Alice -
<x-tab> </x-tab>N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9 (Contempt) says only that "A person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if he purposely or knowingly disobeys a judicial order or protective order..."
<x-tab> </x-tab>There's separate sub-parts (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9 (b) and (2)) that applies to violations of DV orders - "b. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if that person purposely or knowingly violates any provision in an order entered under the provisions of the "Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991" (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17) ...
<x-tab> </x-tab>(2) In all other cases a person is guilty of a disorderly persons offense if that person purposely or knowingly violates an order entered under the provisions of the "Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991,"...
<x-tab> </x-tab>Anyone who "purposely or knowingly" violates a court order of any kind is subject to the more general provision (without citing to (b) or (2)) -- that's why we worded it that way. I've seen people charged with Willful Nonsupport, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-5 and N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9 (Contempt) for willfully violating a support order under an FM or FD docket.
<x-tab> </x-tab>The Judge must have been thinking along the same lines you were. I wish he'd reached out so it could've been clarified. The point of putting the almost superfluous provision saying it "may" be prosecuted was to underline the seriousness of the civil restraints (obviously, it "may" always be so prosecuted, whether it's in there or not). My client (and I) are convinced that seeing that language stricken out emboldened the guy to wantonly violate it before the ink was even dry.
<x-tab> </x-tab>Thanks.
David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro ----------------------------------------------------
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
At 01:10 PM 3/30/2017, you wrote:
David the Judge was correct. You can make the violation of a civil restraints a predicate act for a new DV complaint but since it is civil in... -posted to the "Family Law Section" community
David
the Judge was correct. You can make the violation of a civil restraints a predicate act for a new DV complaint but since it is civil in nature you cannot make it criminal contempt. only violation of a TRo or FRO is criminal contempt. File a new DV and this time, get the FRO since now you have a very strong second prong under Silver v. Silver that he won't stop and she is in danger.
Alice M. Plastoris, Esq.
Law Office of Alice M. Plastoris, Esq.
82 Speedwell Avenue, 2nd Floor
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone No. (973) 538-7070
Fax No. (973) 538-7088
Email: [email protected]
***EMAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*** The information contained in this electronic message may contain attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the owner of the email address listed as the recipient of this message. If you are not the intended recipient of this email message, you are hereby notified that any disclosure dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, plesae notify the sender by return email, and by telephone at (973) 538-7070.
Reply to Group Online Reply to Group via Email Reply to Sender Online View Thread Recommend Forward I represent the plaintiff in a DV matter. Serious allegations of physical violence. She wanted to pursue civil restraints as he promised he'd go to therapy (etc).
We drafted an FD consent order that contained a provision (after argument between counsel) that warned "any violation of the terms of this order may constitute Contempt of a Court Order pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9 and may be prosecuted." There was much back-and-forth between counsel (original version had "shall" in it) The judge (filling in from civil, not a Family Part regular) crossed the paragraph out, saying "it's civil - not appropriate to reference a criminal statute. Naturally, less than 48 hours later, the guy violates it (comes into the house, gets angry that the locks were changed, etc). Statements he made make it apparent that he was emboldened by the judge crossing out this portion of the order.
Aside from potentially filing a new DV complaint, we're considering an enforcement motion. I'd like to ask the court to reconsider its modification of the consent order. I believe a consent order needs to either be accepted or rejected, not modified by a court (especially when, as here, the excised portion was a very material provision). Has anyone had this happen? I know you can't appeal (which I assume includes seeking reconsideration of) a consent order, but is it still a consent order if a judge changes its terms?
Thanks,
David Perry Davis, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------
www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
----------------------------------------------------
112 West Franklin Avenue
Pennington, NJ 08534
Voice: 609-737-2222
Fax: 609-737-3222
You are subscribed to "Family Law" as [email protected]. To change your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe.