How Serious Must Harassment Be to Justify a NJ Final Restraining Order?

You may feel harassed by a current or past partner or spouse, but do the words or deeds justify a NJ Family Court Final Order restraining the one who said or did them? A recent New Jersey Appellate ruling broadly views what constitutes harassment, potentially widening protections for asserted victims.

The case involves two former spouses who divorced in 2006. In 2016, the wife, MLH, was awarded custody of their three children. In 2022, MLH obtained a temporary restraining order against WKP, her ex-husband, because of his harassing words and acts. WKP lived out of state.

The judge issued temporary (TRO) and final restraining orders (FRO). WKP lost his appeal to overturn the FRO.

Depending on the Content, Material Posted on the Internet Could Be Considered Harassing

WKP’s alleged harassment includes the following:

• After the custody decision, WKP started “Divorce 101” and “Lonely Farmer” YouTube channels. Over time, WKP had about 147,000 followers. He posted six videos where he discussed the end of the marriage and the parties’ divorce. WKP also talked about the contents of emails (some of which were sexual) between MLH and a man she had an affair with 18 years ago. WKP used his wife’s and his children’s actual names in the videos. One of the comments left by a viewer asked what would happen if WKP killed herself
• MLH claims that, as a result, she and their children were contacted by some of those watching the videos
• WKP stopped posting videos
• In March 2022, the two had an acrimonious telephone conversation where WKP insulted MLH and warned her, “I have a surprise for you,” apparently referring to his re-posted videos
• Later that month, MLH viewed the six re-posted YouTube videos

At a trial to determine if a FRO was warranted, MLH stated WKP’s online conduct adversely affected her life, health, and well-being. WKP didn’t deny posting the videos. He said he was chronicling his life and claimed he read the emails to viewers “for accuracy”. He also said he wanted his ex-wife to stop contacting him and promised her not to discuss the emails again.

Posting Videos and Causing Third Parties to Contact the Ex-Wife Were Prohibited By Court Order

The trial judge ruled in MLH’s favor and found WKP had harassed her. The Judge found WKP’s actions indefensible, that there was no legitimate reason to post the videos. The judge wrote that WKP “engaged in a course of alarming conduct and repeatedly committed acts with the purpose to seriously annoy [MLH].” The trial judge ordered WKP to stop harassing his ex-spouse.  He said WKP is

prohibited, specifically prohibited, from making or causing anyone else to make harassing communications to [plaintiff]. He’s prohibited from [p]osting these videos, specifically . . . .

WKP sought to overturn the FRO, but the trial judge denied his request. At the hearing, MLH testified anyone watching the videos could easily perform an internet search on their children and her:

Now, in the world that we live in today, I don’t know what these people are capable of doing or will do. I have two younger children here that are under the age of eighteen. I don’t know if somebody’s going to come burn my house . . . .

WKP unsuccessfully attempted to end the FRO twice before the appeal was decided.

Appellate Court Agrees the Ex-Husband Harassed His Ex-Wife and Affirmed the FRO

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued its decision upholding the FRO on November 1st. It stated:

New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act defines domestic violence as any one or more of eighteen crimes and offenses listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a). Harassment (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4) is one of them, and if it’s proven, a plaintiff may be entitled to an FRO.

Harassment can include:

• Making or causing to be made a communication in offensively coarse language or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm
• Engaging in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with the purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person

The Defendant’s communications and actions must be done with the intent to harass the target. That intent can be shown by the totality of circumstances and the inferences reasonably drawn from same, not just the Defendant’s words and actions.

The Appellate Court found “substantial credible evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that [WKP] committed an act of harassment.”

The decision states that WKP deliberately posted successive videos immediately fill owing telephone communications with the plaintiff and used the statement “I have a surprise for you”, which MLH reasonably interpreted as a threat, something more than what would ordinarily be said in a dispute between ex-spouses.

Kingston Law Group has successfully prosecuted and defended Domestic Violence charges for many years. We know how to present these cases in Family Court to maximize your chances of success. A finding of domestic violence will have profound impacts on people’s jobs, on custody decisions in later divorce of Family Dispute cases, and on mandatory listing in a national Domestic Violence Registry. On the other hand, a finding of “no liability” means the other party has no limit on their contacts with you, which could lead to further acts of aggression and harassment.

