Trial courts are mandated by statute to proceed in a summary manner in domestic violence cases within ten days of the filing of a complaint. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29a. The Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 (PDVA) “‘was enacted with the expressed intent that courts . . . promptly and appropriately offer protection to victims of domestic violence.’” Depos v. Depos, 307 N.J. Super. 396, 399 (Ch. Div. 1997) (quoting Sperling v. Teplitsky, 294 N.J. Super. 312, 318 (Ch. Div. 1996)). “The legislative intent for such mandates is to assure the victim the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18. To assure such protection, the court’s response must be swift because any delay may pose serious and irreversible consequences to the victim. Thus, domestic violence proceedings are ‘immediate.’” Id. at 399-400; However, “‘the ten-day provision does not preclude a continuance where fundamental fairness dictates allowing a defendant additional time[,]‘” such as when the defendant did not receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to respond to the charges. H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309, 323 (2003) (quoting H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 349 N.J. Super. 332, 342-43 (App. Div. 2002)).

Further, given the “‘serious consequences to the personal and professional lives of those who are found guilty of what the Legislature has characterized as a serious crime against society[,]‘” the court must inform the defendant of these consequences and, where required, give defendant a fair opportunity to defend. Franklin v. Sloskey, 385 N.J. Super. 534, 541 (App. Div. 2006) (quoting Bresocnik v. Gallegos, 367 N.J. Super. 178, 181 (App. Div. 2004)).

NOTE: My legal services include family law, divorce, child support, litigation, arbitration, mediation, child custody and visitation, alimony, equitable distribution, separation agreements, palimony, property settlement agreements, premarital and prenuptial agreements, midmarriage and marital agreements.

Technorati Tags: domestic-violence, trial, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

To dissolve a Final Restrining Order, as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29d, the defendant must demonstrate good cause. The following factors, set forth in Carfagno v. Carfagno, 288 N.J. Super. 424, 435 (Ch. Div. 1995), and approved in Kanaszka v. Kunen, 313 N.J. Super. 600, 605 (App. Div. 1998), will be considered:

(1) whether the victim consented to lift the restraining order;
(2) whether the victim fears the defendant;
(3) the nature of the relationship between the parties today;
(4) the number of times that the defendant has been convicted of contempt for violating the order;
(5) whether the defendant has a continuing involvement with drug or alcohol abuse;
(6) whether the defendant has been involved in other violent acts with other persons;
(7) whether the defendant has engaged in counseling;
(8) the age and health of defendant;
(9) whether the victim is acting in good faith when opposing the defendant’s request;
(10) whether another jurisdiction has entered a restraining order protecting the victim from the defendant; and
(11) other factors deemed relevant by the court.

NOTE: Adwokat / Prawnik Pawel Kostro mowi po polsku.

Technorati Tags: domestic-violence, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

A plaintiff seeking a FRO under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 (PDVA), must establish that the defendant committed an act of domestic violence. Franklin v. Sloskey, 385 N.J. Super 534, 542 (App. Div. 2006) (citing Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998)).

The PDVA defines domestic violence as the commission of any one of the fourteen crimes and offenses enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a). Harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, is among the fourteen predicate offenses that, if proven, entitles a plaintiff to the entry of a FRO. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a)(13).

The offense of harassment is committed when a person, “with purpose to harass another,” “[e]ngages in any other course of alarming conduct . . . with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.” N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4c. In order for a court to find that a defendant committed an act of harassment as proscribed by that statute, the court must find that the person had a “conscious objective” to harass the plaintiff. State v. Fuchs, 230 N.J. Super. 420, 428 (App. Div. 1989).

“Integral to a finding of harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4c is the establishment of the purpose to harass, along with a course of alarming conduct or repeated acts intended to alarm or seriously annoy another[.]” Peranio v. Peranio, 280 N.J. Super. 47, 55 (App. Div. 1995) (citations omitted). Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the defendant’s purpose to harass the plaintiff is proven, “that purpose, standing alone, would not [satisfy] the definition of harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4c unless it [is] manifested by a course or repeated acts of alarming conduct.” Ibid. As the Supreme Court explained in State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564 (1997),

The purpose of subsection (c) is to reach conduct not covered by subsections (a) and (b). For example, if a person were to ring a former companion’s doorbell at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday, flash bright lights into her windows on Monday at 6:00 p.m., throw tomatoes into her front door on Tuesday at 6:30 p.m., throw eggs on her car on Wednesday, and repeat the same conduct over a two-week period, a judge could find that subsection (c) has been violated. We do not imply by that example that five or more episodes are required to establish a course of alarming conduct. That determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.

[Id. at 580-81.]
See also Grant v. Wright, 222 N.J. Super. 191, 196 (App. Div.) (noting under subsection (c), proof of “purpose to harass” is insufficient if there is no proof of “either a course of alarming conduct or repeated acts designed to alarm”), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 562 (1988).

See related Blog Post, published in the New Jersey Family Law blog.

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

Technorati Tags: domestic-violence, harassment, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Picture by KnOizKi

Where Plaintiff did not immediately seek a temporary restraining order (TRO), and did not do so until after his attorney had advised him to do so, does not necessarily evidence that plaintiff’s complaint was filed as a tactical maneuver to gain an advantage in divorce proceedings.

