M.J.A. v. D.C.A. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S51001-18 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 M.J.A. ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR : CHILDREN, A.S.A., A.P.A. AND A.E.A. : : : v. : : : D.C.A., : : Appellant : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 941 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered March 1, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Domestic Relations at No(s): C-48-PF-2017-738 BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 25, 2019 Appellant, D.C.A., appeals from the Order denying his Motion to Amend Final Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) Order to allow him to possess his firearm while on duty as a police officer in Harding, New Jersey. Because the PFA expired on October 27, 2018, we dismiss this appeal as moot. On October 27, 2017, after a hearing, the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas entered a final PFA Order against Appellant forbidding him from having contact with his former wife and his children for one year. The Order also prohibited him from possessing firearms. Appellant did not appeal that Order. Instead, on December 7, 2017, Appellant filed a Motion to Amend the PFA to enable him to possess a firearm while on duty as a police officer in J-S51001-18 Harding, New Jersey. The court held a hearing and, on March 1, 2018, the trial court denied the Motion. Appellant timely appealed. However, on October 27, 2018, during the pendency of this appeal, the PFA expired. The firearms restriction is, thus, no longer in effect and Appellant’s issue no longer exists. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See generally In re Gross, 382 A.2d 116, 119 (Pa. 1978) (observing that a case can become moot during its pendency due to a change in the facts or law, and appellate courts of this Commonwealth will not decide moot or abstract questions).1 Dismissed as moot. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 2/25/19 ____________________________________________ We are aware that we may review a case or controversy that has become moot “in rare instances when the question presented is one of great public importance, or when the question presented is capable of repetition yet escaping judicial review.” Graziano Constr. Co. v. Lee, 444 A.2d 1190, 1193 (Pa. Super. 1982) (citations omitted). This is not such a case. 1 -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
