sylvania nor mr did he give give aaset set date that he would be leaving. leaving.

Further, Defendant Further, Defendant never gave Plaintiff never gave Plaintiff a fnn answer as firm answer as to to where where he would be he would be staying staying while wUe inin towst. Defendant had town. had several hotels where he he wanted to to stay, stay, but but every every time time he he spoke spoke to Plaintiffshe changed his mind. "I don't remember how roany Plaintiff, many tutees times he went back hack and forth.." forth." Id Id at 29.JI ar 12. While Plaintiff and Defendant had been in commication 29:11-12. con muuication several days clays prior to the prior to tbe February 1'1'' incident, Plaintiff February 17 appropriate ten Plaintiff was never given the appropriate (10) days' notice of when ten (10) Defendant would be in town and where he would be staying, pmmmt to their staying, pursuant tlwir custody cu"y order. order.

Plaintiftestied Plaintiff testified that she wouldn't not commit to lain firm plans with Defendant regarding regarding visitation G-B. because he with G.B. had not followed he had followed the explicit rules rules of the custody order. Plaintiff tbe custody Plaint€ffwas. was not opposed to opposed to Defendant spending time Defendant spending time with with G.$y but she G.B., but she simply simply requested requested that he des that he it the do it right the right way. "I would way. "I would confirm confine on on aafirm fin time time if he followed if he the Count followed the Court Order." Ordm" .Td at 29-24-25.

Id at 29:24-25. Besse Because Plaintiff was was unsure of when Defendam actually going Defendant was actually going to be in to be town, she in town, she had every right had every right to to be frightened be frightened by De€endant's message by Defendant's message stating stating that that he he just passed her just passed her on on the read, especially the road, when especially when he he W startled her bad startled her by by flashing flashing his his lights lights and honking his and honking his horn horn at at her, knowing full her, knowing full well she well she would not not have been In able to to recognize recognize him in in }tie bis rental vehicle. While Plaintiff rental vehicle. Plaintiff and Defendant did not meet did not meet face face to face in to face current incident, in this current incident, site was placed she was placed in to reasonable reasonable fear fear of serious serious bodily injury past abusive incidents. injury based on past incidents. "Past abusive conduct conduct on the defendant's defcndaw's part part is aa crucial inquiry crucial inquiry necessary for for entry of a proper entry of proper oxder" L.K., 237 order."EK, 237 A.3d 509 at A.3d 509 at 522 (citing (citing Caster Custer Cothran. 933 y, Coeban, Y. A.2d 1050, 933 A.2d 1050, 1059, 1059, n.1 n.11i(Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2007))- lDefendanes incessant 2007)). Defendant's ineessaxit numsaging me aging

G.B. coupled and begging to see 0.B. coded visb with his history of physical physic abuse ease during moments of frustration led led Plaintiff to reasonably reasonably fear serious bodily bodily injury injury at at this this time because of ber her several sever.l prior pfor experiences with with Defendant's physical Abu= "Because physical abuse. `%ecause the goal of the PFA Act thc goal Act is to prevent prevent ab=, a physical and sexual abuse, avictim d= does not have to wait for forphysical sepal abuse to occur physical or sexual omur for the PFA Act past acts are relevant to determine the reasonableness of the Aet to apply, and past current fear." petitioner's current E.K., 237 A.3d 509 fear."EK, 5019 at 522 (maternal Qt ztemat citations ciw ons ran tom. While Plaintiff omitted). PlaizEff and Defendant did not have any physical contact during and past pattern during this incident, Defendant's past patter of abuse, detailed supra, has establkhed an ongoing pattern has established pattern of abuse vrhich easily cause which would easily cam Plaintiff to be in reasonable fear of serious smious bodily bodily injury. injury.

