J-S09015-24 

2024 PA Super 128 

 

SMRITI BHATIA 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER FERNANDEZ 

 Appellant 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 PENNSYLVANIA 

 No. 1715 EDA 2023 

Appeal from the Order Entered June 1, 2023 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Domestic Relations at No(s): 2301V7313 

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J. 

OPINION BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 20, 2024 

 Christopher Fernandez appeals from the June 1, 2023, order granting 

Smriti Bhatia’s1 protection from abuse (“PFA”) petition.2 Fernandez claims 

there was insufficient evidence to grant the PFA petition. After careful review, 

we affirm. 

 Bhatia and Fernandez were former intimate partners. They were in an 

on-again-off-again relationship from approximately August or September 

2021, through the beginning of June 2022. Although they did not live together, 

Bhatia did give Fernandez a key to her apartment. During their relationship, 

Bhatia felt Fernandez was lying to her and manipulating her. She explained 

she was concerned because “[t]here were times when we would fight, and I 

____________________________________________ 

1

 Bhatia has not filed a brief on appeal. 

2 See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-6122. 
J-S09015-24 

- 2 - 

would see him standing with a knife over the sink because he just felt so 

terribly after the fight.” N.T. Hearing, 6/1/23, at 23. She later saw him with 

cuts on his arm “a couple of times[.]” Id. When questioned about why that 

caused her to have safety concerns, Bhatia explained “if he could do it to 

himself, he could probably in a fit of rage do it to -- ... I was just concerned 

about him, I guess, more than myself at that point.” Id. at 24. 

When the relationship ended, Fernandez returned the key to Bhatia’s 

apartment. Bhatia “did not want to have any sort of contact [with Fernandez,] 

but [she] did see him come into [her] apartment complex a couple times.” Id.

at 19. Fernandez did not live in the same apartment complex. “He lives in a 

different part of the city.” Id. at 20. At first, Fernandez kept texting and 

emailing Bhatia, so around the end of August, she “blocked him off 

everything.” Id. at 21. 

 In August, before Bhatia blocked Fernandez from contacting her, she 

saw him drive into her apartment complex. She confronted him while he was 

still in his car. She asked what he was doing there, and he responded that “he 

just comes here and sits here and thinks about what he has done.” Id. at 20. 

She told him to leave and warned him that if she saw him again in her 

apartment complex, she would call the police. Fernandez left. Bhatia explained 

to the trial court that she felt scared and violated after this incident. 

 Approximately two weeks prior to filing the PFA petition, when Bhatia 

returned home from a trip, there were items missing from her apartment, 
J-S09015-24 

- 3 - 

including a few pants, a jacket, and underwear. She suspected Fernandez 

entered her apartment while she was away and took the items. 

 Bhatia filed the PFA petition on January 23, 2023. She filed the PFA 

petition due to information her current boyfriend, Kevin Mcanally, provided 

her. A hearing was held on the PFA petition on June 1, 2023. Mcanally testified 

at the PFA hearing that he works remotely. On January 18, 2023, he was 

working remotely from Bhatia’s apartment. Around 2 PM, he heard someone 

in the hallway outside Bhatia’s apartment and keys rattling. He was on a 

Teams call at the time, so when he heard a “slight knock” he did not answer 

the door. He heard a key in the door to Bhatia’s apartment and then heard 

the door open. He looked behind him towards the door and saw Fernandez.3

Fernandez said “sorry,” closed the door, and left. Mcanally ended his Teams 

call and immediately called Bhatia to tell her what happened. Bhatia had the 

apartment complex change her door locks after she spoke with Mcanally. 

 Fernandez testified that he did not go to Bhatia’s apartment on January 

18, 2023, although he did admit to being in the area of her apartment. 

