65 Madison Ave · Suite 420 · Morristown, NJ · 07960

¡Attention TAC People!

Press 'p' on your keyboard to make this palette go away.

Max width: 1200px
Color Hex R G B
Blue from Logo#003d65 0 61 101
Darker Blue#021020 2 16 32
Red from Logo#780500 120 5 0
Darker Red#400000 64 0 0
Gray from Modern Firm Site#f3f2ed 243 242 237
Bright, Light Blue#ccebff 204 235 255
Form Input Background Blue#accfe6 172 207 230
Slightly Darker Blue#002e4d 0 46 77
Slightly Darker Gray#e6e5e0 0 46 77
Darker Gray#cccbc7 0 46 77
Lighter Logo Blue#005c99 204 235 255
Login Link Blue#598fb3 89 143 179
Slighty Lighter Red#99150f 153 21 15
Slighty Darker Gray#b3b2ae 179 178 174
Hunter Green#013b23 1 59 35
Lighter Green #025935 ? ? ?
Beige Charcoal #1f1e1e ? ? ?
"Metallic Gold" #D4AF37 ? ? ?
"Darker Green" #012e1b ? ? ?

When Good Orders Go Bad

Yesterday, my colleague posted a blog regarding the permanency of a Final Restraining Order (FRO) in New Jersey. This caused me to start thinking about the practical difficulties of living with an FRO between parties in situations where they must inevitably still communicate, such as when they have children in common. Many times I will encounter clients that say I need to keep my spouse away from me, but he, or she, is not a bad parent so I do not want to interfere with them seeing the kids.

In cases like these, it often becomes problematic to craft an FRO with enough specificity that a parent is not completely barred from his or her children as a result. Take, for example, the case of State v. S.K., an unpublished Appellate Division case which finally infused some common sense into this type of scenario. The FRO stated that S.K. was barred from “any other place where plaintiff is located.” Major problem. This would technically mean that S.K. could never be at any sporting event or school function (i.e. graduations, concerts, award ceremonies) if his ex-spouse was already there. This would trump his ability to attend meaningful activities in his children’s lives because the FRO was simply not specific to a particular location.

Fortunately, common sense prevailed and the Court agreed that this was overly broad. While the conduct of parties in an FRO can be barred, such as no harassing communications, the location of the person should not be the focus. The Court stated that “defendant should not be compelled to abandon his lawful presence in a public or other location only because his ex-wife also chooses to be present in the same general location.” To find otherwise, the Court recognized would subject Defendant to possible arrest for watching his children play soccer or going to the grocery store.

A properly crafted Order could have avoided all of the confusion and adversity experienced by this Defendant when all S.K. was doing was watching his child play a sport. It is important to discuss all possible scenarios with your attorney so that you know you will be covered in all foreseeable circumstances.

Posted By Elizabeth A. Calandrillo, Esq.

Begin Your Conversation

  • Disclaimer: Contacting our firm via the internet does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information through this form.

Contact Our Morris County Office

866-957-2982

973-828-0829

Morristown / Morris County Law Office

65 Madison Ave

Suite 420

Morristown, NJ 07960

Morris County Mediation Office Map