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Fanwood 07023; Garwood 07027; Kenilworth 07033; Mountainside 07092; Roselle Park 07204; Roselle 07203; Elizabeth 07201; Linden 07036; Rahway 07065; Westfield 07090; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Scotch Plains 07076; Springfield 07081; Union 07083; Winfield; and Carteret 07008, New Jersey.

Technorati Tags: domestic-violence, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Picture by hoyasmeg

Apple Sulit-Peralejo, Esq. of Fox Rothschild LLP published an excellent Blog Post on this topic — if you are dealing with Domestic Violence, careful consideration should be given to the alternatives.

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

Technorati Tags: domestic-violence, restraining-order, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Picture by gruntzooki

Assault and terroristic threats are two of the predicate acts “which comprise domestic violence” under the Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19.

Defendant has the burden to presented evidence to support a claim of self-defense. See N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4; State v. Aguiar, 322 N.J. Super. 175, 179-80 (App. Div. 1999).

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: assault, domestic-violence, self-defense, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Picture by Paul G. Kostro, Esq.

A court cannot ignore the consequences faced by persons found guilty of domestic violence. Familial relationships may be fundamentally altered if a person is removed from the family home, forced to relocate at great expense, and restrained from having any contact with members of their own family. See Chernesky v. Fedorczyk, 346 N.J. Super. 34, 40 (App. Div. 2001).

Moreover, the Legislature has characterized domestic violence as a “serious crime against society.” N.J.S.A. 2C:25- 18; Bresocnik v. Gallegos, 367 N.J. Super. 178, 181 (App. Div. 2004). A person adjudged guilty faces significant legal consequences.

Once a final restraining order is entered, a defendant is subject to fingerprinting, N.J.S.A. 53:1-15, and the Administrative Office of the Courts maintains a central registry of all persons who have had domestic violence restraining orders entered against them, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-34. Violation of a restraining order constitutes contempt, and a second or subsequent non-indictable domestic violence contempt offense requires a minimum term of thirty days imprisonment. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-30. The issuing court may also impose other wide-reaching sanctions impairing a defendant’s interest in liberty and freedom in order “to prevent further abuse.” N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b).
[Peterson v. Peterson, 374 N.J. Super. 116, 124 (App. Div. 2005).]

Because of the legal and familial consequences of a FRO, the trial judge must take pains in a pro se case to ensure that the rights of both parties are respected. See, Franklin v. Sloskey, 385 N.J. Super. 534, 543 (App. Div. 2006), holding that a defendant’s due process rights were violated by the failure to afford her an opportunity to cross-examine the opposing party. The conduct of a domestic violence hearing must accord with the requirements of due process. See Peterson, supra, 374 N.J. Super. at 124.

In this case, the court held that defendant did not receive the due process to which he was entitled at the FRO hearing. He was not advised that he could request an adjournment to consult with an attorney and have an attorney represent him at the hearing. He was never advised of the serious consequences associated with an FRO. The court limited cross-examination, and the violation was different from the domestic violence complaint. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that there was a deficiency in the hearing.

NOTE: My legal services include family law, divorce, mediation, child custody and visitation, alimony, equitable distribution, and marital agreements.

Technorati Tags: domestic-violence, due-process, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

[Click on the photo to see the video]

Read more about it HERE

[See how it goes 6-months later]

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

Technorati Tags: dance, domestic-violence, dv, marriage, video, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

Purvi Shah, executive director of Sakhi for South Asian Women, a New York community organization fighting violence against women from South Asia, discusses the Obama administration’s decision to extend asylum benefits to victims of domestic violence (27 minutes):

See also: New Policy Permits Asylum for Battered Women, By JULIA PRESTON, published in The New York Times

Also, see the related Court Declaration of L.R.; and the Department of Homeland Security’s Supplemental Brief.

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


Technorati Tags: asylum, domestic-violence, dv, immigration, obama, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(8) provides that no firearms purchaser identification card (FPIC) shall be issued to any person whose firearm is seized pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and whose firearm has not been returned. And, correspondingly, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b(3) makes it a third-degree crime for a person whose firearm is seized pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and whose firearm has not been returned to purchase, own or possess a firearm.

The structure of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and the corresponding provisions of Title 2C dealing with firearms, do not contemplate return of firearms and FPICs to individuals merely because the domestic violence proceeding is concluded. See M.S. v. Millburn Police Dep’t, 395 N.J. Super. 638, 642 (App. Div.) (the disqualification under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(8) survives vacation of a domestic violence restraining order), certif. granted, 193 N.J. 223 (2007); State v. Cordoma, 372 N.J. Super. 524, 533 (App. Div. 2004) (the voluntary dismissal of a domestic violence complaint does not mandate the automatic return of firearms seized in connection with that proceeding). The prosecutor retains an independent right to seek forfeiture if the prosecutor deems it appropriate. If the affected person wishes to contest the proposed forfeiture, he or she is entitled to a hearing, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3), for a determination as to whether he poses a threat to the public in general or to anyone in particular.

When the FPIC is “revoked,” it connotes a permanent deprivation.

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Fanwood 07023; Garwood 07027; Kenilworth 07033; Mountainside 07092; New Providence 07974; Roselle Park 07204; Roselle 07203; Elizabeth 07201; Linden 07036; 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.

Technorati Tags: domestic-violence, weapons, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin