An Act amending Title 23 (Domestic Relations) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in protection from abuse, further providing for definitions, for responsibilities of law enforcement agencies, . . .for hearings, for relief, for order to seal record from public view, for service of orders, for arrest for violation of order and for contempt for violation of order or agreement.
SB103 is a Pennsylvania domestic relations bill that amends Title 23, specifically the Protection From Abuse (PFA) provisions. Based on the bill caption, it would revise multiple parts of the PFA framework, including definitions, duties of law enforcement agencies, hearings, available relief, sealing of records from public view, service of orders, arrest procedures for violations of protection orders, and contempt procedures for violating an order or agreement.
Because the full bill text is not available in the provided materials, the precise statutory changes cannot be identified here. However, the bill appears aimed at updating and clarifying the legal process for obtaining, enforcing, and administering protection-from-abuse orders in Pennsylvania, which would affect courts, police, abuse survivors, and respondents subject to PFA orders.
SB103 would amend Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 23 by changing the rules governing protection-from-abuse cases. The affected provisions likely include procedures used by courts and law enforcement in domestic violence matters, as well as record-sealing and enforcement mechanisms tied to PFA orders. Any changes could alter how quickly orders are served and enforced, how violations are handled, and what information is available to the public.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s subject matter suggests a public-safety and domestic-violence policy focus, which is often treated as a serious and bipartisan issue, but the specific level of support cannot be determined from the record supplied.
Without hearing transcripts or recorded votes, no specific points of contention are documented. In bills of this type, likely areas of debate would include the scope of law-enforcement duties, due-process protections for respondents, the standards for hearings and contempt, and whether sealing records from public view should be expanded or limited. Those issues would primarily concern domestic violence advocates, courts, law enforcement, and civil-liberties or due-process stakeholders.