N.G. v. J.P.
426 N.J. Super. 398
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Defendant J.P. and plaintiff N.G. are adult siblings who have not resided together since 1960.
- Defendant’s decades-long hostility toward plaintiff arose from a fractured family relationship and past abuse.
- Plaintiff sought restraining orders in 1989 and 1991; a 1991 final restraining order protected plaintiff and prohibited near-contact.
- In 2010, defendant engaged in 29 days of prolonged, hostile picketing in front of plaintiff’s Millburn home, with threats and obscene gestures.
- Plaintiff petitioned for an FRO in 2010; the judge found harassment and stalking under the Act and issued an FRO, but limited Millburn entry is to be narrowed on remand for church and medical visits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had jurisdiction under the Act to issue the FRO. | Plaintiff argues the Act covers former household members and allowed this chronic dispute. | Defendant contends lack of sufficient connection after decades of separation. | Yes; jurisdiction affirmed under Coleman factors; former household relationship supports protection. |
| Whether the FRO’s breadth banning entry to all of Millburn was improper. | Plaintiff asserts broad ban necessary for safety given past conduct. | Defendant claims right to movement and religious practice were violated. | Affirmed ban; remanded for church/doctor visits with narrowed scope. |
| Whether defendant’s conduct constituted harassment and stalking; and whether First Amendment protection applies. | Plaintiff contends defendant’s conduct was stalking/harassment, not protected speech. | Defendant argues conduct was protected expression, not predicate offenses. | Court held stalking and harassment were proven; speech narrowly circumscribed by statute. |
| Whether evidence admitted was admissible and supported the rulings. | Evidence supported the findings of harassment/stalking. | Certain prior acts and remarks should have been excluded as prejudicial. | Evidence admitted; no reversible error found. |
| Whether the judge should have recused for bias and related issues; attorney fees. | Judge biased; recusal warranted; fees properly awarded. | No bias; recusal not required; fee award appropriate. | No reversible bias error; fee award affirmed; remand narrowed entry ban on Millburn. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (remedial Act construed liberally; strong policy against DV)
- Coleman v. Romano, 388 N.J. Super. 342 (Ch. Div. 2006) (six Coleman factors for former household jurisdiction)
- South v. North, 304 N.J. Super. 104 (Ch. Div. 1997) (emotional abuse; special opportunity for abuse)
- Tribuzio v. Roder, 356 N.J. Super. 590 (App. Div. 2003) (six-factor Coleman framework applied to long-ago relationships)
- Jutchenko v. Jutchenko, 283 N.J. Super. 17 (App. Div. 1995) (reliance on former household relationship for jurisdiction)