Nearly half of PFA orders withdrawn or dismissed, state says
Nearly half of all protection from abuse orders are terminated by those who filed them after they don't show up for court or choose to withdraw the complaint, according to statistics from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.
In 38,103 PFA cases processed in 2016, 28 percent were dismissed after the plaintiff — the individual who filed for the PFA — did not show up for the next hearing on the matter. Another 20 percent withdraw their complaint.
That said, of all the cases filed across the state last year, nearly 89 percent were granted at least a temporary protection order of up to 10 days. Seventeen percent go on to have a final order granted after a hearing before a judge, and just under 5 percent have a final order denied.
University of Pittsburgh student Alina Sheykhet's complaint against her ex-boyfriend last month was granted by a judge.
Her PFA did not stop ex-boyfriend Matthew Darby from breaking into her Oakland home early Sunday and bludgeoning her to death, according to police.
Sheykhet, 20, sought a PFA after Darby climbed a gutter and broke into her apartment Sept. 21. He was charged with felony criminal trespassing.
But experts say that in a majority of cases, PFAs serve their intended purpose — to put space and time between the two involved. In 2016, 18 percent of PFA cases were resolved by an agreement between the parties.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.