Articles Tagged with restraining order

Published on:

In the published opinion in the matter of T.M. v. R.M.W., FV-15-0506-18, the Family Court in Ocean County addressed a domestic violence case that included some interesting facts and issues offile000799318829-300x200 first impression.

In 2017, the plaintiff filed a domestic violence complaint against the defendant based on allegations of harassment and simple assault.  On her request for a restraining order she indicated that she and the defendant had a sexual relationship over the course of eight years.  The course of their relationship was limited to sporadic, casual encounters of consensual rough sex.  The parties never held themselves out as boyfriend or girlfriend, never developed an interpersonal relationship, never had expectations as to the future of their relationship or the permanence of their relationship. On the night in question, she invited the defendant over and while they were having sex, he laughed at her, told her he hated her, and punched her in the face.  She stated that she agreed to have consensual rough sex, and that this included slapping, choking and hair pulling, but that she did not consent to being punched in the face with a closed fist.  She repeatedly brought up to defendant that he had punched, her but she said he “brushed it off”.  She admitted the parties had never verbalized what their limits were.  She testified that she feared his impulsivity, that she feared he would show up again to the store where she worked, and that she wanted “other women” protected from him.  The defendant seemed to admit to their encounter, stating that she had messaged him at his job in a bar to have sex with her. They had sex, and he admitted to hitting her with a closed fist on the jaw, but stated that it was a playful and not designed to hurt her.  When she asked him about it afterward, he told her that he had meant it playfully and would not do it again.  Defendant denied that a restraining order was necessary as he had never come to the plaintiff’s home uninvited.  He added that after their last sexual encounter, the plaintiff sent a text message to his girlfriend to tell her that he had cheated on her, which led him to go to the store where she worked to talk to her about that.  He had only ever been there before to make an actual purchase. She told him to leave and he never returned there.  The court found that the defendant, who did not minimize his actions, more credible than the plaintiff, who was inconsistent in testifying about whether she had been punched more than once, and whether there was a history of domestic violence.

The court first assessed whether the plaintiff could be considered a “victim” under the Domestic Violence Act given that the parties did not really have a “dating” relationship, as defined by Andrews v. Rutherford, 363 N.J. Super. 252, 260 (Ch.Div. 2003). The judge noted that the statute includes as a victim “any person who has been subjected to domestic violence by a person with whom the victim has had a dating relationship”, but the statute does not define “dating relationship”.  Moreover,  the statute states that its purpose is “to assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide.” N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18.  The court concluded that this secret, sexual relationship was sufficient to be considered a “dating” relationship.  The  judge felt the purpose of the domestic violence statute would be thwarted when it protected plaintiffs in non-sexual dating relationships if it did not also apply to plaintiffs who engaged in relationships that were only sexual with the defendant.  The judge did not base his decision on moral judgments on plaintiff’s decisions.

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.  Continue reading

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:

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:

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:

I have previously written articles specifically relating to domestic violence and contempt proceedings, including my most recent post from March 18, 2015 – Final Restraining Orders: When Final Does Not Equate to Permanent.  The Appellate Division recently handed down a published decision that further examines domestic violence in the context of contempt proceedings being held against a Defendant in State v. D.G.M., which was decided on March 20, 2015.  Continue reading

Published on:

file00030973702My colleagues and I have previously written on the topic of Domestic Violence, Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO), and Final Rrestraining Orders (FRO).  Specifically, I have previously written on the subject matter of contempt proceedings where the Defendant in a domestic violence action can be held in contempt for violation of either a TRO or FRO.  Continue reading