The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a ruling against Andrew Moy for indirect criminal contempt of a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order filed by Stephanie Rivera. The court's decision, issued on October 30, 2026, confirms that Moy violated the order by attempting to contact Rivera, which is significant for those involved in domestic abuse cases and highlights the legal ramifications of violating such protective orders.

The case began when Rivera filed for a temporary PFA order against Moy on December 1, 2025. The order prohibited Moy from having any contact with Rivera, either directly or indirectly, and required him to vacate their shared residence. The ruling is important as it reinforces the strict enforcement of PFA orders, which are designed to protect individuals from potential harm.

Rivera and Moy had been in a relationship for over seven years and share two children. Following the issuance of the PFA order, Rivera testified that she observed Moy's vehicle near her parents' home, leading her to fear for her safety and prompting her to call the police. Moy claimed he was only trying to see his children, but the court found his actions to be a clear violation of the PFA order.

The trial court held a hearing on December 8, 2025, where both Rivera and Moy provided testimony. Rivera's account was supported by her father, who had picked up their daughter from daycare. Moy was served the PFA order shortly after it was issued and was aware that he was prohibited from contacting Rivera. Despite this, he went to the grandparents' home, where he knew Rivera would likely be, which the court deemed a violation of the order.

The court ruled that Moy's actions constituted indirect contact with Rivera, violating the terms of the PFA order. The trial court found Rivera's testimony credible, while it deemed Moy's explanations unconvincing. The court stated, "[Moy] had just been served with a no-contact PFA order as to [Rivera], which included an eviction from [their shared] home, and by his own admission he knew the children were at [Rivera's] parents' house."

In its ruling, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction for indirect criminal contempt. The court noted that the PFA order was clear and left no doubt about the conduct prohibited, emphasizing that Moy's actions were willful and intentional. Judge Stabile wrote, "The evidence was therefore sufficient to establish that Appellant’s conduct was prohibited by the order."

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving PFA orders. It reinforces the importance of adhering to the terms of such orders and the legal consequences of violations. Individuals who are subject to PFA orders must understand that any form of contact, even indirect, can lead to serious legal repercussions.

The court's decision also highlights the role of the judicial system in protecting victims of domestic abuse. By upholding the contempt ruling, the court sends a message that violations of protective orders will not be tolerated, thereby providing a measure of safety for those who seek such protections.

As for the next steps, Moy has the option to appeal the Superior Court's decision. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing. The case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of compliance with court orders in domestic violence situations.