An Act amending Title 23 (Domestic Relations) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in protection from abuse, further providing for definitions and for relief.
Summary
SB123 is a Pennsylvania domestic relations bill that would amend Title 23, the Protection From Abuse (PFA) chapter. Based on the caption, the measure would revise the statutory definitions used in PFA cases and make related changes to the types of relief available under a protection from abuse order. Because the bill text was not available in the provided materials, the specific definitional changes and relief provisions cannot be identified from the record here.
In practical terms, the bill appears aimed at updating or clarifying the legal framework courts use when issuing protection from abuse orders. That would affect how judges, litigants, law enforcement, and domestic violence advocates apply the PFA law, including who may qualify for protection and what remedies a court may order. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 22, 2025, and no further action, votes, or amendments were provided in the materials.
Impact
SB123 would amend Title 23 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, specifically the provisions governing protection from abuse. Any enacted changes would alter the statutory definitions and relief provisions that control eligibility for PFA orders and the scope of court-ordered protections. The bill would therefore affect domestic violence proceedings, family court practice, and the enforcement responsibilities of courts and law enforcement agencies.
Sentiment
The available record does not include committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the provided materials. The referral to Judiciary suggests the bill is being handled as a legal and policy matter within the committee with jurisdiction over domestic relations and protective-order law. Overall sentiment cannot be determined from the supplied context.
Contention
No specific points of contention are identified in the provided materials because there are no transcripts, amendments, or votes to indicate disputed language. In bills of this type, likely areas of debate would include who is covered by the PFA definitions, what conduct triggers relief, and how broad the available protective remedies should be, but those issues are not confirmed here. Any disagreement would most likely involve lawmakers, domestic violence advocates, defense interests, and court stakeholders depending on the final language.
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.
In protection from abuse, further providing for definitions and for relief; and, in protection of victims of sexual violence or intimidation, further providing for definitions and for relief.