An interesting discussion arose recently when a woman posed a question about dealing with her fiance's behavior. She called him "jealous." What most of us saw in her description, even those who'd never had experience with domestic violence, was control. That's what domestic violence is about, after all. It doesn't occur because someone likes to hit people; it occurs because someone wants to control someone else. It's not just a loss of temper, either. Most abusers aren't going around beating up their bosses. Oh, no, they save it for those closest to them - their significant others, their children, sometimes even their parents, especially if the parents are elderly. People they can control.
Since it's about control, domestic violence isn't always physical. It can be more insidious than that, mental and emotional abuse that can do more damage than a slap to the face.
In the case of this woman who posed the question about her fiance, she described him as someone who's "always been very jealous." This man, who she says makes her feel like the most important person in the world, forces her to tell him if she thinks that anyone else besides him is attractive. He used to ask her if she'd "been being good." Her fiance won't go to therapy regarding his issues, because he "doesn't believe in it." He tried it once before and "said it didn't work." He has called her "whorish." In the past, when she found someone attractive, he got angry at her and yelled at her. Most recently, he "got sad" when she found someone else attractive.
His jealousy frustrates her, and this is her response: "I know that what I'm doing seems wrong and I've volunteered to go to counseling... I don't often think of other men and [my fiance and I] spend almost every minute we don't work together." Still, the issue flares up every month or so.
Meanwhile, she moved out of her parents' house a year ago because her mom was reading her texts, thereby finding out that she was sexually active at age 20. This, she deemed "extremely abusive." Even though her parents insisted that they would not try to break up the couple, this woman was "sure they would have." Later, the woman says that she told her fiance she left her family and moved to another state "for him." She's told him she's given him everything she has. Without her parents' support, she's had to leave school and works two jobs while her fiance completes his degree and works one job.
She believes they'd have no place to go if they broke up.
This is textbook stuff. I've been working with victims of domestic violence since 1989, and these are the red flags I see:
First, abusers will cut their victims off from their friends and family. They will convince the victims that their families hate them and won't accept them back, they convince them that their families are conspiring against them. They make themselves their victims' sole support system. They take the victims out of school - an education is dangerous. They stunt their victims' educations and careers to make them more dependent on the abusers.
Then, the control. This guy wanted to know all of his fiancee's thoughts and punish her for them. He made her feel wrong for having perfectly normal thoughts. He has her believing she's somehow evil for looking at or even thinking about another man. He has made her uncomfortable in her own skin and has her believing there is something wrong with her; enough that she's willing to go to counseling to fix herself for him.
The name-calling. And she accepts it as deserved.
The end result is that the victim comes to believe that she needs her abuser and has nowhere to go. She thinks her family won't take her back. She has no friends. Her education is incomplete and her career stunted. Plus, her brain doesn't work properly and she's a whore. She needs him. He's got her trapped. The thing is, he's got her trapped with lies. She could go back to her family, to a friend, to a shelter. She could leave and get out... before getting married, before kids, before it becomes more difficult.
If you are this girl, get out. If you were this girl, and now you're married, now there are kids, now it's more difficult... get out anyway. It's never too late. I once met a woman in her 70s who'd been married for 50 years to an abusive husband before she finally got up the courage and scavenged enough dropped change from the couch cushions to take the bus to the courthouse and file a complaint for domestic violence.
If she can, you can.
If you are a victim of domestic violence, get help. Call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or TTY at 1-800-787-3224.
Showing posts with label restraining order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label restraining order. Show all posts
Monday, March 29, 2010
Monday, December 14, 2009
"Escorts" and the Domestic Violence Act
J.S. v. J.F., December 10, 2009 - A Discussion
[Full text of the decision here.]
The facts in brief: The plaintiff worked as a dancer at several clubs where defendant was a patron, and defendant occasionally paid plaintiff to be his paid escort. They went out on several occasions, including once when the defendant took the plaintiff to his parents' house for Thanksgiving. After the plaintiff began seeing someone, the defendant began to threaten the plaintiff and her boyfriend with bodily harm and deportation. The plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order based on terroristic threats and harassment on December 2, 2008. Eight days later, after a final hearing, the judge issued a final restraining order.
The issues: Does the plaintiff qualify as a victim of domestic violence in the context of the parties' relationship, although the defendant paid for her company?
The court's holding: The New Jersey Domestic Violence Act outlines the state's definition of domestic violence and the parameters under which relief can be granted. Not anyone can obtain a restraining order against anyone else in the New Jersey Family Court.
[For instance, you can't go to Family Court to get a restraining order against your neighbor or some guy at work, even if he smacked you in the head with a baseball bat. There is other relief available in the criminal and civil courts for cases like that, but not in family court.]
The protected classes of people under the Domestic Violence Act are spouses, former spouses, and any present or former household member of the defendant, anyone with whom the defendant has a child in common, or anyone with whom the defendant has had a dating relationship. The Act, however, has not defined the term "dating relationship," and has left it to the courts to make that determination on a case-by-case basis. The only precedent for the Appellate Division to consider in this matter was a single 2003 case, decided at the trial court level. The holding of a lower court is not binding on the Appellate Division, but is merely advisory. In the 2003 case, the judge suggested several factors to consider in determining the existence of a dating relationship: Minimal social bonding of the parties, above and beyond the casual, how, long the alleged dating relationship existed prior to the acts of domestic violence, the nature and frequency of the parties' interactions, the parties' individual or joint expectations with respect to the relationship, the parties' affirmation to others of their relationship by statement or conduct, and any other reasons unique to the case in question that support or detract from a finding that a "dating relationship" exists.
