§ 6107. Hearings.
(a) General rule.--Within ten business days of the filing of a petition under this chapter, a hearing
shall be held before the court, at which the plaintiff must prove the allegation of
abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. The court shall, at the time the defendant
is given notice of the hearing, advise the defendant of the right to be represented
by counsel, of the right to present evidence, of the right to compel attendance of
witnesses, of the method by which witnesses may be compelled, of the possibility that
any firearm, other weapon or ammunition owned and any firearm license possessed may
be ordered temporarily relinquished, of the options for relinquishment of a firearm
pursuant to this chapter, of the possibility that Federal or State law may prohibit
the possession of firearms, including an explanation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (relating
to unlawful acts) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105 (relating to persons not to possess, use,
manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms), and that any protection order granted
by a court may be considered in any subsequent proceedings under this title. This
notice shall be printed and delivered in a manner which easily attracts attention
to its content and shall specify that child custody is one of the proceedings where
prior protection orders may be considered.
(b) Temporary orders.--
(1) If a plaintiff petitions for temporary order for protection from abuse and alleges
immediate and present danger of abuse to the plaintiff or minor children, the court
shall conduct an ex parte proceeding.
(2) The court may enter such a temporary order as it deems necessary to protect the plaintiff
or minor children when it finds they are in immediate and present danger of abuse.
The order shall remain in effect until modified or terminated by the court after notice
and hearing.
(3) In addition to any other relief, the court may, pursuant to section 6108 (relating
to relief), direct that the defendant temporarily relinquish to the sheriff any firearms,
other weapons or ammunition for the duration of the temporary order if the petition
demonstrates any of the following:
(i) Abuse which involves a firearm or other weapon.
(ii) An immediate and present danger of abuse. In determining whether an immediate and
present danger of abuse exists, the court shall consider a number of factors, including,
but not limited to:
(A) Whether the temporary order of protection from abuse is not likely to achieve its
purpose in the absence of such a condition.
(B) Whether the defendant has previously violated a protection from abuse order.
(C) Whether past or present abuse to the plaintiff or any of the plaintiff's minor children
resulted in injury.
(D) Whether the abuse occurred in public.
(E) Whether the abuse includes:
(I) threats of abuse or suicide;
(II) killing or threatening to kill pets;
(III) an escalation of violence;
(IV) stalking or obsessive behavior;
(V) sexual violence; or
(VI) drug or excessive alcohol use.
(4) If the court orders the defendant to temporarily relinquish any firearm, other weapon
or ammunition pursuant to paragraph (3), the defendant shall decide in what manner
the defendant is going to relinquish any firearm, other weapon or ammunition listed
in the order. Relinquishment may be to the sheriff pursuant to section 6108(a)(7)
or to a third party for safekeeping pursuant to section 6108.3 (relating to relinquishment
to third party for safekeeping).
(c) Continued hearings.--
(1) If a hearing under subsection (a) is continued and no temporary order is issued, the
court may make ex parte temporary orders under subsection (b) as it deems necessary.
(2) If a hearing is scheduled to take place within three business days after a defendant
is served under section 6106 (relating to commencement of proceedings), the court
shall grant a continuance until the three-business-day period has elapsed, if requested
by the defendant.
(3) The court shall notify the defendant of the right to such continuance.
(Oct. 6, 1994, P.L.574, No.85, eff. 60 days; Dec. 16, 1997, P.L.549, No.58, eff. Jan.
1, 1998; Nov. 10, 2005, P.L.335, No.66, eff. 180 days; Oct. 12, 2018, P.L.519, No.79,
eff. 180 days)
2018 Amendment. Act 79 amended subsecs. (a) and (c). Act 79 shall apply to orders issued pursuant
to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108 on or after the effective date of section 11 of Act 79.
2005 Amendment. Act 66 amended subsecs. (a) and (b).
Cross References. Section 6107 is referred to in sections 6106, 6108 of this title; section 6105 of
Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
71
cases (
19 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case:
Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 7× “] There was no Ex-parte Proceeding as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107( [b]) and no immediate and present danger requiring Ex Parte Relief to be granted before the March 28, 2012 Hearing nor continued beyond the March 28, 2011 Court appearance; [2.”
S.W. v. S.F., 196 A.3d 224 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 3× “In accordance with 23 Pa. C.S. § 6107 (b) (l), "If a plaintiff petitions for temporary order for protection from abuse and alleges immediate and present danger of abuse to the plaintiff or minor children, the court shall conduct an ex parte proceeding," this Court conducted an…”
Mikhail v. Kahn, 991 F. Supp. 2d 596 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
· cites it 3× “See 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 6107 (“If a plaintiff petitions for temporary order for protection from abuse and alleges immediate and present danger of abuse to the plaintiff or minor children, the court shall conduct an ex parte proceeding.”
