M.J.A. v. D.C.A. ( 2019 )

J-S51001-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
M.J.A. ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CHILDREN, A.S.A., A.P.A. AND A.E.A. : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
D.C.A., :
: No. 941 EDA 2018
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 1, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Domestic
Relations at No(s): C-48-PF-2017-738
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 25, 2019
Appellant, D.C.A., appeals from the Order denying his Motion to Amend
Final Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) Order to allow him to possess his firearm
while on duty as a police officer in Harding, New Jersey. Because the PFA
expired on October 27, 2018, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
On October 27, 2017, after a hearing, the Northampton County Court of
Common Pleas entered a final PFA Order against Appellant forbidding him from
having contact with his former wife and his children for one year. The Order
also prohibited him from possessing firearms. Appellant did not appeal that
Order.
Instead, on December 7, 2017, Appellant filed a Motion to Amend the
PFA to enable him to possess a firearm while on duty as a police officer in
J-S51001-18
Harding, New Jersey. The court held a hearing and, on March 1, 2018, the
trial court denied the Motion. Appellant timely appealed.
However, on October 27, 2018, during the pendency of this appeal, the
PFA expired. The firearms restriction is, thus, no longer in effect and
Appellant’s issue no longer exists.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See generally In re
Gross, 382 A.2d 116, 119 (Pa. 1978) (observing that a case can become moot
during its pendency due to a change in the facts or law, and appellate courts
of this Commonwealth will not decide moot or abstract questions).1
Dismissed as moot.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/25/19
____________________________________________
1 We are aware that we may review a case or controversy that has become
moot “in rare instances when the question presented is one of great public
importance, or when the question presented is capable of repetition yet
escaping judicial review.” Graziano Constr. Co. v. Lee, 444 A.2d 1190, 1193
(Pa. Super. 1982) (citations omitted). This is not such a case.
-2-