To the surprise of many, excessive or inappropriate text messaging to a former partner can result in the entry of a domestic violence restraining order.
While our domestic violence laws are designed to protect against actual physical violence, those same laws also protect against harassment type behavior; defined generally as making or causing a communication in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm or through repeatedly committed acts with the purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person. Such was the issue presented in L.M.F v. J.A.F.
In L.M.F v. J.A.F., the parties shared joint legal custody of their children and their main manner of communication was through texting. As a result of a series of angry text messages sent to the former wifer by her former husband over a short period of time, she filed a domestic violence complaint against him, alleging harassment[1].
According to the former wife, her ex husband texted her 18 times on a Friday between 6:50 a.m. and 11:34 a.m. The second group of text messages occurred the following Monday, with her former husband texting her 5 times between 8:54 a.m. and 9:51 a.m. and finally two more texts from him at 5:00 p.m. and 5:07 p.m. that evening.
At trial, the former husband admitted to having sent all of those text messages to his former wife but claimed that the purpose of his text messages focused on their daughter's SAT score information and their daughters whereabouts and not to harass her.
The trial court disagreed and found that those text messages amounted to harassment and therefore constituted an act of domestic violence, warranting the imposition of a final restraining order against him from further contact or communication with his former wife. The former husband filed an appeal.
Upon review, the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court that excessive or inappropriate text messaging can amount to harassment but in this particular matter, found that the former husband’s purpose in sending those text messages was not to harass his former wife and therefore not harassment nor a violation of the domestic violence laws.
As to the issue of “intent to harass”, the Appellate Court focused on the following:
1) There was no history or pattern of abuse between the parties;
2) The ex-wife was not in fear of her ex-husband;
3) If the ex-wife had responded to the former husband's inquires concerning their daughter, the father would have ended his inquiries, and his reason for contacting her;
4) The father was not unreasonable for believing he was being ignored; and
5) The father had a right to specific information concerning their daughter (SAT scores and whereabouts on a Friday night).
In this matter, the former husband was fortunate that his text messages focused strictly on the daughter’s SAT score information and her whereabouts on that Friday night and not on any other subject matter. Based on the reasoning of the appellate court, had he gone further, the court could have concluded that his intent was to harass her and could have resulted in the entry of a domestic violence final restraining order against him.
Before sending another angry text or voice mail message, please consider meeting with a lawyer knowledgeable in family law matters for an education on the domestic violence laws of this state and how those laws can impact your future and your relationship with your children and with your former partner.
[1] N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a).
If you have any questions about this topic, or any other family law related topics, please visit our website at www.diamondanddiamond.com, or to schedule a consultation with Richard Diamond, please contact us by phone at (973) 379-9292, or email us by clicking here.
tXKyTX rzcubltjaczp, [url=http://grnobdlvrdhf.com/]grnobdlvrdhf[/url], [link=http://eagixerxzpge.com/]eagixerxzpge[/link], http://mkdknycoebtu.com/
Posted by: tasixxdmqmt | February 16, 2013 at 01:00 PM
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869 in India. He was born into a family of groecr’s, Gandhi himself was not a groecr he was a British taught lawyer. He was raised from a very young age to respect others and to live in a non-violent way. He also was raised as a, vegetarian, no meat, fasting for self-purification non eating, and a tolerance within humans of various creeds and ways of life, a pure calm sense of peace. Since Gandhi had such a major impact on the world when he was alive, would he still have the power to stop the ongoing conflicts in the world today?Since Gandhi was such a powerful leader in the world, would he have the power to stop wars and major conflicts ongoing in the world today? I think that he would and this is why, South Africa. South Africa was a government run and controlled country before Gandhi showed up. He was faced with many challenging tasks, discrimination, hatred, racism, prejudice and injustice. One day while riding a train he was asked to move to the third class portion of the train, because a white couple wanted to occupy that cart, he was holding a valid first class ticket and refused to move and was thrown off the train luggage and all. Then he was beaten by a stage coach driver for refusing to ride on the foot boards so that a European passenger could take his seat inside. It is to be believed that theses were a major factor in the turning point in his life.What inspired Gandhi was pushed around and beaten because he was of a darker colored skin, prayed to different gods and had different points of view on ways of life. Gandhi’s most important and special achievement it was with Champaran agitation and Kheda Satyagraha. Helping indigo plant and other cash crops instead of food crops needed for survival and life. The landlords majority were British, were given the workers measly compensation, leaving them in extreme poverty and starvation. In the villages were people lived it was mostly unclean or sanitary, purdha (the separation of men and women), alcoholism, and famine. Situations were desperate times for desperate measures. When there was a situation Gandhi could help and or stop form continuing he would fast. Fast means to abstain from food, not water just foods. A brief example would be when the Muslim and Hindu were fighting Gandhi stopped eating for over a week and then the violence stopped, not completely but a majority of it stopped. To me personally that shows how much this man was respected and loved by a country and a nation. With the fasting he showed a nation that you could get what you wanted with out violence and turmoil. Gandhi stopped any and all of the fighting and wars with a non-violent protest. Peaceful resistance and non- cooperation was the tools that this man used. Non-cooperation got this man everything that he needed to be who he is so why wasn’t this technique used then and now? The reason that non-violent protesting has gone by the wayside is because America has the biggest guns, biggest bombs and biggest power so we win. Well if having the biggest guns, bombs and power then why are we still fighting in Iraq? If Gandhi was such a powerful leader with the non-violent protest then how come nobody has stepped up and accepted the role as “The great One, Bapu, The Illustrious One”? It seems that when a great historical leader comes and does great for this world the person seams to make others mad and they end up dead or dying for the cause they are fighting for. If you look back far enough, Abe Lincoln, died to free the slaves. Well a lot of good that did him he died and people still had salves. India has slves but they wont admit that they do. The caste system is a form of slavery. When a person is born into a system were they have to work according to what their parents work is, that is slavery. When a person is forced to clean human waste and isn’t allowed to eat with the same table wear as a person who cleans houses and not the waste. Since when is a person born into the work that they do for life? That should never happen and Gandhi fought to stop that from happening. He, himself was born into a life of food selling, but yet he went off to law school at, University College London, UCL and became a lawyer and never really practiced law for money. He defended himself whenever he got hauled in for the illegitimate reasons, resisting arrest, illegal protests, reasons that are unknown to others.
Posted by: Claudia | March 03, 2013 at 03:20 AM
Well I sincerely enjoyed studying it. This subject provided by you is very helpful for good planning. Burberry Bags
Posted by: Burberry Bags | March 25, 2013 at 10:19 AM