C.P.G. § 5.1 — Suspicion of Romantic Malfeasance
Matter of the Heart“A person is guilty of Romantic Malfeasance, or the reasonable suspicion thereof, when they conduct themselves in a manner generating justified relational alarm, including but not limited to: unexplained jogging, sudden password hygiene, phone-guarding, and smiling at notifications.”
Definitions
- “Phone-guarding”.
- Carrying the device to rooms it has no business in, screen-down placement, and the sudden adoption of face-down charging.
Elements (proof required: clear and convincing evidence)
- A relationship existed with reasonable expectations
- The accused exhibited a pattern of suspicious conduct
- The conduct, taken together, would alarm a reasonable partner
Recognized defenses
- The Surprise Party Defense — the secrecy was benign and will be delightful in retrospect
- The New Leaf Defense — the jogging is real and the accused is simply becoming insufferable about wellness
Aggravating circumstances
- The suspicious conduct was denied before it was alleged
Mitigating circumstances
- The Surprise Party Materialized — the secrecy resolved into documented delight within thirty (30) days
Leading cases
- In re The Sudden Jogger (2025) — Unexplained wellness is suspicious but not conclusive; the jogging route, once produced and verified, acquits.
- Partner v. Notification Smiler (2026) — Smiling at a phone is a single data point. A PATTERN of smiling, guarding, and password hygiene together may alarm a reasonable partner.
Sentencing guideline: Transparency measures, scheduled date nights, and a formal presentation of the jogging route. The court cannot mend hearts; it can only mend calendars.
Sentences this court has been known to hand down
- full calendar transparency and a guided tour of the jogging route, water breaks included
- three date nights of the wounded party's choosing, phones surrendered to a drawer
- a written statement of intentions, notarized by the couple's most judgmental mutual friend
Commentary: The State of New York repealed its criminal adultery statute (Penal Law § 255.17) in November 2024, after 117 years. This court, unburdened by such progress, keeps the docket open — though it notes adultery remains a ground for divorce under New York law, which is exactly the kind of pettiness this court respects.