Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boykai v. Young

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

January 7, 2014

GERALDINE BOYKAI, Appellee
v.
TED YOUNG, Appellant

Appeal from the Order Entered March 20, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): A06-13-60175-A-26

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. [*]

OPINION

BENDER, P.J.

Ted Young ("Appellant" or "Husband") appeals from the protection from abuse (PFA) order entered on March 20, 2013, which provided for the protection of Geraldine Boykai ("Appellee" or "Wife") for a period of one year. On appeal, Husband asserts that the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the evidence established "abuse" under the Protection From Abuse Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6101, et. seq. We affirm.

The trial court provided the following procedural and factual history:

Both parties are originally from Liberia, Africa. Wife . . . came to the United States in 2004. Husband . . . came in 2005. The parties met in November, 2010 and moved in together. After Wife became pregnant, the parties married on November 8, 2011. Their child, [T.], was born [in April of 2012].
Wife filed a [petition for a] PFA [order] on January 29, 2013. On February 6, 2013, the Honorable Alan Rubenstein entered a temporary order and continued the case. On February 27, 2013, the undersigned continued the matter, entered a temporary order, and the parties reached a custody agreement. On March 20, 2013, the undersigned conducted a hearing. Wife's principal allegation was that Husband forced her on numerous occasions to have sex against her will.
* * *
Wife testified that Husband only began to force himself on her if she declined after the parties were married. This included the time when she was very pregnant. She testified in some detail how he physically would overpower her. She stated he wanted intercourse three times a day, seven days a week. She stated it hurt at times. After the baby was born in April, 2012, the obstetrician told Wife not to have relations with her Husband for six weeks, but Husband still insisted at least once. Then, after the six weeks were up, Husband resumed his frequent daily demands.
Finally, Wife began to oppose Husband's actions. Husband became very angry and stopped giving Wife money for herself and the child. Husband still tried to force himself on her.
* * *
Husband claimed he never forced himself on his wife. Husband claimed that he did not have any relations with his Wife after the baby was born because he was very happy with his child. But then[, ] in response to his lawyer's continued questioning, [Husband] revised his testimony to state he only had sex with his wife when they both agreed. However, he did say that he told his Wife "it is only sex[, ]" implying that they were having a disagreement. (N.T., 3/20/13 p.93).
Husband produced a witness, a neighbor, who inadvertently corroborated Wife's testimony on the core issue of forcing sex. On cross, she stated that when she asked Wife "How are you and Ted, " on several occasions Wife responded "Ted likes too much sex[."] (N.T., 3/20/13 p.137). She testified that Wife ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.