J-A08002-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 L.A.W., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. W.R.W., Appellant No. 1477 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order Entered April 16, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Domestic Relations at No(s): 2014-12491-PF BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED AUGUST 16, 2016 W.R.W. (“Father”) appeals from the final protection from abuse (“PFA”) order entered on April 16, 2015, wherein the court prohibited Father’s contact with L.A.W. (“Mother”) and their son, B.W., except to comply with the prevailing child custody order. We affirm. The certified record supports the following facts. Mother and Father divorced prior to the commencement of these proceedings. B.W. was born of the marriage during July 2008. Prior to April 2014, Father exercised periods of partial physical custody. However, following Father’s admission that he was suffering from mental health problems, the parties agreed that Mother would supervise his visits with B.W. Shortly thereafter, Mother received a text photograph from Father’s girlfriend that indicated that Father * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A08002-16 had suicidal ideations. Specifically, Father transmitted a text with a photograph of a self-inflicted knife wound in his leg. The accompanying message read, “I don’t know if you recognize the pain you don’t care to deal with. Tell my son the truth. I have finally found release. I only wanted us.” N.T. 4/16/15, at 11; Plaintiff’s Exhibit-1. Mother contacted Father, stated her concern about B.W.’s safety, and convinced Father to cancel the supervised visitation that had been scheduled for that evening. N.T., 4/16/15, at 11. The supervised visitations continued on an as-requested basis throughout that summer. During August 2014, Father was involved in an automobile accident while driving under the influence of alcohol. While convalescing, Father admitted to Mother that the accident was, in fact, a failed attempt to commit suicide. Mother persuaded him to commit himself to mental health treatment for seventy–two to ninety–six hours. Two months later, Father was involved in a second automobile accident. While he did not characterize that collision as another suicide attempt, Mother was suspicious of the incident in light of Father’s previous attempt and ideations. Meanwhile, during October 2014, Father demanded to exercise physical custody independent of Mother’s supervision. He argued that his mental health had improved and that supervision was unnecessary. He threatened to file a petition for contempt against Mother if she did not comply with his demands. In anticipation of Father’s impending legal

J-A08002-16

maneuver, Mother filed a motion to modify the existing custody order. The hearing on that motion was scheduled for January 2015. During the period preceding the modification hearing, Father engaged in increasingly erratic behavior and he harassed Mother by telephone, text messages, and emails. Specifically, on December 11, 2014, Father called Mother at 8:11 p.m. and 8:27 p.m. The next morning between 8:40 and 10:33 a.m., Father called Mother five times from his mobile phone, leaving three brief voicemail messages, and once from his work phone. He followed that onslaught with eleven text messages to Mother between 10:36 a.m. and 10:50 a.m. the same morning. The messages related to their relationship and Father’s attempts to contact B.W. Mother issued two responses to Father’s inquiries. She informed him, “Stop contacting me” and “I will have him call you when he’s home.” Plaintiff’s Exhibit-2. In addition to the foregoing attempts to communicate with Mother on the morning of December 12, 2014, Father sent Mother three emails trying to establish contact. As a result of Father’s repeated texts, emails, and voicemail messages, Mother contacted the West Whiteland Township Police Department. Officer Robert B. Malarick contacted Father and formally advised him to cease communication with Mother and informed Father that further attempts to contact her could result in his being charged with harassment. During the PFA hearing, Mother testified without objection that the police relayed

