Police Officer Loses Weapons After Wife Refuses to Testify Against Him

J.C.H was a police officer and this matter arose under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 – 35. His wife, Grace, called 911 and when police arrived she indicated that she was injured in an altercation with J.C.H. when she tried to stop him from leaving the house after he took pills, drank a bottle of alcohol and put a gun to his own head and threatening to kill himself. Grace fell from the car she had climbed atop in an effort to prevent J.C.H. from leaving and was injured in the fall. Grace did not seek a temporary restraining order (TRO). According to the wife, there were 9 prior domestic violence incidents and threats to her life by J.C.H. with the assault as the predicate act under the PDVA in the instant case. As a result of the 911 call, 34 firearms were seized from J.C.H.’s residence. Grace refused to testify about the simple assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a)(1), and assault by auto, N.J.S.A. 2C:123-1(c)(1) and the charges were dismissed. J.C.H. was placed on administrative leave until he could undergo and pass a fitness-for-duty exam. The State sought forfeiture of J.C.H.’s firearms and firearms purchaser identification card, In the Matter of Weapons Seized Pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act from J.C.H. The fitness for duty examination determined that J.C.H. was unfit for duty. At the forfeiture hearing, the examining doctor indicated that the fitness for duty examination also determined that J.C.H. should not have access to guns. In 2013, J.C.H. had also been placed on administrative duty after Grace posted on social media about his alcohol, anger and emotional issues. On that occasion, J.C.H. had been found fit for duty and marriage counseling was suggested. The State presented evidence that J.C.H. is a habitual drunkard and unfit to possess weapons. J.C.H. presented expert testimony that alcohol and other issues could be present but that he was sober and had maintained the sobriety for nine months leading up to the hearing. The judge determined that, as J.C.H. was receiving psychiatric counseling, had maintained sobriety for nine months prior to the trial and had never consumed alcohol on duty, he could not be found unfit for duty under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c). Additionally, the judge determined that the State failed to prove that returning J.C.H.’s weapons would be a danger to the public. The State’s motion for forfeiture of J.C.H.’s firearms and firearms purchaser identification card was denied. The State appealed the forfeiture and the appellate division held that the seizure of weapons and firearms identification cards permitted under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21(d) supports the intent of the drafters of the PDVA, to protect victims of domestic violence. However, the State does carry the burden of proof to demonstrate that the forfeiture is legally permissible. State v. Cordoma, 372 N.J. Super. 524, 533 (App. Div. 2004). In light of the long and history of J.C.H.’s drinking in excess, the Appellate Division determined that a seven month span of sobriety was not enough to erase years of habitual drunkenness as described under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c). The appellate division determined that forfeiture of the weapons of J.C.H. was both appropriate and necessary in the within matter. If you are facing domestic violence charges, or are seeking a restraining order, call The Darling Law Firm, LLC now at 973-584-6200 to protect your rights. If you are interested in learning more about restraining orders or the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, visit DarlingFirm.com for additional information. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

