New Jersey Assembly Bill A5610

New Jersey 2024-2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/5/25
• Refer: 5/5/25

Caption

Adds training concerning coercive control to domestic violence training for judges and law enforcement officers.

Impact

If enacted, A5610 will amend existing laws concerning domestic violence training requirements under the current law N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29. The bill mandates that training programs undergo modifications to incorporate the new focus on coercive control, ensuring that judges and judicial personnel are equipped to recognize and respond to the complexities surrounding domestic violence situations. It will also necessitate revisions in the curriculum administered by the Division of Criminal Justice and by the Administrative Director of the Courts, which is expected to significantly improve judicial and law enforcement response to domestic violence cases.

Summary

Assembly Bill A5610 aims to enhance the training of judges and law enforcement officers regarding domestic violence by integrating specific training about coercive control into existing curricula. This bill emphasizes the significance of understanding the dynamics of domestic violence, particularly the subtle forms of abuse that go beyond physical violence. The training will cover critical topics such as the impact of domestic violence on children, the psychological effects of coercive control, and the procedures for issuing temporary and final restraining orders.

Contention

While the bill has received widespread support for its focus on better training, some members of the community have voiced concerns about the potential backlog that increased training requirements could impose on already strained judicial resources. Additionally, there are apprehensions regarding the adequacy of the new training modules and whether they can be sufficiently implemented across all municipalities. Stakeholders, especially domestic violence advocacy groups, advocate for the bill as a vital step toward improving outcomes for victims, whereas opponents worry about the feasibility of mandates given existing judicial infrastructure burdens.