In a case of first impression in New Jersey, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling, holding that paying for another’s companionship can be a form of “dating” that triggers statutory protections against domestic violence.
In J.S. v. J.F., Docket No. A-2552-08 (App. Div., December 10, 2009), the Appellate Division upheld an Essex County judge’s final restraining order against a men’s club patron who made terroristic threats against a dancer to whom he regularly gave money.
Rejecting the men’s club patron’s argument that New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 (the Act), did not apply because his relationship with the dancer was purely “professional”, the Appellate Division held that the claim that a relationship which includes a payment of consideration for the other’s time precludes the finding of a ‘dating’ relationship under the Act was unfounded:
Experience suggests that most claims of a dating relationship turn on what the particular parties would view as a ‘date,’ Accordingly, … courts should vigilantly guard against a slavish adherence to any formula that does not consider the parties’ own understanding of their relationship as colored by socio-economic and generational influences.
In addition, the appeals court declined to precisely follow the formula for defining a ‘dating’ relationship set forth several years ago in Andrews v. Rutherford , 363 N.J. Super. 252 (Ch. Div. 2003), in which the Chancery Judge said the following factors should be considered:
- Whether there a minimal social interpersonal bonding of the parties over and above a mere casual fraternization.
- How long the alleged dating activities continue prior to the acts of domestic violence alleged.
- The nature and frequency of the parties’ interactions.
- The parties’ ongoing expectations with respect to the relationship.
- Whether the parties demonstrated an affirmation of their relationship before others by statement or conduct.
- Any other reasons unique to the case that support or detract from a finding that a “dating relationship” existed.
The Appellate Division said that, while those guidelines are helpful, the principles underlying the Act “would not be served by a cramped interpretation of what constitutes a dating relationship. … [T]he facts should be liberally construed in favor of finding a dating relationship,… because the Act itself is to be liberally construed in favor of the legislative intent to eradicate domestic violence.”
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media