Court Opinion

ID: 9905518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 17:11:05.263932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:39.851234
License: Public Domain

J-A17042-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    KENNETH CHARLES NOHE, JR.                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellee                :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
    KENNETH CHARLES NOHE, SR.                  :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :      No. 3195 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered November 30, 2022
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
                       Civil Division at No(s): 2021-60451

BEFORE:      KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                             FILED NOVEMBER 28, 2023

       Appellant, Kenneth Charles Nohe, Sr. (“Grandfather”), appeals from the

order entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the

petition of Appellee, Kenneth Charles Nohe, Jr. (“Father”), 1 filed under the

Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) Act.2 We affirm.

       In its opinion, the trial court sets forth a lengthy and detailed recitation

of the testimony provided during the four days of hearings in this case, as

follows:

           When Father was younger, he and Grandfather had a close
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1In addition to protecting Father, the order at issue also protects Father’s
wife, Lisa Nohe (“Mother”), and their children, S.N. (“Son”) (born in December
2007) and C.N. (“Daughter”) (born in September 2009).

2 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-6122.
J-A17042-23

       relationship. As an example, Father worked as a busboy
       and waiter at Grandfather’s Dinner Theater in Maryland, as
       did Father’s teenage friends and soccer teammates.

       Father and Mother have been together since 1991. They
       were married in 2006.

       After Father met Mother, they moved to Utah. While they
       were driving cross-country to visit Maryland with Father’s
       sister Catherine, Grandfather received a telephone call from
       Catherine. Catherine told Grandfather that Father, who was
       then in his twenties, tried to kill himself by cutting his wrists.
       Father returned to Maryland and began treatment with a
       psychiatrist.   Grandfather accompanied Father to his
       psychiatric appointments. Father has been in continuing
       psychotherapy for twenty-seven (27) years.

       When Father and Mother moved back to Maryland, they
       lived with Grandfather. Later, Mother and Father rented an
       apartment, but returned to live with Grandfather for a year-
       and-a-half “to save money.” When Grandfather moved to
       downtown Baltimore, Father and Mother purchased
       Grandfather’s former townhouse…in Timonium, Maryland.
       At that time, Grandfather was the proprietor of a “Dinner
       Theater” and “Sports Bar.”

       The testimony presented at these four hearings portrayed a
       disturbing and often toxic picture of a dysfunctional family
       dynamic, where Father and Grandfather were often angry
       and confrontational. There was also a history of physical
       violence between them.

       Despite these volatile episodes, both Mother and Father
       requested that Grandfather provide childcare and
       companionship for their children, [Son] and [Daughter].
       Both Mother and Father encouraged Grandfather to take an
       especially active role in children’s daily lives.

       The relationship with Grandfather and Father began to
       deteriorate approximately thirty (30) years ago.

       A violent physical altercation occurred between Father and
       Grandfather in Grandfather’s Sports Bar in Maryland on St.
       Patrick’s Day, 1995. …

                                     -2-
J-A17042-23

                               *    *    *

       Mother described Grandfather as a person who does not like
       being told “no” and “who needs to control everything.”
       When Grandfather does not “control everything,” Mother
       has seen him “go to great lengths badgering, manipulating,
       getting in people’s faces,” and “being physical.”

       There have been numerous volatile episodes and physical
       confrontations between Grandfather and Father.

       [I]n December…2007, Mother gave birth to [S]on[.] About
       eighteen months later, Mother gave birth to…[D]aughter[.]
       When the children were born, Father was working full-time
       and Mother was a flight attendant working only on
       weekends.

       Because of their employment schedules, Grandfather was
       asked by Mother to provide childcare for [Son] from a very
       young age. …

       Mother was having difficulty managing her job and childcare
       duties. Mother moved in with Grandfather in downtown
       Baltimore for a short time. A schedule formed: From the
       time [Son] was six months old to age five, Grandfather
       would pick up [Son] at 6:30 a.m., take him to get breakfast,
       feed him, change his diapers, take him to a local “train
       museum” (sometimes five days in a row), eat lunch, return
       to his apartment for a nap, and take [Son] home to his
       parents around 3:00 pm.

       [Daughter] also began to stay with Grandfather when she
       was three (3) years old. [Son] and [Daughter] stayed
       overnight with Grandfather almost every weekend for
       thirteen (13) years. Grandfather testified: “Not only did I
       have them ([Son] and [Daughter]), I had all their friends
       with me most of the time.”

       Grandfather testified that he “watched a bunch of kids”
       every Saturday for years. Father believed, in retrospect,
       that these “indulgences” were “grooming” the children.
       According to Father, “Grandfather was creating part of the
       turmoil in [Son] where he would not listen to his parents,

                                   -3-
J-A17042-23

       where he would start to rebel against his parents.” [Son]
       was “listening to someone (Grandfather) who encouraged
       him to lie, to hide, to think that wealth is—it would start to
       create, within [Son], some really ugly non-values.”

                                *    *    *

       [Son] and [Daughter] have been diagnosed with certain
       mental health issues. [Son] is being treated for Attention-
       Deficit/Hyperactivity  Disorder     (ADHD),      Tourette’s
       Syndrome, and Anxiety. [Daughter] is also being treated
       for Anxiety.

                                *    *    *

       Grandfather has been separated from his wife Rose Nohe
       [(“Grandmother”)] for thirty-one (31) years. Despite this
       lengthy separation, Grandfather and Grandmother…are
       apparently still married. Grandfather often stayed with his
       girlfriend “Fran” at Fran’s home in Phoenix, Maryland, near
       Father’s home in Timonium, Maryland. Grandfather has
       been in a relationship with Fran for twenty-eight (28) years.

       While in Florida [at Grandfather’s vacation home] in 2019,
       an argument occurred after a long day at the beach. Father
       wanted to purchase “healthy food” to cook at home. The
       rest of the family wanted to order fast food at McDonald’s
       because “they were really hungry.” An argument [ensued].
       During this argument, Father attempted to jump out of the
       passenger seat of the car when Grandfather was driving at
       a speed of approximately forty-five miles per hour.
       Grandfather grabbed Father around his neck and pulled him
       back into the car. Father turned to the back seat of the car
       where Grandmother…and the children were seated, and
       screamed that he was the one who was going to decide
       where and what they would eat.

       On November 6, 2019, [Son] texted to Grandfather: “We
       have a huge problem with [Father.] I’ll tell you the details
       later.” [Son] told Father that [Daughter] was angry and
       they were having a “problem,” and [Son] needed Father’s
       help. According to [Son], Father attacked him by hitting
       him repeatedly in the arm and head.

                                    -4-
J-A17042-23

       Father described this incident differently. He testified that
       he slapped at [Son’s] arms when [Son] was crying and
       upset. Father said he had only spanked [Son] one time
       when he was eight (8) years-old. [Son], however, told
       Grandfather that “Father hit him in the head more times
       than he could count” and hit him in the arm causing bruises.
       …

       Grandfather told [Son] to call Mother. Mother was still flying
       for Delta Airlines three to five days at a time. Grandfather
       was also worried that Father would attempt to commit
       suicide again.

       Grandfather alleged there were many times that Father
       would grab [Son] by his arm and make him go to his room.

       Grandfather explained that when Father and [Son] would
       have arguments, often [Son’s] punishment would be that he
       could not see Grandfather that weekend.

       In 2019, Grandfather received a text from [Son] asking,
       “Poppa, why don’t you come up and shoot some hoops?”
       Grandfather testified that they used to play “HORSE” and
       other basketball games. Father also came and they all
       played HORSE together.         Two days later, Grandfather
       received another call from [Son] about playing basketball
       again. [Son] started running at a nearby soccer field to
       warm up. Father arrived and became enraged. Father
       asked Grandfather, “What the f’ are you doing here?”
       Grandfather told Father that [Son] called him and they were
       going to play HORSE. Father said, “You are not invited
       here,” grabbed Grandfather by the shirt and said, “You
       better get the f’ out of here.” Grandfather left.

       Later, on August 26, 2020, Father called Grandfather
       around 10:00 p.m. pleading, “I need you here—[Son]
       bashed his head into the wall.” Grandfather went to Father’s
       home to try to visit [Son], who was now twelve (12) years
       old. After Grandfather let himself in, Father said, “I’m really
       glad you came. I really needed you here. I didn’t want to
       hit [Son] again.” [Son] told Grandfather that there was a
       fight between [Son] and [Daughter]. [Son] wanted to
       “make peace,” but when [Son] went to kiss Mother, she
       “pushed him away.” In response, [Son] bashed his own

                                    -5-
J-A17042-23

       head into a wall, breaking the sheetrock. Grandfather
       believes that all of these current “issues” started that day.

       From August 2020, through January, 2021, [Son]
       repeatedly called Grandfather to tell him how Father would
       pull him aside and say negative things about Grandfather.
       For example, Father told him that Grandfather was a “liar”
       and “manipulator;” that when [Son] was older, Grandfather
       “would treat him like shit and wouldn’t love him anymore,”
       and that [Son] would probably end up hating Grandfather.
       Father also said that Grandfather had been “nice” to Father,
       but he learned later that Grandfather was a “bad person.”

       Mother told [Son] that Grandfather would leave [Son] for
       someone else and not love him anymore.

