NJ Family Legal Blog : New Jersey Divorce and Family Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Domestic Violence, Prenuptial Agreements, Child Custody

There are numerous criminal acts addressed within the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, which,if proven,can form the basis for the entry of a domestic violence restraining order.The crime of harassment  is one.  It is defined by New Jersey law as being 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."  The person must have a "conscious objective" to harass the victim.

Actually proving a purpose to harass, however, can be harder than it seems.  For instance, I recently tried a Final Restraining Order hearing where the husband/alleged abuser admitted to calling his wife dozens of times after she had fled the home and he had obtained a bogus temporary restraining order against her.  His defense?  I was just trying to "get her back because I love her."  Despite the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act requiring a broad interpretation of its terms to protect victims, the trial court dissolved the wife's TRO against the husband, finding that the husband lacked a purpose to harass despite admitting to everything that she alleged.  This despite an also undisputed prior history of domestic violence.

It was this oftentimes difficult "purpose" requirement that was recently addressed by the Appellate Division in R.P. v. Somerset, where the Appellate Division reversed a trial court's implementation of a Final Restraining Order because of a misinterpretation of the law.  The trial court held that a specific intent to harass was not necessary in proving that harassment occurred.  The Appellate Division disagreed and reversed, finding that the "purpose" is an integral part of proving a harassment claim.  In its conclusion, it also found that there was no evidence of a purpose in the case at issue, especially in light of a lack of prior domestic violence by the alleged abuser.  This despite the fact that the primary incident involved the alleged abuser/ex-girlfriend showing up at the ex-boyfriend's home when he arrived with his new girlfriend, pulling the new girlfriend from the car and assaulting her. 

Purpose is critical.  So is filling out a domestic violence complaint with as much relevant detail as possible.  Any victim will surely be grilled on the contents of the complaint, especially if there is anything missing or contradictory from testimony given.  Including details as to current and past incidents is of great importance.  Also, considering how difficult it may be to prove harassment, it is also recommended to check off a claim for harassment on the complaint form, as well as any other claim that may be proven by your facts, such as stalking, assault, terroristic threats, etc. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today I came across a blog entry by a divorce mediator which was nothing short of an attack on "best lawyers."  It appeared as though the ills of the divorce world were placed at the feet of the best divorce lawyers. Lawyers were castigated for such sins as discovery (obtaining financial documents) and seeking court assistance when you want temporary support or time with the children. He said that any lawyer can get the same result and that hiring a good lawyer sets the client up for a racket that is in the lawyer's best interests, but not the client's.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that I have seen attacks on lawyers from the mediation community.  There appears to be a turf war.  Either you are mediation friendly, or you are not.    Rather than recognizing that some cases are more amenable to mediation than others, the followers would rather attack the "non believers."  

While I agree that most cases will settle, many cases take a fair amount of discovery and litigation to get there. To believe otherwise is simply naive. 

Further, while mediation is not for everyone, it is a useful tool in many cases, Then again, just as not all attorneys are alike, neither are all mediators.  In fact, I suspect that the author of the blog that I read would agree that not every mediator can get the same result - though he says that any lawyer can. 

In a prior blog from May 2009, I wondered whether the mediator's goal was a fair settlement or just a settlement.  To see another blog post on mediation that I authored, click here.  Are parties, often the woman being protected from the imbalance of power that permeated the marriage?  Are people being told of their rights when they appear at mediation without lawyers?  What efforts are made to ensure full and accurate disclosure?  Are the appropriate appraisals being done at all, and when done, are they being challenged and scrutinized to make sure that they are fair and accurate? 

There is no doubt that mediation and other methods of alternate dispute resolution can be a good thing. That said, I have often seen mediations result in a "settlement", but one where the disadvantaged spouse got a "deal" that was neither fair nor reasonable, if not unconscionable. The problem in these cases is that often, once there is an "agreement", the person that got the great deal refuses to concede anything. Thus, a method meant to avoid litigation can often create litigation.  Many of these deals came from the "best mediators." 

That said, rather than attacking lawyers, mediators should recognize that there is a place for the best attorneys and the best mediators.  I posit that the best and most fair mediated settlements will result from the attorneys and mediators working together rather than attacking each other.  I am sure that we can all agree that a fully informed settlement, where both parties interests are fully protected, is optimum. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In stark contrast with the rapid-fire succession of states legalizing same-sex marriage within recent months, the California Supreme Court today upheld the now infamous "Prop 8," a ban on same-sex marriages approved by voters last November.  However, those 18,000 marriages performed between today's decision and the November vote will remain valid.

In so holding, the California Supreme Court concluded that the voters had spoken and that same-sex couples still had the right to enter into civil unions.  Notably, today's decision comes approximately one year after the Court held that same-sex couples should have the right to marry - the decision ultimately leading to Prop 8's placement on the November ballot.  Interestingly, the Court concluded that Prop 8 was an "amendment," rather than a revision to California law, which can only be placed on the ballot with a 2/3 legislative vote. 

Stay tuned to this blog for further updates.  A prior post on Prop 8 can be found here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks