When Do Parties Have a “Child in Common”? Clarifying PDVA vs. VASPA Protections in New Jersey
New Jersey offers strong legal protections for individuals who are victims of abuse through two primary statutes: the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 et seq., and the Victim’s Assistance and Survivor Protection Act (VASPA), N.J.S.A. 2C:14-13 et seq. The PDVA allows courts to issue Final Restraining Orders (FROs) when the parties share a qualifying domestic relationship, such as spouses, former partners or parents who share a child. VASPA, enacted more recently, was designed to fill important gaps by providing Final Protective Orders (FPOs) to victims of sexual violence, stalking or cyber harassment who do not meet the PDVA’s relationship requirements.
In a recent unpublished decision, C.J.S. v. A.S., the New Jersey Appellate Division examined a seemingly simple yet deceptively complex issue: when, exactly, do parties have a “child in common” for purposes of determining which statute applies. The case highlights how small factual distinctions can significantly impact a victim’s access to legal protection.
The dispute arose out of broader family law litigation. The plaintiff, A.J.S., and his former spouse, S.S., share two minor children. During extensive post-judgment custody proceedings, S.S.’s then-boyfriend, A.S., was prohibited from having contact with the children due to allegations of sexual abuse. By the time the events at issue arose, S.S. had married the now defendant, A.S., making him the children’s stepfather. However, the family court’s no-contact order remained in place.
The plaintiff initially obtained a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) against the defendant in Bergen County, alleging stalking and cyber-harassment under VASPA. The case was later transferred to Essex County, where the Plaintiff’s and S.S.’s ongoing family court matter was docketed. The trial court ultimately dismissed the VASPA complaint and vacated the TPO, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because, as biological father and now stepfather, the parties allegedly had a “child in common” under the PDVA, making VASPA unavailable. The plaintiff appealed against that decision. At the heart of the appeal was a key question: does a non-biological stepparent relationship qualify as having a “child in common” with the biological parent, such that the PDVA—not VASPA—must apply?
The appellate division answered that question clearly: no. The court noted that the defendant had no custodial or parental rights and, in fact, had been barred from any contact with the children since 2020. It rejected the trial court’s reliance on D.V. v. A.H., a case in which the non-biological parent had been granted legal custody and court-ordered parenting responsibilities. Unlike that situation, A.S. had no custodial authority, no parenting role and no lawful contact with the children. As a result, the appellate division held that the parties did not share children in common solely by virtue of the biological mother’s marriage to S.S. and that VASPA relief was properly available.
The appellate division also addressed the issue of venue. The case had been transferred to Essex County because the plaintiff’s matrimonial matter was pending there, even though both parties lived in Bergen County and the alleged incidents occurred there. Because the parties did not have children in common, the court concluded that the transfer was improper. This portion of the decision reinforces the importance of filing protective order cases in the correct county based on the facts and governing statutes.
This decision is an important reminder that access to protective orders in New Jersey depends on specific legal definitions and the actual rights of each party, not labels like “spouse” or “stepparent.” In family law matters, assumptions about parenting roles can have real consequences, affecting everything from custody disputes to the enforcement of no-contact orders and a victim’s ability to obtain timely protection. Identifying the correct statute and filing in the proper venue at the outset is critical, as missteps can delay relief and compromise safety.
If you’re unsure whether the PDVA or VASPA offers the protections you need, the family law attorneys at Cohen Seglias can provide clarity and support. Our team is experienced in domestic violence, custody, and related family law matters, and we are ready to help you navigate the process.