       Grandfather advised [Son] to tell his parents what he said
       to Grandfather—that when they say negative things about
       Grandfather, it makes [Son] dislike his parents, not his
       Grandfather: “When you love someone, you don’t want
       anyone speaking negatively about them.” Grandfather
       stated that [Son] was “in crisis” because of the constant
       negative comments by his parents about Grandfather.

       Father testified that Grandfather “is obsessed with my
       son[.]”

                                *    *    *

       Father believed Grandfather to be “sexually predatory to
       [Son].”    Father alleged that, although he has never
       witnessed it, “[Grandfather] touches children in ways they
       won’t remember.” Father claimed that Grandfather started
       to “sexualize” Father when he was about [Son’s] age by
       telling him many graphic stories. As an example, when
       Father was 14 years old, Grandfather told him “that he got
       drunk and then raped a female police officer in the car
       because she was passed out.”

       Grandfather countered that the rape story was a lie.
       Grandfather also said there was never a time that he had
       [Son] without [Daughter] once [Daughter] asked to also go
       along with Grandfather.     Sometimes, he would have
       [Daughter] for one night and [Son] on another night.

                                    -6-
J-A17042-23

       Father testified that around this time, when [Son] was
       twelve years old, [Son] told Father that Grandfather was still
       bathing him. Grandfather denied that this occurred.

       During the third weekend in January, 2021, after
       Grandfather did not hear from the family all week, he texted
       Father: “Are we having a sleepover this weekend?”

       Father texted, “Oh, no, not this weekend.” The following
       weekend, Grandfather texted again. Father texted back,
       “Oh, no, not this weekend.”

       Around February 1st or 2nd, 2021, in a decision that had been
       building over time, Father and Mother imposed limits on
       Grandfather’s interaction with the children; sleepovers
       wouldn’t be every week, but every other week; every time
       there was a sleepover, Father or Mother would have to also
       sleep over, and Grandfather could not spend time with the
       children unless a parent was with them. Father texted
       Grandfather jokingly, “I can’t wait to sit in the blue chair and
       have you wait on my kids and on me.”

       Grandfather explained that these limits would result in
       Father “picking” on [Son] and attacking Grandfather.
       Father told Grandfather, “you know, if you ever decide to do
       that let me know, otherwise there will be no sleepovers.”

       Although Father suspected sexual contact by Grandfather,
       no evidence was presented that Grandfather was “sexually
       predatory” toward either [Son] or [Daughter].

       Grandfather testified that he knew there was going to be
       “problems” when he saw Mother at Sam’s Club in December,
       2020. Mother said to Grandfather, “I know [Son] loves you
       more than me, but I have to try to live with that.”

       On June 29, 2022, this [c]ourt [ordered Grandfather to
       undergo a psychiatric examination].

                                 *    *    *

       The court-ordered psychiatric report was introduced into
       evidence by Grandfather’s counsel. There was no finding

                                     -7-
J-A17042-23

       that Grandfather had a pedophilic or narcissistic personality
       disorder.

       Father claimed that Grandfather then “began an all-out
       assault on my family.” Father alleged that Grandfather sent
       threatening texts to them, which Grandfather denied.
       Grandfather said there had been no communication
       between them from late January, 2021, to early February,
       2021, after Mother and Father declared that there would be
       no sleepovers unless they were also present at
       Grandfather’s home.

       Grandfather texted parents through March, 2021,
       suggesting what they could do to try to resolve their issues,
       but there was no response from Mother and Father. They
       told Grandfather that “they were fine and everything was
       fine.”

       Prior to March, 2021, Grandfather and [Son] constantly
       texted and Facetimed each other. Direct contacts and
       communications had ceased between them near the third
       week of January, 2021. [Son] tried to call Grandfather on
       some occasions, but his parents took his phone away or
       followed him into his bedroom. In February, 2021, [Son]
       was texting Grandfather and his parents took away his
       laptop computer. Grandfather said [Son] was “in crisis”
       because he could not speak with his Grandfather and that
       [Son] was locked in his room for days.

       Grandfather said he called Child Protective Services. Other
       than this single statement, no evidence regarding
       intervention on [Son’s] behalf by any children’s agency was
       provided at any of these hearings.

       [Son testified that Grandfather is the “person [he] love[s]
       most” and Son was very upset when Father and Mother
       restricted his time with Grandfather].

                                *    *    *

       Mother testified that around February 5, 2021, after the
       parents set these new boundaries, Grandfather came
       “storming” into their house without knocking and slammed
       the door. Grandfather screamed that “[Father and Mother]

                                    -8-
J-A17042-23

       were keeping his grandson from him and he was never going
       to see his grandkids again.” He questioned why Father was
       constantly saying negative things about Grandfather to
       [Son] and predicted that [Son] would instead, “hate his
       parents and walk out the door when he was older.”
       [Grandfather] promised “that we (Mother and Father) would
       regret it and that he would make our lives miserable.”

       Mother was “fearful” and “felt physically threatened”
       because Grandfather “was…screaming, arms up in the air,
       flailing. He seemed unhinged to me, like he was capable of
       doing anything.” “I felt like he would hurt us if it meant
       getting what he wants.” Grandfather threatened, “You have
       no idea how bad it will get.” Father stated, “I take that as
       physical, as anything.”

       Grandfather promised [Son,] “Nothing will stop me from
       seeing you.” Father stated that he was afraid Grandfather
       was going to hit or injure him.

       [Son] testified that he and Grandfather realized that they
       were “not going to talk his parents out of the plan, and they
       would have to find another solution.”

       Grandfather insisted that he never sent any threatening
       texts to Father and Mother, and never barged into their
       home. Grandfather said he went there to get the key to his
       house because it was he who was afraid of someone coming
       into his home at night and hurting him.

       On Saturday, February 6, 2021, Mother woke Father at 6:00
       a.m., “terrified,” stating “[Son’s] gone.” They suspected he
       was with Grandfather because of the prior threatening texts
       from Grandfather, and the incident where Grandfather
       barged into their home.

       Mother and Father called the local police in Maryland.
       Mother and Father “immediately got into the car, started
       driving to [Grandfather’s] house [and] different places
       where he would sometimes take [the] children” and
       “immediately texted” Grandfather and “called him.” “We
       had no idea whether [Son] was safe, if he would ever be
       back.”

                                   -9-
J-A17042-23

       [Son was with Grandfather at this time, and Father accused
       Grandfather via text of abducting Son and inflicting “abuse”
       by keeping Son away from his parents].

                                *     *      *

       [Son] was returned to Mother and Father’s home around
       noon, six (6) hours later.

       [Son had] called Grandfather the night before February 6,
       2021, and asked Grandfather to meet him very early the
       next morning. [Son] told Grandfather that he was not going
       to tell his parents that he was leaving to meet Grandfather.
       Grandfather picked him up approximately five minutes
       driving time from [Son’s] home. They met at a school
       parking lot next to the family’s neighborhood. [Son] knew
       that his parents did not want him to meet his Grandfather,
       but he did not want a “big blow up where my dad got all
       angry.” [Son] wanted to meet Grandfather to “talk to him
       about what to do and to, like, long-term…and try to find an
       escape from…the turmoil that was our house.”

       [Son] talked to Grandfather about wanting to be with him
       and leaving his parents’ home. [Son] had packed a trumpet
       case with his clothes and shoes. [Son] testified that he
       probably asked Grandfather to “run away with him
       somewhere.” After the first texts, [Son] and Grandfather
       turned off their cell phones so Mother and Father could not
       reach them. That day, they planned a second meeting in
       the same parking lot.

       The next day, Grandfather and [Son] began secretly
       communicating through an online chat app called “Discord.”
       Father testified that it was “all to get [Son] alone.” [Son’s]
       friend “Zach” helped install the app on Grandfather’s phone
       so [Son] could secretly communicate with Grandfather.
       From the documents provided to this court and entered into
       evidence, it appears that Grandfather and [Son] were able
       to communicate via Discord from February 7, 2021, through
       February 14, 2021.

       There were over forty (40) pages of Discord chats between
       them. In these chats, Grandfather instructed [Son] to
       delete their conversations on Discord so Mother and Father

                                    - 10 -
J-A17042-23

       would not find out that they had been texting. He told [Son]
       not to write things that would get Grandfather in “trouble.”
       According to [Son], if his parents learned about these texts,
       [Son] would not be able to reach out to his Grandfather
       anymore.

       The following Wednesday, February 10, 2021, Grandfather
       secretly met with [Son] again while Father was in the
       shower and Mother was out for a morning walk.

       [In the Discord app exchange, Grandfather instructed Son
       to leave his parents a note saying that Son was going out
       for a walk and would be back in a couple of hours.
       Grandfather told Son where Grandfather would be if Son
       needed him during that time, in a public setting].

                                *     *      *

       Mother texted Grandfather at 10:19 a.m. [asking
       Grandfather to bring Son back home if Son was with him,
       and notifying Grandfather that Mother and Father would be
       contacting the police to put out an Amber Alert.]

       Grandfather never responded. [Son] was returned home
       around noon that day. [Son] and Grandfather made plans
       for a third meeting to meet again in the back area of the
       school parking lot.

