In Camera Review of Temporary PFA Petitions Ruled Unconstitutional
On April 17, 2013 the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision in the case of Ferko-Fox v. Fox, finding that the issuance of a temporary protective order based solely on an in camera review of allegations in a Protection From Abuse (PFA) petition was unconstitutional.
The Superior Court held that to meet the requirements of due process, trial court judges must conduct an ex parte hearing prior to the entry of a Temporary PFA order.
Currently, many counties in Pennsylvania grant temporary protection from abuse orders based on in camera review of the allegations in Protection From Abuse (PFA) petitions. For those courts, this decision has significant implications on local practice and procedure for issuing a temporary PFA order.
In an effort to address some of the questions and issues raised by the Ferko-Fox v. Fox decision, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) has produced editions of PCADV's The Jurist and Court Access newsletters devoted to the Ferko-Fox case.
Included in the newsletters is a statewide map that illustrates which counties use an in camera review process and which counties use an ex parte hearing review process. The special April 2013 edition of The Jurist newsletter containing detailed coverage of the decision and issues is available at the link below.