Brandie Kessler and Ed Mahon

York Daily Record

They show up at the York County Judicial Center, head to an office near the lunchroom and ask for help.

They say they're scared of their husband or wife, intimate partner or family member.

They want protection.

They fill out paperwork. They tell their side, answering a form full of questions that essentially ask things like:

When was the most recent incident of abuse?

Did you seek medical attention?

Has the alleged abuser used a gun or other weapon against you?

Then they wait.

Most get to see a judge, whichever one is handling cases that day, at an afternoon hearing. In the courtroom, it’s the judge's chance to ask them questions.

Some cry, fidget, struggle to talk. Others are more matter-of-fact.

The judge decides whether to grant legal protection while alleged victims wait for a final hearing, which is typically scheduled for about 10 days later.

Each year, from 2010 through 2014, judges in York County denied that protection at one of the highest rates in the state.

Statewide, judges denied the requests about 12 percent of the time in 2014, according to Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts data. In York County, judges denied them about three-and-a-half times as often -- about 44 percent of requests.

Individual judges in the county varied widely in how often they denied and granted temporary PFAs in 2014, a York Daily Record/Sunday News analysis of about 720 temporary PFA petitions found.

Judges Andrea Marceca Strong and John W. Thompson Jr. had the highest denial rates. Each denied about seven of every 10 that came before them.

Judge Todd Platts and two out-of-county judges, John L. Braxton and Lawrence F. Clark Jr., who helped with York County cases, had the lowest denial rates, according to the YDR analysis: about 14 percent, 16 percent and 18 percent respectively.

York County saw an increase in the number of domestic-violence related deaths in 2015, including four murder-suicides that alone left 10 people dead. A YDR analysis of domestic-violence related deaths since 2004 -- based on information from the York County coroner’s office, newspaper archives and prothonotary office records -- didn’t find any cases of a homicide victim who had been denied a temporary PFA immediately before their death.

Still, domestic violence advocates say York County has a reputation as a tough place to get a judge’s approval, which they say can discourage people from even trying.

Anne Acker said the range of denial rates among local judges was bigger than she would have thought. She said it seems that your odds of getting a temporary PFA depend on which judge hears your case.

"Your life should not have to depend on luck of the draw," said Acker, director of YWCA Hanover Safe Home.

Beyond PFA: Ways to prevent domestic violence

But President Judge Joseph C. Adams said each temporary PFA case is different, and judges make decisions based on the law -- not on percentages.

The percentage of temporary PFAs approved in York County increased in 2015, although the approval rate was still below the state average, according to preliminary numbers from the state.

State law, specifically the Protection from Abuse Act, says common pleas judges can approve temporary orders if they determine a plaintiff or minor children “are in immediate and present danger of abuse” from an intimate partner or family member.

The law describes a variety of things that are covered as abuse, such as causing bodily injury or fear of bodily injury.

But the law gives a lot of discretion when it comes to deciding what counts as "immediate and present danger," said Ellen Kramer, an attorney and legal director of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Kramer said it’s good for courts to look at individual circumstances. But that discretion can sometimes be a challenge for plaintiffs.

“Sometimes the courts are predisposed to think about a particular victim or a particular set of circumstances, one way or another,” Kramer said. “So it's really incumbent upon the court to kind of go into each of these cases with an open mind and listen to the facts.”

Some who ask a judge for protection don’t understand how judges arrive at their decisions. Melissa Rosenberry, 33, went in March 2014 to get a temporary PFA against her husband. It’s often the first step to getting a final PFA, which can last up to three years.

In her petition, she said her husband started to "flip out" while they discussed their finances and their marriage. Judge Maria Musti Cook denied her, and Rosenberry decided not to go through with a final hearing, according to court documents.

Cook’s denial reinforced Rosenberry’s feeling that no one would help her, she said.

About seven months later, Rosenberry was back at the courthouse asking for a temporary PFA.

Court must confront PFA disparity

This time she alleged physical abuse in her petition. Rosenberry was denied again, this time by a different judge.

But she wasn’t done trying to get protection.

