Harassment

Harassment

by | May 8, 2020 | Divorce

Harassment can constitute a basis for the issuance of a restraining order if the statutory elements are satisfied. See N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. The statute defines harassment:

Except as provided in subsection e., a person commits a petty disorderly person offense if, with the purpose to harass another, he: a. Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; b. Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or c. Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person. [N.J.S.A. 2c:33-4 (emphasis added).]

As provided by the statute, a finding of harassment requires proof of an intent or purpose to harass. State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 576-77 (1997). An assertion by a plaintiff that he or she felt harassed is a subjective belief and insufficient to prove a purpose or intent to harass. See J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 484 (2011). The courts must find that “relief is necessary to prevent further abuse,” before making a finding of harassment. J.D., supra, 207 N.J. at 476 (first quoting Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243, 250 (App. Div. 1995); and quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)).

Trial courts must determine whether an act is simply an ordinary domestic dispute or disagreement or whether the act crosses the line into domestic violence. Id. at 475. The family court must then determine whether the plaintiff needs the protection of a restraining order. Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112, 126 (App. Div. 2006) and whether a restraining order is necessary . . . to protect the victim from an immediate danger or prevent further abuse.” Id. at 127. ” The court cannot grant a FRO by just merely concluding that plaintiff has described acts that qualify as harassment and omitting whether the plaintiffs need the protection of the restraining order as it would ‘trivialize the plight of true victims,’ in the process.” J.D., supra, 207 N.J. at 476 (internal citations omitted)(quoting Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243, 250 (App. Div. 1995)).

In New Jersey, in order for the family court to grant a FRO in a domestic violence matter involving harassment, the courts must not only decide that the predicate offense of harassment happened but it needs also to determine whether the plaintiff needs the protection of a final restraining order.

For more information about domestic violence matters in New Jersey please contact our office at (201) 880-5563, for an  in person or virtual appointment with one of our attorneys.

Contact Us

2 + 13 =

Service of Process through Facebook in New Jersey

Service of Process through Facebook in New Jersey

by | May 31, 2017 | Divorce

Service of Process through Facebook was allowed in the recent case of  K.I.A.  v. J.L. Docket No. C-157-15 (Ch. Div., April 11, 2016).  In this case, the court held that when service of process cannot be done by traditional means the rules of civil procedure allow an alternate form of service, like Facebook.  Rule 4:4-4(b)(3) permits a court to enter an order permitting service by means other than those provided by rule “consistent with due process.” This is the case of an adoptive parents filed a cause of action against the defendant to enjoin him from contacting their adoptive son, remove information about their son from social media and to contact their family. Defendant an out of State individual contacted plaintiffs’ child through Facebook, disclosed that he was the biological father and contacted the family. In their attempt to serve the summons and complaint to the defendant, plaintiffs’ made reasonable, good-faith attempt to effectuate personal service but were unsuccessful.  The plaintiffs made a request for the court to order substituted service of process via Facebook which was granted.

In allowing Service of Process through Facebook, court analyzed three factors to establish that service by Facebook is proper:

  • Can the defendant be served by conventional means, those specifically permitted by court rule?
  • Is the relief sought appropriate for service by publication?
  • Will service by Facebook still protect defendant’s due process rights? He has demonstrated his own Facebook

In issuing their decision, the court was satisfied that after diligent efforts, personal service could not be accomplished. Service by publication would not be efficient given the nature of the relief sought, an injunction to stop the defendant from contacting plaintiffs’ son. The court was further satisfied that the Facebook account of the defendant was his as it was that account that defendant employed to contact plaintiffs’ son and his due process were satisfied. Finally, defendant acknowledged receipt of the summons and complaint and therefore service was successful.

For more information about Service of Process matters in New Jersey please contact our office at (201) 880-5563, for an appointment with one of our attorneys.

Disclaimer: The contents of this website are of general nature and not intended to be a substitute for legal advice or the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. In order to be properly represented, please contact your local professional. In addition, the information given on this website has been composed by a New Jersey attorney practicing exclusively in New Jersey. None of the information contained herein should be deemed to apply in other states, nor should this website be construed as an attempt by the author to practice law in any state other than New Jersey.

Equitable Distribution

Equitable Distribution

by | May 24, 2017 | Divorce

New Jersey is an Equitable Distribution State. This means that marital assets will be divided in a manner that is considered fair but not necessarily equal for the parties. Below we have developed an outline to give a general overview on Equitable Distribution in New Jersey.

Equitable Distribution in New Jersey an Outline Overview.

  1. Subject to Equitable Distribution
    • Assets that  are Acquired During the Marriage
    • Assets acquired in contemplation of marriage
  2. Immune by Statute
    • Premarital – except an increase in active assets value due to efforts of non-owner.
    • Inheritances
    • Gifts from third parties
    • Specific Assets: Subject to Equitable Distribution
      1. Pensions and other retirement accounts that were acquired during the marriage.
      2. Real Estate as per I(a), (b).
      3. Automobiles, jewelry, inter-spousal gifts, house contents
      4. Stocks, bonds, etc.
      5. Insurance annuities and cash surrender value of life insurance policy
      6. Business and partnership interests
      7. Personal injury awards (medical expenses and lost wages only)
      8. Debts, obligations, tax liabilities
  3. Property not subject to Equitable Distribution 
    • Educational and professional degrees
    • Assets immune by statute
  4. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1: Determination of Equitable Distribution
    • Marriage length.
    • Age, the physical and emotional health of the parties.
    • Income or property brought to the marriage by each party.
    • Standard of living during the marriage.
    • Existence of written agreements made by the parties
    • Income and earning capacity of each party
    • The contribution by each party to the education, training or earning power of the other.
    • The contribution of each party to the acquisition, dissipation, preservation, depreciation or appreciation in the amount or value of the marital property
    • The contribution of the party as a homemaker.
    • Tax consequences of the proposed distribution to each party.
    • The present value of the property.
    • The need of a parent who has physical custody of a child to own or occupy the marital home.
    • The debts and liabilities of the parties.
    • The need for creation now, or in the future, of a trust fund to secure reasonably foreseeable medical or educational costs for a spouse or child.
    • Other factors which the court may deem relevant.

