In order to "assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide," the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C: 25-18, must continually change with societal changes, such as blended families. So reasoned Judge Gregory Acquaviva in a thorough and timely PDVA jurisdictional decision. The court held that a half-brother, who resided with his mother after her divorce but had a substantial relationship with his half-sister, who resided with their father, was a member of both households. S.C. v. J.D., ____ N.J. Super. _____ (Ch. Div. 2019), 2019 WL 8648055.

Pursuant to a marital settlement agreement, incorporated into his parents' judgment of divorce, Jake's mother was awarded custody and Jake's father was granted "free and liberal visitation … as often as possible".

Accordingly, after his remarriage, Jake's father exercised bi-monthly visitation, including overnights at his father's family home where his half-sister, Samantha, resided. Jake also spent extended time with his father's blended family during summer vacations which included multi-week camping trips. Although Jake never actually resided in Samantha's home, because he was regularly there, he had a designated pull-out sofa where he slept and a drawer that contained personal clothes and toiletries.

As a result, the court found that "Samantha and Jake had a meaningful, regular, substantially integrated sibling relationship with an emotional and physical bond not dissimilar from siblings in a singular household."

Samantha, at age 32, pursuant to the PDVA, obtained a temporary restraining order against Jake, age 35. Jake then moved to dismiss the restraining order, on jurisdictional grounds, contending that he was not a member of Samantha's household.

In denying the motion, the court succinctly discussed the history of the jurisdictional phrase "household member," as used in the PDVA, which has gradually been expanded by the courts "applying a common-sense interpretation that recognized familial, emotional, and financial ties."

The court noted that, prior to the 2015 amendment which expanded household member to include a person who "is … or was at any time a household member," individual cases broadly interpreted the phrase.

Judge Acquaviva pointed out that the pre-amendment cases interpreted household member to include various relationships. These decisions progressed from a victim who spent several nights with defendant and kept some clothes, jewelry and personal effects at defendant's home, Desiato v. Abbott, 261 N.J. Super. 30 (Ch.Div. 1992), to a three-month temporary roommate, Bryant v. Burnett, 264 N.J .Super. 222 (App.Div. 1993); to a defendant who lived in the same complex as the victim, had unlimited access to the victim's home, and was the father of the victim's grandson, South v. North, 304 N.J. Super. 104 (Ch. Div. 1997); to a college suite-mate, Hamilton v. Ali , 350 N.J. Super. 479 (Ch. Div. 2001); to a seven-month temporary, unrelated tenant, S.Z. v. M.C., 417 N.J. Super. 622 (App. Div. 2011); and to a boarder in a rooming house, S.P. v. Newark Police Dept., 428 N.J. Super. 210   (App.Div. 2012).

Judge Acquaviva was faced with a word that is not specifically defined in the PDVA, the definition of which depends upon the individual circumstances surrounding the particular relationship. Therefore, the court relied upon cases interpreting "household" in insurance policies. In one such case, the court noted that "residence under a single roof is not a touchstone, and the meaning of 'household' inherently must vary depending on the circumstances." Gibson v. Callaghan, 158 N.J. 662, 677 (1999). In another insurance policy case, the court held that even if members do not continually live under the same roof, they could be considered members of the same household if they have "a substantially integrated family relationship." Mazzilli v. Accident & Cas. Ins. Co. of Winterthur, 35 N.J. 1, 16 (1961).

After analyzing the insurance cases' interpretation of household, Judge Acquaviva properly noted that public policy requires that household must "be defined even more expansively in domestic violence cases than in insurance." This is especially so where the case involves blended families, because, following a divorce and remarriage of one or both of the parents, who will continue to be a part of the children's lives, the children become part of both families.

Thus, because the court found that Jake's situation was "not a remote, fleeting, nor transient relationship … (but) a modern, blended familial relationship with meaningful, regular physical contact between these half siblings," it was necessary to utilize "a flexible approach … to expand the PDVA's coverage to modern, blended households."

Having heard hundreds of domestic violence cases prior to my retirement, including Hamilton v, Ali, supra., I am sure that judges hearing these cases will welcome Judge Acquaviva's decision, because it demonstrates how the PDVA is "sufficiently flexible to accommodate the ever-changing dynamics of modern families."

Put another way, as our world evolves, so do our relationships; and so must our laws.

Louis Locascio, a Monmouth County Superior Court judge from 1992 until 2009, is now of counsel with the Red Bank office of Gold, Albanese, Barletti & Locascio, where he heads up their civil and family mediation/arbitration department. He is a certified civil and criminal trial lawyer.