PFA cases might be the most difficult ones Adams handles, he said.

Adams, a former assistant district attorney in York County who prosecuted domestic violence and child abuse cases, responded on behalf of county judges. Others declined or didn’t respond to interview requests to discuss their individual records.

Adams said he helped write protocols for how police handle domestic violence cases. He worked on PFA cases in private practice, too, before getting elected to the York County Court of Common Pleas in 2005. He is the former administrative judge for York County’s family division, which handles PFA cases.

When judges decide whether to approve those temporary orders, Adams said, they have to balance the interests of the alleged victims and the alleged abusers.

Related: In Delaware, domestic violence allegations leave a tangled web

The most dangerous time for domestic violence victims is when they are leaving or trying to leave an abuser, advocates say. No judge, Adams said, wants to read in the newspaper that somebody denied a PFA has been killed. "That is everybody's worst nightmare," Adams said.

But for temporary orders, defendants don't have a chance to deny the allegations, offer other evidence, question a person's credibility, or look an accuser and a judge in the eyes.

A temporary order could remove them from their home, take away their guns or limit how often they see their children.

Judges also consider motives of plaintiffs when they try to determine credibility.

“These are the things that wrestle on your mind,” said Adams. “...Did you make the right decision?”

There can be consequences beyond what the judges order. Adams remembers a case from several years ago where a man was evicted from his home because of a temporary PFA, and his work was affected because his tools were inside the home.

Adams said that even if judges say a defendant should keep custody rights, the logistics of exchanging children through a third party often get in the way.

Acker, of Hanover Safe Home, and Heather Keller, legal advocacy director of YWCA York's ACCESS-York and Victim Assistance Center, said judges in York County generally seem to want to see allegations of physical abuse before granting a temporary protection order.

"Just because you're not getting pushed down the steps, or beaten up, or whatever, doesn't mean you're not in danger," Acker said.

The law says abuse includes, for example, following someone in circumstances that would put them in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

And Acker pointed to the lethality assessment screening tool used by police officers to identify alleged victims of domestic violence who are at the highest risk of being killed or seriously injured. Many of the questions on the screening tool ask about relationship issues other than physical violence.

The women co-chair a domestic violence review team that examines fatalities. Keller said a key thing she looks for is power and control in relationships.

Keller said understanding that dynamic can help you put individual events in a larger context and understand why someone has a reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury.

Acker and Keller declined to discuss individual judges. But they said they’ve been puzzled by some denials -- including ones where plaintiffs alleged physical abuse.

Adams declined to discuss specific PFA cases since, he said, doing so could put him at risk of having to recuse himself from cases.

Adams said it was hard to tell whether the range among judges that the YDR analysis found was a good or bad thing, because decisions are specific to each case.

At another point during a lengthy December interview, Adams said it's human nature for judges to have some differences in how they decide whether someone is in immediate and present danger of abuse.

“It's just like in baseball, I guess. Some umpires have a wider strike zone. Some might have a little, slightly smaller strike zone,” Adams said. “But we're all governed by the same rule.”

Adams said judges can get feedback about whether they're handling cases the right way through the appeals process. He said even though temporary order decisions aren't directly appealable to the state's Superior Court, an appeals court can weigh in on the temporary order process if a final order is appealed.

Cases can be complex. Sometimes people don’t describe physical abuse in the most recent incident, but describe a variety of factors that make them afraid.

When Barbara Milligan, 50, asked for a temporary PFA on May 30, 2014, she didn’t allege physical abuse.

She said her husband, Carl Milligan Sr., “snuck up” on her while she was outside her home around 9 p.m. She thought he had been was living out of state. She said she didn't want to talk, but he said she had to. She said when Carl fell asleep, she called the police and they removed him from the house.

In petitions for PFAs from other years, Barbara Milligan alleged she had suffered fractured ribs, busted lips, that she had been kicked, hit in the head with a bottle and punched in the head and jaw, among other things. But she didn't include those details in her May 2014 petition.

