South v. North

In South v. North, 304 N.J. Super. 104, 698 A.2d 553 (Ch.Div.1997), although defendant never actually lived with plaintiff, they each had a separate apartment in the same complex and "had a dating relationship that ended seven years before the plaintiff filed a domestic violence complaint." Id. at 107, 698 A.2d 553. Defendant subsequently engaged in a romantic relationship with plaintiff's daughter, which resulted in the birth of a child. Because plaintiff's daughter and grandson lived with plaintiff, "defendant was a constant presence in plaintiff's household. He went to the apartment at least three times each week, let himself in, stayed for long periods of time, cooked, ate and attended family gatherings." Ibid. In finding jurisdiction, the court reasoned: The Legislature intended "to assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide." N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18. This purpose bestows upon the victim of domestic violence all possible protection so long as defendant's constitutional rights are not violated. The term "household member" is here viewed liberally, and consistent with the legislative intent. "Household" is such a broad term that one court called it "chameleon like" and suggested that "like obscenity, it falls into the category of terms which defy a precise definition, yet are readily recognizable when encountered." Id. at 110, 698 A.2d 553. Judge DiCamillo found that the defendant, Greg North, was a de facto household member by virtue of his paternity to Mac South (the plaintiff's grandson), his engagement to Amy South (the plaintiff's daughter) and his unlimited access to the plaintiff's home, even though the parties lived in separate apartments in the same complex. The parties in that case shared food, cooking chores, and responsibility for disciplining the child and on occasion North stayed overnight at the plaintiff's apartment when she was not at home. Id., at 107, 698 A.2d 553. Judge DiCamillo also noted that the parties in that case were more of a "family" than in many of the cases where the parties were considered "household members." Id., at 112, 698 A.2d 553.