The New Jersey Law Revision Commission has agreed to collaborate with the New Jersey State Bar Association to study the issue of withholding a get in a religious divorce. In a public meeting last week, the commissioners heard from past Chair of the Family Law Section, Sheryl L. Seiden, on recent case law relative to gets and the impact on withholding a get from a woman seeking a divorce in the Jewish faith.
Last October, the Association requested that the NJLRC review the issue in light of two recent matters involving the withholding of gets. In Satz v. Satz, the Appellate Division held that where there was language in the marital settlement agreement that the parties agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the beis din (“Jewish court”) and accept its judgment, the civil court had jurisdiction over the husband to issue sanctions if the husband did not cooperate with the decision of the beis din.
Less than a month after the Satz decision, in S.B.B. v. L.B.B., the Appellate Division reversed the issuance of a final restraining order resulting from the husband’s complaint of harassment. The wife created and disseminated a video asking Jewish community members to “press” her husband to deliver a get after he refused to do so. In S.B.B., the Appellate Division held that such speech was protected under the First Amendment, which “protects the right to coerce action by ‘threats of vilification or social ostracism.’”
At its meeting last week, commissioners discussed the issue and the potential Constitutional issues. The NJLRC agreed to collaborate with the NJSBA to explore the issue further to ascertain whether it should recommend amendments to New Jersey statutes to address the issue of withholding gets.
A full copy of the NJLRC’s memo outlining the issue may be found here.
NJSBA Signals Crisis of Expungement of Criminal Records, Urges Clarification
In a letter to the Administrative Office of the Courts and to the Attorney General’s Office, the NJSBA outlined an expungement process “plagued by delays” and urged efforts to clarify the process. It identified areas of concern rooted in lack of uniformity, backlogs, unnecessary secondary reviews, and other issues.
“Members of the NJSBA are concerned about a genuine crisis with the expungement of criminal records, particularly the swift expungement of records that was anticipated as part of cannabis reform,” said NJSBA President Timothy F. McGoughran. He pointed out that the problematic expungement process “has negatively affected employment, housing and a host of other potential opportunities and benefits for those the new law was meant to assist.”
Numerous examples of inconsistencies regarding the application and interpretation of the new expungement statute are evident across counties, said the NJSBA. Those examples include various interpretations of convictions eligible for expungement; differing requirements for meeting the new statutory standard in different counties when considering an expungement of a third- or fourth-degree controlled dangerous substance conviction; and inconsistencies and outdated proof requirements that exist in some counties.
Clean Slate Expungements also require clear guidance as counties treat differently those cases where a person has an indictable offense along with multiple disorderly persons offenses and municipal ordinance violations. The payment of fines has also been treated differently county by county, with some counties converting the fines to a civil judgment and others requiring testimony that nonpayment was not willful. The latter poses an unnecessary burden to the applicant and is not required under the statute.
The NJSBA also identified as an issue the “enormous backlog” in processing expungement petitions. The statute requires a hearing date no more than 60 days after the filing of a petition. Some counties are processing expungements in a timely manner, while others face delays of up to 24 months due to lack of sufficient resources to comply with the statute.
The timeframe for the New Jersey State Police to process expungement orders and seal an individual’s criminal record can take up to two years after an order is granted. While there is a class action lawsuit filed by the Office of the Public Defender, the NJSBA has recommendations to eliminate some of this delay by providing the state police’s attorneys access to the state’s online expungement portal.
The Association learned that the NJSP conducts a secondary review of expungement petitions after the receipt of a signed court order granting the petition before sealing the record. The NJSBA questioned this practice as the current statute does not allow for a secondary level of review by the NJSP.
The Association also noted that the immigration courts and immigration agencies do not recognize or extend comity to state expungements for foreign nationals, where such pleas equates to a conviction unless there is explicit language to the contrary. Foreign nationals who have had their records expunged must apply to the Superior Court to vacate the expungement in order to obtain records in support of immigration relief, causing delays and significant expense to foreign nationals.
A full copy of the NJSBA’s letter may be found at njsba.com.
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.