Sometimes, in family law, when you hear the words ‘Restraining Order,’ it is easy to assume that there was an issue of family violence between spouses, or people in a dating relationship. But it is important to remember that the statute is much broader than this, and includes anyone in a familial relationship as well. The case out of New Jersey called ‘R.G. v R.G.’ deals with the issue of domestic violence between brothers, and the role of New Jersey restraining orders between siblings and other members of the family, outside of a romantic or dating relationship.
Essentially, the argument stemmed from disagreements on how to care for the brother’s elderly parents, particularly after their mother suffered an illness and required more extensive care than could be provided by the children. Nasty emails, text message exchanges and heated conversations culminated into a physical altercation while both men were at the parents’ care home, wherein the defendant physically threatened his brother, and ended up pushing his brother at least 6 times, resulting in two falls and his glasses falling off. The police were called, and the defendant was charged with simple assault. During the initial hearing for a restraining order, the Plaintiff admitted that he believed an order was necessary, and that he had fear for the safety and well-being of himself and his family. He also admitted that, aside from this incident, the brothers did not have any history of domestic violence, although the defendant’s son had also successfully obtained a restraining order against his own father two years earlier. In light of the evidence, the trial court entered a restraining order against defendant, who of course, appealed.
To appeal a trial court’s entry of a restraining order in NJ is not easy, as the appellate court gives great deference to the trial courts findings of fact and conclusions of law. The complaints defendant presented to the court was first, a jurisdictional challenge, stating that the plaintiff did not meet the statutory definition of a victim of domestic violence. Luckily for the plaintiff, the statute had been amended prior to the incident in question, which significantly expanded the definition of a victim under the statute. Previously, the requirement was that the relationship needed to be between current or former members of the same household. The statute was amended to protect anyone over the age of 18 who has been subjected to domestic violence by “any other person who is a present household member or was at any time a household member.” (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d). The court did not spend much time on this argument, finding that the statute intended to include victims just like plaintiff in this case. Continue reading