Pennsylvania House Bill HB40

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/10/25
• Refer: 1/10/25

Caption

An Act amending Title 23 (Domestic Relations) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in protection from abuse, further providing for relief.

Summary

House Bill 40 amends Pennsylvania’s Protection From Abuse (PFA) law in Title 23 to expand the types of relief a court may order in domestic violence cases. The bill makes targeted changes to the section governing temporary custody, temporary visitation, temporary support, and related protective remedies. It clarifies that temporary custody or visitation orders under a PFA do not prevent either party from later filing a custody petition under the state’s child custody laws. The bill also revises the temporary support provisions in PFA orders. It continues to allow courts, after a hearing, to direct a defendant to provide financial support, health coverage, unreimbursed medical expenses, and rent or mortgage payments where the defendant has a legal duty to support the plaintiff or dependent household members. The bill preserves the requirement that a support complaint be filed within two weeks, or the support portion of the PFA order becomes void, and it expires once a separate support ruling is entered. In addition, HB40 adds a new provision authorizing courts to order electronic monitoring of a defendant when necessary to protect the plaintiff or minor children and when the court finds an immediate and present danger of physical abuse.

Impact

HB40 would amend 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108, the statute governing relief available in protection-from-abuse proceedings. Its main legal effect is to expressly authorize electronic monitoring as a protective remedy in high-risk PFA cases and to codify the factors a court must consider before imposing that condition. The bill also refines existing temporary custody, visitation, and support language, but does not create a new standalone custody or support system; those issues remain tied to existing custody and support statutes and procedures. The practical impact would fall on courts, domestic violence litigants, law enforcement, and defendants subject to PFA orders, especially in cases involving stalking, repeated violations, or escalating violence.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a victim-safety and enforcement enhancement to existing domestic violence protections. The inclusion of electronic monitoring and the detailed danger factors suggests a policy focus on strengthening court tools in serious abuse cases. There is no recorded opposition or support in the provided materials, but the structure of the bill indicates an intent to improve enforcement and immediate protection rather than to substantially broaden PFA eligibility.

Contention

The most likely points of contention are the new electronic monitoring authority and the circumstances under which a court may impose it. Supporters would likely view monitoring as a necessary tool for high-risk abuse cases, while critics may raise concerns about privacy, cost, implementation, due process, or the burden on defendants before a final finding in related proceedings. The temporary support provisions could also draw attention because they allow financial obligations within a PFA order, though the bill preserves the requirement that a separate support complaint be filed promptly. No specific objections or competing positions are documented in the provided committee or vote history.