We’ve all heard the maxim “One Family, One Judge” in the context of matrimonial matters. The underlying premise is that one judge in the Family Part should hear the entire case because that judge is intimately familiar with the facts of the case, has observed the parties and their demeanors and perhaps has made credibility

On September 9, 2015, the Appellate Division determined in  a reported (precedential) decision, N.T.B. v. D.D.B. (A-4542-13T2), that a spouse’s destruction of a door within the couple’s jointly-owned marital home constitutes the predicate act of “criminal mischief,” pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3, thereby supporting a finding of an act of domestic violence.

Background

The parties, husband,

In the domestic violence statute, there is a presumption that the abused should get custody.  In the custody statute, the prior history of domestic violence is simply one of the many factors that a court must consider.  There really has not been a reported case that addresses the confluence of these two statutes until July

Herd mentality is an interesting thing.  It basically describes how people are influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors, follow trends, or purchase certain items.  While typically anthropologists thought of this as a survival instinct – i.e. people in groups who espouse common goals may survive longer in pre-industrialized society – it has gotten

Highly acrimonious custody disputes abound for countless reasons, many of which are tied to the specific facts and circumstances of a given case.  A determination of the most appropriate custody arrangement (joint or shared legal and residential custody) and parenting time schedule can be a difficult process, especially when multiple custody evaluators are retained to