Undoubtedly, these are serious cases worthy of careful and complete trial preparation and presentation. We take these cases as seriously as you do.

Contact Our Family Lawyers

If you’re a victim of domestic violence or are falsely accused of committing it — and you would like to speak to a family law attorney about seeking or preventing a temporary or final restraining order, please contact our Princeton office online or by phone to arrange a near-term and reduced fee initial consultation. We accept credit cards and offer general appointments from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, plus evening appointments during the week by pre-arrangement only. Please write or call us at 609-683-7400. Call today. You will be glad you did!

In Light of New U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Employers Must Reasonably Accommodate Pregnant Workers, Too

If you’re pregnant and your employer has 15 or more employees, a new federal law may help you work longer. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) gives the same protections to pregnant employees as those seeking reasonable accommodations for their disability or religious beliefs. The law was first introduced in 2012, passed into law ten years later, and is now in effect.

The PWFA adds protections to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is more than 40 years old. That law contained many gaps and loopholes that the PWFA filled. Those with pregnancy-related conditions, like gestational diabetes or postpartum depression, are also covered by the law.

Congress intends that minor changes, like extra breaks for an employee with gestational diabetes to monitor their blood sugar levels or inject themselves with insulin, may help the mother and fetus stay healthy during the pregnancy. If the employee isn’t fired for taking extra breaks, she may remain employed longer during her pregnancy and earn more money before taking time off to give birth.

What is a Reasonable Accommodation for a Pregnant Employee?

Like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the PWFA is deliberately vague on what employers should do to accommodate employees, to encourage employees and employers to fill in the gaps.

Accommodations for workers could include:

• Providing chairs or stools for those who must stand for long periods
• More bathroom breaks
• Temporary reassignments to jobs with lighter duties or less exposure to toxic substances
• Flexible schedules
• Time off for prenatal checkups and postpartum care

Like the ADA, an accommodation proposed by an employee must be reasonable and not impose an undue burden on the employer. How this would play out in a particular workplace depends on the facts. What may be reasonable or an undue hardship for one employer may not be for another.

A closer call may be situations that result in a heavier burden on co-workers, especially for a smaller employer. Strenuous work can harm a pregnant worker. This could include third-shift work, lifting heavy objects, or exposure to toxins.  But employers are prohibited from guessing what pregnant workers need or presuming a disability where none exists.

If the pregnant employee does less of this work, non-pregnant workers may need to pick up the slack, making their jobs more dangerous or stressful. Depending on the circumstances, that may be an undue burden on the employer, who may consider an accommodation’s impact on its workforce when deciding if it’s an undue burden.

Is a Lack of Reasonable Accommodation a Problem for Pregnant Workers?

Twenty-three percent of mothers responding to a 2022 Bipartisan Policy Center poll stated they thought about quitting their jobs because of a lack of reasonable accommodations or fear of their employers’ discrimination/retaliatory reaction. Last fiscal year, 2,273 pregnant employees filed complaints with the federal agency enforcing anti-discrimination laws, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC estimates that at least a third of the new complaints are based on allegations that employers failed to reasonably accommodate their pregnancy or related conditions.

What Would be an Undue Burden for an Employer?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans employer discrimination based on a worker’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and states their beliefs and practices must be reasonably accommodated. If courts interprets the PWFA like Title VII, a US Supreme Court decision will help pregnant employees.

Before the recent federal ruling, an employer needed only show a minimal cost increase would be an undue burden and justify turning down a proposed accommodation. In a case involving a US Post Office employee who refused to work Sundays due to his religious practices and beliefs, the High Court decision states, according to Reuters, “We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantially increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”

In this case, co-workers and the employee’s supervisor were forced to work Sundays instead, putting additional work on the supervisor and resulting in complaints from co-workers. The case was dismissed early in the litigation process and was only ordered back to the trial court by a U.S. Supreme Court reversal.

How Should I Ask for a Reasonable Accommodation?

The employer need only make reasonable accommodations, so you’ll want to ask your treating physician what you can, can’t, and shouldn’t do at work. Your physician should write a letter spelling out the necessary changes.  Medical disclosures are kept to a reasonable minimum, for privacy reasons.

This should start a good faith, back-and-forth discussion with your employer if what you want isn’t acceptable. Both sides should be flexible. Neither side should take a “take it or leave it” position.

