Harassment As Grounds For A Restraining Order In New Jersey An Overview Of Reported Cases Part I

Under New Jersey domestic violence statute, for a party to obtain a Restraining Order there must be an act of domestic violence committed by the defendant as defined by the statute. There are fourteen acts under said statute that are defined as domestic violence. The offence of harassment is one of said fourteen acts and is the most used basis for granting a restraining order in New Jersey. Under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 a party commits an act of harassment if he or she does the following:

  1. With the purpose to harass another, makes or causes to be made a communication or communications in offensively coarse language, or at extremely inconvenient hours or anonymously, or any other manner likely to cause alarm and annoyance:
  2. With the purpose to harass, strikes, kicks, shoves or commits other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or
  3. With the purpose to harass another, engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with the purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other party.

As seen from the cases below, Domestic Violence Restraining Orders based on harassment are very fact sensitive. In the case of State V. Hoffman., 149 N.J. 564 (1997) there were many restraining orders and violations against the former husband. He pled guilty to criminal trespass, contempt and was sentenced to 365 days in jail. While in jail he mailed a torn-up support order along with a Notice of Motion to modify support and a financial statement by certified and regular mail. The former wife filed a complaint against the former husband for sending the two torn up orders. The court in Hoffman court defined purposely as follows: “A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his conduct or a result thereof if it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or cause such a result” Id at 577 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(b)(1)).The court in Hoffman held that the former husband did not violate the harassment statute by mailing the two torn orders to his former wife.

In the case Corrente v.Corrente., 281 N.J. Super. 243 (App.Div.1994) the court held that a husband who was separated from his wife did not commit harassment by calling her at her place of employment threatening drastic measures if she did not supply him with money to pay the family’s monthly bills. Consequently, the husband turned off the wife’s phone. The court in Corrente did not find that the husband had intent to harass the wife by calling her at work. Id. at 249. The court held that neither the phone calls nor turning off the phone (which the husband remedied by having the phone restored in her own name) were not acts which could be “characterized as alarming or seriously annoying”. Id. The court found that the parties did not have any history of domestic violence, and the matter was a conflict over finances and possession over the marital residence and not domestic violence. Id at 250.

Please see Part II and Part III of this article located on this website that continue the review of the relevant case law in regard to harassment as basis of receiving a restraining order under the domestic statute. If you have any questions concerning a domestic violence case, please call NJ divorce lawyer Peter Van Aulen at (201) 845-7400 for a free consultation.

Reviews
★★★★★
Peter has integrity, and values his relationships with his clients beyond his financial relationship with them. For me to say this about any lawyer is really saying something. He is compassionate, straightforward and knowledgeable. I would easily recommend him to anybody.
★★★★★
Peter Van Aulen handled my case with great diligence and integrity. He is also a compassionate individual who realizes what a difficult time divorce can be emotionally. Peter works hard and doesn't take any shortcuts in preparing for a case… I highly recommend Mr. Van Aulen and his staff. Chuck Solomon
★★★★★
Peter is an exceptionally great attorney. He handled my child custody case and was able to ease any of my concerns with honest answers. He always took the time to explain the pros/cons and was always available to answer any questions that I had… I would highly recommend this attorney to anyone who is looking for one. Jessica Cruz
★★★★★
Peter Van Aulen is a very compassionate, honest and straightforward person. He was there for me at my lowest point with a genuine concern not only for my situation, but for me and my child's well being above all… He is fair and he is strong and when push comes to shove he is there for you. Cathy Dodge
★★★★★
Our cousin used Peter's law office to help with a sticky custody situation. He was extremely responsive, very nice and most importantly did an awesome job with the court! He is awesome. Lawrence Polsky

*Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances