A.M.L. v. J.R.

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a three-year final sexual violence protective order issued under the Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence or Intimidation Act. The court held that the evidence did not establish that A.M.L. was at a continued risk of harm from J.R., given that they had one encounter, lived on opposite sides of the country, and had no continuing relationship or contact. The court distinguished precedent involving repeated or likely future encounters between the parties.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff seeking relief under the PVSVIA must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she is at a continued risk of harm from the defendant; the occurrence of sexual violence or intimidation alone does not establish entitlement to an SVPO.
2. The evidence did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that A.M.L. was at a continued risk of harm from J.R. because the parties lived on opposite sides of the country, had no ongoing connections or contact, and were highly unlikely to encounter each other again.
3. The trial court erred as a matter of law by finding that A.M.L. proved a continued risk of harm, and the final SVPO was vacated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether A.M.L. proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was at a continued risk of harm from J.R. sufficient to support a final sexual violence protective order under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 62A06(a).
2. Whether the possibility of a future encounter between the parties was sufficiently probable, on an objective basis, to establish a continued risk of harm under the PVSVIA.

Disposition

vacated