Court Opinion

ID: 9784921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:57:35.120593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:01.026282
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY
CLELAND, J.:
I respectfully note my dissent from the majority’s expansive view of the Legislature’s intent in enacting the Protection from Abuse Act and concluding Evans had standing to bring this action.
Evans’ testimony established that she and Braun were co-workers who had gone on two dates. She did not testify they were particularly intimate, either sexually or emotionally.1 Under the facts of this case, I do not agree Evans and Braun can be considered “current or former sexual or intimate partners” as that term is used either in the statute or discussed in our caselaw. Their relationship simply did not entail the “significant degree of domestic, familial and/or intimate interdependence” the Act is intended to address. Scott, 928 A.2d at 315.
The majority further concludes the “criminal law proved to be an ineffective avenue for Evans to seek protection from Braun” and, therefore, “bolsters our conclusion that Evans had standing to seek protection under the statute.” Majority Opinion at 400.
However, arguably it was not the criminal law that proved to be ineffective. The criminal law “already affords protection from harassment, stalking, assault and a multitude of other crimes.” Scott, 928 A.2d at 316. If the police failed to recognize the possibility Evans was the victim of criminal acts and afford her the protection of the Crimes Code, their failure does not bolster her into an “intimate partner” as defined by the Legislature in the Protection from Abuse Act.
As we noted in Scott, “the Act is concerned with persons who have or have had domestic, familial and/or romantic relationships. It is a domestic relations statute, not a statute governing persons without any such relations.” Id. at 314. I do not believe the Legislature, given its stated intent, intended to authorize a trial court to grant the expansive relief provided in the Act based on a two-date relationship. That is the realm of the criminal law.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

. While Braun’s testimony, cited by the majority in footnote 1 is arguably to the contrary, the trial court did not find his testimony credible. T.C.O. at 10.