Navigating Child Abuse Allegations in Family Court

When one parent alleges that the other parent abused a child, it often starts both a child custody action and a protection from abuse (“PFA”) action (Read more about protection from abuse matters here:

The same facts need to be discussed in both actions, and the two actions seem inextricably intertwined. But that is not the case with the legal proceedings.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court clarified that a child custody action and a protection abuse action are two separate legal actions. Each action has a different purpose and a different court analysis.

Golder v. Manigualt

The Superior Court specifically considered the fact that Kayden’s Law was passed to protect children in custody actions from abuse. In Golder v. Manigualt,345 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super 2025), The Superior Court confirmed that Kayden’s Law does not apply in PFA actions.

Kayden’s Law was a change to the custody law in 2024 that modified the best interest custody factors. It also created a rebuttable presumption for supervised custody where a person has a history of abuse. To avoid supervised custody, the court must find that there is not a risk of harm to the child. The abuse history that is considered does not need to directly involve the child. (Read more about Kayden’s Law here:

In Goldner, a father got into a physical dispute about cellphone use with his child. The altercation occurred while the father was driving with both children in the car. The father engaged with the older teenage child in the front seat, eventually stopping the car, dragging the older child from the car, and punching him. The younger tween-age child was in the back seat of the car for the entire incident. The younger child observed the altercation but was not directly involved in it. The mother requested a Protection from Abuse Order on behalf of both children. The Temporary Order was granted on behalf of both children based on the initial allegations that the mother reported to the court. But after a final hearing where both children and the father testified, the final order was granted for the older child and denied for the younger child. (Read more about what a final order is here: 

The court found that the younger child was not fearful for his safety and, therefore, did not qualify for an order of protection.

Father’s custody of the older child ended when the final PFA order was granted. The prior shared custody order went into place for the younger child, because the court denied him a final PFA order.

Kayden’s law presumption for supervised custody is not a consideration in PFA proceedings. Kayden’s Law specifically altered the law associated with child custody, but it did not alter PFA law.

The court explained that PFA’s provide a temporary modification of custody for emergency purposes only. PFAs are not meant to permanently modify custody. If a parent wants a more permanent custody change it needs to happy through a formal custody modification. The Superior Court was clear that Kayden’s Law would be applied through a custody modification. During the custody proceeding, the custody court would address the finding of abuse and should consider whether father’s custody of the younger child should be supervised because of the finding of abuse in the PFA proceeding.

The case also clarifies that custody awarded in a PFA is modifiable by a future custody action. This means that father’s loss of custody in the PFA can be revisited during a custody modification, even if a final PFA is order has not expired.

Child abuse allegations are complicated to navigate in the court system. It is important to talk to an experienced family law attorney to determine how to navigate the custody matter and the protection from abuse matter.

The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice, is not a substitute for legal counsel, and should not be relied on as such. For legal advice or answers to specific questions, please contact one of our attorneys.