It also observed that the publications of mother and her counsel were “thoughtless, toxic and misleading,” bordering upon professional misconduct in the case of the lawyers.Ī second appeal of the gag order also met with an affirmance.
The Trial Court opinion noted implications of the First Amendment and Article I, Section 7 of Pennsylvania’s Constitution. The Court indicated its goal was to avoid invasion of the child’s privacy. The clear import of the Order appears to be that, while the subject of child abuse could be communicated, facts, which could identify the 10 year old were to remain private. This Order expressly permitted testimony before legislative bodies devoted to passing laws on the subject matter but prevented disclosure of information about the child in such fora. They were also banned from posting evidence arising from the case. Within 10 days the Court denied the sanctions on the basis that no seal order had been violated, however, relief was granted barring mother or her attorneys from speaking publicly about the case in any print or electronic media. The article also depicted in detail the nature of the abuse as alleged.įather responded by seeking an order asking the court to restrain public speaking about the facts of the case, imposing financial sanctions and directing redaction of information that had been publicly posted. Here, again, the child name’s was omitted but witnesses were identified as were other facts from which identities could be deduced. The story was picked up by the Pittsburgh City Paper. The child was not expressly referenced in this video but the record in the case was.
The apparent purpose of this was to air the allegations of sexual abuse. Just before the Supreme Court declined to take the case, mother’s attorney held a press conference on a video platform -YouTube.
The Superior Court affirmed the Trial Court and the Supreme Court denied an appeal in February 2018. The Court also found that mother had engaged in a pattern of isolating and alienating the child from father. Rather, the Court found the allegations unsubstantiated, relying in part on expert testimony from mental health experts. The Court rejected the assertion that the child lied. These allegations had arisen shortly after the custody proceedings were initiated and father’s time had been expanded. The trial court opinion expressly rejected the sexual abuse allegations related to the then 10-year-old child, discrediting the child’s own in court allegations.
Mother was to have no contact for a period of 90 days. It concluded in November and culminated in an Order issued three weeks later, which granted father sole legal and physical custody. A few months later in May 2016, the parties began what would be a 23-day custody trial. In February 2016, mother filed a second PFA.
The PFA trial consumed 5 days and was dismissed but father’s contact was supervised. This begot a Temporary Order-restricting father’s access to the child. An Interim Custody Order in September 2015 was followed by adoptive mother’s PFA alleging father committed sexual abuse of the child. In June 2015, father filed for primary custody and mother counterclaimed for the same. Stepmother adopted the child a year later. Father remarried the stepmother in 2012, with whom this litigation took place.