The third issue presented presented is that the trial cowt court erred in finding that Defendant contradicted himself in his testimony tesfimony at the the time of hearing. Specifically, Defendant hearing. Specifically, Defendant avers that the Court's questions regarding which hotels he h2tended actually stayed intended to and/or actually stayed at during during his visit to to Pennsylvania Peimsylvania m in February February 2021 202I were irrelevant brelevant to the iwnnt to the PFA.. "Credibility instant PFA. "Credibility of of the witnesses witnesses and the weigh# weight awarded accorded their testimony is within the exclusive province province of ofthe judge the judge as fact finder." Mescanti Mescapti v. v, Mewaoti, a. Saper, Mescati, 956 A.2d 1017,1019-20 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2 ). Further, the the Court must view "the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner and granting granting her the benefit 6f all benefit of all reasonable reasonable infer C.1R.1- - v.; W.DI L... ?14 A.3d ces" CMLv.W.D.L214 inferences." A.3d 1272,1277 127'2,1277 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2019).

2019) Defendant's counsel first elicited testimony t•itnauy from bim attempt to show that him regarding hotels in an attempt Defendant had had inadvertently encountered encountmed Plaintiff on her way home from worL The Court work. The Cow found this te,41mony testimony to be relevant because the Court Cox € tdetermined deed this convoluted tee oqy to be testimony aacover for Defendant's actions aeons of harassing harassing and stalking Plaintiff Plainiiffon. February 17, on February 17, 202I.

2021.

Pursuant to this Court's custody order, DieAmdant Defendant is is to give Plaintiff Plain iff ten (0) (10) days' days= notice prior to prior to any any periods gerinds of of physical custody vAth physical custody G.B. 1n with G.B. addition to In addition to this notice, Defendant this notice, Defendant must must let let

he will be staying Plaintiff know where he shay during his visit visit. Defendant avers that he gave gave Plaintiff of the dates of notice of of his his intended visit as early as February 3, 202L.

2021. PF4 PFA A. at 58:23-2$.

Tr. at 3e-23--25.

However, Defendant giver never told Plaintiffwhere Plaintiff where he staying while in town. he would be staying town l"I explained explained to her that ITdon't don% have a a place yet. yet. On February 1lh or Pebraty [1" February 12'' 12,IImade her aware that thatI have two two places places that its its down dawn to" to." Id Id at 59: 5-7. at 59£ Defen4ant was asked by 5-7, When Defendant Plaintifrs by Plainti@r% cotlmnl which two counsel wbich two places he was was considering staying, staying, Defendant was nrahle to give unable to gT= an actual answer. Defendant answer. Defendant described the fit possible the first possible location location as as follows: "The general general area ifl if I remember correctly, was, its; its, its, it was like tike in, in...and inn..-and it was, and the and the number on picture picture was 42...Didn't 42_ --Didn't get get an address. But, hwas near, But, it near, the train tracks ran run back of it." Id at 77113.17.

7:0.17.

aboiA the When asked about the second possible locadort, location, Defendant could not recall the the name of of the the hotel or whether or it was whether it was located located in Pennsylvania or in Pennsylvania or thew New York. Mai York. Id 77:22-25 ± at 77\22-25 to 78:1-8, 78:1-8 B upon Based upon Deefendanfs testimony, it Defendant's it is clear to the COurt that Defendant did not the Count not have a asecured reservation resetvadoin and that Plaintiff at any location and PlaWW had no idea idea. where where Defendant would would €te be staying during his staying during his Visit. visit following is the clearest timeline snd The foidowing and explanation the Court has been able to decipher decipher from Defendant's testimony regarding regarding the circumstances surrounding his interaction circumstances surrounding interaction with Plaintiff on February Pebntary 17, 2021, 2021. Defendant flew f Boo, New York on February Law into Buffalo, 16, 202I February 16, at 2021 at 10:45 p.m. and stayed 1045 aayed uveraight ovrg i ht in a a hotel by by the airport. airport. On February February 17, 2021, Defendant 17, 2021, Defendant rented aavehicle in Buffalo and arived arrived at the Hampton Waxen, Penylvania Hampton Inn in Warren, Pennsylvania between between 5.30 p.m. and 5345 5:30 5:45 p,m. p.m. M Id at tS3:216t.

63-2-10. Defendant mHed Plainbf who did not called Plaintiff, not answer, and answer, and waited at the Hwnpton Hampton Inn Inn for, "at "at least an hour to to an hour and aahalf," half." Id at 63: 24-25.

