Court Opinion

ID: 9736244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:48:26.467145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:05.233225
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion. . I write separately to emphasize that the contempt provisions of the Protection From Abuse Act1 are available and intended not only to punish an abusive spouse for past abusive behavior, but are also available and intended to physically restrain (i.e., jail) an abusive spouse in order to prevent future occurrences of abuse. There is much peace of mind in knowing that the abuser cannot reach the object of the abuse.
Additionally, I note that the General Assembly has clearly expressed its intention that the rights and remedies set forth in the Protection From Abuse Act are supplementary to an abuse victim’s civil or criminal remedies. Section 10189 of the Act, 35 P.S. § 10189, provides:
Unless otherwise indicated in this act, any proceeding under this act shall be in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and shall be in addition to any other available civil or criminal remedies.
It is obvious, therefore, that requiring joinder of contempt charges for violation of a court order under the Act with criminal charges arising from the abusive conduct that constitutes that violation would contravene the explicit mandate of the legislature and thwart its salutary goals.

. Act of October 7, 1976, P.L. 1090, No. 218, as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 10181-10190.