During a phone interview in January, Carl Milligan Sr., 48, denied some of his wife’s allegations. He said he never threatened to kill her, but he did admit to hitting and pushing her. That happened when he was still using drugs and alcohol and before he went through therapy, he said.

He said he doesn't live in Pennsylvania anymore, and he doesn't plan on moving back to York or interfering with his wife.

Enforcement of PFA violations questioned

Barbara Milligan’s 2014 temporary PFA request was denied by Judge Strong.

A person who is denied a temporary order who goes through with the final hearing doesn't have legal protection while they wait.

Barbara Milligan returned to court two more times, once in June and once in July 2014, but the court delayed final hearings because Carl Milligan Sr. hadn’t been served with paperwork.

In August 2014, neither showed up for a final hearing, and the case was dismissed.

Barbara Milligan said she sees a psychiatrist every few months and takes several prescription drugs daily in order to help manage her anxiety and depression, which she said stem from alleged abuse.

She is among the many people denied a temporary PFA in 2014 that gave York County its high denial rate. It's not a secret to advocates or to the community that the denial rate for temporary PFAs “is kind of high” here, Keller said.

"So it is not unusual for us to get calls from people that say, 'But I know I'll never get a PFA approved,'" she said. "And so when you are in a place where you feel hopeless and helpless anyway, and the one remedy that you might have ... the word on the street is it's not gonna happen, it certainly is not empowering."

Attorney George R. Studzinski has worked with MidPenn Legal Services for 26 years. In 2014, he represented at least 30 people in PFA cases, according to a YDR analysis. In most of those cases, Studzinski was working for the plaintiff.

Studzinski said a plaintiff who is denied a temporary PFA could feel discouraged. It could also "embolden the defendant," and give them reason to fight further action in court.

Temporary PFAs and final PFAs have different legal standards. Adams said there's a higher standard for a temporary PFA, since the defendant isn’t present for those hearings, called ex parte hearings.

For a final PFA, a plaintiff has to prove the abuse -- even if it’s past abuse -- by a preponderance of the evidence.

"So even though you were denied the ex parte one, you may very well get the final order," Adams said.

The way judges in York County conduct hearings for temporary orders varies, both from one judge to another and from hearing to hearing for each individual judge. Sometimes, a judge will ask lots of questions of one plaintiff, and ask few or no questions of another plaintiff. Sometimes, judges deny a request without a hearing.

Because of the rotation, a person often does not have the same judge for both the temporary PFA and final PFA.



For plaintiffs, the process can seem unclear. Kelly Jacobs applied for a temporary PFA in early November 2015. She didn't realize she was denied by Judge Strong until after she left the courtroom and an advocate told her, she said.

In her petition, Jacobs alleged the boyfriend she'd just broken up with was verbally aggressive and his behavior had become threatening, with him posturing over her and punching walls near her. Her allegations included that in September 2015, he threw a ceramic pot at her head that she dodged.

Jacobs said she called 911 after the November 2015 incident and police came. No criminal charges were filed.

After she was denied the temporary PFA, she contacted the YDR, saying she was dissatisfied with the experience for herself and others. She said she wasn't sure if she would go to the final hearing. She thought it would probably be a waste of time.

Jacobs didn't show up for a final PFA hearing on Nov. 19 in front of Clark. The case was dismissed.

Coroner: PFA article shed light on serious issue

The YDR analysis raises questions about the consistency of the judges’ rulings on temporary PFA cases.

Some 2014 petitions with similar allegations were granted, while others were denied. Sometimes when physical abuse was alleged, the judge didn’t grant protection. And sometimes when no physical abuse was alleged, the judge granted the temporary PFA.

A woman wrote that her ex-husband forced his way into her home after a struggle. She and her boyfriend were there. Her ex-husband pushed her against a wall, spat in her face and threatened to hurt her. She wrote that she had bruises and that there were prior physical altercations. She was denied by Thompson without a hearing. She didn't appear at a final PFA hearing and her case was dismissed.

In January 2014, a 27-year-old woman asked for a temporary PFA from Strong.