If the employer proposes something you don’t like, you may want to consider if it’s temporary and the employer is willing to reconsider later if it’s not meeting your needs. It’s easier to tell your boss a change doesn’t work after trying it instead of discussing it in the abstract and how it may not work. You may find their accommodation is good enough, or they may realize it’s not practical and your alternate request is worth attempting.

You should look at the situation from the employer’s perspective as you want them to look at yours. The change is temporary because your pregnancy will end in the future weeks or months, so this isn’t something you’ll need as long as you’re there. Your accommodation will also allow you to remain productive and continue to work during your pregnancy. It should be less of a burden for you to work with an accommodation than for you not to work at all.

Are You a Pregnant Worker?  Kingston Law Group Can Help You.

If so, the Kingston Law Group can help. Our employment discrimination attorneys protect the rights of employees and help them hold employers accountable for discriminatory behavior and policies of any type or stripe. If you have questions about accommodations for your pregnancy or a related health condition, email or call us at 609-683-7400 to arrange a consultation at our Mercer County law office. You will be glad you did!

Upon Divorce, Who Gets the NJ Pet? | Pet Custody

At a time when couples are having fewer children, they have more pets. These animals can provide emotional comfort, affection, and companionship. If a couple divorces, it is often critical to the parties who gets pet custody. The parties may genuinely care about and want to continue their relationship with their dog or cat, or one may seek custody to deprive their spouse of something the other party says s/he wants.

There are about 128 million households in the US as of last year, according to the Humane Society of the United States, and 90.5 million of them (or about 70%) include pets. There were nearly 690,000 divorces in the US in 2021, reports the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If 70% of these couples had pets, that’s an estimated 483,000 potential matters involving pet custody conflict.

Are Pets Property?

Pets are property in a New Jersey divorce but not subject to monetary compensation determinations like a vehicle or piece of art may be. They’re special property because of our emotional attachment to them. We have emotional bonds with our animals that we don’t usually have with appliances or furniture. If your dog is more faithful to you than your spouse, then it is your pooch who may deserve your love and attention.

How Are Pet Custody Disagreements Resolved Before a Divorce Trial?

If a couple disagrees about who gets a pet, there are probably other unresolved disputes involving child custody, child support, alimony, and division of property. If pet custody is essential to both spouses, they can, pun intended, horsetrade. That could be property, cash, or taking over a financial obligation.

As with a child, there can be shared pet custody where both make important decisions concerning the pet’s welfare, or one party may be satisfied with just visitation rights and spend less time with the animal. A mediator could help spouses find common ground and resolve disagreements over pets and co-parenting.

How Would a Judge Consider a Pet Custody Issue?

If one spouse possessed the pet before marriage, it probably will be considered personal property, not subject to equitable division through the divorce. It’s more complicated if the pet joined the family during the marriage.

If the parties can’t work out their differences, factors that may tip a pet custody decision in a party’s favor include:

• Who has a deeper bond with the pet and spends more time with it?
• Who has primary custody of children who want to spend time with it?
• Who is the pet’s primary caregiver?

Depending on the circumstances, shared custody may be ordered. If custody of a child is disputed, a judge will decide based on the child’s best interests. If custody of a pet is to be determined, the decision is more about what’s in the parties’ best emotional interests, not the pet’s best interests, but that certainly can be a factor in the decision.

Pre-Nups for Pups

A prenuptial or postnuptial agreement can spell out who’s entitled to what property (including pets) if the marriage ends. These are binding contracts created before or during a marriage. Though it may be difficult to discuss a marriage’s end, the cost of such an agreement will be far less than litigating pet custody during a divorce. These agreements have certain requirements to be legally enforceable so you should contact our office before putting one together on your own.

Pet Plans

Whether as part of an agreement or court order, there should be a plan in place so each party knows their responsibilities. The more vague a party’s obligations, the more likely there disputes will arise because they’re not met.

A pet plan should include:

• Identifying the pet’s primary owner/caregiver
• Living arrangements
• Scheduled visitation times
• Financial arrangements for the pet’s care
• Who’s responsible for veterinary care
• How the parties will make important decisions about the pet’s welfare
• What happens if one party is unwilling or unable to care for the pet

If you have children, you may want to mirror a parent’s time with the children and pet, which may benefit all involved.

