White, A. v. Urban, M. ( 2022 )

J-S27001-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ANTHONY MARK WHITE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL URBAN :
:
Appellant : No. 394 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Civil Division at No: 2021-61552
BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 22, 2022
Appellant, Michael Urban (“Michael”), appeals from the December 29,
2021 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, prohibiting
Michael from having any contact with Appellee, Anthony Mark White
(“Anthony”). Michael argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law when
it determined that Anthony had standing to file a petition against Michael
under the Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6101, et seq. We
agree with Michael that Anthony lacks standing because Michael and Anthony
are not “family or household members” as defined in Section 6102 of the Act.
Because the trial court erred when it found standing, we vacate the December
29, 2021 order.
The trial court summarized the procedural history of this case in its Rule
1925(a) opinion, explaining that Anthony filed a petition on August 30, 2021,
J-S27001-22
seeking a PFA order against Michael. A temporary order was entered in
response. Michael filed a motion for reconsideration. The temporary order
was extended until December 29, 2021, when the court conducted a hearing.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied Michael’s reconsideration
motion and entered a final order granting Anthony’s PFA petition for a period
of three-years.1 This timely appeal followed. Both Michael and the trial court
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Michael asks us to consider one issue in this appeal:
Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that
[Anthony] had standing to file a petition under the [PFA] Act,
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6101, et seq. as [Michael] and [Anthony] are not
“family or household members, sexual or intimate partners, or
persons who share biological parenthood.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102.
Michael’s Brief at 4.
Initially, we note that our standard of review “regarding an issue of
standing under the [PFA] Act is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”
B.R.S. v. J.L., 236 A.3d 1167, 1168 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing McCance v.
McCance, 908 A.2d. 905, 908 (Pa. Super. 2006)). In B.R.S., this Court
explained that
[t]he goal of the PFA Act is protection and prevention of further
abuse by removing the perpetrator of the abuse from the
____________________________________________
1 Relevant provisions of the order direct Michael not to “abuse, harass, stalk,
or threaten or attempt to use physical force” that would be expected to cause
bodily injury to Anthony or any other protected person. Order at ¶ 1. Further,
Michael is prohibited from stalking or harassing Traci Urban (“Traci”), who is
identified in the order as Anthony’s “Girlfriend.” Id. at ¶ 3. As will be
discussed herein, Traci is also Michael’s estranged wife.
-2-
J-S27001-22
household and/or from the victim for a period of time. As for
individuals who may seek refuge within the confines of the Act,
the statute’s protective sphere encompasses “family or household
members.” In section 6102 of the Act, the term “family or
household members” is defined as,
Spouses or persons who have been spouses, persons living
as spouses, parents and children, other persons related
by consanguinity or affinity, current or former sexual or
intimate partners or persons who share biological
parenthood.
Id. at 1168-69 (cleaned up) (quoting McCance, 908 A.2d at 908).
The trial court summarized the testimony presented at the December
29, 2021 hearing as follows:2
During the hearing, Michael testified that Anthony is dating
[Michael’s] wife Traci. [Michael] explained that he, from day one,
has had an “open” relationship with Traci. He was aware that she
was having sex with other men, including Anthony. The petition
for protection against abuse order filed by Anthony checked off
the box listing Michael as a “current or former sexual or intimate
partner with Anthony.” To dispute this, Michael testified that he
is not currently having a sexual relationship with Anthony and has
not had an intimate relationship with him. Michael stated that he
has never been in the same room as Anthony other than when he
first saw him in the Prothonotary’s Office on January 6, 2021,
while Michael was filing a PFA against Traci and Traci was, at the
same time, filing a PFA against Michael.
Traci testified that Anthony is now her live-in boyfriend. Michael
is her soon-to-be ex-husband and they had been legally separated
for about one year at the time of the hearing. She met Anthony
at the pool room where she worked. She had known him for four
years and has been romantically involved with him almost two
years.
____________________________________________
2 While the trial court referred to the involved individuals by their full names,
including their respective roles in this appeal, we have taken the liberty of
referring to them by their first names, i.e., Michael, Anthony, and Traci.
-3-
J-S27001-22
Traci explained that one of Michael’s sexual fetishes was to “watch
Traci be with other men and watch, listen, and participate on
occasion.” Because of this, when Traci discovered that Anthony
was interested in her, she told Michael. Michael approved,
requested, and encouraged Traci to have a sexual relationship
with Anthony so he could listen to them have sex. In fact, Michael
wanted to meet Anthony, and later introduced himself to Anthony
and shook his hand at Traci’s New Year’s Eve 2019 to 2020 work
party. Also, “Traci would be encouraged and asked by Michael to
go have sex with Anthony. And then Anthony would ejaculate into
her vagina, and she would go home and Michael would orally take
it out of her vagina.”
