Expanded Access to Family Court - "Intimate Relationships"

For many people seeking orders of protection, the Family Court may now be a possible resource. Previously, the Family Court was limited to hearing cases between spouses, people with a child in common or some form of blood relationship. However, the Famil Court can now hear cases involving issues between two people who are or have been in an "intimate relationship". You can review the specific language of the statute and about some of its implications here.

The question remains. . .what is an "intimate" relationship? Unfortunately, so far, not even the judges and referees have demonstrated a particularly strong understanding of the breadth of this expansion. As a result, in several counties, litigants must be prepared to prove to a designated J.H.O. (judicial hearing officer - generally former judges who now work part time) whether or not they have had an intimate relationship with the person against whom they are now seeking an order of protection.

As there is not much in the way of precedent on this issue, I can only offer my own experience since the law was enacted to give potential parties some guidance. Clearly, couples who lived together, both heterosexual and gay, and never had a child together would qualify, particularly if they had a sexual relationship. And while it is not specifically required that the parties live together or had a sexual relationship, it is unclear whether mere roommates qualify however, as one J.H.O. has ruled that they do have standing to seek an order of protection while another has ruled they have not. The distinguishing factor in these two cases was the length of time they had lived together, the shared nature of their finances, etc. However, absent the usual circumstances of people living together in a sexual relationship, the waters for would-be litigants get pretty murky. This is no doubt complicated by the fact that the last thing the Family Court needs is an onslaught of new litigants further congesting the court's already ridiculously bloated dockets.

For example, should a girlfriend who is being relentlessly harassed by an ex-wife of her new boyfriend have the right to go to Family Court? Should a mother who is assaulted by her former son-in-law have the right? Each case is different and needs to be examined independently. As a general rule, I would suggest that the more substantial and long lasting the connections between the parties, the more likely the Family Court is going permit the alleged victim to seek an order of protection.