       The third time [Son] went to meet his Grandfather, Father
       followed him. [Son] walked through the woods to the public
       school behind their house. Grandfather was waiting at a
       dumpster behind the school in the back parking lot. Father
       arrived and confronted Grandfather and told him that he
       may not take [Son] and shouldn’t be having these secret
       meetings.

       Father and Mother believed that these secretly-arranged
       meetings would not stop. After living in their home in
       Maryland for sixteen (16) years, “within a couple of days we
       were in a car heading to Pennsylvania” briefly staying at
       [Mother’s] friend’s house in New Jersey ([Son] said they
       stayed at a hotel in New Jersey). The family then stayed
       with [Mother’s] brother “Uncle Tony” in Kintnersville, Bucks
       County, Pennsylvania, from March, 2021, until June, 2021.

                                    - 11 -
J-A17042-23

       Thereafter, the family moved to Upper Black Eddy, Bucks
       County, Pennsylvania, where they currently reside.

       [Son] testified that his parents “tricked” the children into
       moving to Bucks County by asking whether they wanted to
       go to McDonald’s, and then, “before they knew what was
       happening,” the parents were taking them away. [Son]
       came to Bucks County with only the clothes he was wearing.
       Months later, his personal belongings arrived at their new
       home in Upper Black Eddy.

       [Son] testified that while staying at his aunt and uncle’s
       house, he reached out to Grandfather. [Son] received about
       two or three phone calls from Grandfather before his parents
       put an end to the calls.

       Two or three weeks after the family settled in with “Uncle
       Tony,” Father took [Daughter] to their former home in
       Maryland because the abrupt departure was very
       “emotional” for the children. A few days later, on March 3,
       2021, Father also took [Son] to the former Maryland home
       because he also asked to visit there. When it was time to
       leave to return to Pennsylvania, [Son] refused to get into
       the car. He “raced to the townhome next door to ours where
       there was a punch code lock on the door, and he began
       punching in the code to get into the house.” Father feared
       that “if [Son] got in that door, I would never see him again.
       He would be behind a locked door that my father would have
       legal ownership of.”

       Father knew that Grandfather had been seeking to purchase
       the townhouse next door, but Grandfather told him that he
       was “definitely not going to buy that property.” Grandfather
       never told Father that he eventually purchased the adjoining
       townhome. Grandfather only gave the entrance key code
       to [Son] and told him to run into the townhouse if he had
       any “trouble” with his Father.

       [Son], however, knew that Grandfather purchased [the
       townhouse next door to their former home in Maryland.]

       [Son] admitted that he intended to run into Grandfather’s
       house to escape his family. Previously, Grandfather “told

                                  - 12 -
J-A17042-23

       [Son] that he was going to buy a house next door in order
       to possibly solve…the situation so I was able to see him,
       like, on a long-term basis.”

       Grandfather claimed that he considered buying the
       townhouse in January, 2020 as an eventual “rental
       property” for Father. In the meantime, Grandfather wanted
       to move his wife, [Grandmother], into the townhouse next
       to Mother and Father because she had Alzheimer’s Disease
       and Grandfather wanted to transition her to Maryland from
       Florida.

       When     Grandfather    asked     Mother   about   moving
       Grandmother to Maryland, Mother said she would help take
       care of [Grandmother] if she moved here. Contractors were
       coming into the townhouse to prepare estimates for repairs,
       so Grandfather put a digital lock on the door. Because the
       townhouse had been vacant for thirteen (13) years, and
       because of COVID protocols, repair estimates and the
       purchase of the home were delayed.

       Grandfather eventually purchased the adjoining townhouse
       on December 4, 2020. He gave the entry code to [Son]
       around January, 2021. Grandfather insisted that Mother
       and Father had known that he purchased the townhouse
       next door [and Grandfather submitted text messages to
       prove same.]

       When [Son] bolted for the keypad on the door, Father
       described [Son] as “distraught, …manic to morose, verbally
       abusive, physically violent, withdrawn.       The whole
       spectrum.”

       Father restrained [Son] and called 911. He took [Son] to
       the Emergency Room at Greater Baltimore Medical Center
       (“GBMC”). [Son] was released the following day.

       On the drive back to Pennsylvania, [Son] again “had a
       breakdown” and “said he wanted to hurt himself.” Father
       stopped the car on the highway and called 911 again. [Son]
       was returned to the GBMC Emergency Room and was
       transferred to Sheppard Pratt Psychiatric Hospital in
       Maryland for the next twelve (12) days.

                                 - 13 -
J-A17042-23

       [Son] said that he was upset about not seeing his
       Grandfather, so in order to get his Father’s attention, he
       threatened to hurt himself. He wanted Father “to stop and
       talk about why he is tearing apart the family the way he is.”

       Father had been in contact with [Son’s] psychiatrist, Dr.
       Stuart Varon. Dr. Varon began seeing [Son] for ADHD when
       he was in first grade in 2015. Dr. Varon was aware of the
       problems with Grandfather. After the emergency room visit,
       Father discussed medications with Dr. Varon for [Son’s]
       extreme psychological stress.

       Dr. Stuart Varon, a child psychiatrist, testified that he first
       evaluated [Son] on March 13, 2015, for ADHD when [Son]
       was seven years old. [Son] also had a history of Tourette’s
       or tic disorder.

       Between 2015 and 2021, Dr. Varon “provided treatment
       with psychopharmacologic management [and] treated
       ADHD [for Son], … and over time [Son] developed a
       generalized anxiety disorder.” Prior to January/February,
       2021, [Son] was improving, and Dr. Varon was only seeing
       him once every three (3) months.

       During [Son’s] session on February 4, 2021, there was a
       reported increase in his oppositional defiant behavior. His
       parents were distraught. When Dr. Varon learned of [Son’s]
       behavior surrounding his Grandfather, he observed [Son’s]
       “mood dysregulation.”

       As noted, [Son] was admitted to Sheppard Pratt from March
       3, 2021, to March 15, 2021. After [Son] was released from
       Sheppard Pratt, the parents distanced [Son] from
       Grandfather, and [Son’s] mood settled down. [Son] began
       to see a therapist in Pennsylvania. Approximately a week
       after discharge, the therapist and [Son] talked about his
       fluctuating moods. At that time, [Son] was prescribed
       medicine for his mental health, and the family was working
       to help [Son] cope.

       Dr. Varon then spaced out [Son’s] visits. Dr. Varon saw
       parents on July 20, 2021, after the parents had decided to
       move to Pennsylvania. [Son] was then “doing well.”

                                   - 14 -
J-A17042-23

       There were public telephones at Sheppard Pratt that [Son]
       used to contact Grandfather three (3) to five (5) times when
       he was first admitted. His parents then asked that the
       phone calls stop. [Son] asked Grandfather to come see him.
       Grandfather came to Sheppard Pratt and waved to [Son]
       from outside of the building. [Son] hoped Grandfather
       would take him and he wouldn’t have to live with his parents
       anymore.

       [Son] had asked someone from Sheppard Pratt to call
       Grandfather to tell him to meet at “Uncle Tony’s” house the
       next day.

       Grandfather explained that, on March 15, 2021, the day
       before [Son] was released from Sheppard Pratt,
       Grandfather received a phone call from someone at
       Sheppard Pratt to “meet at Tony’s tomorrow at 12 o’clock.”
       Grandfather said that he didn’t know whose voice it was, but
       thought it may be Father because it sounded like him. Also,
       preceding that, Grandfather had sent multiple texts to
       Father around March 12, 2021, asking him not to take the
       children out of school because they had already missed
       school because of COVID.

       Grandfather promised that he would not interfere with the
       children if Mother and Father would move back to Maryland.
       Another proposed compromise by Grandfather was that the
       parents allow [Son] and [Daughter] to see Grandmother[.]
       Grandfather knew generally where “Uncle Tony” lived, then
       Googled his address.

       Grandfather testified that he received a call from [Son] on
       March 4, 2021, informing Grandfather that he was in
       Sheppard Pratt. [Son] asked Grandfather to come to see
       him. Grandfather went there the next morning and asked
       about [Son]. The hospital would not give Grandfather any
       information, however, a female worker there pointed to
       where [Son] would be located inside the hospital building.
       She told Grandfather that there was a phone there and she
       would ask [Son] to call Grandfather. [Son] called and told
       Grandfather to go around to the side of the building.
       Grandfather went around, waved, and said “I love you” in
       sign language even though he could not actually see [Son]
       from where he was standing.

                                  - 15 -
J-A17042-23

       On March 16, 2021, the family removed [Son] from
       Sheppard Pratt and took him to “Uncle Tony’s” home in
       Pennsylvania. When Father was pulling his car into the
       driveway, Father got out of the car and immediately saw
       Grandfather. Grandfather had been waiting outside “Uncle
       Tony’s” house and parked down the street behind some
       bushes. According to Grandfather, Father bought a new car,
       so Grandfather was not sure it was Father when they pulled
       into the driveway.      Nonetheless, Grandfather started
       walking toward the car.        [Son] immediately spotted
       Grandfather and ran to him. They said they both loved each
       other and hugged.