Anthony did not originally know that Traci was going to call
Michael on the phone and place him on speaker so he could listen
to them having sex, but later, did know and consent to it. In
addition, Michael and Anthony negotiated for time spent with
Traci. Once, while Traci was in bed with Anthony at his house,
Michael and Anthony discussed, over the phone, that Anthony
could have Traci, but Michael wanted her for Friday nights,
“whether it be sexual or dinner or whatever,” and insisted that
Anthony respect that request.
Traci did not know of any occasion where both men were
physically in the same room or house when she was having sex
with Anthony.
Traci and Anthony had become closer, started to exclude Michael
from their relationship, and Traci told Michael that she wanted to
leave him. Traci planned to separate from Michael in December
of 2020.
Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion (“TCO”), 5/10/22, at 4-5 (references to notes
of testimony omitted).
The court noted that problems arose after Michael was removed from
the triangular relationship. “They now menace each other as they (at the
same time) seek PFAs against each other.” Id. at 6 (footnote omitted).
-4-
J-S27001-22
The trial court explained that, after listening to the testimony, the court
“found that there was an ‘intimate’ relationship between [Michael, Anthony,
and Traci] because they were all aware of and consented to a triangle sexual
and intimate relationship. They openly, verbally shared [Traci] sexually and
the time they each spent with her.” Id. at 6. Quoting McCance, the court
agreed with Anthony that the PFA Act “is designed to promote peace and
tranquility of households, and among family members and intimate partners
who reside or have resided together.” Id. (quoting McCance, 908 A.3d at
907). The court also quoted this Court’s opinion in B.R.S. in which we
reiterated that
the persons who undoubtedly fit the Act’s definition of family or
household members—e.g., spouses, parents, children, relatives,
paramours, and persons who undertake romantic
relationships—typically share some significant degree of
domestic, familial and/or intimate interdependence. There
is often an obvious emotional bond. Frequently, these individuals
interface in very practical areas of private life—a mutual
residence, common family obligations and/or shared
involvement in the affairs of day-to-day living. . . . In sum,
the persons protected by the Act as a family or household
members have a connection rooted in blood, marriage, family-
standing, or a chosen romantic relationship.
Id. at 7 (emphasis added by trial court) (quoting B.R.S., 236 A.3d at 1169)
(in turn quoting Scott v. Shay, 928 A.2d 312, 315 (Pa. Super. 2007)).3
____________________________________________
3As discussed infra, this Court again quoted the language from B.R.S. and
Shay, as well as the federal law definition of “intimate partners,” in
Commonwealth v. Getkin, 251 A.3d 425 (Pa. Super. 2021). See n. 6.
-5-
J-S27001-22
Interpreting the case law, the trial court “affirmed that the parties in
this case had a prior intimate relationship and/or affinity to one another
encircling romantic and family matters[.]” Id. The court repeated its
statement made at the conclusion of the December 29, 2021 hearing, noting:
[T]he facts that have been established—and they include that
there was a permission given by Michael for his wife and Anthony
to be engaged in sexual relationships and that there was
participation on the part of Michael even though it was on a
segmented and from a temporal standpoint—it was segmented in
time. But in terms of transactions and the relationship matter was
one that was a continuing single episode [sic].
As a result, there were sexual relationships as I find the testimony
of Traci as being credible. And, frankly, there was confirmation of
that credible testimony of wife by Michael when he admitted that
he gave permission for that sexual relationship to take place.
Therefore the relationships were sufficiently intimate for purposes
of activating the standing for bringing an action under the PFA Act.
And, therefore the court concludes that standing does exist. And
Anthony may proceed as a potential protected party under the
Act.
Id. at 7 (quoting Notes of Testimony, 12/29/21, at 46-47).4
As noted at the outset, our standard of review regarding the issue of
standing under the PFA Act is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.
B.R.S., 236 A.3d at 1168. To qualify for protection under the PFA Act,
Anthony must demonstrate that he is “family or household member” under
____________________________________________
4 Again, we have taken the liberty of using the first names of the individuals
involved. We note that after the court decided the issue of standing, the
hearing proceeded in order to determine whether the PFA should be granted.
-6-
J-S27001-22
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102, i.e., “[s]pouses or persons who have been spouses,
persons living as spouses or who lived as spouses, parents and children, other
persons related by consanguinity or affinity, current or former sexual or
intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood.” Clearly,
Michael and Anthony are not now, nor have they ever been, spouses, persons
living as spouses, parents, or children. Nor are they persons related by
consanguinity or affinity, or persons who share biological parenthood.5
Therefore, unless Michael and Anthony are “current or former sexual or
intimate partners,” as Anthony represented in his PFA petition, Anthony is not
entitled to protection under the PFA Act.