No Reasonable Fear Means No FRO

K.M. v. M.D. involved a Final Restraining Order (“FRO”) sought by the Plaintiff after the Defendant, Plaintiff’s estranged Wife placed a GPS tracking device on his vehicle and showed up at his residence several times without his knowledge. The matter was heard in the Superior Curt of New Jersey, Essex County. After testimony was presented, the trial judge determined that the placing of a GPS device on the Plaintiff’s vehicle did constitute the predicate criminal act of stalking N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10. Under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Ace (“PVDA”), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a), in order to establish a claim under the act, the alleged actor must have committed one of certain enumerated acts, stalking being one of said qualifying acts. Additionally, in order to give rise to a final restraining order, the Plaintiff must demonstrate an actual fear and that the order is necessary to prevent harm to the Plaintiff at the hands of the Defendant. Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006). The parties had a 10 year marriage, during which one child was born and which ended in a contentious divorce. The Defendant admitted placing the GPS device on the husband’s vehicle but indicated that it was only for the purpose of knowing her daughter’s whereabouts during parenting time with the Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff recounted multiple specific incidents in which the Wife would send photos of his car in specific locations minutes after he left the locations, would call others asking what the Plaintiff and child had been doing there, send text messages admonishing him regarding his whereabouts and the like. Plaintiff indicated that the messages were alarming and he went to his wireless provider and phone manufacturer to determine whether there was something in his phone that was enabling the Defendant to track him. Plaintiff testified that the Wife’s behavior was impacting his life, relationship with his children and his sleep and he also testified to prior acts of physical violence by the Defendant. The Defendant indicated that a hurricane force wind cause the Plaintiff’s truck door to slam on his foot and that she had no involvement in the incident. Defendant further indicated that the Plaintiff had previously driven his vehicle, with their daughter as a passenger, after he had consumed alcoholic beverages. The trial judge held that significant evidence was missing including any of the alleged alarming texts from the Defendant to Plaintiff and any medical testimony indicating his sleep was impacted by the Defendant’s behavior. After hearing testimony from both parties, the trial judge determined that although the Defendant had clearly been stalking the Plaintiff, there was no history of domestic violence between the parties and a final restraining order was not needed for the Plaintiff’s safety. The trial judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for a final restraining order and the underlying temporary restraining order (“TRO”) was dissolved. The Plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the court below. If you are facing or seeking a final restraining order, call The Darling Law Firm, LLC at 973-584-6200 to obtain the results you seek. For more information about restraining orders, divorce or other family law matters, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

FRO Issues After Terroristic Threats In Courthouse

A.M.C. v. A.M.A. involved a Final Restraining Order (FRO) between unmarried parties with a 13 year old son in common. As the parties had a relationship at one time, the matter fell within the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PVDA) (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35). There was a substantial amount of litigation between the parties and a court proceeding in that matter took place wherein it was decided that the parties would participate in reunification therapy for the child and Defendant to rebuild their relationship. Immediately thereafter, the Defendant is reported to have shouted vindictive statements at the Plaintiff and threatened that he would kill her. The Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) which was granted that day. The TRO complaint alleged harassment (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4) and terroristic threats (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3). On March 15, 2018, a FRO was entered by the Family Part judge after testimony was presented by both parties including testimony about past physical abuse and verbal abuse by Defendant against Plaintiff. The Family Part judge found the Plaintiff to be credible in her testimony and refused to accept the Defendant’s proffer that the Plaintiff only filed the domestic violence complaint to gain an advantage in the ongoing custody battle. The Defendant also included that the parties live an hour apart and the Plaintiff has sole custody of the child as a reason that a FRO was unnecessary but the court felt that the Plaintiff had a reasonable fear of the Defendant. It was on the grounds of distance and the fact that the parties have no ongoing relationship that the Defendant appealed. The Appellate Division looked to the two-part analysis required under the PVDA pursuant to Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006). First, the Plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that at least one of the predicate acts set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a) has occurred. In this case, the act was harassment. Second, the court must find that a restraining order is necessary to protect the victim based on the factors included in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1) to – 29(a)(6). The Appellate Division determined that, although the parties were separated by some distance, they would be interacting as a result of the reunification therapy and protection was reasonable. The Appellate Division affirmed. If you are in fear and seeking a restraining order or defending against one, you should speak to an experienced attorney to determine what your rights are under the PVDA and whether you are likely to succeed in your case. To learn more about restraining orders visit DarlingFirm.com or for representation now, call us at 973-584-6200 to schedule a consultation. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Final Restraining Order Issues Upon Multiple Acts of Harassment