J-A08002-16

Father’s statement that he would stop attempting to contact Mother by telephone and that “he was just going to show up at [her] house.” N.T., 4/16/15, at 22. While Father did not follow through with his stated intention to menace Mother in person, he called her twice on the following day. On December 19, 2014, Mother was contacted by her attorney, who relayed a message from Father’s counsel indicating that she was withdrawing her representation of Father due to his threatening behavior and advising caution in what she characterized as an unsafe situation. Mother’s counsel interpreted the warning as including threats against him and Mother. Upon receipt of the telephone call, Mother retrieved B.W. and his younger half-sister, who is not a party to the final PFA, order from school and took refuge in a local hotel. Mother explained, “we packed up some belongings and we went to a hotel for the evening because of the state of which -- I was concerned for our wellbeing as I did not know what threats were being made against me.” Id. at 25. The following day, she called the police department to alert it of Father’s threats against her custody lawyer. She informed police that she was afraid of Father and requested extra police patrols around her home. The police increased their presence in Mother’s neighborhood, told her to call if she observed Father nearby, and provided her information about services designed to combat domestic violence. On December 23, 2014, West Whiteland Township Police Detective Scott Pezick told Mother that the department had received multiple reports

J-A08002-16

about Father over the preceding days and that it wanted to discuss the situation with her. Detective Pezick had spoken to Father and advised him to use their respective counsel as intermediaries regarding custody issues, but Father responded that he was going to retrieve B.W. from school on his own. Mother informed Detective Pezick that she “had an extensive history of violence and abuse with [Father] and that he was admittedly mentally ill and that his repeated contact with [her] had [placed her in] a very bad position.” Id. at 23. In sum, “[she] was afraid of what [Father] was going to do next.” Id. Detective Pezick ordered an increased police presence at B.W.’s school until Mother was physically able to recover her son. Mother observed a marked police car at the school when she arrived, and having called the school to advise it of the situation, she was able to obtain B.W. without incident. After collecting B.W. and exiting the building, Mother noticed that two additional marked police cars had arrived. As Father was not observed at the school that day, the intimation he made to Detective Pezick was apparently empty. Nevertheless, the police advised Mother to use extreme caution when dealing with Father and to call 911 immediately if he attempted to contact her. Based on the foregoing events, Mother obtained a temporary PFA order against Father effective December 23, 2014. The temporary order, which applied to Mother, B.W., and his younger half-sister, was scheduled to

J-A08002-16

terminate on January 5, 2015, but it was subsequently continued to February 5, 2015 and then to April 16, 2015. The first continuance was due to a lack of service, and the second continuance was made to accommodate the criminal investigation into Father’s alleged violation of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5701-5782, as discussed infra. When the local Sheriff’s Office called Father in an attempt to serve notice of the temporary PFA and inform him of the conditions of the PFA, Father advised the deputy that he did not intend to comply with the order “and that no one was going to keep him away from his kid.” Id. at 30. While the hearing on the final PFA order was pending, Father sent Mother’s attorney an email that revealed that Father had surreptitiously recorded an October 2014 telephone conversation with Mother. Father ostensibly proffered the twenty-one minute recording to the attorney in order to establish Mother’s alleged duplicity. However, in actuality, by recording Mother secretly and then disseminating that recording to a third party, Father exposed himself to criminal liability for violating sections 5703(1) and (2) of Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“Wiretap Act”). Upon being notified of Father’s actions, Mother

J-A08002-16

contacted Detective Pezick, who, following an investigation, charged Father with, inter alia, two counts of violating the Wiretap Act.^[1] The evidentiary hearing was held on April 16, 2015. At the outset of the hearing, Mother suggested that the court continue the hearing pending the criminal matter based upon potential Fifth Amendment concerns if Father elected to testify. Acting pro se, Father opposed the continuance and declined to testify during the PFA hearing. Mother testified in favor of the petition and introduced five exhibits. Father presented three witnesses. While Father marked five exhibits for identification, none of the exhibits was admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered a final PFA order against Father that precluded him from contacting Mother and B.W. for three years.^[2] The PFA order specifically stated that (1) it would yield to the then-existing custody arrangement; (2) it was imposed without prejudice to Father’s right to petition to modify custody; and (3) a modified custody order would supersede the final PFA order. This timely appeal followed. ____________________________________________

J-A08002-16

Father raises four questions for our review, which we restate for clarity as follows:

J-A08002-16

J-A08002-16