2425, Defendant neither had had aareservation the Hampton the reservation at Hampton Inn nor did Inn nor did he he have have any fiftigion of any intention staying of staying the there as he had aameeting the next morning with his bis attorney in Erie, Erie. He inquired pricing, irquired about pricing, determined it it to be too to be too expensive, expensive, then #fin filled out an filled oat an ,application application for aasurmer seer job, job, even though though

he ctrreay lives be currently laves in California. Id a in California, at 80: $Q: 1-. Defmdant did not 1-8. Since Defendant not receive aaresponse respons€ foe from Plaintit he Plaintiff, lie decided, decided, "Hey, IIam fund. tired. I beep traveling.

I have been just decide whether or not traveling. Let me just not fI am going to' stay in ray to stay my regular place place where I I would like to to at the Harbor Hotel or I WM drive to I will to Erie."Mat Erie." Id at 64:111'5. Aroun€3 6:30 64:11-15. Around 6.30 p.m. or b:45 6:45 p.m. Defendant left the Hampton Hampton Inn hn in Wane Warren and drove towands towards the the Harbor Hotel }hotel in Celoron, New York.

Yo& During this drive from Warren to to Celoro n, Defendant Celoron, Defendant encountered encountered Plaintiff Plaintiff on on the the road in Jamestown. road in Jarnestown. "Approximately "Appmdmatdy 7:17,718 'x:17, 7:18 p.m., IIwas, pm., I, I was, I, am, IIwas I am, was by Fairmount and by Fairmount and 8 Street IIwas just Street.

8" just crossing crossing the the bridge." bridge." Id at w 64:23-25 to 651.

64:231-25 65:1.As "As IIwas coring corning up to the stop sign, IIsee Krista's car coming stop sign, coming down...so down... so LI got excited...So got excited—So I I honked the the hon horn,,And so, and that's it. IIrealized that she did not acre. So, not see me. soy II called. And actually called. And then then IIalso sent aamessage oar our message on Our Family Family Wizard-" M at Wizard." Id at 65: 5-14, 5-14, From Defendant's testimony, it Defendant's testimony, it appears that that he he drove drove thraugh Jamestown, randomly through Jamestown, spotted Plaintiff randomly spotted Plaintiff as she as she was was leaving work stopped in work, stopped in at at the the Harbor Harbor Hotel in Celeron, Hotel in Celeron, then then ended ended up up at at a aHotel Motel Six Six in Erie in Erie around 3:15 p.m. around 9:15 why he p.m. When asked why he didn't stay at the Harbor Hotel as didn't stay as was was bis his plan pk n when he Ieft left the Hampton Inn, Defendant Defendant respanderi: responded: "It's simple. Every time ht's very simple. time II come come toto town, tow, IIHike like to stay at to stay at the the Harbor Hotel.

Hotel. They are nice nine to me, me. ney give me aadiscount. So They give So after I after, after didn't hen I didn't hear back from from Krista, K.zista, and and IIwas was at at the the Hampton Hampton Im, Inn, Itdecided, decided, to go to to go to go go to Erie- $mot, to Erie. let me But, let me check chi in in with the wth the Hampton Hanpton Inn. And see Inn. And see maybe maybe tbey they will will give give one me a a good good rate. Because rate. Because I I was tired. tired. So, on on my my way way to Erie I to Erie stopped, II I stopped, stopped inter stopped the He-.bor into the Harbor H otel,- Hotel." Id at fd 51:4-12_ Defendant at 814-12. Defendant was questioned questioned several times regarding this times regarding 113s timcline timeline and and each each time he time he responded with aadifferent dr#fereant more confusing answer. answer The The Court finds that Dofe€rdant's testimony Defendant's wsdmonxy regarding his journey regarding jrnm€rey to find aahotel hotel for for the the night night is is relevant was during relevant because it was during this jonmey journey that that he he interacted with Plaintiff and with Plaintiff and tliat interaction is that interaction is the the basis of the basis of the instant PFA action. instant PFA action. Further, Further, the the Court Court finds finds that Defendant's Defendant's testimony testimony was contradictory from was contradictory from begiuing beginning to end. to end.

