An order under Pennsylvania’s Protection from Abuse law has been upheld by the Pennsylvania Superior Court against an Altoona man who contended the act was used against him by a woman to gain leverage in an ongoing custody case.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court this week rejected an accusation by Al-Jernon Smith that the PFA process in Blair County was weaponized against him as being “both retaliatory in nature and stemming from an ongoing custody dispute.”

Superior Court Judges Jack A. Panella, Carolyn H. Nichols and Kate Ford Elliot found Smith failed to “demonstrate the (trial court) committed an error of law or abused its discretion” when it granted the protective order requested by a woman.

The PFA was sought by a woman who complained Smith harassed her during a custody exchange that occurred on April 18.

Senior Judge Carol L. Van Horn of Franklin County, who was presiding in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas on May 1, entered the protective order after hearing testimony from both parties and other witnesses.

Smith, acting as his own lawyer, challenged the imposition of the order, noting that he had been found not guilty of harassment as a result of the alleged confrontation on April 18.

He also contended the trial judge refused to review his exhibits and failed to ensure he received a transcript of the hearing so he could prepare a “meaningful appellate review.”

Smith complained the PFA order was not “supported by clear and convincing evidence,” and that there were no corroborating witnesses or evidence supporting a protective order.

Smith further contended the PFA was filed to restrict his custodial rights.

The trial judge pointed out in her opinion that Smith charged he was not permitted to submit texts between him and the women, screenshots or a timeline of events.

But, she ruled that Smith did not lay the foundation for presentation of such evidence nor provide any testimony concerning the authenticity of his supposed evidence.

The trial judge stated, “Smith was thus not barred from submitting evidence: he simply failed to do so.”

The Superior Court panel stated it is the duty of appellants like Smith to present arguments that are developed for the court’s review.

“When defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived,” the appeals court opinion continued.

It ruled that while Smith “may have endeavored to offer exhibits for admission at trial, he has provided no evidence of the same.”

In addressing Smith’s argument that he was acquitted of any criminal wrongdoing, the appeals court panel emphasized the PFA Act “does not seek criminal culpability.”

The PFA court uses the standard of proof that facts be viewed by a “preponderance of the evidence,” a lesser standard than that used in a criminal case, which is “proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

“We find no relief is due,” the appellate court ruled.

Smith’s final argument that the woman’s PFA complaint was evidence of a retaliatory motive due to their ongoing custody conflict.

The trial court rejected Smith’s contention that retaliation was the motive for the filing of the PFA charges.

The appeals court panel stated that “we reiterate our conclusion that Smith did not meet his burden in demonstrating any error underpinning the trial court’s PFA order.”

The ruling means the protective order can now be enforced, the panel stated.