Background
Nicole Robinson-Wells sought an order for protection against Sarita Knull in the Family Court of the Third Circuit. After an evidentiary hearing, the family court entered an order for protection on October 16, 2025.
Robinson-Wells and eyewitness Joy Modisett testified at the hearing; Knull did not testify. Modisett said Knull charged at Robinson-Wells, pushed, kicked, and punched her, and then body-slammed her while Robinson-Wells held a dog. Knull challenged the order on appeal, arguing that inconsistencies in the testimony made the family court’s credibility findings clearly erroneous and that the court failed to consider rebuttal testimony from the parties’ aunt.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the order for protection. It held that it would not reweigh witness credibility or the weight of the evidence, matters committed to the trial court.
The family court expressly found Modisett credible and stated that it had considered the rebuttal witness’s testimony. Modisett’s credible eyewitness testimony was substantial evidence supporting the finding that Robinson-Wells proved the material allegations of abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. Knull did not present a cognizable argument that issuing the order was an abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts generally do not revisit trial courts’ witness-credibility determinations.
- Credible eyewitness testimony can constitute substantial evidence supporting an order for protection.
- A court does not ignore rebuttal evidence when the record shows it expressly considered that testimony.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the steep appellate hurdle for challenging a protection order based principally on alleged testimonial inconsistencies. Where the family court makes supported credibility findings and the record contains substantial evidence of abuse, an appellate court will not substitute its assessment of the witnesses.