Kaur, K. v. Singh, M. ( 2021 )

J-A13022-21
2021 PA Super 152KULWARN KAUR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
MANJINDER SINGH :
:
Appellant : No. 1563 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered July 15, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Civil Division at
No(s): No. C0048PF202000089
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 2, 2021
Appellant, Manjinder Singh, appeals from the July 15, 2020 Order that
granted the Petition for Protection from Abuse Order (“PFA Petition”) that
Appellee, Kulwarn Kaur, filed against Appellant pursuant to the Protection
From Abuse (“PFA”) Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-22. Upon review, we conclude
that the Final PFA Order does not place a substantial burden on Appellant’s
right to freely exercise his religion and, therefore, neither implicates nor
violates his right to do so. Accordingly, we affirm.
Briefly, the procedural and factual history is as follows. Appellant and
Ms. Kaur were married in 2010 and divorced in 2014. They did not have any
children together. Both are remarried and Ms. Kaur has a three-year old child
with her new husband. On February 2, 2020, an incident occurred between
Appellant and Ms. Kaur at the Sikh temple in Nazareth (“Nazareth Temple”).
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A13022-21
On February 3, 2020, Ms. Kaur filed a PFA Petition alleging that
Appellant appeared at the Nazareth Temple that Ms. Kaur attends and
proceeded to threaten Ms. Kaur and her son. PFA Petition, 2/3/20, at ¶ 9.
Ms. Kaur further alleged that Appellant was physically abusive during their
marriage, that Appellant lived far away from the Nazareth Temple but had
been attending for a few months, that a prior PFA Order had recently expired,
and that Ms. Kaur had to receive treatment at the hospital for a panic attack
after the incident. Id. at 10. On the same day, Appellant filed a PFA Petition
against Ms. Kaur, which is not a subject of this appeal. Trial Ct. Op., 9/28/20,
at 6 n.1.
On February 4, 2020, the court granted Ms. Kaur a Temporary PFA
Order. The court proceeded to extend the Temporary PFA Order numerous
times due to the COVID-19 judicial emergency.
On July 15, 2020, the court held a hearing to determine whether to
grant a Final PFA Order. Ms. Kaur presented testimony from herself, her friend
Sarika Johan, her sister Amandeep Kaur, and Nazareth Temple secretary
Harcharan Singh. Appellant testified on his own behalf and presented
testimony from temple member Gurjit Singh.
In sum, Ms. Kaur testified that on February 2, 2020, Appellant attended
the Nazareth Temple that Ms. Kaur attends, and that Appellant threatened her
and her son: “[Appellant] comes and tells me that my life is finished and, I
will make sure that your life is also miserable, and I will actually try to harm
your son as well.” N.T. PFA Hearing, 7/15/20, at 12-13, 16. Ms. Kaur testified
-2-
J-A13022-21
that she felt scared and threatened. Id. at 12, 13, 15. Ms. Kaur informed
the court that she lives a few miles from the Nazareth Temple and has
attended that temple since she remarried in 2015. Id. at 9. Finally, Ms. Kaur
testified that Appellant lives approximately 50 miles away from the Nazareth
Temple, and that Appellant’s wife attends a different temple. Id. at 14.
Ms. Johan testified that on the day in question, she saw Appellant talking
to Ms. Kaur, heard him say he was going to do something to Ms. Kaur’s son,
and observed Ms. Kaur crying and acting scared. Id. at 18, 21. Ms. Kaur’s
sister testified that Appellant physically abused Ms. Kaur during their
marriage, and that she observed that Ms. Kaur was upset, scared, and crying
after her interaction with Appellant that day. Id. at 23, 25. Mr. H. Singh
testified that the Nazareth Temple committee asked Appellant to stop coming
to the temple in January 2020 after Ms. Kaur had complained multiple times
that Appellant threatened to harm her at temple, but Appellant failed to
comply with the committee’s request. Id. at 31-33.
Appellant denied threatening Ms. Kaur at the Nazareth Temple. Id. at
36. Appellant testified that on the day in question, five or six individuals—
including Ms. Kaur’s father, husband, and brother-in-law—approached him at
the Nazareth Temple, pulled his hoodie over his head, and pushed him out of
the temple and into a vehicle in the parking lot. Id. at 37-39. Appellant
further testified that Ms. Kaur bit him on the hand and that, because of the
altercation, he received medical treatment at St. Luke’s Hospital. Id. at 40.
