Manalapan, NJ Family Law & Divorce Law Blog

In a Decision –  JR v BA (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division determined that other than when a Defendant cannot be served, there is no provision for an Indefinite Restraining Order.

The Appellate Division referenced to the Domestic Violence Procedures Manual. There is no provision in the Act that provides for the issuance of an "indefinite TRO." An "indefinite TRO" is regarded as one that has not been served upon a defendant named in a domestic violence complaint. This subsection states that when it is unlikely the defendant will be served within a reasonable period of time, the court can issue an indefinite TRO that continues the relief requested by the plaintiff and that a final hearing will be scheduled when the defendant is served.
Read more . . .

When parties were never married to each other. The non-dissolution or FD docket provides a mechanism for parents who never were married to each other to obtain relief from the court on matters pertaining to custody, parenting time, paternity, and child support.

In a Decision –  JD v VD (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Trial Court determined that Husband’s Masturbation under the sheets did not constitute Domestic Violence.

The Trial Court determined that Wife’s claim that Husband was masturbating under the covers while upsetting to Wife did not rise to the level of domestic violence because Husband was not doing it with a purpose to harass Wife.

In a Decision –  JD v VD (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division determined that threatened harm did not constitute Domestic Violence.

The Appellate Division referenced to a previous Decision and stated/restated that even if Wife purposely harmed the child by acting violently towards the child on one occasion, this would be inadequate to establish the requisite element of purpose to harass Husband because it is not enough that Husband felt emotionally abused. The statute requires that Wife be found to have injured the child in order to harass Husband.

In a Decision –  Keller v Keller (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division determined that and ‘In-House’ Attorney who had his Income Halved should have had his Alimony Reduced.

Husband had been employed by Lucent as General Counsel with an average salary of  $582,000.00. Husband then obtained full time employment with Pfizer earning a base salary of $250,000 and a target bonus of 25% . Husband contended that the permanent and substantial decrease in his income was involuntary and constituted changed circumstances.
Read more . . .

In a Decision –  JD v VD (an "Unreported Decision") >>   the Court Held:

The Appellate Division addressed that Parenting Disputes and Domestic Violence.

Following the adoption of a special-needs child, the parties clashed over their conflicting parenting styles, which, in part, led to the deterioration of their marriage. Wife filed for a restraining order pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) alleging that Husband committed an act of domestic violence, specifically harassment. The Appellate Court noted that the trial court painstakingly parsed through the series of incidents to identify only those that manifested appellant’s purpose to harass respondent, rather than simply a divergence in parenting styles.

In a Decision –  Read more . . .