Threats alone are not typically enough to warrant the issuance of a Protection from Abuse Order (PFA). There must be either a history of provable physical abuse or an immanent fear of harm. In Realmuto v. Regalbuto, 2014 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3085, the parties were in the middle of a contentious divorce. The wife retained possession of the marital home. The husband contacted the wife in order to obtain possessions from inside the home and during the telephone call became angry and stated: “I should have beat [you] during [our] marriage, and I want to punch you in your mouth.” The wife thereafter filed for a PFA. The trial Court determined that this statement alone was not enough to meet the burden under the PFA statute in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
23 Pa. C.S. §6102(a)(2) requires that the perpetrator of the abusive act muse place the victim in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury. The Court focused on the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury in the case. They remarked that the husband made his remarks over the phone – so there was distance between them – which made the alleged threat one that was not imminent. Further the husband had made the statements in anger – with no history of any violent behavior against the wife. In fact, there was no record of the husband ever making any threats of violent behavior during the marriage or separation. The lack of reasonableness of wife’s fear was enhanced by the fact that after the alleged threats, the husband had left the home and had not contacted the wife again. Given these circumstances the court found that the wife could not reasonably have believed that she was in imminent danger of harm. Thus, her petition for PFA was dismissed by the trial court.
The take away here is that simple threats without physical presence, actual contact and reasonable belief of immanent physical harm are necessary for a Court to award a PFA.