B.R.S. v. J.L. – Pa. Superior Court – July 31, 2020 – reported opinion
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A16004-20o%20-%20104500805107927464.pdf?cb=1
Held: Plaintiff had standing to bring and get relief in PFA case against the husband of her sister-in-law, since plaintiff and defendant were family members related by affinity.
From the opinion
The goal of the Protection from Abuse Act is protection and prevention of further abuse by removing the perpetrator of the abuse from the household and/or from the victim for a period of time. As for individuals who may seek refuge within the confines of the Act, the statute's protective sphere encompasses [] “family or household members.” In section 6102 of the Act, the term “family or household members” is defined as,
Spouses or persons who have been spouses, persons living as spouses, parents and children, other persons related by consanguinity or affinity, current or former sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood. Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the parties are not spouses, persons living as spouses, related by consanguinity, current or former sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood. Consequently, they may only fall under the confines of the PFA Act if we determine they are “persons related by ... affinity.” Id.
The Act itself does not define “affinity.” However, a prior panel of this Court faced a similar issue in McCance, [908 A.2d 905 (Pa. Super. 2006)] in which the Court sought to give meaning to all the terms in the PFA statute while preserving its objective. The Court interpreted “affinity” in the Act to include a family relationship of brother-in-law and sister-in-law. The Court specifically found that such an interpretation was consistent with the purpose of the Act, “which is to forestall escalation of disputes among family members where injury may be on the horizon.” Id. at 910 (citations omitted).
Merriam-Webster includes multiple definitions of “brother-in-law”, among which is “the husband of one’s spouse’s sibling”. Merriam–Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brother-in-law (last visited July 15, 2020). Similarly, among the definitions of “sister-in-law” is “the wife of one’s spouse’s sibling”. Merriam–Webster, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/sister-in-law (last visited July 15, 2020). Therefore, we conclude Appellant and Appellee are related by affinity.
To interpret the Act as Defendant would have us do would lead to absurd results. Despite Plaintiff not being blood related, his relationship with her is no different than his relationship with Defendant’s wife, who falls under the protection of the Act pursuant to McCance. Plaintiff’s testimony regarding holidays, birthdays, and summers spent together, the relationships between the parties’ children, and the corresponding relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant’s children, and vice versa, . . .. applies equally to Appellee as it does to Appellee’s wife.
[T]he persons who undoubtedly fit the Act's definition of family or household members— e.g., spouses, parents, children, relatives, paramours, and persons who undertake romantic relationships— typically share some significant degree of domestic, familial and/or intimate interdependence. There is often an obvious emotional bond. Frequently, these individuals interface in very practical areas of private life—a mutual residence, common family obligations and/or shared involvement in the affairs of day-to-day living ... In sum, the persons protected by the Act as a family or household members have a connection rooted in blood, marriage, family-standing, or a chosen romantic relationship. Scott v. Shay, 928 A.2d 312, 315 (Pa. Super. 2007). -4-
By construing “person related by ... affinity” to include all definitions of a brother-in-law or sister-in-law, we give effect to the provisions of the statute in a way that promotes its purpose of preventing violence among people with a domestic, familial or romantic bond, past or present.