       Grandfather said to Father, “Let’s try to work things out.”
       Father did not reply, and told [Son] to get into the house.
       [Son] put his arms around Grandfather and said that he
       wanted to go with Grandfather because he was scared.
       Grandfather replied, “[Son], you know, it can’t happen. I
       told you that the law wouldn’t allow that.” Father again said,
       “[Son], get in the house.” Grandfather told [Son] that he
       would always love him and wouldn’t let anyone stop him
       from seeing him.        Grandfather also warned [Son],
       “…Whatever you do, don’t get upset; don’t let them send
       you back to Sheppard Pratt.” Father yelled at [Son] and
       took the children back to “Uncle Tony’s” where they were
       staying in Kintnersville, Bucks County.          Father told
       Grandfather, “You are not allowed to be here; you are
       trespassing.” Father called the police.

       Mother came out of the house screaming at Grandfather.
       Grandfather approached Mother and “Uncle Tony” “in a
       threatening, bellicose manner.”     Father recorded the
       conversation on his phone.      Mother told Grandfather,
       “You’re never going to see your grandkids again.”

       Grandfather threatened:

          “Did you think you could get away from me? I know
          where your mother lives. I know where your brothers
          live. And I know where your friends live. There is no
          place you can go to get away from me. I will do
          whatever it takes. You have no idea how bad this will
          get.”

                                   - 16 -
J-A17042-23

       Mother considered this as a threat to her whole family—that
       Grandfather would do anything: “He would take my son
       away from us, he would hurt us in order to get my son, in
       order to get what he wants.”

       Grandfather also told Mother, “You are trying to do to me
       what you did to your father” because Mother had not seen
       her father in twenty (20) years. Grandfather told Mother
       and Father that he would listen to them, but to “give [him]
       a chance to talk.” Mother said, “No. I don’t have to listen
       to you.”

       Mother and “Uncle Tony” told Grandfather that he was
       trespassing and asked him to leave. A neighbor intervened
       and told Grandfather to get the “f---” out of here.
       Grandfather then went to sit in his car and waited for the
       police to arrive.

       Two Pennsylvania State Troopers arrived, and spoke to
       multiple people there. They then warned Grandfather that
       he should not return to the property again or he would be
       issued a Trespass citation.

       According   to   an   Order     signed    September      29,
       2021…Grandfather filed a “Petition to Enforce Visitation” on
       March 24, 2021, in Maryland.

       In his Petition for Visitation of [Son] and [Daughter] in
       Maryland, Grandfather asserted that he is a de facto parent.
       This custody case in Maryland was postponed until the
       present [PFA] case is concluded in Bucks County. …

       [Son] spoke with Grandfather two (2) or three (3) times in
       the interim until Mother and Father put an end to the
       contact. Then, Grandfather returned to “Uncle Tony’s” (with
       Grandmother…)        approximately      two     weeks    later.
       Grandfather claimed that Grandmother…asked him four (4)
       or five (5) times to take her to bring “Easter candy” to [Son]
       and [Daughter]. At first, Grandfather declined to take
       [Grandmother] to see the [grand]children, but when
       [Grandmother] began crying, Grandfather agreed to take
       her there.

                                   - 17 -
J-A17042-23

       When they arrived at “Uncle Tony’s,” [Grandmother] briefly
       went into the house.     Grandfather stayed in his car.
       [Grandmother] was crying when she exited the house
       because the parents did not let her see [Son] and
       [Daughter]. Again, they all went to the parking area beside
       “Uncle Tony’s” house and began arguing. Father again
       called the police. Grandfather and [Grandmother] then
       drove away.

       Contrary to this recitation, [Son] testified that he was still
       in contact with Grandfather at the time, and this visit was
       another attempt to convince Father to let Grandfather be
       with [Son].     [Son] testified, “At the time, we were
       desperate. We didn’t know what would work.”

       Grandfather was issued a citation in the mail for
       Trespassing. Grandfather was found guilty in District Court.
       Grandfather appealed from that conviction. The summary
       trespass conviction was affirmed after a de novo hearing
       held in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas[.]
       Grandfather never went back to “Uncle Tony’s” house
       thereafter.

       Grandfather seemed to blame the guilty verdict on
       [Grandmother’s] testimony, explaining that “it did not go
       well” because it was “one of her bad days.” Grandfather did
       not testify at the de novo hearing.

       The family moved from “Uncle Tony’s” place in Kintnersville
       to a house in Upper Black Eddy, in Bucks County, in June,
       2021.

       In October, 2021, [Son] contacted Grandfather to inform
       him that his family had moved to Upper Black Eddy. Prior
       to this contact, Grandfather was unaware the family had
       relocated from Maryland to Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

       Later that year, around September, 2021, Father saw signs
       in [Son’s] behavior that led Father to suspect that [Son] was
       once again in contact in Grandfather. According to Father,
       [Son] was becoming verbally and physically abusive. Then,
       in October, 2021, Father found a piece of loose-leaf paper
       written by [Son] inside a lock box in [Son’s] room. [Son]
       wrote several items on that paper, one of which questioned,

                                   - 18 -
J-A17042-23

       “Why did you want to meet at the Bridgeton House?”

       Also, [Son] wrote: “Cocos Island—300 miles south Costa
       Rica in Pacific Ocean. 1-2 billion dollars in pirate treasure
       also a good vacation spot.”

       The Bridgeton House is a Bed & Breakfast approximately six
       hundred (600) feet from the family’s new home in Upper
       Black Eddy. Father immediately contacted the police.

       Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael Rogers went to The
       Bridgeton House to see if Grandfather had ever stayed
       there. The register showed that Grandfather made twelve
       (12) reservations between August 15, 2021, to December
       19, 2021. At that point, Grandfather had stayed overnight
       five (5) times.

       Father filed a [PFA petition] against Grandfather on March
       19, 2021.

       On October 21, 2021, Father returned to the Bucks County
       Justice Center to amend his prior Petition, noting all that
       had transpired since he filed the original Petition. On that
       date, Father was granted a Temporary Protection Order.

       On October 24, 2021, a Pennsylvania State Trooper went to
       The Bridgeton House. The Trooper pulled around the back
       of The Bridgeton House and observed Grandfather in a dark-
       colored car with a Maryland license plate. The Trooper
       knocked on the window of the car and handed Grandfather
       the Temporary Protection Order. The Trooper explained to
       Grandfather that he was not to have contact with [Son] until
       the next hearing in court. The Trooper testified that
       Grandfather kept asking the same questions in different
       ways, “Why can’t I be with my grandson? I just want to
       spend time with my grandson.” According to the Trooper,
       Grandfather seemed “shocked” that this was occurring.
       That was Grandfather’s last contact with [Son].

       [Son] testified and confirmed that he met with Grandfather
       three (3) to five (5) times without his parents’ permission.
       [Son] stated: “I completely was the one who did it.” “…Kind
       of the same with the running away part.”

                                  - 19 -
J-A17042-23

         Grandfather testified that he had no communication with
         [Son] for seven (7) months after he received the Trespass
         citation. Then, Grandfather received a phone call from
         [Son] in October, 2021. [Son] told Grandfather that they
         had moved, and now lived in Bucks County. Grandfather
         said he planned to meet [Son] at the Homestead Coffee
         house located a block-and-a-half from [Son’s] house in
         Upper Black Eddy. At the first meeting, [Son] rode his bike
         to the Coffee House. Grandfather and [Son] met for just a
         minute because [Daughter] was following him. They walked
         on a trail and talked. [Son] hugged his Grandfather and told
         him, “meet me next week, same time.” When they met
         each time, [Son] would ask Grandfather to meet him at a
         certain time the following week.

         Grandfather initially denied having any scheduled meetings
         with [Son] at The Bridgeton House, although their fourth
         meeting was scheduled. Grandfather told [Son] that he
         would meet him between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. that
         day. Grandfather said his partner “Fran” and he sat on the
         porch of The Bridgeton House waiting for [Son], who usually
         arrived around 10:30 a.m. Grandfather stated that it was
         cold that day, so he then waited inside his car in the back
         parking lot of The Bridgeton House.

         On this occasion, a State Trooper knocked on the car
         window. Grandfather was told that Father accused him of
         trying to kidnap [Son] and take him to an island off the coast
         of Costa Rica. As noted, [Son] had mentioned Costa Rica in
         the letter that Father found in the lock box in his room.
         Grandfather denied that he and [Son] ever discussed an
         island with buried treasure.

         Grandfather minimized his encounters with [Son]. He
         stated that he only saw [Son] three (3) times for a total of
         twenty (20) minutes. Grandfather rationalized his behavior
         by asserting that he met with [Son], even though Father
         and Mother were unaware of these contacts, because [Son]
         “was in crisis.” Grandfather testified that he was concerned
         because [Son] told him that Father put his hands on him
         again twice, sometime between March, 2021, and October,
         2021.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/22/23, at 2-33) (internal citations omitted).

                                     - 20 -
J-A17042-23

      Procedurally, the court held hearings on the PFA petition on June 29,

2022, September 21, 2022, October 19, 2022, and November 30, 2022. At

the conclusion of the last hearing, the court entered a final PFA order against

Grandfather for a period of two years, protecting Mother, Father, Son, and

Daughter. Grandfather timely filed a notice of appeal on December 16, 2022.

On January 9, 2023, the court ordered Grandfather to file a concise statement

of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and

Grandfather complied on January 26, 2023.