Commonwealth v. Baker, 766 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 4× “See generally 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(b). Indeed, since N.B. apparently did not pursue the matter beyond the mere filing of her petition, there is no record evidence or finding that she ever suffered abuse or was at risk of harm.”
Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 4× “" 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(a). See also: Heard v. Heard, supra at 256 , 614 A.”
Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 798 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2002).
· cites it 4× “persuasive and therefore expressly adopt its holding, that there exists a right to petition for expungement of a PFAA record where the petitioner seeks to protect his reputation.”
Moyer, R. v. Shaffer, R., 305 A.3d 1064 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 4× “” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(a) (emphasis added). This Court has held that under the PFA Act, evidentiary hearings are mandatory because the statutory use of the word “shall” mandates that a trial court conduct such a hearing.”
H.M.H. on Behalf of L.M.H. v. D.J.G., 210 A.3d 1045 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 3× “According to Mother, she was entitled to a hearing pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107. Id. at 17. We agree. "In the context of a PFA order, we review the trial court's legal conclusions for an error of law or abuse of discretion.”
Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(a). However, during the hearing, the court refused to allow Patricia to testify about past abuse that was subject to the prior consent order, and now explains in its opinion that it “could not consider the past abuse as a basis for a new PFA Order because…”
S.G. v. R.G., 233 A.3d 903 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“8(b) explains the rule “provides a uniform process that comports with the requirements of 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6107(b)(2) (related to hearings)….”
Commonwealth v. Yerby, 679 A.2d 217 (Pa. 1996).
· cites it 2× “In October, 1992, an order was issued pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(b)(hereinafter *581 “PFA order”) 2 , enjoining Appellant from “striking, threatening, abusing or harassing” his former girlfriend, Ms.”
Krassnoski v. Rosey, 684 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Section 6107(d) of the Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(d), which requires costs of the proceedings to be imposed upon the defendant if the plaintiff prevails, makes a specific exception for cases in which the defendant is indigent.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6107(a) — 37 cases
Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 798 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2002).
“persuasive and therefore expressly adopt its holding, that there exists a right to petition for expungement of a PFAA record where the petitioner seeks to protect his reputation.”
Moyer, R. v. Shaffer, R., 305 A.3d 1064 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(a) (emphasis added). This Court has held that under the PFA Act, evidentiary hearings are mandatory because the statutory use of the word “shall” mandates that a trial court conduct such a hearing.”
Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
“" 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(a). See also: Heard v. Heard, supra at 256 , 614 A.”
Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“] There was no Ex-parte Proceeding as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107( [b]) and no immediate and present danger requiring Ex Parte Relief to be granted before the March 28, 2012 Hearing nor continued beyond the March 28, 2011 Court appearance; [2.”
Buchhalter v. Buchhalter, 959 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(a). However, during the hearing, the court refused to allow Patricia to testify about past abuse that was subject to the prior consent order, and now explains in its opinion that it “could not consider the past abuse as a basis for a new PFA Order because…”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6107(b) — 11 cases
Commonwealth v. Baker, 766 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2001).
“See generally 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(b). Indeed, since N.B. apparently did not pursue the matter beyond the mere filing of her petition, there is no record evidence or finding that she ever suffered abuse or was at risk of harm.”
Snyder v. Snyder, 629 A.2d 977 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
“" 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(a). See also: Heard v. Heard, supra at 256 , 614 A.”
Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“] There was no Ex-parte Proceeding as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107( [b]) and no immediate and present danger requiring Ex Parte Relief to be granted before the March 28, 2012 Hearing nor continued beyond the March 28, 2011 Court appearance; [2.”
Commonwealth v. Yerby, 679 A.2d 217 (Pa. 1996).
“In October, 1992, an order was issued pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(b)(hereinafter *581 “PFA order”) 2 , enjoining Appellant from “striking, threatening, abusing or harassing” his former girlfriend, Ms.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6107(b)(1) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6107(b)(2) — 6 cases
S.G. v. R.G., 233 A.3d 903 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“8(b) explains the rule “provides a uniform process that comports with the requirements of 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6107(b)(2) (related to hearings)….”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6107(b)(3) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6107(b)(ii) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6107(c) — 7 cases
Ferko-Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
“] There was no Ex-parte Proceeding as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107( [b]) and no immediate and present danger requiring Ex Parte Relief to be granted before the March 28, 2012 Hearing nor continued beyond the March 28, 2011 Court appearance; [2.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6107(c)(2) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6107(d) — 1 case
Krassnoski v. Rosey, 684 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).
“Section 6107(d) of the Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6107(d), which requires costs of the proceedings to be imposed upon the defendant if the plaintiff prevails, makes a specific exception for cases in which the defendant is indigent.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.