For more information about equitable distribution matters in New Jersey please contact our office at (201) 880-5563, for an in person or virtual appointment with one of our attorneys.

Contact Us

11 + 15 =

Child Support

by | Sep 4, 2014 | Divorce

Child Support  in New Jersey is complicated, often clients come in asking what child support is supposed to cover and not cover. The paying parent can sometimes feel that they pay and do not know where their money is going, while the receiving parents’ feels that the money they are receiving cannot possibly support a child on what they are receiving.

Sadly, both parties are legitimate in their concerns.  In an ideal world, parents can send bills to each other for all child related expenses and have those bills be paid. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and it is very rare that this type of arrangements work long term.

To tackle those questions, it is important to understand what the New Jersey Child Support Guidelines are and what was the purpose of them.

The New Jersey Child Support Guidelines were created to aid the New Jersey Courts in determining the amount of child support. These guidelines were created under the principle that parents spend a percentage of their combined income on raising their children.  In addition to the parents’ income, factors such as health insurance credits, government benefits to and for children, and amount of overnights with non-custodial parent will influence the amount of child support ordered.

These guidelines are meant to cover the basic expenses incurred in raising the child. These expenses include fixed costs such as shelter and shelter-related costs, non-fixed costs such as food, clothing, entertainment and miscellaneous expenses. Other expenses such as child care expenses, extracurricular activities, private school education and camps may be additional costs and are no included in the child support calculation.

The amount that is paid is not supposed to cover the entire rent, food, etc. for the child, but instead the amount is to be used as a contribution to the custodial parent’s expenses for that child.

If you need information regarding your specific case, you can access it at: http://www.njchildsupport.org/.

If you have a smart-phone, you also have an option to download an app for NJ child support:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nj-child-support-case-information/id736887039?mt=8

To establish a child support case, please contact our office at 201-880-5563 for an in person or virtual consultation with one of our experience attorneys. 

Contact Us

1 + 11 =

Relocation with your Children after Divorce in NJ

by | Jun 23, 2014 | Divorce

Relocating with your Children after Divorce in NJ Thinking of moving out of the state with your kids? If you and your children’s parent are not longer together, New Jersey is very strict regarding your rights to move across state lines with your mutual children. It is true that the United States Supreme Court has long recognized every citizen’s constitutionally protected right to travel. (See Jones v. Helms 452 U.S. 412 (1981)). However in New Jersey, parents also have a constitutionally protected right to visit with their children. These two fundamental principles become conflicted when a custodial parent wishes to relocate outside New Jersey. In order for the parent to be able to move, they have to either obtain the non-custodial parent’s written consent to move or they have to go through the courts. This has to be done prior to actually relocating, as the courts frown upon cases where a parent moved before consulting the non custodial parents. N.J.S.A. 9:2-2, prohibits the removal of children of divorced or separated parents from the State of New Jersey without Court authorization unless both parents consent to this move. There are also circumstances where the child is deemed old enough to consent to the move, however there is set determination as to what age that child has to be. When parents cannot both consent and the relocating parent is forced to make a motion or an application to the court, the court will be guided by the factors set out in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001). In Baures, the New Jersey Supreme Court attempted to set out standards and procedures that trial courts have use when determining whether the custodial parent may relocate with the children outside the state. The moving party has the burden to first show that there is a “good faith reason for the move and that the child will not suffer from it”. In doing so, the Baures court listed twelve factors that should be considered, which include but not limited to the age of the children, a reasonable visitation schedule that the non custodial parent may have, comparison of the schools, family support, etc. Finally, once the custodial party has met it’s burden, the burden of proof shifts to the non-custodial parent to demonstrate to the court why this relocation would not be inimical to the child’s best interests. If you are considering relocating or if you would more information on the procedure and process, please contact our offices at 201-880-5563.

Consciously Uncoupling The Friendly Divorces

by | Jun 18, 2014 | Divorce

As divorce attorneys we find that our clients tend to be drained by the whole process. When we discuss what is going to happen during the divorce proceeding they often find themselves perplexed by the acrimonious nature of the events that are about to happen.  We discuss child support, property settlement agreements, alimony, visitation, etc.  Is there a better way? I think there is and that is mediation.

Mediation is the process in which two parties come together and work an arrangement with a impartial third party.   When I suggest this to my clients I get the same question all the time. Can this work? My answer is a redundant yes.   Many times we have seen families burden economically and mentally by divorce. A marriage is a commitment of two agreeing adults. If the adults can come again to work to their disagreements and work something out then they can avoid the cost and the mental anguish that the process of divorce can cause.

Realistic speaking this is not for everyone.  There are times that couples differences overwhelm them and certainly this is where going through the divorce process is the better way. Mediation is for the couple that can work their differences and certainly and can consciously uncouple and remain civil to each other. Not everyone is going to get they want but certainly they can agree and control their personal situation.

 

For more information about mediation please contact our office at 201-880-5563 or visit us at www.ruizdoolanlaw.com for a consultation.