The record clearly reflects that Michael and Traci were spouses, and that
Anthony and Traci qualify as current sexual or intimate partners. However,
the issue here is the relationship between Michael and Anthony, and whether
____________________________________________
5 Although the trial court found, or at least suggested, Michael and Anthony
were related by affinity, see TCO, 5/10/22, at 7, we do not find affinity under
the facts here. Michael and Anthony are not “in-laws” or married to each
other’s in-laws, as was the case in B.R.S. In B.R.S., we concluded that the
petitioner had standing to seek a PFA order against his wife’s sister’s husband,
because a “person related by . . . affinity” includes all definitions of a brother-
in-law or sister-in-law. Id., 236 A.3d at 1169. See also Commonwealth v.
Walsh, 36 A.3d 613, 618 (Pa. Super. 2012) (explaining that “affinity,” while
not defined in the PFA Act, is defined in Webster’s American Dictionary, 14
(2nd College ed.2000) as, inter alia, “related by marriage or by ties other than
those of blood,” and that affinity existed between victim and appellant because
victim’s two half-siblings were natural children of appellant and victim’s
mother).
-7-
J-S27001-22
Michael and Anthony were sexual or intimate partners so as to establish
standing under the PFA Act.
As Michael correctly notes, this Court acknowledged in Scott that the
Act does not define partners. Michael’s Brief at 8 (citing Scott, 928 A.2d at
315). Because “the term ‘partners’ is not free of all ambiguity, . . . we must
interpret the term in light of the legislators’ intent. As we have already made
clear, their intent was to prevent domestic violence and to promote peace and
safety within domestic, familial and/or romantic relationships.” Scott, 928
A.2d at 315.6
____________________________________________
6 Although in a context different from the case before us, in Commonwealth
v. Getkin, 251 A.3d 425 (Pa. Super. 2021), this Court discussed firearms
disqualifications applicable to persons who commit crimes of domestic violence
against an “intimate partner.” The Court noted that federal law defines
“intimate partner” as, “with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a
former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the
person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated with the
person.” Id. at 430 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(32)). The Court in Getkin
further noted that while the PFA Act does not define the term, this Court had
explored the term as well as legislative intent with respect to the term in
Scott, and went on to quote the language from Scott that this Court adopted
in B.R.S., and which the trial court included in its opinion. Id.Other jurisdictions similarly define “intimate partners,” including Kansas
(“‘Intimate partners or household members’ means persons who are or have
been in a dating relationship, persons who reside together or who have
formerly resided together or persons who have had a child in common.”
K.S.A. § 60-3012(b)); Nebraska (See State v. Gay, 18 Neb.App. 163, 166,
778 N.W.2d 494, 497 (2009) (“Section 28–323(7) defines an ‘intimate
partner’ as ‘a spouse; a former spouse; persons who have a child in common
whether or not they have been married or lived together at any time; and
persons who are or were involved in a dating relationship.’ Section 28–
323(7) goes on to define a ‘dating relationship’ as ‘frequent, intimate
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8-
J-S27001-22
In this case, Anthony testified that Michael threatened to “fuck him up,”
and charged at him—in Michael’s driveway—with a hockey stick and with a
rake on separate occasions. Anthony claimed he felt threatened by Michael’s
actions and by his reputation for violent tendencies. N.T., 12/29/21, at 52-
59. However, as the Court recognized in Scott:
We must not lose sight of the fact that the Act was passed because
the criminal law was sometimes an inadequate mechanism for
dealing with violence that arose in the intimate environs of
domestic life. . . . [S]ubjecting Appellant to a PFA order would in
no way help to cultivate peace or safety in a household troubled
by familial violence because the parties to this case do not and did
not share a household or similar interaction. It is not within our
authority to expand the Act beyond the arena in which it was
intended to operate.
. . . By construing “partners” to mean those persons who mutually
choose to enter relationships, we give effect to the provisions of
the statute in a way that promotes its purpose of preventing
____________________________________________
associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional or sexual
involvement, but does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary
association between persons in a business or social context.’”); Washington
(“‘Intimate partners’ means: (a) Spouses or domestic partners; (b) former
spouses or former domestic partners; (c) persons who have a child in common
regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any
time; (d) adult persons presently or previously residing together who have or
have had a dating relationship; (e) persons 16 years of age or older who are
presently residing together or who have resided together in the past and who
have or have had a dating relationship; or (f) persons 16 years of age or older
with whom a person 16 years of age or older has or has had a dating
relationship.” Rev. Code. Wash. (ARCW) § 10.99.020(8)). While not binding
on us, we find these definitions from our sister states instructive and
consistent with the federal law definition employed by this Court in Getkin.
