43 A.3d 1248
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- Plaintiff seeks a final restraining order under the Domestic Violence Act after an assault during a group trip to Israel with about forty people, including defendant.
- Plaintiff testified they sat together, danced, and were together for a few hours at a bar, suggesting at least a date.
- Defendant did not attend the trial; only counsel appeared; records related to defendant’s Israel criminal prosecution were stipulated.
- Jerusalem District Court found that defendant attempted to kiss plaintiff, then violently assaulted her; the conviction was part of the record.
- Trial court concluded there was a dating relationship, but the appellate court reverses, holding the evidence does not prove a dating relationship.
- Court adopts Andrews six-factor test to define dating relationships but emphasizes the need for sufficient frequency/duration beyond a single date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a dating relationship under the Act? | Plaintiff argues the evening event established a date and dating relationship. | Defendant contends there was only a single date with no ongoing dating relationship. | No dating relationship; single date insufficient |
| Are Andrews factors appropriate to determine dating relationship here? | Andrews factors appropriately guide the determination of dating relationship. | Andrews framework is suitable for similar cases; not disputed here. | Andrews framework adopted; not all factors satisfied |
| Did the trial court misapply facts to find a dating relationship? | Evidence supports an interpersonal bond beyond casual interaction during the trip. | Evidence does not show ongoing relationship or expectations; only a single date. | Findings not supported; court reverses |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (liberally construed remedial statute; deference to trial court factfinding)
- J.S. v. J.F., 410 N.J. Super. 611 (App. Div. 2009) (factors guiding dating relationship determination)
- Andrews v. Rutherford, 363 N.J. Super. 252 (Ch. Div. 2003) (six-factor test for dating relationship)
- Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (N.J. 2005) (legislative intent inferred from legislative silence on Andrews)
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (perfunctory and self-evident need for restraining order in obvious predicate acts)