Addressing the Digital Age in Family Law: Divorce and Domestic Violence in New Jersey

Growing advances in technology have challenged the United States’ Family Court system. In New Jersey, online dating and testimony via video call forced the court system to interpret existing statutes in a new light. Two cases, Pathri v. Kakarlamath and  C.C. v. J.A.H., directly addressed the impact of the internet on marital law and domestic violence protections. Pathri reexamined the Federal Rules of Procedure to determine if video testimony in marital cases is permissible, opening up the door for trans-national Zoom calls for divorce and alimony cases. C.C. v. J.A.H., on the other hand, addressed the applicability of restraining orders in cases of virtual domestic violence. Although both cases took place in New Jersey, they created valuable precedent in addressing future cases across the United States. 

The case of Pathri v. Kakarlamath (2020) addresses the issue of virtual testimony in divorce and custody hearings. This case was on appeal from an order from the Superior Family Court and presented to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. Plaintiff Phaninder Pathri filed for a divorce in 2018 from his wife, Srivani Kakarlamath. The couple moved to the United States from India in 2007 and had two children. After filing for the divorce, Plaintiff moved back to India, and the trial was set for June of 2019. However, Plaintiff claimed that he was unable to get a visa to return to the United States. Thus, Plaintiff appealed a previous motion denying him to provide his testimony through contemporaneous video call. The Superior Court was tasked with deciding if the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure allowed for such procedure to occur. 

The efficacy of the virtual call was contested due to the ability to assess Plaintiff’s testimony and credibility. Because of this, the trial was stayed. However, the judges assessed the viability of virtual testimony over seven factors of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a): the importance of the witness, the severity of the factual dispute, the factfinder of the trial as a judge or jury, the cost of requiring the witness in person, the delay caused by requiring physical appearance, if the inability to appear in person was foreseeable, and the difficulty of appearing in person. The court decided that in marital disputes, the material facts of the case are largely the same, with only slight personal deviations as to the factors of the relationship (i.e.: character of the spouse). The Court also found that the judge would be able to overcome any barriers to ascertaining the plaintiff’s credibility. 

As to the costs and delay, the court ruled that the video testimony would be less costly to the plaintiff, would cause less delay, and lead to a speedy trial. For the foreseeable inability and difficulty, the judges ruled that there should be more evidence present as to why the plaintiff could not return to the United States, as he was likely able to receive a visa. The Court decided that more information about Plaintiff’s situation should be ascertained before making a final decision to allow virtual testimony in this particular case.

Additionally, the court ruled that the judge has the right to impose certain restrictions on the video communication, such as forcing the plaintiff to present his entire body, as well as the quality of the transmission and the number of monitors in the courtroom. The interpretation of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure set precedent that virtual testimony is permissible, but using it is up to the discretion of the judge. Little did the Court know that in a few months, the entire court system would have to adapt to said virtual testimony due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Pathri introduced the positive use of the internet to facilitate court proceedings, but the second case, C.C. v J.A.H., highlighted the negative aspects of the internet. While contemporaneous video conferencing assisted Pathri in his case, the defendant J.A.H. used the internet to threaten and harass plaintiff C.C. during their online relationship. C.C. v. J.A.H. involved the issuance of a final restraining order (FRO) in accordance with the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) based on Plaintiff’s fear of Defendant. Compared to most domestic violence cases, this case was unique: the vast majority of the relationship was conducted online, the parties had never been on an in-person date, and their entire relationship was composed of over 1,300 online messages. 

The PDVA requires that a “dating relationship” exists between the two parties. While traditional relationships, i.e. in person dates, are the predominant form of cases brought before the court in addressing domestic violence claims and FROs, this history is not determinative of future decisions. In particular, the Court held that relationships must be considered within “the parties’ own understanding of their relationship as colored by socio-economic and generational influences.” In other words, a rigid definition of what a relationship looks like should not be an overriding factor in deciding if a relationship exists. 

However, a simple chat-log of messages does not mean that there is a dating relationship between two people. Notably, the messages between the parties were explicit in nature and very flirtatious. They had discussed intimate details about themselves and considered the idea of dating. The Court held from the trial court’s finding that an intimate dating relationship was present. 

The plaintiff sought a FRO against the defendant due to vulgar communication over text. To determine if domestic violence has taken place, the court should examine five main factors: prior history of domestic violence, including threats and harassment; existence of immediate danger; financial circumstances; best interests of the victim; and the protection of the victims safety. The judge found that even though there was only one instance of vulgar communication, the intent of the communication was to harass the defendant, and in doing so it became criminal harassment. One instance of domestic violence is enough for the issuance of an FRO, even if there is no prior history of violence. 

Due to the defendant’s incessant text messages at the tail end of their relationship, Plaintiff feared that he would take further action against her if he found out her address. Without the issuance of a final restraining order, she felt that she was living in fear of his next potential action. The judge decided that the issuance of the FRO was in the best interest of the plaintiff, and it was so granted. 

The internet has become a vital tool in our everyday lives in both negative and positive ways. To address these newfound developments, the State Court System of New Jersey has established compelling precedent regarding family law in the digital age. Pathri demonstrated the applicability of video calling for trans-national testimony. The permittance of virtual testimony paved the way for future e-trials during the pandemic and represents a court system that is resilient and responsive to new technology. C.C., on the other hand,showed the internet’s ability to be used as a tool for domestic violence. It is one challenge to address technology in civil procedure, however C.C. represents an entirely new brand of awareness by the court: instead of dismissing the online relationship as harmless flirting, the judge recognized the intimacy of their exchanges and the potential for harm that existed through harassing messages. Overall, Pathri and C.C. demonstrate a new wave of technologically ridden court procedures.

Olwyn Kells is a junior concentrating in International and Public Affairs and Slavic Studies. She currently serves as a staff writer for the BULR Blog, and can be reached at olwyn_kells@brown.edu.