Matheu D. Nunn Examines Coercive Control in the Context of the Jewish “Get” in New Jersey Lawyer Magazine

The New Jersey Lawyer magazine article “Legal Implications in Religious Contexts: Navigating Gets” by Einhorn, Barbarito, Frost, Botwinick, Nunn & Musmanno, PC partner Matheu D. Nunn and co-authors Eliana Baer and LaDonna Cousins, explores the complex interplay between religious practices and civil law, particularly focusing on the Jewish get and its implications in cases of domestic violence. The authors commend New Jersey’s amendments to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), which now allow courts to consider coercive control when issuing final restraining orders. This legislative change represents a significant step towards better protecting victims of domestic violence within faith-based communities.

The authors discuss how First Amendment principles require courts to avoid interfering with religious practices, which creates tension when civil courts need to enforce agreements related to religious divorces. This tension is particularly evident in cases where a get, a religious divorce document that only a husband can grant, is used as a tool of coercive control against the wife.

Coercive control, including spiritual abuse, is a significant issue within the context of domestic violence. Spiritual abuse involves manipulating religious beliefs to exert power over individuals, which can leave victims feeling trapped and powerless. The refusal to grant a get is often the final act of control in a series of abusive behaviors, with many agunot (women unable to obtain a get) experiencing various forms of abuse throughout their marriages. The authors emphasize that recognizing get refusal as a form of spiritual abuse is crucial for protecting victims.

Despite growing awareness within the Jewish community that get refusal constitutes domestic abuse, there is still ambiguity in judicial and legislative contexts. This lack of clear statutory guidance complicates the application of coercive control amendments, as judges may hesitate to classify religiously-based behaviors as coercive control. The authors state that categorizing get refusal as abuse is essential to prevent domestic violence and ensure that secular courts can address these issues without concerns of religious entanglement.

You can read “Legal Implications in Religious Contexts: Navigating Gets” here.

This article was originally published in the December 2024 issue of New Jersey Lawyer and is being republished herein with permission of the New Jersey State Bar Association.