      Grandfather raises 14 issues for our review:

         1. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law in finding that
         [Grandfather] had committed one or more act(s) of abuse
         as defined in the Pennsylvania PFA Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. §
         6102(a)?

         2. Based upon the evidence presented at trial, could a
         reasonable fact finder conclude that [Grandfather]
         perpetrated one or more act(s) of abuse as defined in the
         Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. §
         6102(a)?

         3. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law in finding that
         [Grandfather] had committed one or more act(s) of abuse
         as defined in the Pennsylvania PFA Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. §
         6102(a)(5) because, based upon the evidence presented at
         trial, [Father] and the other named protected persons could
         not be in reasonable fear of bodily injury from
         [Grandfather]?

         4. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law in finding that
         [Grandfather] had committed one or more act(s) of abuse
         as defined in the Pennsylvania PFA Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. §
         6102(a)(5) because, based upon the evidence presented at
         trial, [Grandfather] did not engage in a course of conduct
         toward, nor follow [Father], nor any other named protected
         person, without proper authority, nor commit repeated acts

                                    - 21 -
J-A17042-23

       towards [Father] or any of the protected parties?

       5. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law in issuing a
       protective order pursuant to the Pennsylvania Protection
       from Abuse Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6101 et seq., because no
       evidence was presented that [Grandfather] caused, nor
       attempted to cause upon [Father,] and/or the protected
       persons, bodily injury, nor threatened [Father] or the
       protected persons with bodily injury, thus making it
       unreasonable for [Father] and the protected persons to fear
       bodily injury from [Grandfather]?

       6. Based upon the evidence presented at trial, could a
       reasonable fact finder conclude that a protective order
       pursuant to the Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse
       Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6101 et seq. is necessary to protect
       [Father] and the named protected persons from
       [Grandfather]?

       7. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law at the time of trial
       in permitting and considering testimony regarding
       [Father’s] status as a firearms owner despite no allegations
       that [Grandfather] had ever used firearm(s) against
       [Father] and the named protected parties, nor threatened
       anyone whatsoever with firearm(s) or the use of firearm(s)
       against them?

       8. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law and violate
       [Grandfather’s] right to due process by pre-judging
       [Grandfather] prior to the close of testimony, when, based
       only upon the testimony presented by [Father], and prior to
       hearing any defense and/or rebuttal witnesses, the [c]ourt
       opined that [Grandfather] is “unhinged”, “diabolical”,
       “harassing”, “volatile”, “threatening”, and entered an
       Interim Order, which, inter alia, ordered [Grandfather] to
       undergo a psychiatric evaluation at his own expense?

       9. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law at the time of trial
       in permitting and considering testimony from Stuart Varon,
       M.D. because that testimony was irrelevant and the
       prejudicial effect of that testimony outweighed its probative
       value?

       10. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law in failing to grant

                                   - 22 -
J-A17042-23

          [Grandfather’s] Motion to Dismiss made on the record after
          [Father] rested his case because [Father] had failed to
          provide evidence that a reasonable fact finder could use to
          conclude that [Grandfather] had committed one or more
          act(s) of abuse as defined in the Pennsylvania PFA Statute,
          23 Pa.C.S. § 6102(a)?

          11. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law in granting a
          protective Order to [Father] for the purpose of preventing
          [Grandfather] from contacting his grandson (contrary to
          [Father’s] wishes) because that purpose is beyond the scope
          of the Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse Statute, 23
          Pa.C.S. § 6101, et seq?

          12. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law in granting a
          protective Order as to each of the named protected persons,
          whether individually or collectively, because, based upon
          the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable fact finder
          could not conclude that [Grandfather] perpetrated one or
          more act(s) of abuse as defined in the Pennsylvania
          Protection from Abuse Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6102(a) as
          against any of the named protected persons whether
          individually or collectively?

          13. Did the [c]ourt commit an error of law in granting a
          Protection from Abuse Order against the [Grandfather]
          where there was no evidence that [Grandfather] had ever
          committed any act of violence against any person?

          14. To the extent that the [c]ourt found [Grandfather] to
          have committed one or more act(s) of abuse as a result of
          continuing to have contact with his grandson, at the
          grandchild’s request but against the wishes of [Father], did
          the [c]ourt commit an error of law because having done so
          does not amount to an act of abuse as defined in the
          Pennsylvania Protection from Abuse Statute, 23 Pa.C.S. §
          6102(a)?

(Grandfather’s Brief at 9-12).3

____________________________________________

3 Grandfather has abandoned his fifth issue on appeal (see id. at 44-45), so

we need not address this issue.

                                          - 23 -
J-A17042-23

       “In the context of a PFA order, we review the trial court’s legal

conclusions for an error of law or abuse of discretion.” Stamus v. Dutcavich,

938 A.2d 1098, 1100 (Pa.Super. 2007) (quoting Drew v. Drew, 870 A.2d

377, 378 (Pa.Super. 2005)). “When interpreting statutes, we exercise plenary

review.”    Stamus, supra (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Additionally, “[t]his [C]ourt defers to the credibility determinations of the trial

court as to witnesses who appeared before it.” Karch v. Karch, 885 A.2d

535, 537 (Pa.Super. 2005).

       For purposes of disposition, we address Grandfather’s first, second,

third, fourth, sixth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth issues

together, as they are related to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the

PFA order.4 Grandfather asserts that the court entered the PFA against him

under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102(a)(5), where Grandfather allegedly engaged in a

course of conduct or committed repeated acts under circumstances that place

a person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. Grandfather argues, however,

that the only “course of conduct” or “repeated acts” at issue here were

directed at Son, who was not in any fear of Grandfather.              Grandfather

____________________________________________

4 We note that Grandfather cites the relevant law for some of these issues,

but not for all of them, in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Nevertheless, the
main challenge in these issues is to the sufficiency of the evidence. Thus, we
will not deem the issues related to the sufficiency of the evidence waived for
failing to cite relevant legal authority on this basis, as the issues can be read
together as sub-questions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence for the
court’s PFA order.

                                          - 24 -
J-A17042-23

acknowledges that he met Son at various times near the house in Maryland,

at the hospital, and in Pennsylvania. Grandfather also concedes that he met

Son against Father and Mother’s wishes. Nevertheless, Grandfather maintains

that this “course of conduct” was not directed at anyone else.        Further,

Grandfather contends that his actions were to intervene and to protect Son

from an abusive home environment, which the court should have considered

in establishing whether Grandfather’s conduct constituted “abuse” under the

PFA Act. Grandfather insists his conduct was out of love and concern for his

grandson.    Grandfather emphasizes that Son was suffering physical and

emotional abuse at home, and that Grandfather sought to prevent Son from

harming himself. Under these circumstances, Grandfather submits that his

actions did not constitute “abuse” under the PFA Act.

      Grandfather also highlights the trial court’s reasoning that something

bad might happen to Son if he continues to meet with Grandfather in secret.

Grandfather suggests the court’s reasoning is logically insufficient to justify

the court’s ruling. For example, Grandfather posits that if Son were to run

away from home, it would be safer for Son to run to Grandfather’s home than

to the streets.

      Grandfather reiterates that Son is not in fear of Grandfather.

Grandfather avers that “[i]n light of [Father’s] histrionics and discredited

allegations, the [t]rial [c]ourt could not simply take him at his word that he

has an actual fear of bodily injury from [Grandfather] or fears that

                                    - 25 -
J-A17042-23

[Grandfather] will injure [Son].”   (Grandfather’s Brief at 42). Grandfather

insists that a fear of bodily injury is not reasonable based on Grandfather’s

prior actions. Grandfather maintains that nothing in the record suggests that

Grandfather has threatened Father with physical harm.

      Grandfather asserts that his conduct was not without proper authority

or unprompted.       To the contrary, Grandfather contends that Son invited

Grandfather and prompted Grandfather to meet because Son could not rely

on his physically and emotionally abusive parents to tend to his emotional

needs.

      Grandfather stresses that nothing in the record suggests that Son is at

any risk of physical or sexual abuse from Grandfather. Grandfather maintains

that the court entered the PFA order for the improper purpose of preventing

Grandfather from undercutting Father and Mother’s authority to control their

son. Grandfather submits this is a “perversion of the purpose of the [PFA

s]tatute.” (Id. at 46).

      Grandfather further complains that the court applied “a scattershot

approach in determining that each of [the] protected parties would be in

reasonable fear of bodily injury and thus require protection.” (Id. at 54). For

example, Grandfather insists that there is no evidence that any of his conduct

pertained to Daughter or that Grandfather even had contact with Daughter in

the relevant time.

      Grandfather emphasizes that the record contains no evidence that he

                                    - 26 -
J-A17042-23

ever threatened or committed any act of violence against any of the named

protected parties or against anyone at all. Grandfather maintains that he was

the victim in the 1995 altercation with Father, and not the other way around.

Grandfather claims the court erred in its assessment that Grandfather’s

conduct resulted in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

      Grandfather contends that the foundation of the court’s finding of abuse

is Grandfather’s repeated course of conduct in having “forbidden” contact with

his grandchild and connecting that conduct to reasonable fear of bodily injury.

Grandfather submits that the court’s connection between his benevolent

contacts with his grandson and a reasonable fear of bodily injury is tenuous.

