Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; March 13, 1998; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
The court addresses whether a final restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act must be dissolved at the plaintiff's request. It concludes that dissolution is not mandatory but discretionary, requiring a showing of good cause and an independent judicial assessment of the case's facts.
In the factual background, a hearing was held on November 6, 1997, regarding the plaintiff's claims against the defendant for multiple violations of the Act, which included attempted criminal homicide and aggravated assault stemming from a violent attack on October 29-30, 1997. The plaintiff provided compelling evidence of severe physical abuse, including testimony and photographic exhibits that illustrated her critical injuries. During the attack, the defendant displayed extreme violence, resulting in the plaintiff suffering multiple serious injuries, including a fractured skull, broken ribs, and a punctured lung, necessitating emergency medical evacuation to a trauma center. The court noted the brutal nature of the defendant's actions, which included prolonged physical assault and threats to the plaintiff’s life.
The plaintiff was hospitalized for several days due to severe injuries inflicted by the defendant, including significant facial trauma and a punctured lung. During the November 6, 1997 hearing, the court observed her injuries and reviewed photographic evidence submitted by her counsel, which illustrated the extent of her physical suffering. The plaintiff testified about her fear of the defendant, citing a history of domestic violence and expressing concern that he might take their ten-year-old son. The defendant did not testify, and no evidence was presented to contradict the plaintiff's claims. The court issued a final restraining order against the defendant, prohibiting further violence and any contact with the plaintiff, and requiring him to undergo evaluations for substance abuse and psychological issues. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to pay $2,400 in attorneys’ fees and provide child and spousal support. A subsequent modification set a payment schedule for the attorney's fees. At a later hearing, violations of the restraining order by the defendant were revealed, including unsupervised visitation and attempts to contact the plaintiff. The plaintiff later requested the dissolution of the restraining order, indicating a desire for the defendant to participate in their child's life, but only if he refrained from future violence.
The final restraining order allows only supervised visitation for the defendant, pending a comprehensive risk assessment and future court orders. The court received multiple evaluation reports, including psychological and substance abuse assessments of the defendant, which were shared with both parties' counsel by mutual agreement. Plaintiff confirmed she reviewed these reports, which detail serious allegations against the defendant, including physical abuse resulting in severe injuries to the plaintiff, such as a fractured skull, broken ribs, and a collapsed lung. The defendant is facing charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and terroristic threats.
Dr. Stuart Kurlansik conducted an extensive psychological evaluation of the defendant, consisting of two sessions one week apart. The defendant admitted to severely assaulting his wife, acknowledging prior conflicts that escalated in severity. He attributed his violent behavior to alcohol consumption, claiming past incidents did not require hospitalization for the plaintiff. Despite admitting to previous physical altercations, he denied any adult arrests for fighting, although he disclosed a history of juvenile incarceration for assault and robbery. The defendant's marriage, which began on December 28, 1986, has experienced multiple separations, the latest occurring on October 29, 1997. He reported no involvement from child protective services in his family of origin and mentioned leaving home at age twelve.
Robert Stevenson reported a troubled past, including running away to California, arrest for attempted robbery, and subsequent incarceration at Glen Mills for fighting. He claimed to have requested placement there for his own benefit and left when he turned seventeen. Stevenson acknowledged having a short temper, which he believes has improved, and described himself as a casual drinker, consuming alcohol approximately twice monthly, with episodes of heavier drinking, such as potentially consuming an entire bottle of wine. He admitted to being inebriated during his recent criminal actions but stated his intention to abstain from drinking.
A psychological assessment using the Millón Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, III, indicated mild to moderate psychological dysfunction, suggesting diagnoses of Generalized Anxiety Disorder and various personality traits including Antisocial, Passive-Aggressive, Avoidant, and Sadistic characteristics. The assessment highlighted potential issues with empathy and impulsivity, recommending psychotherapy to address anger management, anxiety, and alcohol use.
In a substance abuse evaluation conducted by Ms. Thurman, Stevenson presented himself as a modest drinker, denying drug use, but admitted to drinking heavily on the day of a domestic violence incident. He downplayed the connection between his alcohol consumption and his behavior during the incident, attributing it to discovering his wife allegedly attempting to buy drugs. His guarded demeanor raised suspicions about the accuracy of his self-reported drinking habits. The evaluators concluded he likely consumes more alcohol than he admits and would benefit from outpatient counseling to address his drinking and family issues.
