IMO, a correct decision to remand.
Albert Camus - "I feel like getting married, or committing suicide, or subscribing to L'Illustration. Something desperate, you know." Author and philsopher Albert Camus, who was the second youngest winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, receiving the award in 1957, argued passionately
against the institution of marriage, claiming it to be unnatural. Among other things, he claimed that marriage inevitably put the couple in the position of constantly vying for control.
That being said, an indespensable part of the Morris County Judge's analysis is fully fleshing out the second prong of Judge Fall's test in Silver;
i.e., whether an FRO was necessary to protect the alleged victim from... immediate danger or to prevent further abuse. The Act was not designed or intended to provide relief to an otherwise qualified party from the regular manipulation, hounding, complaining, nagging and power plays eminating from another qualified party, absent an analysis suffient to support a finding that this behavior has risen to the level of the kind of violence our Legislature wanted to provide a means of protection from.
The analysis has to be quite visable; akin to having to show your work when doing math problems in elementary school. For it is (now) said that being anal, versus being danferous, is very much in the eye of the beholder. We need adequate insight into that beholder's eyes in order to review whether the trial judge applied the law correctly, which is always subject to review.
I would also venture that the Appellate Panel made inquiry as to whether less aggressive measures could have solved the problem as entirely appropriate, and in implicit recognition that a finding under the Act is a severe measure to address a severe problem. In that vein, I respectfully venture that the Panel posed the possibility of exclusive possession of the marital home and PL support as a less severe and plausible remedy that might have or should have been explared in the analysis. The Division leaves us to do our own legal research on the issue, without citing to cases such as
Babushik v. Babushik, 157 N.J. Super. 128 (Ch. Div. 1978);
Degenaars v. Degenaars, 186 N.J. Super. 233 (Ch. Div. 1982);
N.B. v. T.B., 297 N.J. Super. 35 (App. Div. 1977);
Roberts v. Roberts, 106 N.J. Super. 108 (Ch. Div. 1969); and
S v. A, 118 N.J. Super. 69 (Ch. Div. 1972).
My immediate impressions in any event. Hope thisa helps.
-------------------------------------------
Curtis Romanowski Esq.
Senior Attorney - Proprietor
Brielle NJ
(732)603-8585
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-28-2013 08:27
From: Jenny Berse
Subject: Case - EB v. MN
I'm fascinated by this case and would like your thoughts!
-------------------------------------------
Jenny Berse Esq.
Cranford NJ
(855) FAM-LAW1
-------------------------------------------