      Grandfather further argues that Father’s purpose in filing the PFA

petition was to prevent Grandfather from having contact with Son against

Father and Mother’s wishes. Grandfather suggests that this purpose is beyond

the scope of the PFA Act, which narrowly limits the definition of abuse to five

enumerated definitions.    Grandfather claims the trial court attempted to

“stitch together its rationale by comparing Grandfather’s conduct to certain

criminal offenses such as concealment of the whereabouts of [a] child or luring

a child into a motor vehicle.”     (Id. at 52-53).      Grandfather maintains,

however, that the PFA Act does not seek to determine criminal culpability.

Grandfather contends that just because certain conduct might constitute a

criminal offense under the Crimes Code does not make it, de facto, an act of

abuse under the PFA Act.     Grandfather concludes the record evidence was

                                    - 27 -
J-A17042-23

insufficient to support the entry of a PFA order, that the PFA order exceeded

the scope of the PFA Act, and this Court must reverse.5 We disagree.

       “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.” Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959

A.2d 1260, 1262 (Pa.Super. 2008) (quoting Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d

1050, 1054 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc)). “[T]he Protection From Abuse 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.” Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977,

982 (Pa.Super. 1993). “A preponderance of the evidence is defined as the

greater weight of the evidence, i.e., to tip a scale slightly is the [criterion] or

requirement for preponderance of the evidence.”           Karch, supra at 537

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

____________________________________________

5 Grandfather also suggests that the court’s entry of the PFA order here was

premature in light of the pending Maryland custody case in which Grandfather
is alleging that he stands in loco parentis to Son and Daughter. (See id. at
44). The record demonstrates that the Maryland court stayed the custody
proceedings pending resolution of this PFA action. Nevertheless, Grandfather
made no challenge to proceeding on the PFA case first in the trial court. See
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating issues not raised in trial court are waived and cannot
be raised for first time on appeal). Further, Grandfather cites no law
whatsoever to support the position that the custody matter should precede
the PFA proceedings. As this claim is distinct from the other issues challenging
the sufficiency of the evidence, we deem this particular claim waived and will
not give it further attention. See Foster v. Nuffer, 286 A.3d 279, 284 n.2
(Pa.Super. 2022) (explaining that failure to cite relevant legal authority in
support of claim constitutes waiver of claim on appeal).

                                          - 28 -
J-A17042-23

      The PFA Act defines “abuse” as follows:

         § 6102. Definitions

            (a) General rule.—The following words and phrases
         when used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to
         them in this section unless the context clearly indicates
         otherwise:

             “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.A. § 6102(a)(5). “When a claim is presented on appeal that the

evidence is not sufficient to support an order of protection from abuse, the

reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

verdict winner, granting [him] the benefit of all reasonable inferences.”

Mescanti v. Mescanti, 956 A.2d 1017 (Pa.Super. 2008) (internal citation and

quotation marks omitted). “The reviewing court then determines whether the

evidence was sufficient to sustain the [trial] court’s conclusions by a

preponderance of the evidence.” Id.

      As the goal of the Act is to prevent physical and sexual abuse, a victim

does not have to wait for physical or sexual abuse to occur for the Act to apply.

Fonner v. Fonner, 731 A.2d 160 (Pa.Super. 1999). See also T.K. v. A.Z.,

                                      - 29 -
J-A17042-23

157 A.3d 974 (Pa.Super. 2017) (holding appellee established abuse under

Section 6102(a)(5) of Act, where appellant repeatedly followed appellee in his

vehicle, in local grocery store, at sporting events, and in other locations;

appellant also kept track of appellee’s whereabouts and constantly drove past

her home and honked car horn; appellee testified about deep concern for her

safety and fear that appellant’s behavior would eventually escalate to cause

her bodily harm); R.G. v. T.D., 672 A.2d 341 (Pa.Super. 1996) (holding

appellee established abuse under Section 6102(a)(5) of Act, where appellant

repeatedly called appellee and sent her unwanted, threatening e-mails;

appellee testified she was “very scared” by appellant’s increasingly hostile

messages and was afraid to walk around campus). Further, the defendant’s

intentions are irrelevant to the analysis as to whether a PFA order is

warranted. See B.D.K. v. T.D.K., No. 1083 MDA 2019 (Pa.Super. filed Sept.

30, 2020) (unpublished memorandum)6 (holding that husband’s intent has no

relevance in determination of whether wife was reasonably in fear of bodily

injury for purposes of PFA sufficiency analysis).

       Instantly, the trial court evaluated the sufficiency of the evidence to

justify entry of the PFA order as follows:

          The preceding facts clearly demonstrate a course of conduct
          and repeated acts toward another person without proper
          authority and under circumstances which placed the parents
          in reasonable fear for themselves and their son….
____________________________________________

6 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating we may rely on unpublished decisions of this

Court filed after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value).

                                          - 30 -
J-A17042-23

       Grandfather’s counsel asserted that this was not an abuse
       case. This court disagrees.

       “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
       protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions
       concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”
       See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054,
       2060, 147 L.Ed.2d 49, 57 (2000).

       Both Father and Mother made a decision to be present when
       Grandfather was spending time with their children. This is
       a parental decision. Rather than spending time with the
       children on those terms, Grandfather refused, and on at
       least three (3) separate occasions secretly met [Son]
       without his parents’ knowledge or approval. Grandfather
       argued that this contact was welcomed by [Son]. That is of
       no moment. He is a child. The decision of the parents is
       paramount and controlling.

       According to Father, because the parents believed that
       Grandfather would not stop secretly meeting [Son], they left
       their home in Maryland where they lived for the past sixteen
       years and moved to Pennsylvania. That did not deter
       Grandfather. He met with [Son] on at least three (3)
       subsequent occasions and planned to continue to meet with
       him in the future.

       [Son] is in psychiatric treatment. [Son] is a vulnerable
       child. He was admitted to a hospital in Maryland for almost
       two weeks to treat his mental illness.           Grandfather
       surreptitiously went to the hospital knowing that the parents
       did not want him to contact [Son] and contrary to their
       parental authority. When Grandfather learned that he was
       not a permitted hospital guest, he accepted an employee’s
       offer to convey a surreptitious message to [Son].

       The parents rightfully distrust Grandfather, but more
       importantly, they are concerned about [Son]. When they
       said [to Grandfather after Son went missing], “Bring him
       home now,” Grandfather said that “he is talking to [Son],
       taking him for something to eat,” and will bring him home
       when he is done with him.

                                  - 31 -
J-A17042-23

       Grandfather repeatedly uses the excuse that [Son] is “in
       crisis” to justify their meetings. See Raker v. Raker, 847
       A.2d 720 (Pa.Super. 2004) (intent of abuser is of no
       moment). [See also B.D.K., supra.]

       If [Son] threatens self-harm, Grandfather should contact
       Mother and Father to inform them that [Son] threatened to
       hurt himself and that Grandfather is available for assistance.
       If he was aware of some danger to the child, Grandfather’s
       duty was to inform the parents, the police, or a Child
       Protection Agency.

       Grandfather ignores the fact that [Son], who has threatened
       to hurt himself, and sees a psychiatrist and therapist for
       mood dysregulation, is being forced into the vortex of a
       dispute between Mother and Father and Grandfather. [Son]
       also testified that he threatened to hurt himself to get his
       Father’s attention.

       Even when the parents say, “we’re calling the police,” that
       does not deter Grandfather. Grandfather tells [Son] that
       he’ll be “everywhere.”

       Grandfather continually encourages [Son] to leave his
       parents’ care without their knowledge.        Grandfather
       encourages flight by [Son]. This is dangerous. What
       happens if [Son] takes off and goes somewhere to meet
       Grandfather that is not safe, or [Son] finds himself in an
       emergency situation?

       Grandfather has met [Son] in secluded locations. What
       happens if Grandfather does not arrive on time?
       Grandfather’s encouragement for [Son] to flee his home is
       so pervasive that The Bridgeton House Bed & Breakfast
       recorded numerous past and future reservations scheduled
       by Grandfather with [Son].

       Grandfather tells [Son] that they are doing nothing wrong.
       While in Maryland, Grandfather recklessly tells [Son] that if
       he ever has to “escape for any reason,” he can access the
       keypad and run to Grandfather’s house next door. Once
       that occurs, the parents would be locked out of the house
       and Grandfather would be the only other person who knew
       the entry code.

                                   - 32 -
J-A17042-23

       Father said that [Son] was “abducted” in Maryland while the
       family was asleep. He may not have been “abducted” in the
       literal sense, but he was lured from his home to secretly
       meet with Grandfather.

                               *     *      *

       Grandfather was found guilty of Trespass in Pennsylvania,
       which should have conveyed a strong message.
       Grandfather ignored that message. Once [Son] informed
       him of the address of their new home in Upper Black Eddy,
       Grandfather scheduled more secret meetings at or near a
       local Bed & Breakfast.

       It is not a defense that [Son] called Grandfather and asked
       to meet with him. Grandfather should have said, “The
       answer is no—Your parents have said, no. Go home. I’ll
       talk to you tomorrow.” Instead, contrary to the wishes of
       the parents, the secret meetings continued.

       Grandfather encourages and facilitates all of these episodes.
       …

       Grandfather’s counsel argued that these events were simply
       an “ego contest” or a custody issue, at most, and that
       Grandfather was prompted by [Son] to come to see him.
       Grandfather also argued that he was worried about [Son]
       and Grandfather did not intend to harass anyone.

       The “Discord” chats between Grandfather and [Son],…
       compel the opposite conclusion.

       The secret communications on Discord were a window into
       Grandfather’s manipulation of [Son] against his parents’
       wishes. …

                               *     *      *

       [Son] knows that his meetings with Grandfather are wrong
       and may be illegal. …

                               *     *      *

                                   - 33 -
J-A17042-23

       The purpose of the [PFA] Act is to cease the abuse and
       protect the parties from future abuse. While there is no
       bodily injury here, [Son] secretly leaves his home to meet
       Grandfather without his parents’ consent. This is a course
       of conduct which creates a reasonable fear of potential
       bodily injury to [Son]. If these secret meetings continue,
       [Son], because of his age and his ongoing mental health
       issues, might be in jeopardy of accidental physical injury.

       There are threats to the family. It is reasonable for the
       parents to fear Grandfather. He must have his way, no
       matter what, and no one will stop him. He owns firearms.
       Grandfather becomes unhinged when he doesn’t get what
       he wants. …

       Father testified that they are afraid to let [Son] out of their
       sight. When [Son] has activities, his parents drive him there
       and stay upon the premises. [Son] testified that he wanted
       to run away, and took the steps of bringing his trumpet case
       packed with his clothes and shoes when he met
       Grandfather.

       Father testified, “We are afraid every day…that he will take
       our son and we will not see him again. We are afraid of
       the—of [Son], who achieves such a healthy place when
       [Grandfather’s] influence is not around, that he will regress
       into this—this psychological breakdown, defiance, physical
       aggression, anger, physical abuse, verbal abuse.” …

       Father explained that [Son] is “doing so well” now that he
       is not interacting with his Grandfather. He is making friends
       and engaging in activities. [Son] agreed that things were
       going well at Palisades High School where he is in the 9 th
       grade, and is on the wrestling team. He has made friends
       at school. The parents fear that if [Son] has contact with
       his Grandfather, he will revert to the same mental state
       where he was threatening to hurt himself or run away from
       home.

       Our Order of no contact with [Son] is squarely within the
       scope of the PFA. …

       Therefore, as supported by all evidence presented, this
       [c]ourt properly issued a [PFA] Order against Grandfather

                                   - 34 -
J-A17042-23

         directing him not to “abuse, harass, stalk or threaten”
         Father, Mother, [Son] or [Daughter] for a period of two (2)
         years. …

         In this Opinion, we have characterized the present
         circumstances as confrontational and often toxic, indicative
         of a dysfunctional family dynamic, especially as it affects
         [Son].

         We recognize that the seeds of this conflict were sown long
         before these [PFA] hearings were heard.

         Father, who has his own mental health history, together
         with Mother, established a pattern of enlisting Grandfather
         to provide continuing care for their children when both
         Father and Mother were either unwilling or unable to fulfill
         those responsibilities.

         We cannot, however, alter the unfortunate history of the
         troubled relationship between the parties.   We cannot
         unring this bell.

         While we recognize that the facts of this case are certainly
         unique, we have solely focused upon the recent conduct of
         Grandfather and the vulnerability of [Son], who is still a
         minor child subject to the control and authority of his
         parents.

(Trial Court Opinion at 41-51) (some internal citations omitted).

      The record supports the court’s analysis that a PFA order was warranted

under the facts of this case. Specifically, the record shows after Mother and

Father restricted Grandfather’s access to Son and Daughter by way of stating

that all sleepovers would take place every other weekend (instead of every

weekend), and with Mother or Father present, Grandfather would not abide

by their choice. Instead, Grandfather rejected Mother and Father’s new “plan”

and tension in the family grew. When Grandfather had “secret” meetings with

                                    - 35 -
J-A17042-23

Son against Mother and Father’s wishes, Father and Mother abruptly left their

home in Maryland and moved to Pennsylvania to get away from Grandfather.

Grandfather followed the family to Uncle Tony’s house after receiving the

message from someone at Sheppard Pratt, and refused to leave the premises

until police arrived, even though Mother, Father, and Uncle Tony asked him

to leave. Two weeks later, Grandfather again showed up outside of Uncle

Tony’s residence, this time with Grandmother, which ultimately resulted in a

trespass conviction against Grandfather. Although Grandfather stayed away

from the family for several months thereafter, when Son asked Grandfather

to meet him in October 2021, Grandfather again arranged surreptitious

meetings with Son.

      On this record, Grandfather knowingly engaged in a course of conduct

or repeatedly committed acts, such as following Father and his family, without

proper authority.    See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102(a)(5).       Additionally, these

circumstances placed Mother and Father in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

See id. Although Grandfather insists that Mother and Father’s fear of bodily

injury was not reasonable, the trial court was free to reject Grandfather’s

version of events in favor of testimony from Mother and Father. See Karch,

supra.   Mother and Father testified that Grandfather threatened to do

anything to continue seeing Son, that nothing would stop him, and that he

knew where Mother’s family members lived.       We will not disturb the trial

court’s credibility determinations concerning the reasonableness of Mother

                                    - 36 -
J-A17042-23

and Father’s fear of Grandfather. See id.

       We also agree with the trial court that Grandfather’s love for Son or

intent to protect him are irrelevant here. See Raker, supra; B.D.K., supra.

As Father points out in his brief on appeal, if Grandfather was genuinely

concerned that Father was abusing Son or that Son was “in crisis,” he could

have contacted a child welfare agency.7 Additionally, Grandfather claims that

he filed a petition for custodial rights in Maryland in March 2021.

Nevertheless, if Grandfather was concerned that parents were improperly

restricting his access to his grandchildren, Grandfather should have waited

until the outcome of those proceedings before continuing his secret meetings

with Son, which Grandfather knew were against the wishes of Mother and

Father. Viewed in the light most favorable to Father as the verdict winner,

the record demonstrates that Father established Grandfather’s abuse under

the Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102(a)(5); Mescanti, supra. See also T.K.,

supra; Fonner, supra; R.G., supra. Further, the court’s entry of the PFA

order to protect Father, Mother, Son, and Daughter was squarely within the

scope of the PFA Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108(a)(6) (stating that court may

enter PFA order prohibiting defendant from having any contact with plaintiff

____________________________________________

7 As the trial court points out, although Grandfather made one statement that

he went to child protective services in Maryland when Father allegedly beat
Son (see N.T. Hearing, 11/30/22, at 33), Grandfather introduced no evidence
that he contacted a child welfare agency or the results of any such
investigation.

                                          - 37 -
J-A17042-23

or minor children, including, but not limited to, restraining defendant from

entering place of employment or business or school of plaintiff or minor

children and from harassing plaintiff or plaintiff’s relatives or minor

children).      Therefore, Grandfather’s first, second, third, fourth, sixth,

eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth issues merit no relief.

      In his seventh issue, Grandfather argues that the court admitted

testimony, over his objection, that Grandfather is a gun owner. Grandfather

asserts that the court believed such testimony was relevant to the PFA Act.

Grandfather emphasizes that Father admitted in his PFA petition that

Grandfather did not threaten Father or Mother with physical harm.

Grandfather suggests that Father sought to introduce this testimony to “tie

that fact in some amorphous way to violence or [Grandfather’s] violent

disposition.”   (Grandfather’s Brief at 47).   Grandfather maintains that the

court’s admission of this evidence prejudiced the court’s opinion of

Grandfather and contributed to the court’s ruling against him. Grandfather

concludes the court’s evidentiary ruling was improper, and this Court must

grant relief. We disagree.

      Instantly, Grandfather cites no law whatsoever to support his claim that

the   court’s evidentiary    ruling was improper.       (See id.    at 46-48).

Grandfather’s failure to support this claim with relevant legal authority

constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal. See Foster, supra.

      In his eighth issue, Grandfather argues that after Father had rested his

                                     - 38 -
J-A17042-23

case, but before Grandfather had an opportunity to put on a defense, the trial

court “made up its mind about [Grandfather].” (Grandfather’s Brief at 48).

Grandfather insists that the trial court’s “prejudice and bias against

[Grandfather] was apparent when it concluded only upon [Father’s] evidence

that [Grandfather] is ‘unhinged’ and ‘potentially volatile’ … and ordered

[Grandfather] to undergo a psychiatric evaluation at his own expense.” (Id.

at 48-49). Grandfather also highlights that the trial court referred to him as

a “creepy old man.” (Id. at 49). Grandfather concludes that the court was

biased against him, and this Court must grant appropriate relief. We disagree.

       Instantly, the sole case that Grandfather cites to in support of this claim

is Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019

(1967), for the general proposition of law that Grandfather had a right to

present evidence in his own defense.8 Nevertheless, Grandfather cites no law

relevant to allegations of bias or what a party must prove to succeed on a

claim of trial court bias. Likewise, Grandfather cites no law to suggest that

the court lacked authority to order him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

Consequently, Grandfather’s eighth issue is also waived.9 See Foster, supra

____________________________________________

8 We note that Father rested his case after the first day of testimony on June

29, 2022. The remaining three days of testimony consisted of Grandfather’s
defense. Clearly, the court allowed Grandfather to present evidence in his
own defense here.

