Pennsylvania House Bill HB498

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/5/25

Caption

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

Summary

HB498 amends Pennsylvania’s Protection From Abuse law in Title 23 to change how emergency protection orders issued by the minor judiciary are handled. Under current law, these emergency orders generally expire at the end of the next business day the court is available. The bill would allow counties to adopt a local rule extending that expiration period until the court holds a hearing under the chapter, or for up to 10 business days, whichever comes first. In counties that adopt such a rule, the emergency order must be entered into the statewide registry. The bill also revises the instructions that hearing officers must give when an emergency order is issued. In counties using the new local-rule option, the hearing officer must notify both parties of the hearing date, time, and place for the court of common pleas hearing on a final or temporary order, and must still inform the plaintiff about contempt procedures, domestic violence services, and free legal assistance. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.

Impact

HB498 would modify Title 23’s rules governing emergency relief in protection-from-abuse cases, specifically section 6110 on emergency relief by minor judiciary. It gives counties flexibility to extend the life of emergency orders through local rule, while also requiring statewide registry entry for those orders and preserving notice and victim-services obligations. The bill primarily affects courts of common pleas, minor judiciary hearing officers, domestic violence plaintiffs and defendants, law enforcement agencies responsible for registry access, and county court systems that choose to adopt the new local-rule procedure.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a procedural and victim-protective update rather than a controversial policy shift. Its stated purpose is to give courts more time to hold hearings and to ensure protection orders remain in effect when needed, which suggests generally supportive treatment for domestic violence survivors and court administrators. No recorded opposition, amendments, or roll-call votes are provided in the available materials.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the balance between extending emergency protection for alleged abuse victims and the due-process interests of defendants, since the bill can keep emergency orders in effect longer before a hearing. Another possible issue is the bill’s reliance on local rulemaking, which could create county-by-county variation in how emergency orders expire and are processed. Counties, courts, and advocates for either domestic violence survivors or respondent rights could differ on whether the added flexibility and registry requirements are beneficial or burdensome.