more than a casual dating relationship, but it is not
necessary for the parties to reside together. Desiato v.
Abbott, 261 N.J. Super. 30, 34 (Ch. Div. 1992). The
determination depends upon a case-by-case analysis
including a consideration of the amount of time the
parties spend together in the context of the constancy of
the relationship, over-night visits, storage of personal
items at the other party’s residence, shared property
arrangements regarding use of automobiles, bank
accounts, or mailing addresses, and familiarity with the
other party’s family functions. Id.; see also Smith v. Moore,
298 N.J. Super. 121, 126 (App. Div. 1997) (woman who
shared weekend summer vacation housing with another
women, including the alleged perpetrator of domestic
violence was not a “victim” pursuant to the Act when the
alleged domestic violence of telephone harassment
occurred months later, in the autumn, and was unrelated
to any domestic circumstance of the parties); Jutchenko v.
Jutchenko, 283 N.J. Super. 17 (App. Div. 1995)
(Domestic Violence Act did not apply to allegations of
harassment of one brother against another brother as a
“former household member” when the brothers had not
resided in same household for 20 years and there was no
showing that the defendant brother’s past domestic
relationship with the plaintiff brother provided a special
opportunity for abusive and controlling behavior);
Bryant v. Burnett, 264 N.J. Super. 222 (App. Div.)
(plaintiff was a “household member” under the Domestic
Violence Act when she lived with the defendant at the
time that the domestic violence act occurred; the parties
intent as to the permanency of relationship and the
circumstances surrounding the agreement to live
together were irrelevant), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 478
(1993); South v. North, 304 N.J. Super. 104, 109-114
(Ch. Div. 1997) (father of the victim’s grandchild, who
lived with grandchild and the victim’s daughter in same
apartment complex as the victim, and who had previously
been in dating relationship with the victim, was a
“household member” of the victim for purposes of the
Domestic Violence Act because the parties shared
domestic responsibilities, although the family situation
was non-traditional); Sisco v. Sisco, 296 N.J. Super. 245,
248-49 (Ch. Div. 1996) (adult daughter’s allegations
against father, with whom she had not resided in same
household for more than 15 years, did not satisfy
jurisdictional requirements of the Domestic Violence Act
because her allegations did not establish a special
opportunity for “abusive and controlling behavior” on
the part of her father); Croswell v. Shenouda, 275 N.J.
Super. 614, 622-23 (Ch. Div. 1994) (intimate
relationship between the parties did not automatically
make the plaintiff and defendant household members);
Torres v. Lancellotti, 257 N.J. Super. 126 (Ch. Div. 1992)
(Domestic Violence Act applied when the defendant was
the plaintiff’s live-in male friend for eight years although
the parties were not married and had no children).4. Dating Relationship
The recognition of a “dating relationship” between
the perpetrator of domestic violence and the victim was
added to the 1991 Act. This addition is in accordance
with one court’s interpretation of the prior law where a
“girlfriend” was considered a “victim” under the Act as a
“household member.” See Desiato v. Abbott, 261 N.J.
Super. 30, 34 (Ch. Div. 1992) (holding that although the
parties had never been married or shared the same legal
residence, the defendant’s girlfriend met the require-
ments of a “household member” victim under the
Domestic Violence Act when the parties were constant
companions, had several overnight stays, dined together
and with the boyfriend’s parents, and the girlfriend kept
personal effects at the boyfriend’s residence). Under the
1991 Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19d requires “that the victim
‘has had’ a dating relationship with the offender.” Under
this provision, to receive the protections of the 1991 Act,
the victim is not required to have been engaged in a dating
relationship with the defendant at the time of the
domestic violence act. D.C. v. F.R., 286 N.J. Super. 589,
607 (App. Div. 1996). See also South v. North, 304 N.J.
Super. 104, 108-09 (Ch. Div. 1997) (holding that
woman whose social relationship with defendant ended
seven years before she filed the domestic violence
complaint, and prior to the amendment defining a victim
of domestic violence as someone who has had a dating
relationship with the defendant, was not in “dating
relationship” which could qualify woman as “victim of
domestic violence” for purposes of Act); Sperling v.
Teplitsky, 294 N.J. Super. 312, 321 (Ch. Div. 1996) (the
Domestic Violence Act of 1991 did not apply where
there was a significant time gap between the alleged act
of violence and the conclusion of the dating relationship
and there was no evidence of the defendant’s continuing
violence or ongoing controlling behavior prior to the
events at issue, even though the parties had previously
lived together in a dating relationship for six months).5. Child in Common
In Croswell v. Shenouda, 275 N.J. Super. 614, 617
(Ch. Div. 1994) the court found that the plaintiff’s
terminated pregnancy did not mean that she had a child
in common with defendant, and even if it did, the
plaintiff did not qualify as “victim of domestic violence”
under the Act. But see N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18 (legislative