The Lycoming County Commissioners Meeting on the first of February had a small item on the Salary Board agenda that stated, “Sheriff’s Office – Request to add a Part-Time Clerk III, Paygrade 4.” Commissioner Metzger invited Sheriff Lusk to comment on the reason for this personnel addition to the Sheriff’s Office. Lusk was more than ready to oblige.
The additional staff was solely to handle PFAs (Protection from Abuse) orders. Lusk noted that at the current rate, his office will approach 800 of these orders this year. He told the commissioners that there are so many the courts must have hearings every day of the week, even 10 to 12 a day. To make matters even more complicated, the sheriff’s office must serve PFAs from other counties as they are going to other counties as well. Lusk said it so succinctly, “We don’t see an end in sight.”
The issue of domestic abuse is an ugly scar in our society, and unfortunately, it is continually growing. This can happen to anyone who interacts with another person. The power of the PFA can require that the defendant has no contact with the plaintiff, that the defendant leaves a shared residence, or that the defendant has limited contact with the plaintiff, depending on the circumstances.
But it can be very demanding upon the one being served the PFA. A judge can order that all weapons be confiscated. The defendant may be required to vacate their own home if they own the house, and the petitioner has no claim to it but has nowhere else to stay. The PFA Act allows the Family Court judge a great deal of discretion in fashioning an order that is designed to prevent any further abuse.
It is not the same thing as a criminal conviction, but it can act like one. The Pennsylvania State Police maintain a record of Protection from Abuse orders, and therefore, the existence of the order could show up on a background check of the defendant. These are used for employment, housing, or educational opportunities, a blot that could result in a deal-breaker.
Given all this, it would seem that the veracity of the offense should be assured. However, in the “he said/she said” scenario (or “he said/he said” or “she said/she said”), a judge is forced to take the word of the one who seeks the petition. Granted, emotional suffering can be just as painful as physical suffering, and allowances must be made for those in distress. But the reality is that a PFA could be issued even if there is no abuse at all. This has been known to happen when a person seeks to get back at another person simply out of spite or if there are children between the couple, and it is believed that a PFA is extra ammunition when child custody comes up in court.
To understand this growing legal problem goes back to Pennsylvania’s first Protection from Abuse Act, established in 1976, the second in the entire country. Since that time, it has been adjusted and reviewed in Harrisburg, most recently in House Resolution #735 in 2015. This was cited and reviewed in a staff study done by the Joint State Government Commission of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania conducted in November 2016. The purpose of this study was stated clearly in the beginning, “2016 House Resolution No. 735 directed staff of the Joint State Government Commission to review the Protection from Abuse Act to identify gaps in the law as well as practices and procedures in its implementation that may be subjecting victims to an unreasonable risk of additional harm. The recommendations contained herein are intended to close those gaps and redirect practices and procedures to eliminate risks to victims insofar as possible.”
That statement clearly outlines that the primary focus was ensuring that the process protected the victims. Going through the 82 pages of this report was a long slough, but I had hoped that somewhere in there would be some recognition of restraints needed for those who used the process vindictively and not for protection as it was designed. However, the report was solely on the side of making the process more accessible and expedient.
Make no mistake: domestic violence is an abhorrent, disgusting problem in our society. But the power of the PFA also makes it a dangerous tool as well. Why has the number of PFAs in Lycoming County tripled from 200 in 2010 to 653 in 2023 and is heading toward 800 by this year’s end? Is there a crime wave of abuse or an abuse of the law? Whatever it is, our tax dollars are paying for it.