Get the Help You Need From a Divorce Attorney You Can Trust

If your spouse and you can’t agree on who will care for your pet after your divorce or other important issues, hire a family law specialist attorney to represent you. Kingston Law Group attorneys are available when you need us. We are compassionate counsel and tough advocates.

Call 609-683-7400 or contact us online to schedule a near-term reduced fee initial consult at our Central Jersey offices in Princeton. We will listen to your facts, advise you on the law, and recommend the best path to social and economic justice for you. Call us today! You will be glad you did.

Post-NJ Divorce, How Difficult Should It Be to Prove Your Ex is Cohabiting With Another?

A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision touched on two critical issues that affect many of those paying and receiving spousal support or alimony. Living with another (or cohabitating) could provide grounds to disqualify someone from receiving alimony. How difficult should that be to prove? The Court’s August 2023 decision made it easier to prove an ex is cohabitating with another post-divorce and, potentially, end their spousal support.

What is Discovery?

The decision involves spousal support, how it may potentially be cut off, and discovery. Discovery is part of the litigation process, where the parties obtain information from each other about facts and documents affecting their legal dispute. It can be information, documents, or interviewing parties and witnesses under oath by attorneys for both sides (called a deposition). What’s requested could be evidence used in the case or something that may help lead a party to possible evidence.  “Relevance” is not a valid objection to a discovery demand.

What is Alimony or Spousal Support?

Alimony is financial support given by one party to another. It can be granted when the parties no longer live together but are still married during the divorce process. As part of the divorce, a spouse may receive support for a limited time or until the other’s actual retirement post-age 67.

What is Cohabitation, and Why Does It Matter?

By NJ law, a party may lose their right to alimony (temporarily or permanently) if they cohabit with another. Under state statute, “Cohabitation involves a mutually supportive, intimate personal relationship in which a couple has undertaken duties and privileges that are commonly associated with marriage or civil union but does not necessarily maintain a single common household.”

That same statute spells out the factors a judge should consider when deciding if a person receiving spousal support is cohabitating with another:

1. Intertwined finances such as joint bank accounts and other joint holdings or liabilities
2. Sharing or joint responsibility for living expenses
3. Recognition of the relationship in the couple’s social and family circle
4. Living together, the frequency of contact, the duration of the relationship, and other indicia of a mutually supportive, intimate personal relationship
5. Sharing household chores
6. Whether the alimony recipient has received an enforceable promise of support from another person…
7. All other relevant evidence

Not all of these factors must be met for a judge to find a person is cohabitating with another.

How is This Issue Normally Brought Up to the Court?

If the person paying alimony (the payor) learns the other party (the payee) may be cohabiting with another, they can ask a family court judge to amend the divorce order to state they’re no longer obligated to make payments. But how much evidence does the payor need to convince a judge they can stick their discovery nose into the business of the payee and their alleged partner?

The State Supreme Court Sets a Lower Bar for Payors to Pass

That’s the issue decided by the Court in Cardali v. Cardali, and the outcome is: Not a lot. The ex-husband raised the issue in the trial court, which responded that discovery wouldn’t be allowed since he hadn’t shown a “prima facie” case of cohabitation. He appealed the decision to an Appellate Court, which agreed with the lower court. The NJ Supreme Court overturned those decisions.

The payor, Michael Cardali, thanks to a private investigator, presented evidence relevant to some of the cohabitation factors but lacked evidence of a financial relationship between his ex-wife, Suzanne Cardali, and her alleged partner, Bruce McDermott. Michael argued he was in a “chicken and the egg” situation. Without discovery, he couldn’t obtain the financial information needed for the court to allow discovery.

The lower court denied Michael’s request for discovery to potentially change the couple’s property settlement agreement because he hadn’t shown a “prima facie” (or preliminary) case of cohabitation by not showing evidence concerning all the cohabitation factors a judge could consider.

The Supreme Court stated the party seeking discovery must “show cohabitation to the satisfaction of the (trial) court” and that it would be enough to provide sufficient evidence “which a trier of fact could conclude the supported spouse and another are in ‘a mutually supportive, intimate personal relationship’ in which they have ‘undertaken duties and privileges that are commonly associated with marriage or civil union.’”

