NJ Family Issues

RSS | Comments RSS

It is not unreasonable for plaintiff to hope that the situation will improve and, when it does not, to then seek the TRO

Comments Off No Comments»
March 14, 2010 at 9:31 am


Law Lessons from L.H. V. P.H., App. Div., A-3651-08T3, March 12, 2010:

With the enactment of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, the Legislature intended “to assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide.” N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18. Under the Act, the primary focus is to provide immediate protection to the victim. Ibid. A plaintiff seeking relief under the Act must first prove that a defendant has committed an act of domestic violence. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a); Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 400.

Once the plaintiff proves that the defendant committed one of the predicate acts, the court must then determine whether issuance of an FRO is necessary, based upon an evaluation of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1) to -29(a)(6) to protect the victim from further abuse. Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112, 126 (App. Div. 2006).

While the court has previously noted that a single commission of an enumerated predicate act of domestic violence does not automatically mandate the entry of a restraining order, the court has also held that one sufficiently egregious act of domestic violence can indeed warrant the issuance of an FRO regardless of whether there is a history of violence between the parties. McGowan v. O’Rourke, 391 N.J. Super. 502, 506 (App. Div. 2007) (citing Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 401-02).

The single act of violently destroying plaintiff’s dress with threats of similar future behavior for any act by plaintiff that defendant perceived as an act of “disrespect” constituted criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3 and N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a), that is sufficiently egregious to justify the issuance of an FRO to protect plaintiff against any further abuse.

It is not unreasonable for plaintiff to hope that the situation will improve and, when it does not, to then seek the TRO. Roe v. Roe, 253 N.J. Super. 418, 429 (App. Div. 1992).






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.