New Jersey Assembly Bill A698

New Jersey 2022-2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/11/22
• Refer: 1/11/22

Caption

Requires court to consider results of domestic violence assessment before dissolving certain domestic violence restraining orders.

Impact

The implementation of A698 is expected to amend existing provisions governing domestic violence cases, specifically section P.L. 1991, c. 261 (C.2C:25-29). By requiring the court to assess the results of domestic violence assessments, the bill aims to prevent the premature dissolution of protective orders, which can leave victims vulnerable. The law clarifies that defendants will be responsible for the costs of these assessments, which seek to evaluate the risk they pose to victims and others. This legislative change emphasizes a stronger approach to victim safety within the judicial framework.

Summary

Bill A698 is an act concerning domestic violence assessments in the state of New Jersey. It mandates that before dissolving a final restraining order, the court must consider the results of a domestic violence assessment, especially if the defendant has two or more such orders against them. This is aimed at enhancing the protection of victims by ensuring that any decision to alleviate a restraining order is informed by a comprehensive understanding of the defendant's likelihood to commit further acts of violence. The assessments will be conducted by qualified mental health professionals and will be confidential.

Contention

While the bill seeks to enhance victim safety, it may also face contention regarding the costs associated with assessments and the potential delays in judicial processes. Supporters argue that comprehensive evaluations are crucial for making informed decisions, potentially influencing the engagement of mental health professionals. However, critics may raise concerns about the accessibility of these assessments and whether they might add to the burdens faced by already vulnerable victims. The necessity of ensuring full judicial records and qualified professionals for these assessments could also spark debate about resource allocation within the legal system.