ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Family Law Blogs -> Pennsylvania Family Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Family Law

: Pennsylvania Family Law

Siblings, Not Just Spouses, May Be Subject to Abuse

By Fox Rothschild

ADVERTISEMENTS

In a recent decision, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that siblings not just spouses may be subject to abuse and, therefore, afforded the protections set forth in the Protection From Abuse Act in Pennsylvania (the “PFA Act”). 

In Custer v. Cochrane, 207 Pa. Super. 290 (filed September 25, 2007), the parties were siblings who were both employed in the family business and worked together for over 35 years. One sibling was the Office Manager and served as Secretary/Treasurer of the corporation, and the other sibling was the President of the corporation.  The allegations made by the sister were that her brother made verbal and physical threats, and that there actually were incidents of physical violence at the business.

In ruling that there was abuse and that the sister was entitled to protection under the PFA Act, the Superior Court rejected a prior line of cases which held that abusive behavior between siblings related to business was not subject to the PFA Act, as the parties did not reside in the same household.  The Superior Court noted that the definition of those entitled to protection under the PFA Act had been expanded by the legislature and that even though these parties were not members of the same household, they were related by “consanguinity” and that the PFA Act now encompasses relationships outside the strictly domestic sphere.  The parties were more than simply feuding business partners.  They were siblings linked by a biological relationship; and, that, a sibling seeking protection from the other because of physical violence (if justified) would be protected pursuant to the PFA statute. 

This case is striking in that it expands the protections afforded by the Act.  It also amplifies the fundamentals of the Act in that individuals are not allowed to redress their wrongs by threats, abusive conduct, or other actions (threatened or actual).

Full post as published by Pennsylvania Family Law on October 26, 2007 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0149 secs (new cache)