The court ruled that the payor need only provide a “threshold showing…so that the privacy of the spouse or civil union partner receiving alimony is not invaded in pursuit of a baseless cohabitation claim.” It went on to state:

[T]he mandate that a movant present a prima facie showing in order to obtain discovery is not intended to impose a high bar….[T]he movant (the party seeking discovery) is entitled to an assumption of the truth of his allegations and the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence he had marshaled.…The movant’s burden at the preliminary stage is not an onerous one.’

Trial courts shouldn’t find the movant has failed to present a prima facie just because the other party disputes relevant, alleged facts. The court also found that, at this early stage in the process, it’s unfair to ask payors to provide facts supporting their claims for all the factors listed in the statute, especially financial information, which people usually closely guard.

Instead, if the movant presents a certification (listing facts) supported by competent evidence as to at least some of the relevant factors, and if that evidence, if unrebutted, would sustain the movant’s burden of proof as to cohabitation, the trial court should find that the movant has made a prima facie showing even if the spouse or civil union partner receiving alimony presents a certification contesting facts asserted by the movant.

As a result, if you believe your ex is cohabitating with another and you should no longer have to pay spousal support, the New Jersey Supreme Court just made it easier for you to find evidence that supports your belief.  If you have been accused of cohabiting with another and it just isn’t true, then you need excellent legal help on which to defend.

Contact Our Family Lawyers

If you would like to speak to a member of our firm about alimony or another family law matter, please get in touch with our Princeton office to arrange a consultation. We accept credit cards and offer general appointments from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, plus evening appointments during the week by pre-arrangement only. Please write us online or call us at 609-683-7400. Call today.  You will be glad you did!

How Will the End of Affirmative Action in College Admissions Impact Employers?

The US Supreme Court in June voted to end affirmative action in college admissions, ending four decades of court-approved efforts to diversify student bodies by considering their race, gender, ethnicity, and other characteristics.  Will employers follow their lead and cease employee diversity efforts?  Yes, because most of them will think, rightly so, that affirmative action in the employment setting is almost certainly the next domino to fall.

By a six (6) to three (3) margin, the Justices ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that no matter how well-intentioned the goals, race was not a permissible factor when a college decides which students should or shouldn’t be admitted.

 Does the Decision End Employers’ Plans to Create a More Inclusive Workforce?

Employers’ diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs often include outreach efforts to attract more minority job candidates and racial equity audits to promote equal opportunity for employees and applicants, according to the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM). Employers may also state their goals are to create a more diverse (perhaps less White and male) workforce and management team.

Indirectly, the new decision may result in fewer minorities attending college.  Presuming their college attendance declines, minority hires may be ineligible for jobs requiring a college degree. Although the decision doesn’t address hiring, it opens the door to potential legal challenges to DEI programs, especially if race is the reason for an individual not to be hired or promoted, or if the employer sets explicit quotas for hiring or promotions.

DEI has become a political “hot potato” among conservative groups, because it’s seen as putting White applicants and employees at an unfair disadvantage. Under a recently passed Florida law, state colleges and universities cannot fund DEI programs.

 May Employers Select Favorites?

Race and other discrimination are already illegal under state and federal anti-discrimination employment laws. Generally, employers can’t legally/explicitly consider race when making decisions around recruiting, hiring, promotion, or termination. DEI programs need to be narrowly tailored, fair, and equitable to comply with existing laws.

The Supreme Court ruled in United Steelworkers v. Weber that private sector affirmative action plans are legal if they address a “manifest imbalance” in a “traditionally segregated workforce.” Most courts have interpreted that as requiring the plan to be supported by direct or statistical evidence of discrimination against the group benefiting from the plan.  It is unclear whether this doctrine will survive the current Supreme Court majority’s sweeping changes.

 When Good Intentions Result in Bad Decisions

A 2003 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit shows where private affirmative action plans (and potentially, DEI efforts) can run afoul of the law. A group of Black Xerox employees claimed they were denied job opportunities because of their race. The company used a plan to diversify its Houston office as a reason for its actions. The plaintiffs successfully argued Xerox discriminated against them, and the trial court’s decision to dismiss their claims was overturned.

To succeed, a plaintiff in a discrimination case must establish:

• They are a member of a protected class (due to their race, sex, disability, gender, sexual orientation, etc.);
• They are qualified for the position;
• They suffered a negative employment action (weren’t hired, for example); and
• Afterwards, someone who was not a member of the protected class got more favorable treatment (they were hired or promoted), even though the negatively affected candidate/employee was better qualified for the position.