C.L.H. v. T.F.H. is about Defendant’s appeal of a final restraining order (FRO) entered against him upon his estranged wife’s request that the Court enter and order for same under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. Defendant appealed on four points: (1) Ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) allegations of trial court error in allowing “authentication” of a perceived no contact order; (3) a conflict between testimony and the checked “No previous acts of Domestic Violence” section; and (4) lack of evidence regarding intent or predicate acts. Under the PDVA, Plaintiff was entitled to protections, as long as the other criteria were met, based on her marriage to the Defendant. The remaining criteria, set forth in Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006), were also satisfied. First, the evidence demonstrated, by the requisite preponderance of the evidence standard, three acts that constituted harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c), a predicate act under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a). Specifically, (1) the Defendant entered Plaintiff’s car while she was in church and removed an item; (2) the Defendant sent Plaintiff a text asking when she would return from a trip that he had never been notified she was taking; and (3) discovered and drove to the location Plaintiff was staying to see whether she was there. During questioning in this regard, the trial judge found the Defendant’s explanations to amount to admissions of guilt committed with the clear intent to harass the Plaintiff. With regard to the second prong of Silver, the trial judge determined that, in light of confrontations between the parties, the Plaintiff’s fear of the Defendant was reasonable and a FRO was required to protect the Plaintiff from the Defendant. The Appellate Division determined the trial judge exercised sound discretion in rendering the opinion below and affirmed, also noting that ineffective assistance of counsel is inapplicable to the matter at hand. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Final Restraining Order (FRO) Cannot Be Granted Without Factual Findings

L.S. sought a final restraining order against J.P. under the Protection of Domestic Violence Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -34). L.S. and J.P. were both married to others but had an affair with each other for approximately 1 year before their spouses became aware. L.S. attempted to terminate the relationship in approximately May 2013 and J.P. continued to contact her. L.S. sought a final restraining order (FRO) against J.P. The FRO was granted in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County. In L.S. v. J.P., J.P. appealed focusing on the court's finding that he had committed the act of harassment (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4). J.P. maintained that the relationship continued, in a pattern of arguments and reconciliations, up until the time L.S. filed the charges against him. The court below focused only on the messages from L.S. to J.P. did not make findings regarding messages J.P sent to L.S. The court below made no findings about the credibility of the parties. Most importantly for J.P., the court failed to make the required finding that J.P. intended to harass or annoy L.S. In Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112, 127 (App. Div. 2006), the court set forth a two step inquiry. First it must be established by the Plaintiff that a predicate act of domestic violence occurred against a person protected by the act. Thereafter, it must be determined that a restraining order is necessary to protect the victim from immediate danger or further abuse. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for factual findings supporting the decision. If you are charged with domestic violence or you are seeking a final restraining order against an abuser, there are specific burdens of proof for both parties in proving or disproving the charges making it critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to represent you in such matters. For more information regarding domestic violence, restraining orders, assault, battery and other criminal law issues in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Domestic Violence And Living Together After Divorce Is Filed

Domestic violence can sometimes occur at the end of a marriage when parties continue to share a residence while tensions are very high over custody of the children and division of property. In one such matter, while a 25 year marriage of which 2 children were born was ending in divorce, the parties continued to reside together in martial residence. The parties maintained separate bedrooms but this did not provide adequate distance to prevent frequent interaction and the continuation of tension between them. At some point an altercation occurred and both parties were granted temporary restraining orders (TROs) against the other party. Each party then sought a final restraining order (FRO) against the other. Each party entered into the bedroom of the other during the event and both parties sustained physical injuries. Both parties also and provided ample testimony, including the testimony of the parties' son, in regard to the events and issues. Although the just found Plaintiff's testimony not to be credible, neither party was granted a FRO. The judge found that, in spite of the testimony and proof of injuries, there was no proof of harassment or assault of the level needed to give rise to protection afforded by a FRO. A final restraining order can impact your ability to see your children, prevent you from returning to your residence, deprive you of your right to own weapons, impact your job or ability to obtain employment and holds a social stigma. If you are facing or levying domestic violence charges, you should consult with an experienced domestic violence attorney. For more information regarding domestic violence, assault, divorce or dissolution, custody, parenting time and visitation, adoption or other criminal or family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Domestic Violence Charges Not A Right To Counsel in NJ

The NJ Appellate Division recently held, in D.N. v. K.M./K.M. v. D.N, that neither plaintiffs nor defendants in a domestic violence matter who cannot afford counsel are entitled to the representation of counsel at the expense of the state. The Appellate Division rendered this ruling even though one significant consequence of domestic violence is the immediate loss of weapons with the potential of permanent loss of weapons and the inability to purchase, possess or carry weapons in the future in the event of a guilty finding. In spite of legislation and a lean toward the removal of guns from the hands of the people, the right to keep and bear arms remains a constitutional right at this time. The Appellate Division offered the reasoning that, unlike other criminal actions, domestic violence is a matter of the victim against the defendant rather than the full force of the state of New Jersey against the defendant. The court further reasoned that domestic violence laws are curative in nature and designed to stop further acts of domestic violence. However, before the court can make a finding of domestic violence, it must find that an offense such as harassment, stalking or assault occurred. If you are facing domestic violence charges, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on assault, harassment, stalking, terroristic threats, child custody, domestic violence, parenting time/visitation, dissolution of a civil union, marriage or domestic partnership, alimony, palimony or other family and criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Trial Court Must Set Forth Basis of Need For Final Restraining Order in NJ

