Skip to content
Pennsylvania Divorce and Domestic Relations Blog

Criminal Charges Won’t Delay a Protection from Abuse Case.

By Mark Ashton

Mills v. Dunham, decided on July 14 answers a procedural question that merited a published opinion because the issue is one that recurs every day.

Two domestic partners get into a squabble that involves violence or threats of it. Cops are summoned to intervene. If that visit signals that a crime has been committed (e.g., assault, battery, sexual violence, threats of physical harm) they typically inform their perceived victim about the Protection of Abuse law and, they will often arrest and charge the perceived perp with a crime.

Crimes often take 6-12 months or more to reach disposition. Defendants are entitled to a lawyer and crimes merit a very high standard of procedural due process. Protection from Abuse cases are fast tracked and the procedural due process standards are much lower.

In a criminal case, defense counsel typically advises a client to say nothing about anything related to the charges. The 5th Amendment against self-incrimination is a powerful tool. The prosecution is left to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Meanwhile, the civil based Protection from Abuse claim moves on a fast track, typically 10-14 days from filing. Many defendants are angered by what they perceive as patently false charges and want to defend the abuse claim by refuting the allegations. Criminal defense counsel typically intervene to warn their client that their civil testimony can and will be used in the pending criminal proceedings.

This may seem simple. It is not. In late June 2024 (yes, two years ago) Mr. Mills filed a PFA against Jasmine Dunham. At the same time she was charged with the crimes of terroristic threats, harassment and disorderly conduct; three misdemeanors but crimes nonetheless. As happens, the criminal charges were not resolved until October 2025.

In cases like these, criminal defense lawyers recommend that defendants stipulate to a PFA order without prejudice to the pending criminal proceedings. In short, “Yes, I agree to have no contact with the plaintiff but I make no admission of doing anything criminal.” But here, it appears that Ms. Dunham sought to elude the abuse proceedings by claiming they should be deferred until the criminal proceedings were concluded.

The trial court in Northumberland County rightly denied this request. The case went forward and Ms. Dunham had counsel defend the case. But, Ms. Dunham did not testify lest her words be used in the pending criminal matter. The Court found the case merited and Ms. Dunham appealed.

The right to remain silent is protected by the Bill of Rights. But, it is actually a tactic. Defendants are also imbued with rights to speedy trials so that they may show the criminal charges meritless. The right to remain silent should not act to wag the dog of justice. Ms. Dunham had every right to testify and categorically deny the abuse claims in a civil context. She chose instead to exercise her 5th amendment rights. All well in a criminal context, but the right of Mr. Mills to PFA protection should not be embarrassed by Ms. Dunham’s chosen path of criminal defense. We should note the opinion states that continuances of the kind the defendant sought are within the court’s reasonable discretion.