Under NJ law, issues of domestic violence are taken seriously and are decided in accordance with the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. When deciding whether an act of domestic violence occurred and whether a restraining order is necessary to protect the victim, there are many factors for the court to consider. Three key components are: (1) is there a history of domestic violence, (2) what actually happened during the underlying event and (3) what was the intention or purpose of the alleged aggressor. In making determinations on these core issues, the credibility of each party is very important. In many domestic violence cases there are no witnesses, no medical records and no police reports. The testimony of each party is the sole means by which the court and learn about what happened. As the summary below of recently decided case explains, the court must make specific findings on the credibility each party. Additionally, with repect a harassment charge, the court must determine whether the actor/aggressor intended harass or annoy the victim. While the perpetrator may be have intended the actions or acted purposefully, of the motivation was something other than to harass or annoy the victim the conduct may not constitute domestic violence.
FAMILY LAW
20-2-6628 L.S. v. J.P., App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) Defendant appealed from a final restraining order entered against him under the Protection of Domestic Violence Act. His appeal focused on the court’s finding that he committed the predicate act of harassment. Plaintiff and defendant were both married to other people when they had a love affair that lasted approximately one year. During that time, they exchanged over 31,000 text messages. Over time, their respective spouses, as well as plaintiff’s son became aware of the affair. Plaintiff contended that at some point in early May 2013, she made it clear that she wanted to end all communication with defendant. She also contended that despite her wishes, defendant kept trying to communicate with her and harassing her. Defendant, on the other hand, argued that until plaintiff filed charges against him on May 29, 2013, they had an ongoing, although tumultuous, relationship. In this case, there was no finding about the credibility of the parties. More importantly, there was no finding that defendant intended to harass or annoy plaintiff as required by the statute. That is a required step before entering an FRO. The appellate panel reversed and remanded to the trial court for review and further fact finding.
