At the heart of every Petition for Order of Protection from Abuse ("PFA") is the question of whether a respondent has committed an act of abuse. That very issue was presented to the Delaware Supreme Court in the case of King v. Booker, No. 29, 2015 (Aug. 20, 2015).
In The Family Court
The procedural history and details of the case are set forth in greater detail in the decision. In a nutshell, Ms. King filed a PFA against Mr. Booker. She alleged that Mr. Booker forced his way into her residence (she was not there at the time), and while he was there he took some personal property. At the hearing before the Family Court Commissioner, Mr. Booker admitted that "he kicked in the door" to Ms. King's residence and took some items that "either were gifts that he had given King, gifts that King had given him, or items that he had purchased for himself." Id. at 3. The Commissioner concluded that Booker's admission that he kicked in the door and took items from the home established that he had engaged in conduct that constituted abuse.
Mr. Booker appealed that decision to a Family Court Judge. The Judge overturned the Commissioner's Order and directed that the PFA be vacated. The Judge determined that, among other things, the "act of kicking in the door was not an act of abuse because a reasonable person in [King's] shoes would not have felt threatened or harmed." The Judge also concluded that the removal of items from the home was not considered an act of abuse because "King failed to prove that [Booker] had no property interests in the items he took." Id. at 5.
An appeal by Ms. King followed in which she argued, inter alia, that the Judge erred in finding that Mr. Booker's conduct did not constitute abuse.
The Appeal
The Supreme Court agreed with Ms. King. The Court noted that abuse includes "intentionally or recklessly damaging, destroying or taking the tangible property of another person." 13 Del. C. § 1041(1). The Court further noted that Mr. Booker's testimony, which was not contradicted, was that he intentionally kicked in the locked front door and took property. Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that the Family Court Commissioner did not err in concluding that the evidence established that an act of abuse occurred. The Court remanded the case to the Family Court with instructions that the PFA Order issued by the Commissioner be reinstated.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
