New Jersey Family Law

CONVENT STATION NEW JERSEY MORRIS COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey divorce judge entered a restraining order against defendant, finding his communications to plaintiff – via online and text messages -- constituted harassment. But this finding is reversed : (1) the judge failed to find any of his actions were done with the required purpose to harass plaintiff; and (2) his conduct, in any event, cannot be considered an act of domestic violence. At the hearing, plaintiff did not testify defendant ever threatened her, or she was alarmed about her safety. While defendant's communications – basically saying he was her only real friend – were unwanted, they were not made in a threatening manner, or at inconvenient hours. Once the judge learned that defendant was represented by counsel (who was not present at the hearing), she should have provided him the opportunity to adjourn the trial and consult with his attorney.      Segura v. Vacca, New Jersey App. Div., April 7, 2008

SADDLE RIVER BERGEN COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY MEDIATOR

The court reverses the entry of a final restraining order against defendant, because the single act of touching plaintiff to stop her from getting into her car in order to talk to her at the end of their romantic relationship did not constitute domestic violence within the meaning of the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence statute.   Winters v. Eierman, New Jersey App. Div., April 2, 2008

BERKELEY HEIGHTS NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

The ex-wife had a final restraining order entered against her, based on threatening and harassing voice mail messages she left for plaintiff, her former husband, and additional unanswered telephone calls where she left no message. Inter alia, she threatened to: (1) fall on plaintiff's property and sue him; (2) charge his elderly parents with embezzlement; and (3) follow plaintiff's new wife and her children, who should "worry" about her. Other comments she made led him to believe she was been stalking him. Not only did she admit to making the calls, but her only defense was she was responding to he allegedly did to her for the past 3 years. Thus, she asserted no proper purpose for her calls.     Karl v. Polo-Karl, New Jersey App. Div., March 6, 2008

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE ATTORNEY PASSAIC COUNTY FAMILY LAW

A woman who was beaten several times during her marriage and once obtained a restraining order against her husband has accepted a settlement between $180,000 and $250,000 from the now ex-husband for causing her to suffer from battered woman's syndrome. The amount of the final payment depends on the price received for the sale of the couple's marital home. The battered woman's syndrome tort was established in the 1995 Superior Court ruling Cusseaux v. Pickett and requires a plaintiff to show the spouse committed extended and injurious abuse and that the plaintiff was unable to repair the situation unilaterally.  Cennamano v. Cennamano, New Jersey Ch. Div., Passaic County; New Jersey Law Journal, January 22, 2008

WALLINGTON NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

The restraining order entered against defendant is affirmed based on an altercation which occurred when he arrived to pick up the parties' daughter for a visitation. The court rejects defendant's sole contention that the trial judge erred in denying his request for an adjournment to obtain counsel, where he appeared on the return date of the temporary restraining order and did not request counsel, and did not request counsel until late during the proceedings on the adjourned return date.       Whittington v. Garrett, New Jersey App. Div., January 16, 2008

WEST PATTERSON NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION ATTORNEY

The court rejects the ex-husband's claim of due process violations when he was found guilty of domestic violence. He was aware from the issuance of the temporary restraining order that he was facing severe consequences, he had adequate time to consult with his matrimonial attorney, there was no indication that he was confused by the proceedings, and he did not request an adjournment to retain counsel. Further, he was given a full opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff and the judge thoroughly examined him to be sure his version of the facts was set forth and gave him the opportunity to supplement his testimony. The New Jersey divorce properly evaluated the specific incident of alleged abuse in the context of the parties’ history, and observed their testimony and demeanor. There was sufficient credible evidence to sustain the finding that defendant committed an act of domestic violence against plaintiff.     Burns v. Burns, New Jersey App. Div., December 21, 2007

HARRINGTON PARK NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The ex-husband raised valid issues regarding the fairness of the proceedings below and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the New Jersey divorce judge's findings of domestic violence. Therefore, the matter is reversed and remanded for a new trial. While well intentioned, the judge erred in basing his finding of domestic violence upon acts or a course of conduct not even mentioned in the complaint. The record does not reveal what facts the court relied upon in finding that "terroristic threats" were made. Also, the court should not have considered the hearsay statements contained in the oldest daughter's diary.     Knox v. Knox, New Jersey App. Div., December 7, 2007

MAPLEWOOD NEW JERSEY ESSEX COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The court affirms the New Jersey domestic violence restraining order entered against defendant. He was also arrested and charged with kidnapping, terroristic threats, and simple assault. Despite defendant's assertion that he was denied sufficient adjournments to have his counsel present, the judge did grant defendant one two-week adjournment, and also reached out to two different attorneys defendant indicated would be representing him, but neither verified that fact. Here, defendant knew exactly what the charges against him were because of his arrest and incarceration, and was permitted to cross-examine plaintiff. There simply was no abuse of discretion in the judge's handling of the matter or prejudice against defendant.     Kabbeko v. Crescitelli, New Jersey App. Div., November 14, 2007

SADDLE RIVER NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

  The daughter obtained a New Jersey Domestic Violence final restraining order against her father. Between a Law Division order denying defendant grandparent visitation with plaintiff's daughter, and the Appellate Division affirmance of that order, defendant harassed plaintiff by staring at her home while sitting in a car outside the residence, causing plaintiff to move with her family to an undisclosed location. Defendant also harassed plaintiff with unsolicited written communications. Contrary to defendant's assertions, the trial judge did not adopt the Family Part judge's findings of fact from the grandparent visitation case as his own when ruling on the domestic violence issue.     Pereira v. Boghossian, New Jersey App. Div., October 23, 2007

HOBOKEN NEW JERSEY HUDSON COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATION LAWYER

The New Jersey restraining order involving phone calls is vacated. Neither party disputed the number of calls. Rather, the issues were whether plaintiff told defendant to stop making them, and whether his purpose in making them was to harass plaintiff. Because the New Jersey judge who issued the temporary restraining order had a conflict of interest, the matter is remanded. Plaintiff is a municipal court administrator, and administrators are directly supervised by the municipal judges in their municipality. Thus, the close working relationship gave rise to an appearance of impropriety. The plaintiff should have advised the judge that she was seeking a restraining order and asked him to direct her to another judge to consider her complaint.  Cook v. Struble, New Jersey App. Div., October 18, 2007