## Facts

- Shannon D. Chronister petitioned for a protection-from-abuse (PFA) order on behalf of her minor half-sister, Cassandra L. Morrison, against Cassandra’s father, Timothy R. Brenneman.
- On May 18, 1998, after Cassandra admitted lying, Brenneman disciplined her by striking her four or five times with a folded belt across the buttocks.
- Cassandra testified the punishment caused pain and made her cry; the record did not show lasting marks, bodily impairment, or ongoing physical effects.
- Cassandra reported the incident at school and later to Chronister; Child and Youth Services interviewed Cassandra but declined to intervene.
- Later the same day, after a discussion about household rules, Brenneman retrieved a pistol from a cupboard, checked it, and carried it upstairs.
- Cassandra testified the gun-related episode frightened and intimidated her, especially alongside warnings that similar punishment would occur if she broke rules again.
- Brenneman testified he retrieved the gun because he had left it downstairs, ensured it was unloaded, and returned it to his normal storage location; he denied using it to threaten or intimidate.
- A temporary PFA order issued May 20, 1998; after a full hearing, the trial court entered a final PFA order on October 8, 1998, finding “abuse” under the Protection From Abuse Act.

## Issues

1. Whether a parent’s corporal punishment—striking a child with a belt several times causing pain but no impairment—constitutes “abuse” under the Protection From Abuse Act.
2. Whether retrieving and carrying a pistol in the child’s presence, without proof of threatening use, can establish “abuse” supporting PFA relief.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the final PFA order.
- The court held the evidence did not prove statutory “abuse,” including “bodily injury,” as required for PFA relief.
- The court treated the Protection From Abuse Act’s “abuse” standard as informed by the Crimes Code’s parental-discipline justification for reasonable force.
- The gun-related episode, on this record, did not show an intentional threat or terrorizing conduct sufficient to meet the statutory definition of abuse.

## Legal Principles

- For PFA relief, the petitioner must prove “abuse” as defined by statute; “bodily injury” requires an impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.
- A parent may use reasonable force for discipline; force is not justified if designed to cause, or known to create a substantial risk of causing, death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain, or severe mental distress or gross degradation.
- In evaluating alleged “abuse” arising from parental discipline, courts may read the PFA Act consistently with the criminal-law parental-discipline justification.
- Subjective fear, without evidence of conduct intended or objectively functioning as a threat or terrorizing act within the statutory categories, is insufficient to establish PFA “abuse.”

## Conclusion

The court reversed the PFA order because the father’s disciplinary belt strikes, absent evidence of bodily impairment or a level of pain exceeding reasonable discipline, and his nonthreatening retrieval and storage of a firearm did not satisfy the statutory definition of “abuse” required for protection-from-abuse relief.


Chronister v. Brenneman, 742 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999)