The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-6494 CONSTANCE L. JODON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : : SAMUEL JODON, : NO. 2009 – 6494 CIVIL TERM Defendant : IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., November , 2010 The defendant has filed an appeal from our order of July 23, 2010, extending this protection from abuse order through October 8, 2011. In his appeal the defendant alleges that we committed prejudicial error and/or abused our discretion in extending the order. Procedural Background. On September 25, 2009 the plaintiff filed a “Petition for Protection from Abuse.” We entered a temporary ex parte order and scheduled a hearing on the matter for October 8, 2010. The hearing was continued by agreement of the parties. Thereafter they filed a stipulation which resulted in a final order being entered on October 20, 2010. By its terms the order was scheduled to expire on June 8, 2010. The final order provided that the defendant “shall not 1 abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten” the plaintiff. 1 Final Protection from Abuse order dated October 20, 2009. On June 7, 2010 plaintiff filed a “Petition for Extension.” We held a hearing on the petition on July 23, 2010. After hearing the evidence we extended the order through October 8, 2011. Factual Background. The parties have been (and continue to be) involved in contentious custody and divorce 2 proceedings. Defendant has an explosive temper and “reacts physically when he’s angry.” Both the plaintiff and their children are afraid of him. Defendant was aware of his family’s fear. Plaintiff did not wish to have the PFA order prevent defendant from seeing his children. However, she insisted that the visits be supervised, either at the Child Development Center (CDC) located on base at the Navy Depot or in the office of the family therapist. She also insisted that she be able to drop the children off before he arrived and pick them up after he left. The defendant agreed. In spite of the PFA and his agreement to the contrary the defendant made it a point to arrive early or leave late on several occasions. We were satisfied that those actions were motivated by his desire to intimidate the plaintiff. We held a custody hearing on May 13, 2010. At that time plaintiff made us aware of her continued problems with the defendant being present when she arrived at the visitation site. We made it clear to the defendant that this behavior must stop. We even included the following provision in the temporary custody order entered on that day: Mother shall be responsible to get the children to and from the CDC for the Saturday visitations. Father shall not arrive before noon and shall leave by 6:00. Contact with Mother at the CDC before noon or after 6:00 shall not be 2 Transcript of Proceedings, July 23, 2010, p. 17. 2 considered to be an exception to the no contact provision of the Protection from Abuse Order. 3 (emphasis added). Only two days later on May 15, 2010 he arrived at the Navy Base early, entering the gate immediately in front of plaintiff. Two days after that on May 17, 2010 he arrived early to the family therapist’s office for his counseling session with the children. While he parked in an adjacent parking lot, he was positioned in such a way that his car, and his presence, would be clearly visible to the plaintiff when she arrived. We were satisfied that those actions were designed to intimidate the plaintiff, which they did. DISCUSSION The Protection from Abuse Act authorizes the extension of a protection order if we find “that the defendant committed one or more acts of abuse subsequent to entry of the final order.” 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6108 (e) (1) (i). The act defines “abuse”, inter alia, as “(k)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.” 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6102. In the case at bar we were satisfied that the defendant’s conduct was such as to justify the extension of the protection order. At first glance (and viewed in isolation) defendant’s conduct might appear to be simply a series of innocent mistakes. However, when viewed in context it became apparent that his 3 Paragraph 5 of the order of court dated May 13, 2010, and docketed at No. 6418 Civil 2009. 3 actions were far from innocent. When asked by her counsel to explain why she viewed defendant’s conduct as an intentional “attempt to harass and intimidate”, plaintiff explained: Sam . . . has an agenda; and he will push things to the limit. My experience over the past year with these court orders and the protection from abuse has been that Sam will do whatever he thinks he can get away with. And normally, he’s got a plan for getting away with it. He’s got a backup plan. If he does something, he’ll have an excuse to make it look like it was okay. I have seen it happen - - I’ve seen it happen several times. I think Sam is purposely trying to scare and intimidate me, and it works. I am afraid of him. I do think Sam could hurt me. . . . He can come across as somebody who just didn’t understand and make you feel sorry for him. And I know that because I’ve lived with him and so I think that these things he does I know what they mean because I know who Sam is. But to somebody else, it might just look like, oh, that’s just a little mistake. He just arrived early. He just wanted to see his kids. . . . I - - I absolutely believe that if Sam could get away with it that he would try to hurt me or hurt our children. He has hurt them in the past. He is an angry man. He’s been an angry man for a long time. He reacts physically when he’s angry. 4 He’s hurt - - he’s kicked our pets. He’s backhand my son. We found the above testimony to be both credible and convincing. Based upon the defendant’s course of conduct we had no doubt that plaintiff was in fear of bodily injury. Plaintiff’s testimony cited above as well as the following exchange with defendant’s counsel on cross examination was instrumental in convincing us that her fear was reasonable: Q. Other than he exists, like, he shows up two minutes early or two minutes late or whatever it is, what threatening behavior has he engaged in? Has he said anything to you? 4 Transcript of Proceedings, July 23, 2010, pp. 15 – 17. 4 A. It’s a - - yes. It’s a pattern of behavior with Sam and me. And it’s a - - it’s the series of events over the long term that - - that have lead me to believe that he absolutely is trying to intimidate me. Q. Like what? A. He has said to me that his life would be better off without me in it. Q. When was this? A. Last - - I don’t remember the exact dates. But it was more than once. More than once he made that clear to me he wanted me out of his life and that he wanted me out of his - - the life of the children and his relationship with the children. And Sam’s - - Sam has - - Sam’s behavior with me over the past - - I’ll just narrow it down to the past year has been very manipulative and very demeaning and very frightening. Sam - - it’s the - - it’s the compilation of his behaviors that give meaning to his behaviors now. Q. Such as what? I haven’t heard you give any. You just say this is what he’s like, but you haven’t given any specific examples of why he’s physically threatening to you. A. Okay. When Sam gets angry, he acts out physically. He hurts whatever, himself, the dog, the children. He - - he has hit things. He’s broken his hand twice in anger. He - - he - - he doesn’t think before he acts when he’s angry. That’s the pattern of behavior. Examples, he - - he got angry at my son for playing a trick on him and backhand him and gave him a 5 bloody nose. Based upon defendant’s intentional attempts to intimidate the plaintiff and his history of physical outbursts when angry, we were convinced that he knowingly engaged in a course of conduct which placed plaintiff in reasonable fear of bodily injury during the time our protection 6 order was in effect. Therefore, we extended the protection order for another year. 5 Transcript of Proceedings, July 23, 2010, pp. 19, 20. 6 The additional year was thought to be a sufficient amount of time to allow the contentious divorce and custody proceedings to be resolved. 5 ________________ ________________________ DATE Edward E. Guido, J. Abraham Prozesky, Esquire Jeanne B. Costopoulos, Esquire :sld 6