Strong asked the woman to tell what specifically the defendant did, and the woman replied, “This past week was when he choked me, smacked me in my face, and pulled my hair,” according to the transcript. The woman later said she suffered a welt on her face.

Strong indicated she was going to deny the woman the temporary PFA. “You don’t qualify for the temporary PFA because the Act is very specific, but you are entitled to have a hearing” at a later date, Strong said, according to the transcript. Strong said if the defendant threatened the woman, she could come back in and file for another temporary order.

That’s when the woman said the defendant had been telling her he wanted her out of the house and “if I’m not out, he is going to burn out my -- burn my stuff,” according to the transcript.

DJs take different approaches to emergency PFAs

Strong asked when the defendant made that threat, and the woman said three or four days before.

Then Strong said, “if he’s threatening to burn down the house, I think that places you in fear of imminent bodily harm.” She granted the temporary PFA.

The woman later withdrew her request for a final PFA.

Strong denied a temporary PFA to another woman who alleged that the defendant knocked her to the ground, hit her across the face, pushed her and threatened her. Information from the court indicates she didn’t have a temporary PFA hearing.

She ended up getting a final PFA through an agreement without an admission.

Judge Braxton granted a temporary PFA to a woman who said the defendant threw a brick through her window and then came in, according to a court transcript. She said she grabbed her daughter and ran out. The woman did not allege that the defendant had any physical contact with her, according to the transcript. A judge later granted a final order.

In 2014, Thompson granted a temporary PFA to a 23-year-old woman who said a man tried to force her to have sex with him. She said she resisted, and that the man had forced her to have sex with him many times before.

But in Melissa Rosenberry's case, when she alleged in October 2014 that she was raped, Thompson denied her temporary PFA without a hearing. On Thompson's order was written: Needs a full hearing.

Rosenberry wrote in that October 2014 petition that the day before, her husband was verbally abusive and got nose-to-nose with her, yelling in her face. Under prior incidents of abuse, she said that two days earlier, her husband wanted to have sex, but she told him no. "Defendant forced himself on Plaintiff and raped her,” her petition says.

Rosenberry learned she was denied by a judge when she called the PFA office.

Thompson, who stepped down from the bench in January, did not respond to multiple interview requests.

Rosenberry remembered being told that she could come back for a final PFA hearing, and she decided to do so.

At the hearing before Judge Cook on Oct. 16, both Melissa and Gary Rosenberry Jr. testified. Gary Rosenberry Jr. denied her allegations.

In a closing statement, Melissa Rosenberry’s attorney, Michael Lister, talked about how the Protection from Abuse Act defines sexual assault as abuse. He said the act allows judges to determine that abuse occurred even if the sex wasn’t the result of “forcible compulsion.” Abuse can be “simply non-consensual” sex, he said.

Gary Rosenberry Jr.’s attorney, Thomas Miller, said there were short windows of time when any abuse could have happened. He said the judge would have to decide who was more believable.

Miller questioned Melissa Rosenberry’s credibility, and pointed out that she filed for a previous PFA and did not pursue it.

“I submit that wife at no period of time has ever been in any kind of fear of the husband ….,” Miller said, according to the transcript.

Cook said deciding the case was “an issue of credibility” between the Rosenberrys, and she ruled in Melissa Rosenberry’s favor.

She granted a three-year no-contact PFA against Rosenberry's husband.

During an interview in January 2016, Gary Rosenberry denied the allegations he raped his wife. He said they were married, and anytime they had sex, it was "consensual."

York County judges in 2015 granted the highest percentage of temporary PFAs since the state started tracking that data.

From 2010 through 2014, the approval rate ranged from about 54 percent to about 59 percent in each of those years.

In mid-January, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts provided preliminary numbers that show about 86 percent of temporary PFA requests were approved statewide in 2015. Meanwhile, York County judges granted more than in previous years: about 73 percent of the requests.

Acker, when told about the change in 2015, said: “Really? I can’t imagine that.”

Acker said she thought the increase in granted orders could have been the result of a cover sheet being added to the front of PFA petitions. Stacy Snyder, deputy court administrator for family court in the York County Court of Common Pleas, said that sheet was added in April 2015. It explains that an advocate is available to help fill out the petition and provide other support. Advocates said they worked with court staff on that addition.

