A recent New Jersey Superior Court case addressed the rights of a sibling who claimed that her brother had turned their mother against her. The plaintiff-sister (“Barbara”) filed a lawsuit against the brother (“Robert”), claiming that Robert had “alienated their mother’s affections” for Barbara. Their mother was ninety-two and living with a live-in aide (who was also named as a defendant). Barbara claimed that her relationship with her mother had been tarnished by “false statements and wrongful interference” by Robert. Barbara sought an order that would restrain Robert and the caregiver from attempting to prevent Barbara from visiting their mother.
Robert filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Barbara’s claims did not constitute valid causes of action. He claimed that the Heart Balm Act, which abolished “rights of action . . . for the alienation of affections,” barred her claims.
As an initial matter, the court found that Barbara’s claims “seek to alter the sphere of influence” around the mother, and that the relief sought by Barbara could impact the mother’s own wants and desires. The parties’ mother was not named in the lawsuit, and had not been shown to be incapacitated. Therefore, the judge found that the mother was a necessary party to the lawsuit, and required that she be added as a party.
As to Robert’s motion to dismiss, the court concluded that, because Barbara’s claims were “novel and uncertain,” the motion to dismiss would be denied. With regard to Robert’s argument that the Heart Balm Act barred Barbara’s claims, the court found that Act did not expressly bar the claims, because courts had interpreted the Act as only applying to claims regarding marriage. Nevertheless, the judge went on to note that alienation of affection claims had not been addressed by New Jersey courts since 1935, and it was unclear whether the Heart Balm Act should be extended to claims such as this. In sum, although questioning whether the courts should become “so involved in personal familial matters,” the judge concluded that Barbara’s claims should survive the initial motion to dismiss.
A copy of the Superior Court, Chancery Division decision in Slanovec v. Carroll can be found here.