A.M.C. v. P.B.
A-4730-14T3
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Oct 21, 2016Background
- Plaintiff (A.M.C.) fled marital home and sought refuge in a Middlesex County shelter after two physical assaults by her husband (P.B.), a Newark police officer, within three weeks in June 2015; photographs corroborated bruising.
- Plaintiff obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) and sought a final restraining order (FRO); hearing was held June 18, 2015.
- Trial court found defendant committed two assaults but denied the FRO, reasoning defendant was unaware of the TRO, the marriage was short, there were no children, and defendant did not attempt to contact plaintiff after she left.
- The court admitted that defendant was not served with the complaint or TRO and that the court clerk failed to notify Newark police as statutorily required; the judge considered those failures in denying the FRO.
- Appellate court reviewed under Silver’s two‑prong test (predicate act proven; then necessity of FRO under N.J.S.A. 2C:25‑29a factors) and reversed, holding an FRO was required as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FRO required after finding two assaults under Silver | Silver’s second prong requires FRO because assaults were violent, occurred close together, and included threats and an attempt to stop plaintiff leaving (immediate danger) | Trial court properly applied Silver; defendant’s post‑TRO inaction, short marriage, and no children show no continuing threat | Reversed: assaults (violent predicate acts), threats, and effort to prevent plaintiff leaving established immediate danger and best interests, so FRO required as matter of law |
| Whether failure to serve TRO/notify police affected FRO analysis | Judiciary’s procedural failures cannot justify denying protective relief to a victim | Trial court permissibly considered lack of service and defendant’s ignorance as evidence of no continuing danger | Court held trial court erred to consider Judiciary’s failures as factor against plaintiff; judge had duty to investigate service failures and not penalize plaintiff |
| Relevance of marriage duration and absence of children | Duration/no children irrelevant to necessity of FRO under statutory factors | These facts support finding parties will not interact and weigh against FRO | Appellate court: duration/absence of children are not reliable predictors of future danger and should not outweigh violent predicate acts |
| Whether judge had independent duty to determine cause of failed service | Judiciary obligated by PDVA and Manual to ensure service/notification; judge must inquire into failures | Defendant didn’t request adjournment; judge could treat lack of objection as waiver | Court held judge had independent duty to determine cause of service failures and ensure due process and victim safety; failure to do so was error |
Key Cases Cited
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div.) (articulates two‑prong test for FROs under PDVA)
- H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309 (Sup. Ct.) (due process considerations and adjournment when defendant lacks notice)
- State v. Dispoto, 189 N.J. 108 (Sup. Ct.) (describing TRO purpose as safety buffer for victims)
- Brennan v. Orban, 145 N.J. 282 (Sup. Ct.) (domestic violence is always serious)
- Segal v. Lynch, 413 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div.) (court’s parens patriae role when domestic violence implicates child welfare)