B.C. v. T.G.
65 A.3d 281
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2013Background
- Pregnant domestic violence victim (minor) was assaulted by the putative father after informing him of the pregnancy.
- Court extended the restraining order to include the defendant’s family members (parents and siblings) as protected persons.
- Court addressed whether an advance protection provision for the unborn child could be included to take effect upon birth.
- Fetus is not a legally recognized person in New Jersey, yet the court allowed pre-birth protection for the child.
- Court relied on DV Act structure, legislative findings, and public policy to justify expanded protection.
- Court ordered an advance protection clause: unborn child automatically protected at birth unless further order, with administrative amendment possible after birth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the final restraining order include advance protection for an unborn child? | Jones sought protection for the fetus. | Defendant opposed adding the unborn child protection. | Yes; advance protection for the unborn child is permissible. |
| Does a fetus count as a ‘person’ under the DV Act for protection purposes? | Fetus not a person, but protection can be extended by order. | Statutory personhood not conferred on the fetus. | Fetus is not a person pre-birth; pre-birth protection can be provided via advance provision. |
| Is advancing protection for an unborn child consistent with public policy and statutory framework? | Maximal protection aligns with DV Act goals. | Expanding scope may overstep statutory boundaries. | Public policy and remedial nature of the DV Act support the advance protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Acuna v. Turkish, 192 N.J. 399 (N.J. 2007) (acknowledges absence of embryo personhood in many contexts)
- Giardina v. Bennett, 111 N.J. 412 (N.J. 1988) (wrongful death act not covering fetus; fetus not a person pre-birth)
- In re A.W.S., 182 N.J. Super. 278 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1981) (unborn fetus not a human being for certain crimes; limits of pre-birth rights)
- Croswell v. Shenouda, 275 N.J. Super. 614 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1994) (pregnant fetus not counted as child-in-common under DV Act (pre-amendment))
- Hoener v. Bertinato, 67 N.J. Super. 517 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1961) (order can vest custody post-birth for unborn child under parental neglect statutes)
- Smith v. Brennan, 31 N.J. 353 (N.J. 1960) (live birth creates tort rights for child injured pre-birth)
- Sobeck v. Centennial Ins. Co., 234 N.J. Super. 445 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1988) (pre-birth injuries and insurance coverage concepts)
- State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178 (N.J. 1984) (recognizes domestic violence as a persistent grave threat to family)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (DV Act remedial; liberally construed to protect victims)