If the plaintiff establishes this “prima facie” case, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. In this case, Xerox cited its affirmative action plan.

Xerox’s plan was designed to ensure that the racial and gender makeup of Xerox employees in its Houston office were in reasonable proportion to the local workforce, according to the National Review. The company created ethnic and racial “goals” for each job and grade. Management members were evaluated on their success in meeting these goals. The plan wasn’t designed to address past discrimination or a traditional workforce imbalance.

The appeals court found the affirmative action plan was direct evidence of discrimination, not a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions:

Xerox candidly identified explicit racial goals for each job and grade level. The reports also stated that blacks were over-represented and whites were under-represented in almost every job and grade level at the Houston office. Senior staff notes and evaluations also indicate that managers were evaluated on how well they complied with the (plan) objectives. A [rational] jury looking at these facts could find that Xerox considered race in fashioning its employment policies and that because Plaintiffs were Black, their employment opportunities had been limited.

The federal appellate court returned the case to the trial court to allow it to consider the impact of the affirmative action plan.

 If You Don’t Defend Your Legal Rights, You Will Lose Them

The direction of the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be this: whether your employer has a DEI or affirmative action plan or not, you shouldn’t be denied employment opportunities no matter what protected basis you belong to, or don’t belong to.

Kingston Law Group’s central New Jersey employment discrimination attorneys protect the rights of employees and help them hold employers accountable for discriminatory behavior and policies of any type or stripe. Send us an email or call us at 609-683-7400 to arrange a consultation at our Mercer County law office. You will be glad you did.

Among Many Good Reasons to Engage in a Custody Dispute, Revenge Isn’t One of Them!

Child custody cases are often emotionally charged and it is not uncommon for one or both parents to act out of revenge. This can have devastating consequences for the children involved, as well as for the parents themselves.

Revenge is a form of aggression, according to a recent Forbes article. It’s a behavioral response by an individual based on their perception of an injustice they suffer. It’s directed against the villain in this drama, whom the aggressor identifies (rightly or wrongly) as the cause of the injury. 

The person seeking revenge must have a perception of (if not having sustained actual) harm -- through no fault of their own. Revenge and anger are closely related.  If a parent stays angry, it’s a good predictor of revenge. 

Who Might Seek Revenge?

Psychological research shows three traits that make up the “dark triad” that most often lead to acts of vengeance:

• Narcissistic: Narcissistic people are boastful, selfish, arrogant, hypersensitive to criticism, and they lack empathy.
• Machiavellian: The word comes from 16th-century Italian politician and diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavellianism is associated with manipulation, duplicity, self-interest, and a lack of morality/emotion.
• Psychopathy: Personality traits connected to psychopathy include manipulation, volatile and antisocial behavior, and a lack of empathy or remorse. 

Narcissism has the weakest link to revenge. But people with any of these traits are more prone to seek revenge and become violent. Often those seeking revenge will also harass their victims.

About one out of every 20 people would not have any problem taking revenge on their ex-partner, according to a study published in 2019. It’s based on questionnaire responses from 384 parents of minor children.

How Might a Parent Attempt Revenge?

Parental revenge takes many forms, the most common being:

• Using the child and third parties to get one’s way;

• Economic manipulation (including protracted legal disputes, thereby increasing the other party’s legal fees and costs); and

• Cutting off communication

Men and women are equal when it comes to the magnitudes and types of vengeful behaviors. Revenge is seen as an alternative to our court system to impose a person’s version of justice on others, and the courts are used perversely as a weapon to attack the other side. 

One parent may harm their child psychologically or physically in a way that are difficult or impossible to prove. When the other parent complains, the burden of proof is on them, and others may perceive them incorrectly as an aggressor fabricating claims. 

Perpetrators objectify the other parent, their child, and others, seeing them as pawns or tools, not people, to help them avenge past humiliations. The more intense the relationship with the other parent, the greater the need for revenge. 

How Does Revenge Harm Others?

Revenge can have devastating consequences for children. Children who are caught in the middle of a custody battle are often traumatized by the experience. They may feel like they are being pulled apart by their parents, and they may worry about their safety and well-being. In some cases, children are pawns in their parents' revenge games.

For parents struggling to cope with the emotional aftermath of a vengeful divorce, seek professional help. A therapist can help you to deal with your anger and grief in a healthy way, and they can also help you to develop strategies for co-parenting with your ex-partner in a way that is in the best interests of your children.