-9-
J-S27001-22
violence among people with a domestic, familial or romantic bond,
past or present. More simply, our interpretation means that
persons who choose to have intimate or sexual relationships are
within the purview of domestic relations law.
Also relevant is the fact that the criminal law already affords
protection from harassment, stalking, assault and a multitude of
other crimes. The Legislature has not determined that the
criminal law is inadequate to deal with interactions between an
assailant and a victim who are not in a family setting. There is no
suggestion that police or prosecutors would be unable or unwilling
to enforce the criminal law between Appellant and Appellee if the
facts warranted its application.
Id., 928 A.2d at 315-16.
That same sentiment was reiterated in Evans v. Braun, 12 A.3d 395(Pa. Super. 2010), where the Majority determined that a woman had standing
to seek a PFA order against a co-worker. In dissent, the Honorable John M.
Cleland observed:
Evans’ testimony established that she and Braun were co-workers
who had gone on two dates. She did not testify they were
particularly intimate, either sexually or emotionally. Under the
facts of this case, I do not agree Evans and Braun can be
considered “current or former sexual or intimate partners” as that
term is used either in the statute or discussed in our caselaw.
Their relationship simply did not entail the “significant degree of
domestic, familial and/or intimate interdependence” the Act is
intended to address. Scott, 928 A.2d at 315.
The majority further concludes the “criminal law proved to be an
ineffective avenue for Evans to seek protection from Braun” and,
therefore, “bolsters our conclusion that Evans had standing to
seek protection under the statute.” Majority Opinion at 400.
However, arguably it was not the criminal law that proved to be
ineffective. The criminal law “already affords protection from
harassment, stalking, assault and a multitude of other crimes.”
Scott, 923 A.2d at 316. If the police failed to recognize the
possibility Evans was the victim of criminal acts and afford her the
- 10 -
J-S27001-22
protection of the Crimes Code, their failure does not bolster her
into an “intimate partner” as defined by the Legislature in the
Protection from Abuse Act.
As we noted in Scott, “the Act is concerned with persons who
have or who have had domestic, familial and/or romantic
relationships. It is a domestic relations statute, not a statute
governing persons without any such relations.” Id. at 314. I do
not believe the Legislature, given its stated intent, intended to
authorize a trial court to grant the expansive relief provided in the
Act based on a two-date relationship. That is the realm of the
criminal law.
Evans, 12 A.3d at 400 (Cleland, J. dissenting).
As in Scott, and as discerned by the dissent in Evans, the PFA Act is
not concerned with persons who do not have “domestic, familial and/or
romantic relationships.” Scott, 923 A.2d at 314. The Crimes Code provides
for protection of individuals without such relations. Whereas in Evans, the
police did not pursue a criminal investigation or charges at Evans’ urging, here
the testimony reflected that police did respond to calls regarding Michael’s
actions. See N.T., 12/29/21, at 74. And Michael testified that he had
contacted the police “close to 20 times” regarding Anthony’s behavior. Id. at
93. As was the situation in Scott, “[t]here is no suggestion that police or
prosecutors would be unable or unwilling to enforce the criminal law between
Appellant and Appellee if the facts warranted its application.” Scott, 912 A.2d
at 316.
While the relationship between the two men in the instant case has been
contentious, Michael and Anthony were not sexual or intimate partners, nor
were they in a domestic, familial, or romantic relationship. They were both
- 11 -
J-S27001-22
involved in a relationship with a third person, Traci. Michael and Anthony were
parties to what could be most delicately described as a warped love triangle.
If we were to find that Anthony had standing under the PFA Act as a “family
or household member,” we would be expanding the definition of that term to
include any participant in a love triangle, even if there was no family or
household relationship between the individuals by whom and against whom
the PFA order was being sought. This is not a situation the PFA Act was
designed to address. There are criminal statutes available for such purposes.
As this Court observed in Scott, “The Legislature has passed criminal statutes
dealing with crimes and domestic statutes dealing with domestic relations.”
Scott, 928 A.2d at 316.
In his petition, Anthony sought protection against Michael as a “current
of former sexual or intimate partner.” Because Michael was not Anthony’s
current or former sexual or intimate partner, and because he did not otherwise
qualify as a family or household member, we find the trial court erred by
concluding that Anthony had standing under the PFA Act. Therefore, we
vacate the December 19, 2021 order.
Order vacated.7
Judge Sullivan joins the memorandum.
____________________________________________
7 We recognize that the order entered by the trial court also prohibited Michael
from stalking or harassing Traci, and that vacating the order erases that
prohibition. See n.1. However, there is no question that Traci has standing
to pursue a PFA against Michael should she elect to do so.
- 12 -
J-S27001-22
Judge Nichols concurs in the results.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/22/2022
- 13 -