In E.S. v. C.D., FV-02-00194-19 (Ch.Div. 2018), the family court deal with the question of whether Plaintiff was entitled to protection under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (“PDVA”), given the economic relationship between the Defendant, who was employed in Plaintiff’s household as a live-in nanny.
The Defendant had been employed as a live-in nanny by the Plaintiff for seven months, before the Plaintiff fired the Defendant for assaulting the Plaintiff’s child. After Defendant’s employment was terminated, Defendant made numerous calls and sent threatening text messages to the Plaintiff. Defendant also threatened to lie to the child’s father in order to cause Plaintiff to lose custody of the child.
The Plaintiff sought a restraining order pursuant to the domestic violence statute based upon harassment, cyber-stalking and terroristic threats. The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act protects from domestic violence a victis defined as “any person who is 18 years of age or older or who is an emancipated minor and who has been subjected to domestic violence by a spouse, former spouse, or any other person who is a present household member or was at any time a household member. ” N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d). In order to determine if defendant qualified as a household member, the trial court considered the factors listed in Coleman v. Romano, 388 N.J. Super. 342, 351-52 (Ch.Div. 2006), which are: