Chapter AD: Protection from What?

Finally, Rita claimed I made threats by damaging property and calling her names and increased my ‘threats’ over the prior year.  I suppose the claim that I made a threat by damaging property was when I knocked the lamp off the table.  This act certainly was not intended to be a threat as no one was around when I did it.  I don’t think I’ve ever called Rita a name or used “directed obscenities” against her.  I would never do this in front of the kids, and they were always around.  There was no escalation of threats or abusive behavior over the prior year. Still, I think people need to make this claim so courts take them seriously, i.e., claiming the abuser is getting worse, and there’s no telling what they may do next.

Despite the lack of evidence or any suggestion I was an immediate or severe threat to anyone, Judge Pam Ruest issued Rita emergency and temporary orders; I cannot imagine Rita honestly thought I would endanger her or the kids.  I suspect that emergency and temporary orders are just routinely given out as soon as someone tells the court they’re scared.  In an attempt to see what Rita had accused me of doing, I later requested a transcript of the ex parte hearing required for a temporary order and was told that there wasn’t one because, at the time, court reporters were not recording these hearings.  Not transcribing a hearing is undoubtedly against all court rules I have ever seen, and I have never been to a hearing in which someone or something wasn’t recording the proceedings.  Thus, I doubt there was a hearing.  Although I could understand, to protect all the parties involved, that transcripts of these hearings might be challenging to obtain, although that is not the case for hearings for a final order.

Thus, on January 4, 2013, I became subject to the terms of the order shown in the image gallery without any input from my attorney or any allegations whatsoever that I’d done anything to the kids to warrant them needing protection. As I later learned, this shouldn’t have been surprising because courts essentially consider someone listed as a defendant on a PFA guilty until proven innocent; it’s a civil matter, not a criminal one, so this is apparently okay.

The restrictions in the emergency and temporary orders read as follows:

  1. Defendant shall not abuse, harass, stalk or threaten any of the above persons in any place where they might be found.
  2. Defendant is evicted and excluded from the residence at:
    247 McBath Street, State College, PA  16801
    or any other permanent or temporary residence where Plaintiff or any other person protected under this order may live.
    Plaintiff is granted exclusive possession of the residence.  Defendant shall have no right or privilege to enter or be present on the premises of Plaintiff or any other person protected under this order.
  3. Except for such contact with the minor children as may be permitted under paragraph 5 of this order, Defendant is prohibited from having ANY CONTACT with Plaintiff, or·any other person protected under this order either directly or indirectly, at any location, including but not limited to any contact at Plaintiff’s or other protected party’s school, business, or place of employment.  Defendant is specifically ordered to stay away from the following locations for the duration of this order.
    Defendant may not post any remark(s) regarding Plaintiff on any social network(s), including, but not limited to, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, or any other electronic network(s).
  4. Except for such contact with the minor child/ren as may be permitted under paragraph 5 of this order, Defendant shall not contact Plaintiff, or any other person protected under this order, by telephone or by any other means, including through third persons.
  5. CUSTODY
    Until the final hearing, all contact between Defendant and the child/ren shall be limited to the following:
    * Only supervised visits.
    Pending the outcome of the final hearing in this matter, Plaintiff is awarded temporary custody of the following minor child/ren:
    1. Caleb Mockensturm
    2. Amanda Mockensturm
    3. Amelia Mockensturm
    The local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the child/ren are located shall ensure that the child/ren are placed in the care and control of Plaintiff in accordance with the terms of this order.
  6. The following additional relief is granted:
    Defendant is prohibited from stalking, as defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709.1, or harassing, as described in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709, the following family and household members of Plaintiff:
    Name, Relationship, Address
    Debra Benson, Sister
    Joan Hanson, Mother

    Other Relief:
    – Description of Plaintiff out of pocket financial losses:  Loss of work and cost of lock changes
    – Defendant is ordered to pay temporary support to Plaintiff and/or the minor child/ren, including medical support.
    – Defendant shall pay Plaintiff for the reasonable financial losses suffered as the result of the abuse, to be determined at the hearing.
    – Defendant is ordered to pay the costs of this action, including filing and service fees.
    – Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees.

  7. A certified copy of this order shall be provided to the sheriff or police department where Plaintiff resides and any other agency specified hereafter;
    All Centre County Law Enforcement Agencies, including Attachment ‘A’ if applicable.
  8. The sheriff, police or other law enforcement agencies are directed to serve Defendant with a copy of the petition, any order issued, and the order for hearing.  Petitioner will inform the designated authority of any addresses, other than Defendant’s residence, where Defendant can be served.
  9. THIS ORDER APPLIES IMMEDIATELY TO DEFENDANT AND SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL FEBRUARY 4, 2013 OR UNTIL OTHERWISE MODIFIED OR TERMINATED BY THIS COURT AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING.

With no family in the area and not wanting to involve friends or colleagues in the situation, I’m glad Rita at least waited until I had a place to stay before applying for this order.

The court initially set the hearing to allow me to present my side of the story for January 14, 2013, at 10:00 AM and within the ten-day of issuing the temporary order. However, because Rita’s lawyer was ‘busy’ she had the hearing continued until February 1. Again, while the statute states that this hearing must be within ten days of the petition’s filing, it seems like the courts ignore this. If her lawyer files something, she should sacrifice whatever is on her schedule to make the scheduled hearing and follow the law.

As I have learned, this is one of the many ways the courts take very liberal views of the PFA Act. If you’re a fan of courtroom dramas, you might be thinking, “He should have been able to get the order thrown out on a technicality.” The reality is, that is not how real-world courts work unless, of course, the crime is severe and there is a great deal of public interest in the case and scrutiny on the court. For example, had I objected to the issuance of the order at the hearing because it occurred after the ten-day period required by the statute, the judge could have asked Rita on the spot if she wanted to request another order, thus resetting the ten-day window. The law would have required that the judge delay the hearing if I asked for it, but this would have angered the judge and worsened my situation. The best time to raise the issue of an order being invalid for not following statutory procedures would seemingly be at a violation hearing.

As I will discuss later, the prosecution must establish that an order is legally valid for someone to have violated it. I have no idea what would have happened had I suggested at a violation hearing that, because the final order hearing did not occur within ten days of the request, the order was not legally valid. Still, I can guarantee that it would not have made any difference. The judge would deem the order valid or argue that I had not made an objection at the final order hearing, and I had lost my chance to object to the order’s validity. Ultimately, judges would do whatever they wanted and told me I could appeal the decision. I will discuss later why appealing a ruling that a PFA violation is simply a waste of time, and essentially no one does it.

1 2 3 4