It’s Complicated: Relationship Status and Jurisdiction under VASPA and the PDVA

New Jersey is widely recognized for its robust legal protections for victims of domestic violence. The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 et seq., provides meaningful safeguards through Final Restraining Orders (FROs) for individuals who qualify under the statutory definition of “victim of domestic violence.” This definition includes a broad spectrum of domestic relationships, ranging from former or current household members to married couples and co-parents.

More recently, the Victim’s Assistance and Survivor Protection Act (VASPA)—which expanded upon and replaced the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act of 2015 (SASPA)—was enacted to offer similar protections for individuals who do not meet the PDVA’s definition of a domestic relationship in the form of Final Protective Orders (FPOs). Under VASPA, victims of sexual violence, cyber harassment and stalking may seek protective relief, but only if they lack a qualifying relationship with the alleged abuser under the PDVA. That is because you cannot qualify for both an FRO and an FPO as victim.

The Difference Between Obtaining Protection under PDVA and VASPA Depends on Relationship

The difference in the ability of a victim to seek relief under the PDVA versus the VASPA is important. What happens when the nature of the relationship is ambiguous or disputed? Which statute governs, and who determines applicability?

Dating relationships often present the most ambiguity in determining whether a victim can obtain relief under the PDVA or VASPA. When the existence of a relationship is contested, establishing jurisdiction under the PDVA can be challenging. Does a failure to meet PDVA’s criteria automatically qualify the case under VASPA if the crimes alleged overlap? Court staff, or police officers assisting victims are often the ones directing which statute a victim should file under, leaving judges to make the decision on whether a relationship existed between two parties to satisfy the requirements for jurisdiction.

Guidance on Evaluating Relationships Under the PDVA Through New Jersey Case Law

Andrews v. Rutherford, 363 N.J. Super. 252 (Ch. Div. 2003), outlines a non-exhaustive list of factors to assess the nature of a relationship that has been adopted by the Appellate Division.

However, courts weigh these factors differently depending on the unique facts of each case.

In S.K. v. J.H., 426 N.J. Super. 230 (App. Div. 2012), one date was deemed insufficient for PDVA jurisdiction, while in C.C. v. J.A.H., 463 N.J. Super. 419 (App. Div. 2020), the frequency and nature of the parties’ interactions, despite never having been on a date, supported jurisdiction under the PDVA.

These cases illustrate the nuanced and fact-sensitive nature of determining jurisdiction. That raises another critical question about what can a victim do if an application fails under one statute due to this jurisdictional perquisite: Can it be refiled under the other?

Filing Under VASPA v. PDVA

If a relationship is found in a VASPA matter, PDVA jurisdiction may automatically apply, since VASPA’s predicate acts are incorporated into the PDVA. Conversely, if PDVA jurisdiction is not established, VASPA may still apply if one or more of its more limited predicate acts is alleged.

This issue was central in V.M. v. S.G., an unpublished Appellate Division decision from 2019 involving a married pastor and his congregant. The plaintiff congregant filed under SASPA, alleging the pastor committed acts of criminal sexual contact and lewdness. The defendant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, firmly maintaining the parties were in a consensual relationship – an extramarital affair. The plaintiff denied any romantic involvement, asserting their relationship was strictly pastoral. After a five-day trial, the judge found the plaintiff credible, determined no dating relationship existed, and granted the protective order under SASPA. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Had the court found a dating relationship in V.M., would the matter have been converted to a PDVA hearing? The alleged predicate acts—criminal sexual contact and lewdness—are recognized predicates under both statutes. If the trial court found that a relationship had indeed existed, a predicate act occurred, and there was a need for the restraining order going forward, could the trial court consider simply enter an FRO rather than an FPO?  Yes, but it might have led the defendant to appeal for lack of notice and other due process concerns. Still, the jurisdiction  under the PDVA would have been correct.

Refiling Considerations

Something else to consider: The PDVA does prevent a plaintiff from refiling a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) based solely on already adjudicated facts, but there exists no bar to refile under a different statute. Theoretically, jurisdiction has already been decided in such re-filing, but would that stop a new PDVA application if the established acts and need going forward had already been decided as well? And what if the Appellate Division found that the trial judge abused their discretion in finding no relationship? Could the case have been remanded to be heard under the PDVA?

In cases where the nature of the relationship is uncertain and the alleged conduct could fall under either statute, a victim must be strategic and vigilant. Helping a victim determine which statute should be used for in initial filing is ideal, but not always possible. Here are some viable options:

• Asking the court to make a threshold determination on the relationship before proceeding to the full hearing on the predicate acts.
• Refiling under a different statute prior to trial.
• Having the parties stipulate to the nature of the relationship in advance of the hearing.
• Asking the Court to convert the proceedings from one statute to another, making sure is proper notice and likely adjournments for the other side to prepare to protect due process rights.

The jurisdictional requirements of the PDVA and VASPA can present procedural challenges, but also opportunities to ensure comprehensive protection for victims. Just as specific facts and details of each matter determine the nature of a relationship, navigating these statutory intersections with a well-trained eye is essential to safeguarding client’s right to protection. Our attorneys have successfully resolved and tried cases under both the PDVA and VASPA. If you require assistance with a protective or restraining order issue, do not hesitate to contact our Family Law team.