## Facts

- In 2009, Christine M. Evans and Gordon P. Braun met at work and began dating.
- The relationship involved only a small number of dates, but Evans and Braun argued frequently.
- Evans testified that she and Braun went on two romantic dates, that Braun became angry because she wanted to take the relationship slowly, and that Braun introduced her to his son.
- Evidence was presented that Braun had expressed strong romantic feelings for Evans, including telling her he loved her.
- During the relationship, Braun showed Evans a gun and told her he could put a hole in her head.
- A few weeks later, Evans invited Braun to a Christmas party at a local restaurant-bar.
- Outside the restaurant-bar, Evans and Braun argued, and Braun told Evans that he still had his gun and threatened to use it.
- After the threat, Evans went back inside the restaurant-bar and later reported the incident to a coworker and her employer.
- Evans also reported the incident to the police, who suggested she contact Women in Need (WIN), a domestic-violence services organization.
- After Evans spoke with a WIN employee, a petition for protection under Pennsylvania’s Protection from Abuse Act (PFA Act) was filed on her behalf.
- The trial court granted an ex parte temporary PFA order and held a hearing on whether to enter a final order.
- Following the hearing, the trial court entered a final PFA order that, among other relief, prohibited Braun from possessing firearms.
- Braun appealed, arguing that Evans lacked standing under the PFA Act because their relationship did not make them “family or household members” as defined by the statute.

## Issues

1. Whether Evans had standing to seek relief under the PFA Act by showing she and Braun were “current or former sexual or intimate partners,” even though they had dated only briefly and there was little evidence of a sexual relationship.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the final PFA order.
- The court held that the record supported the trial court’s finding that Evans and Braun were “intimate partners” within the meaning of the PFA Act’s definition of “family or household members.”
- Because Evans qualified as a covered petitioner under 23 Pa. C.S. § 6102, she had standing to seek a PFA order.
- The court declined to require a minimum number of dates, a minimum duration, or proof of sexual intimacy before a relationship may be treated as “intimate” for PFA standing.
- The court left intact the relief ordered by the trial court, including the firearms prohibition.
- A dissenting judge would have read “intimate partners” more narrowly and would have found the evidence of an intimate relationship insufficient for standing.

## Legal Principles

- The PFA Act is a remedial statute intended to protect victims from abuse, and it is construed broadly to carry out that protective purpose.
- Standing to seek a PFA order requires the petitioner to fall within the Act’s definition of “family or household members,” which includes “current or former sexual or intimate partners.” 23 Pa. C.S. § 6102.
- “Intimate partners” is not limited to married, cohabiting, or long-term couples; a short dating relationship may qualify when the facts show romantic or intimate involvement.
- In PFA appeals, appellate courts review for legal error and abuse of discretion and generally do not reweigh evidence or disturb supported credibility determinations made by the trial court.

## Conclusion

Evans v. Braun affirmed a final PFA order entered after a brief dating relationship where the respondent threatened the petitioner with a gun; the Superior Court held that the parties could be treated as “intimate partners” under the PFA Act, giving the petitioner standing and supporting relief that included a firearms ban.


Evans v. Braun, 12 A.3d 395 (2010)