New Domestic Violence Case Finds that Inherently Violent Nature of Some Acts of Domestic Violence Are Self-Evident of Need For Final Restraining Order.

The Appellate Division opinion of A.M.C. v. P.B, released for publication on October 21, 2016 finds that a Trial Court misapplied the two-prong test for determining whether the issuance of Final Restraining Order is necessary (set forth in the landmark domestic violence case Silver v. Silver which requires in its second prong that the Court find that a domestic violence restraining order is necessary to protect a victim from future abuse). The Trial Court had found that the defendant had perpetrated acts of domestic violence, in this case, the assault of the victim on two separate occasions in a three- week period, including a physical assault that took place to prevent the victim from leaving the marital residence. But then determined that a Final Restraining Order was not necessary because it was not necessary to protect the victim from further acts of domestic violence because they believed that the parties’ relationship had ended when the victim left the marital residence because there were no children of the relationship and the fact that the defendant had no violated the TRO (which had not been served upon him) after the victim left the marital residence.  

The Appellate Division found in A.M.C. that the inherent violent nature of the acts against the victim, that were done to prevent her from leaving, along with the history of domestic violence and threats of further violence rose to the level of such acts that are “self-evident” of the need to protect the victim from further acts of domestic violence.  As such, the Appellate Division reversed the decision of the Trial Court and found that the victim was entitled to a Final Restraining Order.

This case helps to narrow the broad reading of Silver that sometimes leaves victims of domestic violence without protection, by giving more weight in the Silver analysis to cases involving acts of domestic violence that are inherently more violent in nature.

Domestic violence proceedings have serious implications for both the victim as well as the person accused of committing domestic violence.  Our office handles domestic violence cases and has worked with pro bono domestic violence organizations in both Mercer and Hunterdon County.  Contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. at Fraser Family Law Office, LLC. for a consultation to discuss your domestic violence matter.  (609)223-2099.

Resilience: Getting Through

When I was in college I conducted an oral history of the Holocaust. I interviewed women and men who had survived the most unthinkable and unspeakable things. The overwhelming and amazing lesson was not what they had tragically endured, but how they had endured it.  How their spirits had survived when maybe others had given up hope.  Resilience.  Resilience is defined as essentially the ability to get back up when you get knocked down. And in study after study researchers have come to learn that resilience is the single biggest predictor of future success. 

So like my previous post on resolve, I ask the question, where does resilience come from? Is it a skill that we can learn or something innate to who we are? There are people that I meet as a Family lawyer who have the most indomitable spirits; who survive abuse and tragedy, who negotiate daily living under impossible circumstances and who re-bound from set-backs big and small.  There are others who get deeply stuck and are unable to move on.  So how do we cultivate resilience to get through life, to deal with divorce or other hard family law issues?

The poet David Whyte has said that “the cure for exhaustion isn’t always rest, its wholeheartedness.”  To live with wholeheartedness is to search out what makes us feel deeply alive. As we know that when we lose connection to our own spirit – we feel numb to the world around us, we lose resolve, and oftentimes we become physically weakened and sick.  Brene' Brown describes wholeheartedness as embracing our vulnerability and uncertainty, and that the path to wholeheartedness is ultimately about the “care and feeding of our spirits.”

I realize that a lot of time what is asked of individuals going through divorce or family law issues is to come up with a plan for the future when they are emotionally and mentally exhausted and have not yet connected with a sense of hope, or courage, or wholeheartedness. And what I learned from those survivors and all of the survivors that I meet everyday is that resilience is not necessarily about making big changes or crafting far-reaching plans, but rather is the steady commitment to a habit of staying present, of holding gratitude, and doing the things that make us feel wholehearted. I encourage you to start there.

If you’re ready to talk about getting through a divorce or another family law issue, please contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. at Fraser Family Law Office LLC, 609-223-2099

Broadening the Definition of Domestic Violence in New Jersey

Last year’s change in the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (“PDVA”) and two recent New Jersey cases are expanding what can be considered an “act of domestic violence,” for purposes of obtaining a Temporary and Final Restraining Order.  In 2015 the New Jersey legislature amended the PDVA to include a defendant’s violation of a no contact provision of a restraining order as an act of domestic violence.   This provision of the PDVA was intelligently analyzed by Judge L.R. Jones (Ocean County) for the first time in the recent case of DS v. BC (unreported August 2016). In this case, the Court indicated that a “knowing violation of a restraining order,” meets the first prong of Silver v. Silver (whether the victim has “proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more acts of domestic violence have taken place”) and then laid out a thoughtful analysis of this new provision of the PDVA.

The Court provided the following framework: (1) that the victim must still meet the second prong of Silver (“a restraining order is necessary to protect the victim,”), (2) that two or more separate acts even if independent of each other in the aggregate can satisfy Silver, (3) that the right to seek a restraining order based upon a knowing violation of an existing restraining order  is independent of the right to pursue a contempt proceeding and (4) this provision of the PDVA applies equally to knowing violations of both temporary and final restraining orders.

The NJ Courts’ efforts to broaden the scope of what can be considered harassment and accordingly, domestic violence, was further developed in the case of C.G. v. E.G (June 2016- Judge Jones).  The Court found that economic harassment can be considered a form of domestic violence. In this case, the defendant had contacted the victim’s employer without her consent and attempted to interfere with her employment by bothering her employer and her employer’s wife and embarrassing the victim.  These two cases and the legislative change to the PDVA in 2015 point to the fact that Courts are to view potential acts of domestic violence with a much wider lens and that abuse can come in many forms.

For more information or for assistance with a domestic violence matter, please contact Georgia Fraser, Esq. of Fraser Family Law Office at (609)223-2099.