Fernandez testified that, although he lived in another section of Philadelphia, 

he was around Bhatia’s apartment on January 18, 2023, to get his car 

inspected. However, Fernandez did not get his car inspected that day, because 

____________________________________________ 

3

 Mcanally did not know Fernandez but described the male and pointed to 

Fernandez in court identifying him as the male he saw in the doorway of 

Bhatia’s apartment on January 18, 2023. 
J-S09015-24 

- 4 - 

he claims he could not find the required documents. Instead, he went across 

the street to a supermarket, spent about a half hour inside, walked to a UPS 

store in the same complex as the supermarket, and went home. Fernandez 

entered his GPS log from January 18, 2023, and a receipt from the UPS store 

into evidence. These records show Fernandez left his home at 1:01 PM and 

arrived at the inspection station at 1:21 PM. He drove across the street to the 

supermarket and was there between 1:39 PM and 2:13 PM. He then drove 

home, which took him approximately a half hour. The GPS log had no record 

of Fernandez entering the UPS store. The UPS receipt shows he dropped off a 

package at 2:13 PM on January 18, 2023. Fernandez did not provide a receipt 

from the supermarket nor a copy of his credit or debit card purchase history 

for January 18, 2023, although he did claim to have a record of the purchase.4

 Fernandez denied ever going to Bhatia’s apartment on January 18, 

2023. He did admit he reached out to her at times after their break-up, 

“despite her not reciprocating[.]” N.T. Hearing, 6/1/23, at 53. He further 

admitted that he drove to her apartment complex after they broke up and sat 

in the parking lot but left when she asked him to leave. 

____________________________________________ 

4

 Fernandez, although prepared with the GPS printout and UPS receipt, 

claimed he did not print out his credit or debit purchase history “because [he] 

did not think to bring it [to court].” N.T. Hearing, 6/1/23, at 55. 
J-S09015-24 

- 5 - 

 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Bhatia and 

Mcanally credible and granted the PFA petition. Fernandez timely appealed.5

He raises one issue on appeal: “Did the trial court err in granting the protection 

from abuse petition where there was insufficient evidence to prove that 

Fernandez abused Bhatia?” Appellant’s Brief, at 4. 

 Our standard of review in a PFA appeal is evaluating whether the trial 

court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. See Mescanti v. 

Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017, 1019 (Pa. Super. 2008). 

The PFA Act does not seek to determine criminal culpability. 

A petitioner is not required to establish abuse occurred beyond a 

reasonable doubt, but only to establish it by a preponderance of 

the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence standard is defined 

as the greater weight of the evidence, i.e., enough to tip a scale 

slightly. 

When a claim is presented on appeal that the 

evidence was not sufficient to support an order of 

protection from abuse, we review the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the petitioner and granting her 

the benefit of all reasonable inferences, determine 

whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial 

court’s conclusion by a preponderance of the 

evidence. This Court defers to the credibility 

determinations of the trial court as to witnesses who 

appeared before it. 

____________________________________________ 

5

 On August 6, 2023, this Court ordered Fernandez to file his Rule 1925(b) 

statement by August 18, 2023, because the trial court docket revealed that 

he was not served with the trial court’s order to do so. See Per Curiam Order 

8/6/23. Fernandez complied and filed his Rule 1925(b) statement with this 

Court on August 15, 2023. Based upon the breakdown in court operations, 

and Fernandez’s compliance with our Order, we will not find waiver of his 

issue. See Hartdegen v. Berger, 839 A.2d 1100, 1105 (Pa. Super. 2003) 

(we will not find waiver of issues on appeal where appellant was not served 

with notice pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236). 
J-S09015-24 

- 6 - 

B.K.P. v. J.R.B., 303 A.3d 456, 459 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted). 

Notably, “the purpose of the PFA Act is to protect victims of domestic violence 

from those who perpetrate such abuse, with the primary goal of advance 

prevention of physical and sexual abuse.” T.K. v. A.Z., 157 A.3d 974, 976 

(Pa. Super. 2017) (brackets and citation omitted). 

 The trial court found abuse under subsection 6102(a)(5). In relevant 

part, section 6102(a) states: 

“Abuse.” 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: 

... 

(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. 

23 Pa.C.S. §6102(a)(5).6 Actual physical harm is not required before a PFA 

petition may be granted. See Fonner v. Fonner, 731 A.2d 160, 163 (Pa. 

Super. 1999). 

 Fernandez argues there was “insufficient evidence to prove that Bhatia 

was in reasonable fear of bodily injury. She did not testify that she feared 

____________________________________________ 

6

 “Family or household members” includes former sexual or intimate partners 

and Fernandez does not dispute that he qualifies as a family or household 

member as he was in a prior relationship with Bhatia. See Appellant’s Brief, 

at 5; 23 Pa.C.S. § 6102(a). 
J-S09015-24 

- 7 - 

Fernandez would inflict bodily injury or harm her in any manner.” Appellant’s 

Brief, at 10. We disagree. Bhatia testified that she “was not in a good state of 

mind” after she received the call from Mcanally on January 18, 2023, where 

he described Fernandez entering her apartment. N.T. Hearing, 6/1/23, at 16. 

Further, she explained she felt scared and violated after Fernandez repeatedly 

texted and emailed her and showed up unannounced at her apartment 

complex in August 2022. See id. at 21. Finally, she told the trial court that 

she “just want[s] to feel safer at the end of this[.] ... I’ve suffered a lot through 

the relationship. It was a lot. I had to undergo therapy and could not live my 

regular life after everything, and I just wish he would let it go for God’s sake.” 

Id. at 24. 

Part of her concern came from Fernandez’s use of a knife to threaten 

harm to himself. See id. at 23. While she conceded she was more concerned 

about his safety at that point, she did note that it made her feel that he could 

use a knife against someone else in a fit of rage. See id. at 24. Most 

concerning, however, is Mcanally’s testimony to seeing Fernandez, who 

returned Bhatia’s apartment key after their breakup, use a key to enter 

Bhatia’s apartment when she was not home. See id. at 33-34. It is reasonable 

for one to fear for their safety when an uninvited guest uses a key they should 

not have to enter their home. This intrusive incident made Bhatia change the 

locks to her apartment. 

 As the trial court aptly explained: 
J-S09015-24 

- 8 - 

The court found [Bhatia’s] fear of [Fernandez] to be reasonable. 

The PFA Act was enacted to prevent future harm. [Bhatia’s] and 

Mr. Mcanally’s credible testimony concerning [Fernandez’s] 

unauthorized entry to [Bhatia’s] apartment more than six months 

after the parties’ breakup, along with [Bhatia’s] additional 

testimony, demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that 

a final order was necessary to prevent future harm. 

Notably, [Fernandez’s] testimony was not credible. In fact, 

evidence [Fernandez] introduced to show he was not at [Bhatia’s] 

apartment on the date of the January incident put [Fernandez] 

at/near [Bhatia’s] apartment. [Fernandez] wanted the court to 

believe that [he] just so happened to drive across the city of 

Philadelphia to get his car inspected at a place that just so 

happened to be near [Bhatia’s] apartment on the same date that 

just so happened to be the date [Bhatia’s] witness saw 

[Fernandez] enter [Bhatia’s] apartment without [Bhatia's] 

permission. [Fernandez’s] own physical evidence in turn 

corroborated [Bhatia's] case. 

Trial Court Opinion, 9/18/23, at 15 (emphasis in original). 

We agree. There are no magic words that a PFA petitioner must utter to 

obtain a PFA. See T.K., 157 A.3d at 978 (finding that, although the petitioner 

never said that she was in fear of her abuser, there was sufficient evidence to 

find she was in reasonable fear of bodily injury). The circumstances here show 

Bhatia was in reasonable fear of bodily injury as Fernandez’s actions were 

escalating. By his own admission, he continued to text and email her after she 

cut all contact with him. See N.T. Hearing, 6/1/23, at 53. He also admitted to 

going to her apartment complex uninvited to sit in the parking lot. See id. He 

then entered her apartment, using a key that Bhatia was unaware he had, but 

retreated when he saw Mcanally inside. See id. at 34. The incidents described, 

along with Bhatia’s concern for her safety, were sufficient to grant the PFA. 
J-S09015-24 

- 9 - 

Order affirmed. 

Date: 6/20/2024