Jutchenko v. Jutchenko
283 N.J.Super. 17, 660 A.2d 1267 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act's jurisdiction over 'former household members' does not extend to disputes between individuals who have not resided together for a significant period, such as twenty years, unless the past domestic relationship provides a special opportunity for the abusive and controlling behavior the Act seeks to prevent.
Facts:
- Nicholas Jutchenko (age 42) and Anthony Jutchenko (age 47) are brothers.
- The brothers had not resided in the same household for approximately twenty years prior to the dispute.
- Anthony made telephone calls to the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) and the Prosecutor's office, alleging that Nicholas was abusing one of his children.
- Nicholas alleged that Anthony's claims were false and made for the purpose of harassment.
- Nicholas also alleged that Anthony had taken property from him and filed a false terroristic threats complaint against him.
- Anthony admitted to making the abuse report against Nicholas but maintained that his allegations were true.
Procedural Posture:
- Prior to the current action, Anthony Jutchenko filed a domestic violence complaint against Nicholas Jutchenko in Morris County.
- The Morris County court dismissed Anthony's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
- Subsequently, Nicholas Jutchenko filed a domestic violence complaint against Anthony Jutchenko in Passaic County trial court.
- The trial court found that it had jurisdiction and concluded that Anthony's actions constituted harassment under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.
- The trial court entered a final restraining order against Anthony Jutchenko.
- Anthony Jutchenko (defendant-appellant) appealed the trial court's final restraining order to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 Prevention of Domestic Violence Act apply to a dispute involving alleged harassment between two adult brothers who have not lived in the same household for approximately twenty years?
Opinions:
Majority - Skillman, J.A.D.
No. The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act does not apply to this dispute. The Act is intended to address a pattern of abusive and controlling behavior that occurs in a family or family-like setting, not all disputes between persons who once lived together. The legislature did not intend for the Act's protections to cover a conflict between two middle-aged brothers who have not lived together since reaching adulthood, as their remote past cohabitation does not provide a special opportunity for the type of abuse the Act targets. Therefore, the alleged harassment cannot reasonably be viewed as 'domestic violence' under the statute, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the jurisdictional scope of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act by placing a temporal and relational limit on the term 'former household member.' It prevents the Act from being used as a tool in ordinary disputes between relatives who have long lived separately. The ruling mandates that courts look beyond the mere historical fact of cohabitation and analyze whether the current conflict is intrinsically linked to the type of power dynamic and potential for control inherent in a domestic relationship. This precedent requires a more substantive inquiry into the nature of the parties' relationship to determine if it falls within the 'family or family-like setting' the Act was designed to protect.