The client has acknowledged being under the influence during a domestic altercation, raising concerns about the extent of his alcohol use and its impact on family issues. Mr. Stevenson’s vague responses about his treatment at Starting Point suggest he may already be receiving substance abuse therapy, and it is recommended he submit documentation of his treatment to the Court. If he is not currently in treatment, it is advised that he be mandated to undergo a minimum of five months of substance abuse treatment at Camden County Division of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse.
During a risk assessment conference, the plaintiff expressed worries regarding the defendant's desire for control, fearing he might abduct their son, potentially to Arizona. She recounted that he has previously discussed leaving for Arizona and has made multiple trips there. The defendant has allegedly threatened to do "anything and everything" to gain custody of their son, leading the plaintiff to request continued supervised visitation.
The defendant faces several criminal charges from a violent incident against his wife, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, burglary, criminal mischief, threats of violence, and criminal restraint. He is currently out on $75,000 cash bail and awaiting further criminal proceedings.
New Jersey law emphasizes that courts must prioritize the protection of domestic violence victims, as outlined in N.J.S.A 2C:25-18. The law mandates that the judicial response to domestic violence should reflect zero tolerance for such behavior, ensuring victims have access to necessary civil and criminal remedies to safeguard their safety and that of the public. The Legislature recognizes domestic violence as a severe societal crime affecting individuals across demographics and highlights the correlation between spousal and child abuse, with lasting emotional consequences for children exposed to such violence.
The Legislature emphasizes the need for comprehensive training for police and judicial personnel regarding the enforcement of domestic violence laws and the contexts in which such violence occurs. It advocates for the rigorous application of civil and criminal remedies to signal that violent behavior is unacceptable, regardless of its domestic origins. A final restraining order may only be dissolved upon a showing of good cause, as per N.J.S.A 2C:25-29d. However, dissolution remains at the judge’s discretion, not a requirement. The plaintiff's request for dissolution, despite recent severe abuse by her husband—a repeat offender—aligns with the third phase of the 'battered woman’s syndrome,' characterized by temporary affection and promises from the abuser. The plaintiff has experienced the cyclical nature of abuse multiple times and seeks to maintain her situation while recognizing the ongoing risk of violence, as evidenced by her condition that dissolution depends on the absence of further abuse. This indicates her awareness and fear of potential future violence, underscoring the gravity of her circumstances and aligning with the protections intended by the New Jersey Legislature for battered women.
The Act aims to protect victims of domestic violence not only from physical harm but also from mental and emotional harm, recognizing the dynamics of power and control in such relationships. Central to this protection is the victim's fear of the defendant, which is particularly significant when children are involved, as the victim typically has custody. The law presumes that the custodial parent will act in the children's best interests; however, continual fear of the defendant may impair the victim's ability to fulfill this role effectively.
In assessing a victim's fear, courts must focus on objective fear rather than subjective fear, meaning the fear that a reasonable person in a similar situation would experience. This standard requires courts to evaluate whether objective fear persists and whether there is a real risk of recurring domestic violence before dissolving a restraining order. This evaluation is crucial, particularly in cases with a documented history of violence, such as severe physical assaults. Even if reconciliation occurs, a court must independently determine that continued protection is unnecessary based on objective evidence.
The "good cause" requirement of N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29d mandates that courts ensure maximum protection for victims, reflecting a public policy stance that domestic violence will not be tolerated and that the courts bear the responsibility of safeguarding victims and the public through appropriate remedies and sanctions.
Defendant’s history of domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and recent brutal behavior towards his wife establishes a significant risk of further violence if the Final Restraining Order is lifted. The court denies the plaintiff's application to dissolve the order, emphasizing its responsibility to prevent potential harm. However, modifications permit communication regarding supervised visitation and the child's welfare. The court mandates that the defendant undergo psychotherapy and at least three months of substance abuse treatment before considering unsupervised visitation. Evidence indicates the defendant's violent actions were often tied to alcohol consumption. The court clarifies that it retains discretion in these matters, and the victim's request for dissolution does not automatically warrant approval without a thorough examination of the circumstances.
