Former caregiver deemed household member under DV law M.S. v. D.H.

Former caregiver deemed household member under DV law M.S. v. D.H.

Defendant appealed from the final restraining order entered against him and in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff had hired defendant as a caregiver for plaintiff's autistic 23-year-old son, J.S., who had a history of violent outbursts. As a result, defendant lived with plaintiff and J.S. until plaintiff terminated defendant's employment. Plaintiff then filed a complaint for a restraining order against defendant, alleging defendant committed acts of harassment. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant made death threats against plaintiff, demanded long-term employment contracts, and pressured plaintiff into purchasing a property. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was "weaponizing" J.S. against plaintiff by influencing J.S. to be hostile and violent towards plaintiff. Plaintiff stated that he was frightened by defendant, alleging that defendant had described himself as ex-military and had also shown plaintiff his heavily-stocked gun locker. In his defense, defendant claimed that the statements referred to his belief that plaintiff and J.S. would not be able to live together without harming each other and his threats were "benign threats" to sue for compensation for injuries he suffered from J.S.'s attacks. Defendant also presented testimony from neighbors about the positive impact defendant had on J.S. The trial court granted the FRO, noting that the parties had lived together for a year and defendant continued to care for J.S., necessitating future contact between the parties. The trial court found plaintiff's testimony about the predicate acts of harassment credible and rejected defendant's explanation for his statements. On appeal, the court affirmed entry of the FRO. The court first held that defendant, as a former live-in caregiver, qualified as a "household member" under the PDVA. The court further held that the record supported the trial court's conclusion that defendant's statements and threats to plaintiff constituted the predicate act of harassment, and that a FRO was necessary to protect plaintiff given defendant's access to weapons.

source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1585202909NJA154818T/