Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Dealing With Domestic Violence

By David S. Carton and Whitney G. Fish
July 28, 2005

Domestic violence cases are heard in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division – Family Part, a court of equity. This is the same arm of the court that can restrain or force a person's actions under Crowe v. Di Goia, 90 N.J 126 (1982), terminate a marriage, award custody, order the payment of support, sell property, tell parents when they can see a child, and decide numerous other substantive issues that can dramatically affect a person's life.

Under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, a victim may apply to a judge for a temporary restraining order if there has been an instance of domestic violence between parties on an ex-parte basis, based on a showing of good cause to protect the life, health, or well being of a victim. (Domestic violence includes homicide, assault, terroristic threats, kidnapping, criminal restraint, false imprisonment, sexual assault, criminal sexual contact, lewdness, criminal mischief, burglary, criminal trespass, harassment, and stalking.) N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28. If a temporary restraining order is granted, a judge may order injunctive, as well as non-injunctive, relief on the victim's behalf. Permanent relief can thereafter be obtained through a final restraining order. During the hearing for the final restraining order a judge of the Family Part will conduct a hearing with both the petitioner and the respondent present. The court will take testimony and formally analyze many factors including whether the petitioner is a victim as defined by the act, whether the respondent has committed an act that qualifies as domestic violence, as well as the presence of one or more of the six criteria found in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1) – (6).

Where final restraining orders are entered by the court, further injunctive relief is often granted, thereby placing significant limitations upon the respondent. He or she may be precluded from entering the marital residence, having contact with his or her children, and even entering a child's school. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.