-3-
J-A13022-21
Appellant explained that he has attended the Nazareth Temple since
2005 or 2006. Id. at 35. Appellant testified that he currently attends both
the Nazareth Temple and a temple in Bethlehem, which are both
approximately forty-five minutes from his home. Id. at 43. Appellant stated
that his wife also attends the Nazareth Temple but does not attend on Sundays
because of her work schedule. Id. at 42. Appellant explained that he attends
the Nazareth Temple on Sundays because there is an Indian grocery store
nearby where he likes to shop, and some of his coworkers attend that day.
Id. at 44. Appellant confirmed that the Nazareth Temple committee asked
him not to attend temple at that location. Id. at 45. Finally, Appellant denied
that he was ever abusive during his marriage to Ms. Kaur. Id. at 42-43.
Mr. G. Singh testified that on February 2, 2020, he witnessed several
men push Appellant into the temple parking lot and physically assault
Appellant, prompting Mr. G. Singh to run outside to stop the assault and
transport Appellant to the hospital. Id. at 49-50. Mr. G. Singh stated that
both he and Appellant have been members of the Nazareth Temple since
2005. Id. at 47. Mr. G. Singh explained that all three Sikh temples in the
area have similar services on Sunday, and that all of the temples have services
every day. Id. at 51-53.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted Ms. Kaur’s PFA
Petition and issued a Final PFA Order that, inter alia, excluded Appellant from
-4-
J-A13022-21
going near Ms. Kaur’s residence and excluded Appellant from attending the
Nazareth Temple on Sundays when Ms. Kaur was present.1
Appellant timely appealed. Both Appellant and the trial court complied
with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
1. Does final PFA Order violate [Appellant]’s constitutional rights
and unlawfully impede his free exercise of religion and peaceful
assembly?
2. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion in entering the
final PFA Order to the extent that the written language of the
order expressly contradicts the trial court’s reasoning and
rulings stated on the record during the final PFA hearing held
on July 15, 2020 and impartially favors [Ms. Kaur]?
Appellant’s Br. at 3.
In a PFA action, this Court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions for
an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050,
1053-54 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc). A trial court does not abuse its
discretion for a mere error of judgment; rather, an abuse of discretion occurs
“where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not
applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill will.” Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017, 1019 (Pa.
Super. 2008) (citation omitted). Moreover, on appeal, this Court will defer “to
the credibility determinations of the trial court as to witnesses who appeared
____________________________________________
1 The trial court also granted Appellant’s PFA Petition against Ms. Kaur.
-5-
J-A13022-21
before it.” Karch v. Karch, 885 A.2d 535, 537 (Pa. Super. 2005). It is well-
settled that “the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses
and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of
the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Walsh, 36 A.3d 613, 619 (Pa. Super.
2012) (citation omitted). Finally, we review the evidence of record in the light
most favorable to, and grant all reasonable inferences to, the party that
prevailed before the PFA court. Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977, 982 (Pa.
Super. 1993).
In his first issue, Appellant raises a constitutional challenge and avers
that the PFA Order unlawfully impedes his free exercise of religion under both
the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions by restricting his access to
the Nazareth Temple where he chooses to practice his religion. Appellant’s
Br. at 10. Appellant argues that instead of banning him from the Nazareth
Temple on Sundays when Ms. Kaur is present, the trial court should have
included language in the Order that required the parties to stay away from
each other at the Nazareth Temple or provided a specific schedule for each
party to be at the Nazareth Temple. Id. at 11.
“Appellant’s constitutional challenge is a question of law for which our
standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”
Commonwealth v. Muhammad, 241 A.3d 1149, 1154 (Pa. Super. 2020).
Both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions guarantee the free
exercise of religion. Application of Conversion Ctr., Inc., 130 A.2d 107,
110 (Pa. 1957). We are guided by our sister Court that has recognized that
-6-
J-A13022-21
it is proper to follow federal precedent in considering a free exercise of religion
claim under both the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions, because
the Pennsylvania Constitution does not give broader protection to this right.
