Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-3326 civil termPATTY ANN HANES on behalf IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF of her minor children NICOLE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HANES AND AMY HANES, PLAINTIFF ROBERT ALLEN HANES, DEFENDANT 00-3326 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PROTECTION FROM ABUSE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this IO~"~- day of June, 2000, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The petition of Patty Ann Hanes on behalf of Nicole Hanes and Amy Hanes for the entry of a protection from abuse order, IS DISMISSED. (2) The temporary protection from abuse order entered on May 31, 2000, with respect to Nicole Hanes and Amy Hanes, IS DISMISSED. - Edgar B. Bayley, J. Samuel Andes, Esquire Joan Carey, Esquire For Plaintiff Herbert Goldstein, Esquire For Defendant :saa PATTY ANN HANES on behalf IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF of her minor children NICOLE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HANES AND AMY HANES, PLAINTIFF V. ROBERT ALLEN HANES, DEFENDANT 00-3326 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PROTECTION FROM ABUSE OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. Bayley, J., June 6, 2000:-- Plaintiff, Patty Ann Hanes, on behalf of her children Nicole Hanes, age 15, and Amy Hanes, age 10, filed a petition for a protection from abuse order against the father of the children, defendant Robert Allen Hanes. A temporary ex parte order was entered on May 31, 2000. A hearing on the merits was conducted on June 2, 2000. Wife previously sought a protection order for herself. On May 15, 2000, following a hearing on the merits, a protection from abuse order was entered against husband on that petition. Husband is a competition shooter and he was ordered to turn over his weapons to the Cumberland County Sheriff. He complied. We denied a request by wife to exclude husband from the marital residence. Although husband did not then return to live at the marital residence, he continued to stop by. He locked and barricaded the garage and the basement so that his wife and children could not gain entry. On May 24, 2000, wife and Nicole were with defendant on the front porch at the marital 00-3326 CIVIL TERM residence. They both testified that defendant said that his guns were at his parents' house, where he could get them at anytime, and that even without them he could use his hands as weapons. Defendant denied making those statements. On May 25, 2000, two technicians came to the marital residence to service the swimming pool. Nicole wanted to get some pool chemicals from the garage but could not get in. She talked to her father by telephone and he told her that the pool people could supply the chemicals and that she was not allowed into the garage. She threatened to break into the garage, which prompted her father to go to the residence where he found Nicole, his wife and two pool technicians. Defendant got into an argument with Nicole and told her to go into the house. She refused. He then shoved her, grabbed her and took her into the house. While inside he yelled and flailed his arms while grounding her for the evening. Wife came into the house and called the police. Defendant went outside and met Officer Leon Crone, of the Lower Allen Police. Defendant told Officer Crone that his daughter had threatened to break into the garage and that when he came home they got into an argument about the garage. He said that he ordered her to go into the house and when she refused he grabbed her and took her inside. Office Crone testified that he asked both the mother and the daughter what happened and that they told him virtually the same thing. Neither the daughter nor mother made any allegations concerning anything that occurred inside the house. Both pool technicians testified that defendant shoved and grabbed his daughter and took her into the house where they could hear him arguing with her. A protection from abuse order requires that "[p]laintiff must prove the allegation of -2- 00-3326 CIVIL TERM abuse by a preponderance of the evidence." 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(a). The Protection From Abuse Act, at 23 Pa.C.S. Section 6102(a) defines, "Abuse" as follows: The occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members, sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood: (1) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury, serious bodily injury, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault or incest with or without a deadly weapon. (2) Placing another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury. (3) The infliction of false imprisonment pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 2903 (relating to false imprisonment). (4) Physically or sexually abusing minor children, including such terms as defined in Chapter 63 (relating to child protection services). (5) Knowingly engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts toward another person, including following the person, without proper authority, under circumstances which place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. The definition of this paragraph applies only to proceedings commenced under this title and is inapplicable to any criminal prosecutions commenced under Title 18 (relating to crimes and offenses). (Emphasis added.) In Chronister v. Brenneman, 742 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. 1999), a father administered corporal punishment to his sixteen-year-old daughter by hitting her four or five times with a belt across the buttock after she admitted lying to him. The daughter testified that the strapping was painful, it made her cry, and she was frightened and intimidated by the incident and her father's statement that similar punishment would follow if she continued to break the rules. The father essentially admitted the relevant facts while asserting that his action was solely designed to discipline his daughter. The trial court entered a protection from abuse order which was reversed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Court, while noting that its -3- 00-3326 CIVIL TERM opinion should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval of the father's choice of disciplining his daughter, concluded that there was a lack of evidence that his acts were (1) intended to be anything other than punishment for the daughter who had taxed his patience to the limit, or (2) of a malevolent infliction of pain, or (3) an attempt to terrorize the daughter so as to warrant the entry of a protection from abuse order. In the case sub judice, the father in locking the garage and the basement, which prevented access by his family, played the role of a schmuck that set the table for the-conflict that was sure to come. Plaintiff, however, has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's conduct with regard to Nicole was anything other than punishment for her threatening to enter the garage which he told her not to do, and for not following his instructions in going into the house. The credible evidence also does not support a finding that defendant placed his daughters in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury based on the conversation that occurred on May 24, 2000. Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this __~1~ ~- day of June, 2000, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The petition of Patty Ann Hanes on behalf of Nicole Hanes and Amy Hanes for the entry of a protection from abuse order, IS DISMISSED. (2) The temporary protection from abuse order entered on May 31, 2000, with respect to Nicole Hanes and Amy Hanes, IS DISMISSED. -4- 00-3326 CIVIL TERM Joan Carey, Esquire For Plaintiff Herbert Goldstein, Esquire For Defendant :saa -5-