The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld the conviction of Dylan Peter Dunbar for indirect criminal contempt (ICC) for violating a protection from abuse (PFA) order against his ex-girlfriend, Cheyenne Wysocki. The court's decision, filed on November 3, 2026, confirms that Dunbar's actions constituted a violation of the court order, which is significant for the enforcement of protective orders in domestic abuse cases.

The case stemmed from Dunbar's repeated harassing messages sent to Wysocki via a communication app, despite a court order prohibiting such contact. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to PFA orders and the legal consequences of violating them, impacting not only Dunbar but also setting a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Background

Dylan Peter Dunbar was charged with indirect criminal contempt on January 13, 2025, after allegedly violating a PFA order that had been in effect since September 25, 2023. This order prohibited him from contacting Wysocki except for matters related to their two children. The charges arose after Wysocki reported that Dunbar had sent her numerous harassing messages that did not pertain to their children, which she claimed violated both the PFA order and a custody agreement.

The case was heard in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, where a bench trial took place on October 14, 2025. During the trial, Wysocki testified about the nature of the messages, describing them as abusive and harassing. She indicated that Dunbar had previously been convicted of violating the same PFA order in July 2024 for similar behavior.

The Ruling

The Superior Court, led by Judge King, affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for indirect criminal contempt. The court noted that while the Commonwealth did not present the PFA order itself as evidence, witness testimonies, including admissions from Dunbar, provided enough circumstantial evidence to establish that he had violated the order.

The court ruled, "The record supports the court’s conclusion... the witness testimony, including Appellant’s own admissions, was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that the PFA order clearly and specifically prohibited Appellant from communicating with Victim except to discuss matters related to their children."

Dunbar's defense argued that the Commonwealth failed to prove he had notice of the PFA order and that the order's language was not sufficiently clear. However, the court found that Dunbar had actual notice of the order, as he had previously been convicted for violating it and acknowledged the restrictions it imposed.

Impact

This ruling underscores the seriousness with which courts treat violations of protection orders. It reinforces the legal framework surrounding indirect criminal contempt and the necessity for individuals to adhere strictly to PFA orders. By affirming the conviction, the court sends a clear message that violations will not be tolerated and that there are legal repercussions for such actions.

The decision also serves as a reminder to victims of domestic abuse that the legal system is equipped to handle violations of protective orders. It may encourage more victims to seek legal recourse when faced with harassment, knowing that the courts can and will enforce their rights under the law.

What's Next

Dunbar has the option to appeal the decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending at this time.