Articles Tagged with domestic violence

Published on:

This past week the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an unpublished opinion in the case of V.J.C vs. M.V. (docket no. A-4587-15T3).  In this case the defendant appealed from a final d744f80a269bdfa75c34d7830ed52c13-300x200restraining order (FRO) entered by the trial court in favor of plaintiff pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. The defendant claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a short adjournment of the April 14, 2016 hearing until his attorney could arrive at the courthouse. The series of events that led to the defendant being in court that day are as follows.  The plaintiff filed a domestic violence complaint against the defendant on March 15, 2016 in which she accused him of choking her  during a party at the apartment they shared.  A temporary restraining order (TRO) was entered and a hearing was scheduled for March 24, 2017 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a) which states that a final hearing on a party’s request for a FRO should be held within ten days after the plaintiff files a complaint.

The next day, the defendant appeared in court without counsel present, and he requested an appeal of the TRO based upon the grounds that he was unable to retrieve his personal belongings from the residence. In response to the defendant’s request, the trial court ordered that the hearing be scheduled for the following day: March 17, 2017. Keep in mind that the defendant had only been served with the TRO on the previous day. Likely in light of the aforementioned facts, the defendant then told the court that he needed more time to hire an attorney.   The plaintiff first requested an adjournment “because of a medical issue” and the court granted that request, moving the hearing to March 31 and then rescheduling it again to April 7, 2016 because of the court’s schedule.  Defendant’s counsel then requested an adjournment again “because of a prior court commitment” and the judge granted that request as well, scheduling the hearing for April 14, 2016. Just two days prior to the trial date, on April 12, 2016, defendant’s attorney requested yet another adjournment because of other municipal court matters he had scheduled on this date.  In my experience, Superior Court judges are not always willing to adjourn matters on their own calendars for municipal court matters.  More importantly, this case had had a number of adjournments already, and the trial judge was mindful of the statutory requirement to hold a hearing within ten days of the filing of the domestic violence complaint.

The trial court judge denied counsel’s request for an adjournment but offered the consideration of a “ready hold” so that the matter would be heard at a specific time that day.  The defendant’s attorney appeared in municipal court the morning of the hearing but had to advise the trial court that the municipal matter was running late.   The trial judge advised the defendant that the case was going to proceed that day even if his attorney did not arrive.  Defendant was permitted the opportunity to call his attorney but could only reach the attorney’s office staff.   Defendant’s counsel never appeared.  He faxed a letter to the judge’s chambers advising that he was tied up in municipal court, and requested another adjournment of the final hearing.  He sent a second letter asking that the matter be held until he arrived shortly.   The court, however, conducted the hearing without Defendant’s attorney, and entered a final restraining order against the defendant.  The trial judge stated in his amplified decision that he did not receive the two letters from counsel until after the hearing was already completed.

Published on:

file2381251825687-238x300

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Summer is the time for: sea breezes, mountain air, trips to the museums with the kids in tow, and . . . domestic violence.  Statistically, domestic violence increases during summer months.  This rise is probably because there are a number of holidays in the summer months, and people take time off. There is something to be said about the old adage about idle hand and the devil. Here are some pointers about New Jersey’s approach to domestic violence.

Domestic Violence is a civil not criminal proceeding in which certain criminal acts perpetrated on a protected class of adult familiars results in the arrest and the entry of civil restraints including, no contact with the victim and removal from the home.

Published on:

On June 5, 2017 the Appellate Division approved for publication its opinion in the matter of TMS-v-WCP, A-4900-15T2, which involves reinstatement of  a final domestic violence restraining

file8731251825687-300x293

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

order.

Published on:

image1-232x300On Friday, billions of people around the world observed the Christian Holy Day of Good Friday. It marks the day that the Trial of Jesus of Nazareth occurred and when he was sentenced to death for failing to deny that he believed himself to be the Son of God. Christians believe that Jesus willingly suffered and died by crucifixion as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity (1 John 1:10). Easter Sunday celebrates Jesus rising from the dead, an event which is referred to as the Resurrection. Set in the springtime every year and often close to the Jewish Holy Day of Passover, Easter symbolizes a time of rebirth and renewal. Holy Thursday, which occurred yesterday, marks the event of the Last Supper of Jesus and his Apostles, during which the group were celebrating a Passover Seder when Jesus informed the group that he would be betrayed by his followers. Continue reading

Published on:

On March 14, 2017, the Appellate Division issued a published opinion in the matter of R.G. v. R.G. (A-0945-15T3)  in which the Appellate Division addressed the applicability of New Jersey’s file0001931487912-290x300Prevention of Domestic Violence Act to protect a man seeking a domestic violence retraining order against his brother. Continue reading

Published on:

I recently attended a seminar where the topic concerned the obtaining, analysis and use of medical records. While the main focus was how medical records were dealt with in civil litigation matters such as medical malpractice and personal injury cases, it was clear that a number of the issues discussed could apply to Family Court matters as well. A spouse may allege that they are unable to work, or may be limited in what type of work they can do, as a result of some sort of medical or psychological condition or disability, thereby impacting a claim for spousal and/or child support. A spouse may allege that they suffered physical and/or emotional injury as a result of an act or course of abuse by the other spouse leading to a claim for damages in an action for domestic tort. Continue reading

Published on:

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 42 U.S.C. § 13701 et seq., is a United States federal law that was originally passed in 1994 and was reauthorized in 2013 in which the spouses and children and parents of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents may self-petition to obtain lawful permanent residency in the United States. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is the law that governs immigration in the United States. The VAWA provisions relating to immigration are codified in section 204(a) of the INA. Rules published in the Federal Register explain the eligibility requirements and procedures for filing a self-petition under the VAWA provisions. People who may apply include: (1) a spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident; (2) a child of U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident; (3) a spouse of U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who’s child has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty for the reason bANGEL-13-144x300eing that a parent files for self-petition based on abuse of the child but both parent and child benefit; and (4) parent of a U.S. citizen . It is important to note that, despite its title, the VAWA is applicable to both men and women although spouses of undocumented foreign nationals cannot self-petition. Continue reading

Published on:

This is the year of miracles or nightmares depending on your perception of the world.  The Cubs won the World Series, England voted to exit the European Union and Donald Trump wasdea2b5a4d62c650d12ffdcac9d8f9a59 elected President.  In America there might be some heavy debate over the Cubs, less over England, but Trump! Trump and the related topic of Hillary and the downfall of America are hot topics of which everyone is an expert. The truth is our Union will survive even a sub par-Presidency; look at Jimmy Carter. Continue reading

Published on:

In a recently published decision by New Jersey’s Appellate Division in the matter of  AMC v. PB,  the appellate court overturned a trial court decision which denied a petitioner’s request for a Finalfile000799318829 (1) Restraining Order (FRO). The trial judge found that a FRO was not necessary because the Plaintiff had “failed to establish even a mere likelihood that the parties would continue to interact in the future” or that Defendant posed a threat to her. Continue reading

Published on:

In February, 2015, Chief Justice Rabner convened a Supreme Court Ad Hoc Committee on Domestic_DSC4819 Violence. Whether given that 24 years had passed since the “Prevention of Domestic Violence Act,” (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 et. seq.) was enacted, or perhaps even in response to the public backlash and uproar over the handling of the Ray Rice situation and its spotlight directed upon domestic violence laws, the Committee was charged with examining the current system and to conduct an in-depth review of New Jersey’s domestic violence procedures and laws and to make recommendations to strengthen New Jersey’s response to domestic violence. That Committee recently issued a report which contained thirty (30) recommendations. Continue reading