Meggett v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 892 A.2d 872, 879 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006).
Accordingly, we will analyze Appellant’s claim pursuant to the United States
Constitution.2
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]” U.S. Const. Amend. I. “The
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applied to the States through
the Fourteenth Amendment, prevents a State from enacting laws that have
the ‘purpose’ or ‘effect’ of advancing or inhibiting religion.” Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 648–49 (2002) (citation omitted). However,
“the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment does not include
freedom from all regulation of an individual’s acts and conduct as
contradistinguished from his beliefs.” United States v. Kissinger, 250 F.2d
940, 943 (3d Cir. 1958). While the First Amendment prohibits the government
from burdening the free exercise of religion, the First Amendment is only
____________________________________________
2 Moreover, in his Brief, Appellant raises a challenge under both the United
States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. However, in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Statement, Appellant failed to specifically raise a challenge pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Constitution, and the trial court failed to address such a
challenge in its Rule 1925(a) Opinion. Accordingly, any argument that the
final PFA Order violates the Pennsylvania Constitution is waived. See Pa.R.A.P
1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement . . . are waived.”).
-7-
J-A13022-21
implicated if the governmental burden on an individual’s religious practice is
substantial. Anspach ex rel. Anspach v. City of Phila., Dep't of Pub.
Health, 503 F.3d 256, 272 (3d Cir. 2007). “In order to establish a substantial
burden, [a party] must . . . allege state action that is either compulsory or
coercive in nature.” Id.Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Final PFA Order did not
substantially burden Appellant’s right to practice his religion. The Final PFA
Order provides, in relevant part: “[Appellant] is going to be excluded from the
temple at 648 Daniels Road, Nazareth when [Ms. Kaur] is present on
Sundays.” Order, 7/15/20. The Order did not ban Appellant from practicing
his religion, nor compel him to perform actions against his religion. Appellant
can attend services at several other temples in the area on Sunday, attend
services at Nazareth Temple every day but Sunday, and attend services at
Nazareth Temple on Sunday if Ms. Kaur is not present. As the trial court
explained, “[t]he record established that all of the Sikh temples in the area
have essentially the same services” and “Appellant may attend any Sikh
temple he chooses except the [Nazareth Temple] ‘when his ex-wife is
present.’” Trial Ct. Op. at 10.
The Order did not place a substantial burden on Appellant’s ability to
practice his religion, but rather restricted his access to the Nazareth Temple
on a specific day and time to ensure Ms. Kaur’s safety.
Additionally, the trial court found that Appellant attends religious
services at Nazareth Temple in order to intimidate Ms. Kaur. Id. Since
-8-
J-A13022-21
Appellant’s purpose of attending the services at Nazareth Temple is to harass
Ms. Kaur as opposed to practicing his religion, the Order arguably does not
impact Appellant’s ability to practice his religion at all.
In sum, the Final PFA Order does not rise to the level of placing a
substantial burden on Appellant’s right to freely exercise his religion and,
therefore, the Order neither implicates nor violates the First Amendment.
In Appellant’s next issue, he essentially challenges the weight of the
evidence and avers that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted
Ms. Kaur’s PFA Petition. Appellant’s Br. at 14. For the following reasons, we
conclude Appellant waived this issue.
“The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each
question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of
pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa.
Super. 2020) (citation and bracketed language omitted). See Pa.R.A.P. 2111
and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for appellate briefs).
When an appellant fails to properly raise and develop issues in briefs with
arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review, we may dismiss the
appeal or find certain issues waived. Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d
766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (explaining that substantial
briefing defects may result in dismissal of appeal). It is not this Court’s role
to develop an appellant’s argument where the brief provides mere cursory
legal discussion. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925 (Pa.
2009).
-9-
J-A13022-21
Here, Appellant’s four-paragraph argument is devoid of any citation to
relevant controlling case law and does not contain any citations to the record.
See Appellant’s Brief at 7-10. Further, his conclusory argument fails to
provide any legal analysis in support of his claim. Id. Appellant’s failure to
develop his argument has hampered this Court’s ability to provide meaningful
appellate review. Accordingly, this issue is waived.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/2/2021
- 10 -