E/K/ v. J.R.A. - Pa. Super – August 27, 2020
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A13031-20o%20-%20104508250108578008.pdf?cb=1
n. 14
“It is not uncommon for victims of intimate partner violence to remain with or return to their abusers for a myriad of complicated reasons, such as a dire financial situation; a need for housing; help with co-parenting their children, or assistance with a disability; fear of escalating violence or losing their children; religious or cultural beliefs; and/or distorted thinking and unhealthy reliance upon the abuser created by past abuse.”Commonwealth v. Wilson, 227 A.3d 928, 940 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing Why Do Victims Stay?, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, https://ncadv.org/why-do- victims-stay). In fact, the PFA Act recognizes the complicated nature of the dynamics of intimate partner violence, and explicitly provides that a PFA order remains in effect in the event of subsequent co-residency. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108(g) (“Resumption of co[-]residency on the part of the plaintiff and defendant shall not nullify the provisions of the court order.”).