9 Moreover, we note that “[a]llegations of bias and prejudice constitute some

of the most serious charges which can be hurled against a court. Kenworthy
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 39 -
J-A17042-23

(holding appellant waived issue where single citation to rule of evidence was

inadequate to fulfill appellant’s obligation to cite to and discuss pertinent legal

authorities).

       In his ninth issue, Grandfather argues that the trial court allowed Father

to present testimony from Son’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Varon, over

Grandfather’s objection.10       Grandfather insists that Dr. Varon provided no

evidence of Grandfather’s abuse. Similar to the improper testimony regarding

Grandfather’s gun ownership, Grandfather complains Dr. Varon’s testimony

was admitted “only to cast aspersions concerning [Grandfather] standing for

the proposition that [Son’s] symptoms got worse when he had more contact

____________________________________________

v. Burghart, 361 A.2d 335, 338 (Pa.Super. 1976), appeal dismissed, 478 Pa.
20, 385 A.2d 975 (1978). Before reversal is warranted on these grounds, the
record must clearly show prejudice, bias, capricious disbelief or prejudgment.
Id. “When the trial [court] is assailed as lacking impartiality, the only way to
meet this point is to examine the testimony [as a whole], not depending upon
sentences plucked out here and there.” Id. Here, the record and the PFA
hearing transcripts as a whole make clear that the court remained impartial
and treated both parties equally, notwithstanding some of the court’s remarks
about Grandfather. See id. Additionally, the record shows that the court also
referred to Father as “creepy in many respects.” (N.T. Hearing, 11/30/22, at
177). Further, the court noted that Grandfather’s counsel did not object to
the psychiatric evaluation, which was favorable to Grandfather in any event.
In fact, it was Father’s counsel who objected to admission of Grandfather’s
psychiatric evaluation. (See id. at 14). Thus, even if Grandfather had
preserved this issue, it would merit no relief.

10 The trial court stated in its opinion that Grandfather failed to object to the

admission of Dr. Varon’s testimony during the proceedings. (See Trial Court
Opinion at 47). The record supports the court’s statement. (See N.T.
Hearing, 6/29/22, at 111-135) (during Dr. Varon’s testimony, Grandfather
poses no objection to Dr. Varon testifying).

                                          - 40 -
J-A17042-23

with his Grandfather.” (Grandfather’s Brief at 49). Grandfather maintains Dr.

Varon’s testimony was irrelevant and contributed toward the court’s prejudice

against him.       Grandfather concludes the court’s evidentiary ruling was

improper, and this Court must grant relief. We disagree.

       Instantly, Grandfather cites no law whatsoever to support his claim that

the court’s evidentiary ruling was improper. (See id.). Grandfather’s failure

to support this claim with relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the

issue on appeal.11 See Foster, supra.

       In his tenth issue, Grandfather complains that the court erred in denying

his motion to dismiss made after the conclusion of Father’s presentation of

evidence. Grandfather asserts that following the first day of hearings in this

case, even if the trial court had accepted all facts in a light most favorable to

Father, that Father failed to make a case upon which relief under the PFA Act

could be granted. Grandfather insists that Father provided no evidence in his

case that Grandfather injured him, threatened him with imminent serious

bodily injury, falsely imprisoned him, committed sexual abuse, or engaged in

a course of conduct directed towards him, such that the trial court should have

dismissed the PFA petition at that time. Instead, Grandfather complains the

trial court endeavored to create a new category of abuse based loosely on the

____________________________________________

11 As previously stated, Grandfather also failed to object to Dr. Varon’s
testimony in the trial court. Thus, this issue would also be waived on that
basis. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating issues not raised in trial court
cannot be raised for first time on appeal).

                                          - 41 -
J-A17042-23

doctrine that parents have a fundamental right to parent their children in a

way they see fit. Grandfather concludes the court erred in denying his motion

to dismiss, and this Court must grant relief. We disagree.

      Instantly, Grandfather again cites no law whatsoever to support his

claim. (See Grandfather’s Brief at 50-51). Grandfather’s failure to support

this claim with relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the issue on

appeal. See Foster, supra.

      Moreover, we note that at the conclusion of Father’s evidence (which

consisted of testimony from Father, Trooper Michael Rogers, and Mother),

Grandfather moved to dismiss the action. The court heard argument from

both parties and denied the motion.     (See N.T. Hearing, 6/29/22, at 150-

155). Specifically, the court stated:

         I am mandated at this juncture to accept in the light most
         favorable to [Father] all the facts as true. What do we have
         here? Well, I haven’t heard the whole case. I have only
         heard the one side that has rested. But I will make some
         comments to supplement the reasons for a decision I am
         about to enter.

         This is a strange set of circumstances. I have read the texts
         between Grandfather and [Son]. Very unique, indeed.

         I am not so sure, [Father], that [Grandfather] has a
         romantic inclination toward your son. I don’t think he is
         grooming your son for any sexual conduct. Those words
         have been thrown around, but in common parlance they
         have a different meaning with what occurred here.

         However, as the finder of fact, while there’s been no
         abduction, while there is no romantic relationship, while
         there is no grooming, Grandfather’s behavior I find to be
         troubling. He is not a doting grandfather; he is an obsessive

                                    - 42 -
J-A17042-23

       grandfather.

       Now, that in itself it not a crime, not at all. It’s disturbing,
       but it’s not a crime. But we are not here on a criminal
       matter. We are here on whether or not there is sufficient
       evidence to enter a protection Order.

       I haven’t heard the entire case. Grandfather has a right to
       defend himself, and I am going to protect that right. But I
       have the authority to enter a temporary Order, and I will.
       And here [are] the reasons why: Yes, we have talked about
       [Son]. He is a child who apparently has some issues such
       as Tourette’s, anxiety, ADHD. Not of his own making. He
       is, perhaps because of those conditions, especially
       vulnerable. Grandfather knows that.

       What troubles me is that without any prompting, without
       any requests, he, of his own accord, travels from Baltimore,
       Maryland, to Upper Black Eddy and, without notice, without
       an invitation, enters the life of his son [Father], who wants
       nothing, really, to do with him. He claims he only wants to
       see his grandson. “Why can’t I see my grandson?” That’s
       what he said to the trooper.

       Well, there is a reason why you can’t see your grandson,
       [Grandfather], because your son [Father] says no.

       Now, we grant, in Pennsylvania, very liberally the right of
       grandparents under certain circumstances to obtain partial
       custody of their grandchildren. Not every state does that.
       We have fairly liberal laws to allow that. But this isn’t a
       custody case. It’s more than that.

       I am troubled by the fact that, again, without any reason
       other than to cause harassment to [Father], you
       surreptitiously arrange to meet with [Son] at the Bridgeton
       House. That’s unnatural, and it’s uncalled for, and it’s
       wrong. And it’s also tantamount to harassment. This is a
       recipe for disaster.

       I am not so sure that the change in [Son’s] behavior, as
       noted by his treating psychiatrist, is directly related to
       [G]randfather’s conduct, but it certainly does not help.

                                   - 43 -
J-A17042-23

       What bothers me is he has said, so far without rebuttal, that
       he wanted full access to the children.

       It’s not your decision to make. That’s a parental decision.
       Father and his wife, [Mother], have every right to say,
       “Grandpop, you are out of the picture.” I’m troubled by the
       fact that you have said to them you could and would do
       anything, that you will make their lives miserable.

       That, to me, would create some fear in my mind as to your
       behavior, especially since this is not a one and done, but
       this is continuing. It takes a special mind to purchase a
       townhouse next to a place where your son lives for the
       specific purpose of seeing your grandson on the sly. It takes
       an even more diabolical mind to put aside whatever you are
       doing in Maryland and to come up without notice, without
       invitation, to Bucks County and communicate threats. And
       a threat to [Mother]…is a threat to [Father] as well.

       I hear that you are screaming, that you are acting out, you
       are storming into the home. You demand full access to the
       children. If they want to do it, that’s fine. If not, you won’t
       take no for an answer.

       So I think in addition to being unhinged, you are potentially
       volatile.

       Now, is this the classic [PFA] case? No. But the object,
       according to the legislative history in the [PFA] Act, is to
       prevent the abuse from occurring.

       And, to me, this is rising to a level within the Statute under
       the subsection which states that if a person stalks another
       without any valid reason, that, in and of itself—and this is
       stalking, no question about it. There is no valid reason other
       than your own selfish reasons. You will not be denied from
       having contact with them or with their child. That type of
       talking is repeated. It’s a course of conduct. You are
       following [Father’s] family…without any proper consent or
       authorization to do so.

       And, taken as a whole, given all of these circumstances, it
       would be reasonable for them to assume that they are in
       fear of bodily injury. Doesn’t have to be death, just bodily

                                   - 44 -
J-A17042-23

        injury.

        So looking at the Act, its object is to stop the abuse. The
        only way I am going to stop it is to enter a temporary Order,
        so I will. …

(Id. at 155-161). The record supports the court’s statements. Thus, even if

Grandfather had preserved this issue on appeal, it would not have entitled him

to any relief. Therefore, Grandfather’s issues are either waived, abandoned,

or meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the entry of the PFA order.

     Order affirmed.

Date: 11/28/2023

                                    - 45 -