Contact Us Today

If you’re in the middle of a vengeful family court matter, or you fear asserting your rights will result in retaliation in some way, then you need to speak with a Kingston Law Group attorney.

Whether it involves child custody, child support, or other divorce proceedings, contact our office to arrange a consultation by calling us at 609-683-7400. We accept all major credit cards and offer general appointments from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, plus evening appointments during the week by pre-arrangement only. Call or write us today.  You will be glad you did!

“Can I Be Fired Because I’m Overweight?”

Unless your weight has some connection to a “protected basis” in anti-discrimination law, in New Jersey, you can be fired because you’re overweight. As long as a firing decision isn’t illegal, the reason can be as irrational and illogical as your employer sees fit.

The issue of discrimination against people who are heavier than average is getting more attention. An anti-weight discrimination law in Michigan and a similar ordinance in New York City are on the books. Last year a bill to amend the state’s law against discrimination to include weight was introduced but didn’t pass. There’s no federal law explicitly prohibiting weight discrimination in employment.

How Can Weight Discrimination Be Illegal in New Jersey?

Disability employment law might be best known for requiring employers to reasonably accommodate a worker’s disability, but it also acts like more traditional anti-discrimination laws. It’s just as it’s illegal to fire someone due to their race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) states an employee with a disability is a person:

• With a mental or physical impairment substantially limiting one or more major life activities
• With a record or history of such an impairment, or
• Perceived or regarded by others as having such an impairment

“Major life activities” includes “major bodily functions,” which can be:

• Major life activities: Caring for yourself, performing manual tasks, and the ability to see, hear, eat, sleep, stand, walk, lift, bend, speak, learn, breathe, read, think, concentrate, communicate, and work
• Major Bodily Functions: The ability of your body to normally function in the areas of immunity, cell growth, digest food, eliminate waste, reproduce, think, and feel

To be perceived or regarded as disabled under the ADA, you must show you were subjected to an illegal action (you were fired) due to an actual or perceived impairment that’s not temporary or minor.

If you fit into one or more classifications, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) and the ADA protect you. Employers must provide those with disabilities an equal opportunities to benefit from the pay, benefits, conditions and opportunities available to non-disabled employees.

Can There Be a Connection Between Disability and Being Overweight?

Physical and psychological disabilities or their treatment can cause weight gain. They include:

• Depression
• Insomnia
• Addiction disorders
• Cushing’s disease
• Sleep apnea
• Metabolic disorders
• Diabetes

Medications like steroids can also result in weight gain.

If you can show your weight is connected to a current disability (it’s a direct result of your condition, it’s a side effect, or due to your treatment), or you have a record or a history with a disability impacting your weight, you may fall under the law’s protection.

 How Would I Prove My Case?

To show you’re perceived as disabled, you’re in a better position if you have had conversations with your boss (ideally with witnesses) where they state that there’s something about the job you can’t do or do well enough (stand, lift, focus, stay awake), to maintain your position due to your weight, which is seen as a severe and chronic problem.

Witnesses recounting damaging statements outside your presence, and the contents of text messages, memos, or emails could also be very useful.

This kind of direct evidence of discriminatory motive would also help you if you’re disabled or have a record of a disability. Other types of evidence that could support your case include:

• Your requested reasonable accommodation to perform your job was rejected
• Similarly situated, non-disabled co-workers (people doing the same or similar work) were treated better

Discrimination cases are generally difficult to prove, but that varies on the strength of the evidence. Sometimes that’s provided by unprofessional, biased supervisors who freely discuss their unsupported, negative opinions, unaware or uncaring that they’re getting themselves into trouble.

If You Don’t Protect Your Legal Rights, You Will Lose Them

Kingston Law Group’s central New Jersey disability discrimination attorneys protect the rights of employees and help them hold employers accountable for discriminatory behavior and policies. Send us an email or call us at 609-683-7400 to arrange a consultation at our Mercer County law office.

“Will a NJ Trial Judge Allow our Child to Testify During a Child Custody and Parenting Time Hearing?”

 The New Jersey Rules of Court grant trial judge’s discretion whether to have children testify at a hearing on child custody and parenting time. If that takes place, it won’t be held in open court but rather as an interview in the judge’s chambers. The judge would need to feel the testimony is relevant, it’s in the child’s best interests, they’re mature and intelligent enough to testify truthfully, and understand what’s happening.

