<\/p>\n
Here is a case that brings some clarity to the often muddy waters of NJ domestic violence law.\u00a0 The law rightfully recognizes that couples may often have legitmate reasons to argue and that not all fights warrant a finding of domestic violence even when there is a physical altercation.\u00a0 However, the best practice is to avoid ALL physical exchanges rather than rely on the findings of this case.\u00a0 Abuse, whether physical, verbal, or emotional, \u00a0is never acceptable<\/p>\n
FAMILY LAW \u2014 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Here is a case that brings some clarity to the often muddy waters of NJ domestic violence law.\u00a0 The law rightfully recognizes that couples may often have legitmate reasons to argue and that not all fights warrant a finding … Continue reading
\n20-2-7041 C.L. v. J.C.<\/em>, App. Div. (per curiam) (14 pp.) Defendant appeals from a final restraining order (FRO) entered against him and in favor of plaintiff based on a finding of the predicate act of assault under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. In part, he challenges the record as insufficient to support the offense and to warrant the issuance of restraints under the Act. The appellate panel agrees and reverses. The record does not support a finding of intent to injure. Plaintiff, understandably dismayed upon learning of defendant’s infidelity, confronted defendant in the supermarket, would not leave the store when he asked her to do so, and charged back into the store a second time to confront defendant and the “other woman” when defendant asked plaintiff and their son to go home and they would discuss the matter later. The court recognized that there was a fracas at the house with defendant’s family justifiably angry at defendant. Similarly, the court’s finding of assault at the house was based on plaintiff being “pushed aside” and falling to the ground when “she tried to intervene” in an altercation between defendant and one of their sons. That clearly does not evidence an intent by defendant to cause injury to plaintiff. Further, plaintiff did not testify with any specificity about a history of abuse or prior domestic violence and the court made no such finding. Nor did the court assess plaintiff’s need for final restraints to protect against immediate danger or future acts of domestic violence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"