NJ Family Issues

RSS | Comments RSS

To convict, the Court must find that the defendant intentionally violated a domestic violence restraining order

Comments Off No Comments»
October 11, 2006 at 2:29 pm


Law Lessons from STATE v. SLOTA, Appellate Division, A-42-05T5, October 11, 2006:

In State v. Finamore, 338 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 2001), the Court emphasized the importance of a finding that a defendant intentionally violated a domestic violence FRO, particularly where the FRO is unclear in its prohibitions against contact between the parties.

The Domestic Violence Act affords critically needed protections in appropriate situations. It was not intended to attempt to regulate and adjudicate every loss of temper, angry word, or quarrel between persons connected by a familial relationship.” State v. Wilmouth, 302 N.J. Super. 20, 23 (App. Div. 1997).

In this case, the original FRO barred the defendant from contacting her husband and her son, “except as per parenting time and phone calls” to her son, and the amended FRO allowed her to have supervised visits with her son and “telephone contact”; the defendant was charged with harassment and violating the amended FRO because she repeatedly called her husband during a 50-minute period; the husband testified that the defendant had cursed him and had threatened to kill herself; the defendant testified that she had called to speak to her son, as authorized by the amended FRO, but that her husband would not let her do so; the trial court’s conclusion that it could not determine which witness was truthful “fatally” undermined the conviction; although it was not “a model of clarity,” the FRO “plainly contemplated” that the defendant would have to call her husband to speak to her son; if the defendant was trying to speak to her son, she was not intentionally violating the FRO; the trial court’s factual findings warranted, at most, an admonition to the defendant to seek court intervention if her husband would not let her speak to her son in the future.






Print This Post Print This Post
This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator in Linden, Union County, New Jersey. My legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Morris counties in NJ; including the municipalities of Fanwood 07023; Garwood 07027; Kenilworth 07033; Mountainside 07092; New Providence 07974; Roselle Park 07204; Roselle 07203; Elizabeth 07201; Linden 07036; Plainfield 07060; Rahway 07065; Summit 07901; Westfield 07090; Berkeley Heights 07922; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Hillside 07205; Scotch Plains 07076; Springfield 07081; Union 07083; Winfield; Carteret 07008; Dunellen 08812; East Brunswick 08816; Edison 08817; Jamesburg 08831; Metuchen 08840; New Brunswick 08901; Old Bridge 08857; Perth Amboy 08861; Sayreville 08871; South Amboy 08878; South River 08877; Avenel 07001; Colonia 07067; Iselin 08830; Woodbridge 07095; Somerset 08873; Somerville 08876 and Watchung 07069, New Jersey. My legal services include family law, divorce, child support, litigation, arbitration, mediation, child custody and visitation, alimony, equitable distribution, separation agreements, palimony, PSA, property settlement agreement, premarital and prenuptial agreements, midmarriage and marital agreements. My Law Office is located at 726 West Saint Georges [W. St. Georges] Avenue (Route 27), Linden, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-486-2200 Adwokat / Prawnik Adwokaci Pawel Kostro mowi po polsku.

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Morris counties in NJ.


Technorati Tags: , and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.