What’s the Rule?

 Rule 5:8-6 states:

Where the court finds that the custody of children is a genuine and substantial issue, the court shall set a hearing date no later than six months after the last responsive pleading. The court may, in order to protect the best interests of the children, conduct the custody hearing in a family action prior to a final hearing of the entire family action. As part of the custody hearing, the court may on its own motion or at the request of a litigant conduct an [in-chambers] interview with the child(ren). [T]he decision to conduct an interview shall be made before trial. If the court elects not to conduct an interview, it shall place its reasons on the record. If the court elects to conduct an interview, it shall afford counsel the opportunity to submit questions for the court’s use during the interview and shall place on the record its reasons for not asking any question thus submitted. A stenographic or recorded record shall be made of each interview in its entirety. Transcripts thereof shall be provided to counsel and the parties upon request and payment of the cost. However, neither parent shall discuss nor reveal the contents of the interview with the children or third parties without permission of the court. Counsel shall have the right to provide the transcript or its contents to any expert retained on the issue of custody. Any judgment or order pursuant to this hearing shall be treated as a final judgment or order for custody.

In a custody dispute, New Jersey allows judges to consider or ignore a child’s preference as to which parent the child prefers to live with more or most of the time. Judges in other states must consider the testifying child’s opinion.

How Old Must the Child Be to Testify?

 There’s no age range. A judge will consider a child’s maturity, intelligence, and ability to reason before having them testify. Some older children are immature, while some younger ones may be completely capable of handling the situation.

How Might a Child Approach the Situation?

A child’s reaction to the interview process will vary based on their personality, desires, and motivations. Some children may be frightened of the situation and not want to be seen as “ganging up” on one parent. Others, justifiably or not, may not want one parent to have custody and may be eager to voice an opinion. Some children recognize that they’re the focus of this struggle and want their voices to be heard.

When Would a Child Want to Testify?

Some judges may be more reluctant than others to involve children in custody proceedings. With such judges, children are more likely to testify if they’re fact witnesses to disputed events involving their parents. If a judge is confident a child is mature and handles the situation well, they may be open to allowing a child’s testimony to influence the outcome.

How Do Such Judicial Interviews Actually Work?

The judge may start with “small talk” and try to build a rapport with the child to put them at ease and get an idea of their vocabulary, personality, and communication skills. A judge may also try to make the child understand they’re looking for the truth, and that’s what the child should state.

As the Rule states, the judge may question the child in their chambers, with parents and their attorneys out of the room.  A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings. The attorneys may submit questions beforehand, but the judge asks what they feel is appropriate. The attorneys can get transcripts afterward, which can be shared with the parents for reading only, not to take home or have on a computer.  The contents of the interview must not be discussed between parents and children.  Forensic expert witnesses, like child psychologists, can review the transcripts.

What are Considerations for Parents?

There’s a difference between preparing a witness and coaching one.

You can prepare your child by explaining what will happen and what might be asked. Tell them to try to relax and to only tell the truth. They need to listen to the judge, think for a moment, and answer the questions honestly. If they don’t know the answer or can’t remember an incident the judge asks about, the correct response is to admit that. If they don’t understand something or have a question for the judge, they should let the judge know.

This isn’t school, this isn’t a test, they won’t be graded, and this isn’t pass/fail. It’s a conversation.

Don’t coach your child by telling them what to say. You put yourself in a situation where a judge may ask your child if a parent told them what to say. If they say you did, that will make you look terrible and could jeopardize your case. If they say you didn’t, but you did, then they are lying for you.  Don’t implicitly or explicitly promise some benefit or punishment if they say or don’t say something.

Your child may say something unexpected. They have a different perspective and may remember events differently than you do. If something they said harms your case, don’t get angry with your child or punish them. If you do, then you most likely shouldn’t have custody of them.

Get the Help You Need from a Child Custody Attorney You Can Trust

The attorneys at the Kingston Law Group are compassionate counsel and tough advocates. Call us at 1-609-683-7400 or contact us online to schedule a near-term reduced fee initial consultation at our Central Jersey offices in Princeton. We will listen to your facts, advise you on the law, and recommend the best legal route for you to attain social justice. Call us today. You will be glad you did.