Articles Posted in Domestic Violence

|

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, more commonly referred to as “the right to bear arms,” can GunControl_12_2at times conflict with society’s ability to protect other citizens from those same citizens that have taken up their right bear arms. Nowhere is this more evident than in the tragic events that occurred in Dallas, TX this week where five police officers were killed by sniper fire coming from Micah Johnson who was later killed in a standoff with the police. Continue reading ›

|

The 18th century educational writer, W.E. Hickson, is credited with popularizing the proverb: “’Tis a lesson you should heed: Try, try, try again. If at first you don’t succeed, Try, try, try again.”  On IMG_0187June 10, 2016 the New Jersey Appellate Division decided the case of KL-v-DL, in which after nearly three years of continuous litigation, a father succeeded in having the trial court reconsider its prior order relating to additional visitation with his daughter.  The protracted litigation began not long after the divorce complaint was filed on June 14, 2013.   Continue reading ›

|

file000388004075In a prior post, I took a look at the process necessary to seek the dissolution or modification of a Final Restraining Order (FRO), specifically taking into consideration the Carfagno factors that have since been adopted by the Appellate Division as a non-exhaustive list of factors for the Court to consider when one of these applications is made.  In a recent, albeit unpublished, decision, the Appellate Division revisits this issue and takes a closer look at what constitutes a prima facie case of good cause and changed circumstances warranting a plenary hearing on this issue.  That case, B.R. v. J.A., originated in Hudson County and has been reversed and remanded for a plenary hearing by the Appellate Division, without any discussion on the merits of the defendant’s application. Continue reading ›

|

TANGEL 13he jurisdiction of the Family Part of the New Jersey Superior Court to make orders determining custody is based upon the common law doctrine of parens patriae, which imposes upon the court an affirmative duty to protect the best interests of minor children. The members the New Jersey Judiciary that serve our State in making these decisions will tell you that these decisions are some of the most difficult they have faced in their professional careers and also some of the most rewarding. On December 15, 2015, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an opinion modifying and affirming the Appellate Division’s decision denying the appeal by the New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency in the case of New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. K.N. and K.E., 435 N.J. Super. 16 (App.Div. 2014), wherein the “Division” appealed from a June, 2013 order that awarded custody of T.E. (“Tommy”), the six-year-old son of K.N. (“Kara”) and T.E. (“Kevin”) to his maternal grandmother as a paid resource placement parents. Continue reading ›

|

Generally, the concept that in domestic violence matters the concept that a defendant could defend oneself by asserting that their violence towards the plaintiff was deserved or provoked in some way is an abhorrent concept, and would likely not be a successful argument in defending against against an accusation of domestic violence.   However, in an as yet unpublished July, 2015 decision  in the matter of R C v R W, decided by the Honorable L.R. Jones, J.S.C., a prolific writer of trial court opinions, the family court addressed the following question: “What happens when a plaintiff seeks a final restraining order against a defendant for conduct which arises from plaintiff’s own violent provocation?”. Continue reading ›

|

For those of you that have attended Mr. Yudes’ annual ICLE seminar: Family Law Update and/or those of you that have paid close attention to newly published trial court decisions over the past three (3) years will not be surprised to find that the Honorable Lawrence R. Jones, J.S.C., a Superior Court Judge in Ocean County, has issued many trial court level decisions that have become published.  Beginning with Benjamin v. Benjamin, which was decided in October 2012 and was approved for publication in February 2013, Judge Jones has issued a total of nine (9) decisions published decisions. Continue reading ›

|

Last week, we wrote a blog post discussing the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent enactment of Rule 5:1-5 which sets forth standards and procedures governing the arbitration of divorce matters. The Supreme Court codified recent case law which had addressed questions arising over the parties’ use of the arbitration process to resolve issues related to their divorce proceeding, rather than continuing to pursue litigation through the court system and having a judge decide the issues in their case. In so doing, the Supreme Court was furthering the policy that has evolved in recent years encouraging the use of complimentary or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings as a means to help parties settle cases and/or divert cases from a growingly overburdened judicial system. Continue reading ›

|

It is well known that when an unmarried individual destroys property that belongs to someone else that can be a predicate under New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA). However, the waters become muddy when a spouse destroys marital property as “property, both real and personal” is part of the marital estate. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23. Therefore, marital property is considered to be jointly owned by spouses. Which begs the question: If a spouse destroys jointly owned property, is the spouse guilty of criminal mischief for destroying what is his/her own property? Continue reading ›

|

At a domestic violence trial, the burden rests upon plaintiff to show that it is more likely than not that the defendant is guilty of committing the predicate act contained in the plaintiff’s domestic violence complaint. Continue reading ›

|

Our Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 et. seq., is designed to afford victims of domestic violence comprehensive protections. Although the fundamental goal of our domestic violence statute is to protect victims, there are certain penalties and loss of freedoms that the perpetrator faces in the process.  One of the most compelling loss of freedoms associated with the domestic violence statute is the seizure of firearms that occurs with the service on a defendant of a domestic violence restraining order.  If convicted of domestic violence, a defendant must forfeit his/her firearms and the right to buy any firearm in the future. Continue reading ›