Goldner, K. v. Manigault, L.

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed an order granting a protection from abuse petition as to one child but denying it as to his younger sibling. The court held that witnessing abuse of a sibling did not establish that the younger child was abused or placed in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury. It also held that Kayden’s Law did not apply to the PFA proceeding because the court was not conducting a custody determination.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law by dismissing the PFA petition as to the younger child because the record did not establish that Father physically abused him or that he was in reasonable fear that Father would inflict bodily injury on him.
2. Kayden's Law and 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(e) do not apply unless and until a court is considering a custody matter under the Child Custody Act; a PFA court need not conduct a custody best-interests analysis or impose custody safety conditions merely because it dismisses a PFA petition as to a child who remains in a parent's existing custody.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enter a PFA order for the younger child because he witnessed Father's abuse of his sibling.
2. Whether Kayden's Law required the trial court, in resolving the PFA petition, to conduct a custody best-interests analysis and impose safety conditions before leaving the younger child in Father's existing custody.

Disposition

affirmed