NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only

  • 1.  Family Law: DV FRO

    Posted 10-25-2016 12:38 PM

    Well, it may seem like an obvious outcome, but the case shows that Silver was often treated as a substantive prong of the DV statute, and it never should have gotten this far, especially on extreme facts.

    This has been the pattern in DV FRO cases for many years: the appellate courts expand the defenses, then they contract them. They expand the protective cloak over plaintiffs, then they restrict it.

    Very frustrating for those working in the trench.

    Hanan


    hanan.gif

    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.

     

    t 609.683.7400   f 609.921.8982

    e [email protected]   w www.hananisaacs.com

    4499 Route 27, Kingston NJ





  • 2.  RE: Family Law: DV FRO

    Posted 10-25-2016 01:44 PM

                  Im not sure that I agree with you about your interpretation of the appellate division's actions in this case.

                   My read on the decision is that the appellate division simply said that it made no sense for the trial judge to summarily conclude that the matter did not meet the 2nd prong of Silver when the trial judge acknowledged that husband had  physically assaulted  wife on 2 separate  occasions in a  3 week period of time ( with photographs admitted into evidence depicted the bruises to her arm); threatened wife with physical violence on at least 2 occasions; and because of her fear of her husband, she fled  to a women's shelter to hide from him.

                  What the appellate division really said in its decision, was:

                      WHAT.............. ARE YOU KIDDING US? How is it possible that this type of                             physically violent  behavior directed at the spouse  does not satisfy the 2nd                           prong of Silver? 

               

    ------------------------------
    Richard Diamond
    Managing Partner
    Diamond & Diamond P.A.
    Millburn, New Jersey
    973-379-9292
    [email protected]

    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Family Law: DV FRO

    Posted 10-25-2016 03:02 PM

    I agree!

     




    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Family Law: DV FRO

    Posted 10-25-2016 02:04 PM

    Richard

    The new opinion was deemed publication-worthy for a reason. I think the reason is that some trial judges misinterpreted Silver as a substantive addition to the statute, and this case went too far.

    If the opinion simply restated existing law, why publish it?

    Hanan


    hanan.gif

    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.

     

    t 609.683.7400   f 609.921.8982

    e [email protected]   w www.hananisaacs.com

    4499 Route 27, Kingston NJ






    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Family Law: DV FRO

    Posted 10-25-2016 04:22 PM
    Seeing from the facts that the guy is a cop, my gut says the judge didn't want to end the defendant's career and was thus reaching for a reason to deny a FRO without failing to acknowledge that abuse occurred. It doesn't seem like any kind of watershed case, more of an "of course" reversal - when, as here, there's physical violence involving grabbing someone by the throat so as to leave marks, I've never seen a judge invoke Silver and deny a FRO. It's when it was harassment and a far less frightening shove (etc) that I've seen Silver come into play.

    As has been said before, the ancillary effects of a DV order are self-defeating. Here, a career will end. If they had kids, it would have removed the ability to pay a certain level of support. In other cases we've probably all seen, victims won't press forward because they "don't want to ruin his/her life, I just want to be left alone." A real psycho won't even be slowed down as consequences aren't thought of / don't matter. The law needs some changes.


    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>



    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Family Law: DV FRO

    Posted 10-25-2016 04:45 PM

    Folks,

      This has been a very lively and interesting discussion.

      My big takeaway is this: don't confuse substance with procedure. Silver states that the dual test should be completed, but the case doesn't require or presuppose any specific substantive outcome. A.M.C. v. P.B. tells me that the trial judge misread or misapplied Silver, which occurs more often than it should.

    Best,

    Ed

     

    * * *

    Edward J. Zohn, Attorney at Law

    Zohn & Zohn, LLP; 7 Mount Bethel Road, Warren NJ 07059

    908.791.0312 voice; 908.660.4866 fax

    "Leges sine moribus vanae" (Laws without morals are useless) - U. of Penna. Motto

    www.zohnlaw.com

     




    Original Message