Coleman v. Romano
908 A.2d 254, 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 281, 388 N.J. Super. 342 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Determining whether individuals qualify as 'former household members' under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act requires a qualitative analysis of their relationship, including factors beyond the mere passage of time since they last shared a residence.
Facts:
- Katherine Coleman and her adult daughter, Katherine Romano, last lived together in the same household in 1977.
- For many years, the two had a distant relationship with very little communication.
- In 2004, after Coleman broke her hip, Romano began assisting with her care, which led to a rekindling of their relationship.
- In 2005, Coleman transferred $15,000 to Romano with the mutual understanding that Coleman would have a designated room and could visit or live in the new house Romano was building.
- Romano’s daughter (Coleman's granddaughter), Kristin, and her family moved into the home of Manuel Lopez, Coleman’s long-time companion whom Coleman cared for regularly.
- Disagreements arose between Coleman and Romano regarding Kristin's living arrangement at Lopez's house.
- Following these disagreements, Romano allegedly assaulted Coleman on two separate occasions, with the second incident resulting in broken ribs.
Procedural Posture:
- Katherine Coleman filed a domestic violence complaint against her daughter, Katherine Romano, in a New Jersey trial court.
- The court entered a temporary restraining order against Romano.
- At a subsequent hearing, Romano, the defendant, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
- Romano argued that the parties did not qualify as 'former household members' under the relevant statute.
- The court determined an evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve the disputed jurisdictional facts before ruling on the motion to dismiss.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term 'former household member' under New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act apply to a mother and adult daughter who have not lived in the same household for nearly thirty years but have since developed an entangled financial and familial relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Ostrer, J.S.C.
Yes. The term 'former household member' under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act applies here because a qualitative analysis of the parties' relationship demonstrates a continuing entanglement that creates a special opportunity for abuse. The court rejected a literal reading of the statute that would disqualify parties based solely on the passage of time, citing precedents like Jutchenko v. Jutchenko and Tribuzio v. Roder. The court reasoned that domestic violence is about patterns of abuse and control, which can arise from the dynamics of a past relationship, regardless of when it formally ended. It synthesized and applied a six-factor test, concluding that while nearly thirty years had passed, the nature of the mother-daughter relationship, the recent intensification of their financial and familial contacts, the domestic nature of the precipitating incident, and the likelihood of future contact all weighed in favor of finding jurisdiction. Their lives had become so re-entangled that the Act's protections were necessary to prevent future violence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the jurisdictional scope of New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act for 'former household members.' It firmly rejects a bright-line rule based on the passage of time, establishing a flexible, multi-factor test that focuses on the qualitative nature of the parties' ongoing relationship. This precedent expands the Act's protections to individuals in long-dormant relationships that have become recently re-entangled, shifting the judicial focus from a simple historical fact (cohabitation) to the present-day potential for abuse stemming from that past relationship. The case instructs lower courts to conduct a fact-sensitive inquiry into the totality of the circumstances to determine if a 'special opportunity for abuse and controlling behavior' exists.