“We will be with you every step of the way,” the sheet says.

How does the PFA process work?

Acker said domestic violence victims can be so used to the abuse that key parts of their story get lost in the weeds when they try to put it into words. Advocates can help them prioritize information, which could influence the judge’s decision.

Snyder said there were previously pamphlets with information about victims' services in the PFA office. The pamphlets are still there, she said, but the cover sheet is more “in your face.”

How a York County couple ended violence and saved their marriage

In a Jan. 27 email, Adams said he talked about the increase in approvals with other judges. He said the only explanation “that we can come up (with) is the greater use of advocates in 2015.”

He said “any help someone can receive in framing the issue is very helpful and likely to lead to the granting of a temporary order.”

Keller had hoped a 2013 Superior Court court decision would have meant that everyone who requested a temporary PFA would see a judge. That happened in some counties -- Bucks and Lancaster, for example, judges there said. But in York County, judges deny some temporary PFAs after reviewing the petition and without seeing the plaintiff.

In 2014, 43 petitions were denied without a hearing, Snyder said.

During the December interview, Adams said that in York County, people denied a temporary PFA without seeing a judge can still ask to see one. But Keller and Acker, local domestic violence advocates, weren’t aware of that, and they didn’t think plaintiffs were either.

In an email in mid-January, Adams said the court does not have a formal process for telling people they may speak with a judge in such cases. But he said the court is reviewing its procedures.

Melissa Rosenberry, whose temporary PFA was denied in October 2014, said in December that she doesn't understand why she didn’t see a judge at that time.

“The judge doesn't know exactly what you're going through until he hears your story,” she said.

Some county websites describe a screening process before petitions get to a judge. It's possible that requiring victims to file through an advocacy agency or giving certain vetting authority to non-judges could reduce how many requests get before a judge. That could skew the data that counties submit monthly as part of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts reports.

Art Heinz, spokesman for AOPC, said screenings vary by county, and his office doesn't have details on the separate processes for them.

Judge Joseph C. Adams and Stacy Snyder, deputy court administrator for family court, said York County does not have a screening in place.

"Our position is that every single petition, regardless of whether it has merit, has to get seen by a judge," Adams said. "It has to get in the system."

Adams said he’s heard from lawyers that there are screenings in some other counties.

But even without a screening in York County, there are fewer petitions for temporary PFA orders reaching judges here than across the rest of the state, when you adjust for the different populations in counties. It’s not clear why.

Over the five years from 2010 through 2014, there were about 16 requests for a temporary PFA for every 1,000 people statewide.

During the same period in York County, there were nine petitions for a temporary PFA order for every 1,000 people.

York Daily Record/Sunday News reporters reviewed more than 700 requests for temporary protection from abuse orders from 2014, based on four lists provided by York County's prothonotary office, which is where civil cases are filed.

The goal was to review all or nearly all temporary protection from abuse petitions and outcomes filed in the York County Court of Common Pleas in 2014.

The reporters reviewed about 720 petitions for a temporary protection order that were denied or granted for at least one person by a common pleas judge. Reporters sat in on several hearings in 2015 as part of the reporting process.

The YDR analysis of judges’ records did not include about 10 other cases that were either described in court documents as dismissed because the plaintiff failed to appear for the required temporary PFA hearing, or because they withdrew the request at the temporary PFA hearing.

However, President Judge Joseph C. Adams said it's possible that a plaintiff's failure to appear wasn't always noted in the court orders available in the prothonotary records. So, according to Adams, it's possible that some of the denials in the YDR analysis were because plaintiffs failed to appear.

Why are the numbers different from Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts data?

Each month, the York County court system reports the number of temporary protection from abuse orders requested, granted and denied. But court administration does not keep a master list of those cases. That’s why the YDR used a list based on prothonotary office records.

The county-wide data from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts is similar to what the YDR found.

The YDR analysis did not count cases in which people had temporary orders continued after being granted. The state does not count those cases either.