The fad fourth and final issue prmnted presented is whether the trial court erred trial court med in determining determining that tW table because Defendant's testimony was not credible because Ddf ndant did not Defendant not contradict himself. himself. "CreffibUity determinations "Credibility dzterminadons are components to are crucial components any trial to any trial proceeding. proceeding. Tbe The trW court's trial court's ability view the ability to view the petitio=es petitioner's facial expressions expresmons and mannerisms rnanneri= during ding the ex pvrte heating is parte hearing is critical to an ability to to render its credibility determinations." render its Ferka-Fox y. deterainations." Perko-For v_ Fox, For, 68 .A3d 917, A.34 317, (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2013). While the has-already the Court has determined that already determined Defbndaw contradicted that Defendant contadicted hirmselfnumerous himself ts`zues during numerous times dining his his testimony regarding his hotel testimony regarding hotel search, search, this was not the only only the instant matter, Defendaufs area of credibility determination assessed by the Court. In the Defendant's testimony tbrougbout testimony its entirety throughout its entirety was erratic, non: was erratic, responsive and non-responsive, and at at tunes times bizarm bizarre. When the When the Court asked Court Defendant if asked Defendant he gave if he gave Plainfiffspevtfic Plaintiff specific notice: about where notice about where he he would W staying would be staying in Erie;. Defendarn responded, Erie, Defendant responded, "I "I have have a, can I a, can I pull pull my my reference sheet. On, reference sheet? On, on, on, on, on, the the 16 th,when when lI came in and the morning of the the ITh, 17,IIsaid said Iwould like to see my son." M4i lke to s&.11_2o. When Id at 86:11.20, When the the Court asked DefendwA Court asked Defendant how how long long he he was planning on was planning being in on being in town towm during during his his February F6bnLwy 2021 2021 -visit, Dckndanfs visit, Defendant's contradicted Itself himself several times. "Originally "Originally I I would stay stay for aamonth ninth or two months, two because I months, because I was hoping to was hoping find a to find aplace—and place...and part part of my reason of my reason here here to stay was to to stay to find €nd aaplace. And And because I I want to move part part time -over over here" 92:9-YS. Whe here." Id at 9229-15. "When IIcame into Erie;and Erie, and my attorney, I-notified my attorney,I him that notified him that IIam not going ar not going to to be be here here for far aamonth...Its month... Its actually actually going going to be only two two weeks. Okay. And, And, and... and... and and then I said, hay, I said, hey, I want a I want amonth month of about forth. 5o going back and forth. probably, amicably So probably, €hex if amicably better if IIstay stay hem here for two two weeks." Id at 93:5-22. at 9315-22 The Court The Court stated stated a lengthy verbal a lengthy verbal opinion opinion on on the record record to to support support its findings that its findings that Plaintiff proved by by the preponderance of the - preponderance ofthe the evidence that that abuse had ow=red. The Court also addressed occurred. The the the issue of credibility, first of credibility, addressing Defendant's first addressing Defendant's testimony. testimony. "It's the first first time time I've met him and he and wasn't making he wasn't making any any sense. sense. He was pressured He was He; was pressured. He was contradictory. contradictory. Didn"t Didn't make, any make any

Answered questions sense. Answered questions that wemn't asked of him. that weren't hint. And And was at 11513-8. In sc mro&" Id at was scattered." In Plaintiffs credibility, the Court stated, discussing Plaintiff's stall, "based mane, IIbeiieved "mod on credibility alone, believed the the Plaintiff=s Plaintiff's version of those events." Id a1 at 11722-24.

II7;2124. As the the Court snakes c redt-bffity makes credibility determinations of witnesses at PFA hearings, and this ofwitnesses this Court placed those determinations, deknnhiafioffi; and and the reasons for them on the recce €he Court did not err in ceding record, the finding Defendant was not credible.

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION No farther further Opinion shall issue.

T r -- . ..-·. . , � .� to rT a