Stevenson v. Stevenson
New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division
714 A.2d 986 (1998)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Melody Stevenson (plaintiff) filed a complaint charging her husband, Robert Stevenson (defendant) with violating the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA). Evidence at the hearing established that Robert violated the PDVA by committing various criminal acts during a brutal attack in which Melody suffered a fractured skull, a concussion, four broken ribs, a punctured lung, and facial injuries. Melody testified that she feared Robert, he had assaulted her previously, and she was afraid he would take their son and leave the area. A final restraining order was entered prohibiting further violence, barring Robert from having any contact or communication with Melody, requiring Robert to undergo substance-abuse and psychological evaluations, and restricting Robert to supervised visitation. Four months later, Melody requested that the court dissolve the final restraining order on the condition that Robert commit no further violence. Melody claimed she had reconsidered the relationship and wanted Robert to be involved with their son. Risk-assessment, substance-abuse, and psychological evaluations of Robert were submitted to the court. The evaluations recommended psychotherapy and substance-abuse treatment and expressed concern about Robert’s need for control and threats he would do anything to gain custody of his son.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cook, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.