New Jersey Section 2C:25-28.1 – In-house restraining order prohibited

New Jersey’s Ban on In-House Restraining Orders: What You Need to Know

New Jersey has a unique law that prohibits judges from issuing in-house restraining orders in domestic violence cases. This means a judge cannot order the victim and abuser to continue living together while restricting contact.

I know, it sounds kinda obvious right? You’d think it would be common sense not to force people to keep living together when there’s domestic abuse happening. But apparently it was enough of an issue that New Jersey felt the need to pass a law specifically banning it.

What the Heck is an In-House Restraining Order?

Let me back up a sec and explain what an in-house restraining order actually is. When someone files for a restraining order due to domestic violence, the judge can issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) while the case proceeds. This TRO tells the abuser to stay away from the victim and usually prohibits contact.

An in-house restraining order is when the judge says the abuser can’t abuse or threaten the victim, but they still have to live together. I know, it makes zero sense. It basically means the abuser can’t be violent or intimidating, but gets to stick around the house with their victim.

Not exactly an ideal situation for the poor victim! I’m sure you can imagine how incredibly uncomfortable and scary it would be to have your abuser lurking around the house, even if they technically aren’t allowed to hurt you. No wonder New Jersey decided to ban this ridiculous practice.

The Specific Law Banning In-House Restraining Orders

Okay, let’s talk about the actual law itself. In 2001, New Jersey enacted Section 2C:25-28.1, which states:

“No order issued by the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court pursuant to section 13 of P.L.1991, c.261 (C.2C:25-29) regarding emergency, temporary or final relief shall include an in-house restraining order which permits the plaintiff and defendant to occupy the same premises but limits the defendant’s use of that premises.”

In plain English, this means judges in domestic violence cases cannot issue any kind of restraining order, whether emergency, temporary or final, that allows the victim and abuser to continue sharing a home.

The Rationale Behind This Law

So why did New Jersey feel the need to specifically outlaw in-house restraining orders?

Well, the legislative history provides some insight. The sponsors of the bill argued that allowing abusers to remain in the home with their victims “undermines the very purpose and intent” of the domestic violence law.

They pointed out that these in-house orders are confusing for law enforcement responding to calls. If police show up and the abuser is still living there, they may not enforce the order properly.

The sponsors also noted that in-house orders create an untenable situation where abuse victims have to face their abuser on a daily basis. This puts them at ongoing risk of more violence.

Basically, it defeats the whole purpose of a restraining order if the abuser never actually has to leave the premises. The victim needs physical separation from their abuser in order to be safe.

The Problem of Mutual Restraining Orders

Another issue is judges sometimes issue mutual restraining orders that bar either party from contacting each other. This sounds reasonable on the surface, but it ignores the power dynamics in abusive relationships.

Mutual orders can further victimize the abused partner by taking away their support system. It also discourages victims from reporting future abuse if they fear getting in trouble for violating the mutual order.

So by banning in-house restraining orders, New Jersey also aimed to cut down on problematic mutual orders that keep the abuser and victim entangled.

Why This Law Matters for Domestic Violence Victims

Here’s why this law is so important: it recognizes that victims of domestic abuse need space and distance from their abusers. Forcing them to remain under the same roof is unsafe and only empowers the abuser.

Victims should not have to flee their own home and upend their lives when it’s the abuser who has committed wrongdoing. With this law, the onus is placed firmly where it should be – on the abuser to leave, allowing the victim and any children to remain in the home safely.

The law also makes clear that in-house orders are never acceptable, no matter what rationalizations may be made. It takes discretion away from judges who may otherwise try to placate abusers or maintain the status quo.