A.M.C. v. P.B., 148 A.3d 754

Background

In June 2015 A.M.C. fled the marital home in Newark and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Middlesex County alleging multiple acts of domestic violence by her husband, P.B., a Newark police officer.
The Family Part admitted photographs showing bruises and found P.B. committed simple assault on two occasions within a three-week period; other alleged incidents were found not credible.
The court granted a TRO and scheduled an evidentiary hearing for a final restraining order (FRO); both parties appeared and testified.
The trial judge found the assaults occurred but denied the FRO, relying in part on (1) the judge’s finding that defendant was not served with the TRO and thus did not contact plaintiff afterward, (2) the short duration of the marriage and lack of children, and (3) mixed credibility of testimony.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding the judge misapplied the two‑prong Silver v. Silver test: given the violent predicate acts (including an assault to prevent plaintiff leaving for a shelter) and the parties’ history and threats, an FRO was “self-evident.”
The court also faulted the Judiciary’s failure to serve the TRO and to notify appropriate law enforcement (including Newark PD), concluding the trial court should not have treated that procedural failure as a reason to deny relief and had an independent duty to investigate the service failures.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff proved a predicate act of domestic violence	A.M.C. — photographic and testimonial evidence proves two assaults and threats	P.B. — denies assaults; challenges credibility	Court: plaintiff proved two assaults (simple assault) by preponderance
Whether an FRO was necessary under Silver’s two‑prong test	FRO is necessary because assaults were violent, included threats, and one assault prevented plaintiff leaving — immediate danger and best interest favor FRO	P.B. — judge properly considered post‑TRO behavior, short marriage, no children, and discretion to deny FRO	Court: misapplication of Silver; given violent predicate acts and circumstances, FRO required as a matter of law
Whether the trial court could rely on lack of service/notice as reason to deny FRO	A.M.C. — service failures are Judiciary errors and cannot justify denying protection	P.B. — argues lack of service shows no continuing threat because he did not contact plaintiff	Court: Judiciary’s failure to serve/notify violated statute and policy; trial court erred to treat that failure as favorable to defendant and had independent duty to investigate service failures
Whether absence of children or short marriage weigh against FRO	A.M.C. — such factors are irrelevant to denying protective relief here	P.B. — short marriage and no parenting interaction reduce need for FRO	Court: duration/no children not dispositive; absence of children should not reduce statutory protection when violent predicate acts exist

Key Cases Cited

Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (articulating two‑prong FRO analysis under PDVA)
H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309 (2003) (due process notice and opportunity to respond in domestic violence hearings)
Brennan v. Orban, 145 N.J. 282 (1996) (characterizing every act of domestic violence as serious)
State v. Dispoto, 189 N.J. 108 (2007) (purpose of TRO to create a buffer zone of safety for victims)
State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161 (2010) (staking/stalking statute covers conduct causing terror even if motivated by distorted affection)