Croswell v. Shenouda
646 A.2d 1140, 275 N.J. Super. 614 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, jurisdiction based on having a "child in common" requires a living child, not a prior terminated pregnancy, and jurisdiction as a "household member" requires indicia of cohabitation, not merely an intimate dating relationship. A court may, however, maintain a temporary restraining order pending a paternity determination if jurisdiction hinges on that disputed fact and the standards for a preliminary injunction are met.
Facts:
- Lianna Croswell and Tarik Shenouda began a romantic relationship in 1990.
- In January 1992, Croswell became pregnant with a child fathered by Shenouda.
- Croswell, with Shenouda's knowledge, terminated this pregnancy in January 1992.
- Shenouda claims he ceased sexual relations with Croswell after the abortion due to religious objections.
- Croswell alleges she became pregnant again by Shenouda in the summer of 1992, and she gave birth to a child on April 12, 1993.
- Shenouda denies paternity of the child born in April 1993.
- The parties have never been married and have never resided together.
Procedural Posture:
- Lianna Croswell filed a domestic violence complaint against Tarik Shenouda in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part.
- The court granted Croswell a temporary restraining order based on her allegation that she and Shenouda had a child in common.
- On the return date for the temporary order, Shenouda denied paternity of the child, raising a question about the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
- The court continued the temporary restraining order and scheduled a plenary hearing solely to address the jurisdictional issue.
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 a plaintiff qualify as a "victim of domestic violence" under the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act where the parties never lived together and jurisdiction depends on either a prior terminated pregnancy or paternity of a living child, which the defendant disputes?
Opinions:
Majority - Fuentes, J.S.C.
No, a plaintiff does not qualify as a victim of domestic violence based solely on a prior terminated pregnancy or an intimate dating relationship where the parties never shared a household. However, the court has the authority to maintain a temporary restraining order while it resolves a disputed jurisdictional fact, such as paternity, that would establish jurisdiction under the Act. The court reasoned that the statutory phrase "has a child in common" uses the present tense and refers to a living child, not a fetus or a terminated pregnancy, a conclusion supported by statutory construction and pending legislation aimed at expanding the definition. Furthermore, the term "household member" requires some indicia of sharing a home, such as staying overnight or keeping personal items at the residence, which were absent here; a mere intimate relationship is insufficient. Because the defendant's denial of paternity of the living child created a jurisdictional dispute, the court applied the principles of preliminary injunctions to determine it could continue the temporary restraining order to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff while ordering genetic testing to definitively resolve the paternity issue. The court also held that the defendant has no right to a jury trial on the paternity issue, as it is ancillary to the primary equitable relief sought in the domestic violence action.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the jurisdictional limits of New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act by narrowly interpreting the phrases "child in common" and "household member." The decision establishes that these jurisdictional hooks require a living child and some concrete evidence of cohabitation, respectively, refusing to expand the Act's protections to all dating relationships. Its most impactful holding is procedural: a court can use its inherent equitable power to maintain temporary protection for a potential victim while it resolves a disputed jurisdictional fact like paternity. This creates a vital mechanism to prevent a gap in protection where a defendant could otherwise evade the Act's reach by simply disputing a core fact.
