What’s the Definition of Abuse in Pennsylvania?

Frequently, when I am talking with a client, particularly during the first meeting, the client tells me that they have been “abused” by their spouse. My general rule is I ask the person if they have been in some way physically assaulted. If the answer is yes, I tell the person to go to the courthouse and obtain a Protection from Abuse Order. If the answer is no, I ask a few more questions.

While not exactly the definition of abuse, if there has been a physical assault or a recklessly caused physical injury, that clearly qualifies as “abuse” and a basis for a protection order. While the definition of abuse does go beyond physical injury, in Pennsylvania, that definition has its limits.

With more frequency, clients are coming to me after meeting at least once with a trauma-informed therapist. While the therapist is more interested in what the client has gone through and attempting to treat the underlying issues, sometimes the therapist’s definition of abuse is different from that applicable in a legal forum. As a lawyer, I can only play by the rules as defined by the state legislature. This means that in Pennsylvania, a spouse who exerts pathological control over the couple’s finances, or constantly berates and yells at the other party, may be “abusive” under the therapist’s definition, but that is not enough for the Court to issue a Protection from Abuse Order.

Looking more closely at the definition of abuse in Pennsylvania’s Protection from Abuse statute, 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6102, abuse is defined as:

1. Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury, serious bodily injury, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault or incest with or without a deadly weapon.
2. Placing another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
3. The infliction of false imprisonment.
4. Physically or sexually abusing minor children, including committing child abuse as defined in Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law.
5. Knowingly engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts towards another person, including following the person, without proper authority, under circumstances which would place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

Expanding on the fourth point, child abuse, that definition also includes:

1. Causing bodily injury to a child though any recent act or failure to act.
2. Fabricating, feigning or intentionally exaggerating or inducing a medical symptom or disease, which results in a potentially harmful medical evaluation or treatment to the child through any recent act.
3. Causing or substantially contributing to serious mental injury to a child through any act or failure to act, or a series of such acts or failures to act.
4. Causing sexual abuse or exploitation of a child through any act or failure to act.
5. Creating a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury to a child through any recent act or failure to act.
6. Creating a likelihood of sexual abuse or exploitation of a child through any recent act or failure to act.
7. Causing serious physical neglect of a child.

23 Pa. C.S.A. §6303.

So, while contributing to the serious mental injuries of a child is a basis of abuse to a child, it is not abuse to an adult. Things like controlling or monitoring a person’s finances, isolating a person from family and friends, regulating a person’s everyday behavior, name-calling or demeaning a person, or threatening of suicide are all psychologically abusive; as a general rule, they do not qualify as “abuse” sufficient to obtain a protection order in Pennsylvania.

This is not the case everywhere. For example, on June 22, 2026, Arizona enacted something called Alec and Lydia’s Act (AZ HB 2995). While this law is similar to Pennsylvania’s Kayden’s Law, it goes much further. It expands Arizona’s definition of domestic violence to include a pattern of behavior known as “coercive control,” not only in custody proceedings, but for a protection order as well. Coercive control includes, among other things, the conduct I list above that is not included in Pennsylvania’s abuse definition.

This is not to say that there is no consideration being given to expanding Pennsylvania’s definition of abuse. Pending in the Pennsylvania legislature as part of the 2025-2026 session are: HB 407, which would include unauthorized electronic tracking as a form of criminal harassment; HB 1432, which expands the definition of abuse for protection orders to include emotional distress; HB 1479, involving online harassment as a basis for a Protection from Abuse Order; and, HB 2344 which provides protection in the event of coerced economic debts.

As I state above, while I am sympathetic to my client’s situation, and try to practice in a trauma-informed way, any lawyer has to play by the rules as they are currently constructed. Under those rules emotional, economic, and other forms of abuse that do not involve physical force are not a basis for a Protection from Abuse Order in Pennsylvania, but stay tuned — that may change.