Restraining orders began as a resource to provide necessary protection for battered women and children. Since their inception, the nature of the call for domestic violence orders have changed. Sadly, domestic violence orders are used in the NJ Courts to the benefit of the accusing party as leverage in matrimonial actions. As a result of the misuse of restraining orders, Judges are required to set forth specific findings of fact regarding the events giving rise to the allegations, surrounding circumstances, any past domestic issues issues of the parties or one of them and the totality of the circumstances of the parties. Each domestic violence dispute involves a very specific fact pattern which should be fully set forth in Court prior to the Judge making a decision in the matter. In the event a defendant is unable to properly articulate a response to allegations, the Court should make every effort to obtain from the defendant a specific and accurate response as to allegations. In no event should a Judge simply interpret ambiguous statements of either party without further inquiry. If you are involved in a domestic violence matter, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on domestic violence, criminal law or family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Court Fails to Consider Intent of Domestic Violence Statutes

Under the New Jersey domestic violence statutes, the non-abusive spouse is to receive custody of the children barring extenuating circumstances. New Jersey Statute 2C:25-29b(11) includes a presumption that the best interests of the children are served by an award of custody to the non-abusive parent. Additionally, exclusive possession of the marital residence is granted to the non-abusive party and the best interests of the children are further served by remaining in the home they are accustomed to. In the recent case, J.D. v. M.A.D., the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the decision of the trial court which continued the parties agreement granting the abusive defendant temporary custody of the parties' children and possession of the martial home. The trial court erroneously held that defendant should continue as the primary caregiver of to the parties children. The trial court failed to properly consider that Defendant became the primary caregiver and obtained sole custody of the marital residence after excluding wife therefrom following multiple episodes of domestic violence when he discovered she was having an affair. The basis of the Appellate Division's reversal was the intent of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act to protect victims of domestic violence. The N.J. Appellate Division also pointed to the correlation between domestic violence and child abuse in reversing the decision regarding who was to be primary caregiver. If you are facing a custody dispute as a result of a domestic violence matter, you should consult an experienced family law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on child custody, domestic violence, paternity, child support, parenting time/visitation, adoption, dissolution of a civil union, marriage or domestic partnership, modifications, alimony, palimony or other family law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Warrantless Search Without Danger Exceeds Community Caretaking Role of Police in NJ

Following receipt of an anonymous call about domestic violence, the police appeared at a New Jersey residence to determine whether there was danger to anyone. Upon arrival, police were met at the entrance to the apartments by the alleged victim. The alleged victim advised the police there were no problems at the residence and she was not in danger. The police found the circumstances to be curious, especially the fact that the alleged victim was at the door waiting for them, rather than inside with the other occupants. In order to determine whether the alleged victim was truly safe, the police insisted upon gaining entry into the apartment and were admitted into defendant's apartment by the parties' 11 year old child. Upon entry into the apartment, the police saw no signs of danger or unrest and no weapons were observed in plain view. At that time, rather than accepting that there was no actual danger present, the police violated defendant's rights by undertaking a warrantless search of the premises. The illegal search revealed a handgun under a pillow near the defendant and he was charged with a weapons offense. Only in the case of an emergency requiring immediate action by the police is a warrantless search permissible. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that this was an illegal search in violation of defendant's rights to enjoy the protections of the constitution relating to a person's home as offering a reasonable expectation of privacy from intrusion. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you face criminal charges and believe that evidence against you was illegally obtained by police, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on search and seizure, illegal search, warrantless search, domestic violence, anonymous tips or other criminal law matters, including municipal court matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.