The Appellate Division declined to use the test outlined in that case, but agreed with the 2003 trial court's reasoning that "the facts should be liberally construed in favor of finding a dating relationship because the Act itself is to be liberally construed in favor of the legislative intent to eradicate domestic violence. Stated another way, the Act embodies a strong public policy against domestic violence. Because the Act is remedial in nature, it has been liberally construed for teh protection of victims of domestic violence. Indeed, the Act itself announces that its purpose is 'to assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide.'" As the Appellate Division stated, "These principles would not be served by a cramped interpretation of what constitutes a dating relationship."
In considering the scope of the Act, the Appellate Division rejected the defendant's contention that a relationship that includes a payment in consideration for the other's time precludes the finding of a dating relationship.
[The court went so far as to say that an au pair or live-in housekeeper would qualify under the Act as a protected class as someone who "is a present or former household member." Financial benefit from the relationship does not automatically preclude legal benefits under the Act.]
The key consideration is what the particular parties involved would view as a "date," which can vary from couple to couple, group to group, generation to generation. No matter what, the courts should be careful to consider the parties' own understanding of their relationship.
Here, the defendant contradicted himself with regard to this issue, asserting that the relationship was merely "professional," while also stating that he gave the plaintiff money to help her out. He did not object when the judge classified the relationship as "dating." The plaintiff maintained throughout her testimony that they were boyfriend and girlfriend.
The end result: The Appellate Division refused to vacate plaintiff's restraining order against defendant. Plaintiff has a permanent Final Restraining Order.
What does all of this mean to you? If you are a victim of violence, do not think that recourse is not available to you simply because you are in some semblance of a business relationship with your abuser. If your situation is akin to the one described here, or if you are an in-home, full-time employee of the abuser or the abuser's family member, you may very well be entitled to a domestic violence restraining order and the protections with which it comes. Definitely contact the police and/or an attorney for advice and assistance.
[Full text of the decision here.]
The facts in brief: The plaintiff worked as a dancer at several clubs where defendant was a patron, and defendant occasionally paid plaintiff to be his paid escort. They went out on several occasions, including once when the defendant took the plaintiff to his parents' house for Thanksgiving. After the plaintiff began seeing someone, the defendant began to threaten the plaintiff and her boyfriend with bodily harm and deportation. The plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order based on terroristic threats and harassment on December 2, 2008. Eight days later, after a final hearing, the judge issued a final restraining order.
The issues: Does the plaintiff qualify as a victim of domestic violence in the context of the parties' relationship, although the defendant paid for her company?
The court's holding: The New Jersey Domestic Violence Act outlines the state's definition of domestic violence and the parameters under which relief can be granted. Not anyone can obtain a restraining order against anyone else in the New Jersey Family Court.
[For instance, you can't go to Family Court to get a restraining order against your neighbor or some guy at work, even if he smacked you in the head with a baseball bat. There is other relief available in the criminal and civil courts for cases like that, but not in family court.]
The protected classes of people under the Domestic Violence Act are spouses, former spouses, and any present or former household member of the defendant, anyone with whom the defendant has a child in common, or anyone with whom the defendant has had a dating relationship. The Act, however, has not defined the term "dating relationship," and has left it to the courts to make that determination on a case-by-case basis. The only precedent for the Appellate Division to consider in this matter was a single 2003 case, decided at the trial court level. The holding of a lower court is not binding on the Appellate Division, but is merely advisory. In the 2003 case, the judge suggested several factors to consider in determining the existence of a dating relationship: Minimal social bonding of the parties, above and beyond the casual, how, long the alleged dating relationship existed prior to the acts of domestic violence, the nature and frequency of the parties' interactions, the parties' individual or joint expectations with respect to the relationship, the parties' affirmation to others of their relationship by statement or conduct, and any other reasons unique to the case in question that support or detract from a finding that a "dating relationship" exists.
The Appellate Division declined to use the test outlined in that case, but agreed with the 2003 trial court's reasoning that "the facts should be liberally construed in favor of finding a dating relationship because the Act itself is to be liberally construed in favor of the legislative intent to eradicate domestic violence. Stated another way, the Act embodies a strong public policy against domestic violence. Because the Act is remedial in nature, it has been liberally construed for teh protection of victims of domestic violence. Indeed, the Act itself announces that its purpose is 'to assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide.'" As the Appellate Division stated, "These principles would not be served by a cramped interpretation of what constitutes a dating relationship."
In considering the scope of the Act, the Appellate Division rejected the defendant's contention that a relationship that includes a payment in consideration for the other's time precludes the finding of a dating relationship.
[The court went so far as to say that an au pair or live-in housekeeper would qualify under the Act as a protected class as someone who "is a present or former household member." Financial benefit from the relationship does not automatically preclude legal benefits under the Act.]
The key consideration is what the particular parties involved would view as a "date," which can vary from couple to couple, group to group, generation to generation. No matter what, the courts should be careful to consider the parties' own understanding of their relationship.
Here, the defendant contradicted himself with regard to this issue, asserting that the relationship was merely "professional," while also stating that he gave the plaintiff money to help her out. He did not object when the judge classified the relationship as "dating." The plaintiff maintained throughout her testimony that they were boyfriend and girlfriend.
The end result: The Appellate Division refused to vacate plaintiff's restraining order against defendant. Plaintiff has a permanent Final Restraining Order.
What does all of this mean to you? If you are a victim of violence, do not think that recourse is not available to you simply because you are in some semblance of a business relationship with your abuser. If your situation is akin to the one described here, or if you are an in-home, full-time employee of the abuser or the abuser's family member, you may very well be entitled to a domestic violence restraining order and the protections with which it comes. Definitely contact the police and/or an attorney for advice and assistance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
