Law Lessons from K.M. V. C.A.F., App. Div., A-0817-10T3, February 3, 2012:

In finding a violation of the Act, the Family Part judge may properly consider the previous history of domestic violence between the parties to better “understand the totality of the circumstances of the relationship and to fully evaluate the reasonableness of the victim’s continued fear of the perpetrator.” Kanaszka v. Kunen, 313 N.J. Super. 600, 607 (App. Div. 1998); see also N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1); Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 403. Indeed, the principle is well-established that a defendant’s prior acts can be considered in adjudicating a domestic violence complaint, whether or not those acts by themselves rose to the level of domestic violence:

However, an individual act previously rejected as insufficient to constitute domestic violence may take on greater significance because the act is later repeated in a manner that may amount to a course of conduct prohibited by N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4c and/or N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10b. In such instance, the prior act may be considered along with the new conduct in determining whether a plaintiff has established domestic violence based on a subsequent complaint.

[T.M. v. J.C., 348 N.J. Super. 101, 106 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 175 N.J. 78 (2002).]

Likewise, a current act that might not appear to constitute domestic violence if viewed in isolation, may rise to the level of domestic violence if viewed in the context of a history of more clear and serious violent acts. See Hoffman, supra, 149 N.J. at 585. As the Court held in Cesare, supra:

The requirement that a court consider the past history of the parties, in the context of an allegation of terroristic threats, harassment or other domestic violence, comports with the legislative intent of the statute. . . . [This] interpretation . . . “reflects the reality that domestic violence is ordinarily more than an isolated aberrant act and incorporates the legislative intent to provide a vehicle to protect victims whose safety is threatened.”

Because a particular history can greatly affect the context of a domestic violence dispute, trial courts must weigh the entire relationship between the parties and must specifically set forth their findings of fact in that regard. Furthermore, in making their determinations, trial courts can consider evidence of a defendant’s prior abusive acts regardless of whether those acts have been the subject of a domestic violence adjudication.

[154 N.J. at 405.]

A long history of unwelcome communications and contact by defendant as well as an escalation in both volume and content may evidence a continuing course of conduct by defendant designed to harass, annoy and offend plaintiff. Hoffman, supra, 149 N.J. at 576.

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator in Linden, Union County, New Jersey.