C.R.C. VS. F.J.C. (FV-08-0274-21, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0248-20

Defendant appealed a final restraining order (FRO) entered under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act; trial was held via Zoom and defendant did not testify.
Plaintiff found a letter from defendant on her car windshield that expressed strong emotional language and urged reconciliation; she described feeling "alarmed."
Plaintiff asserted defendant violated a prior court verbal directive to have no contact and to stay off the marital property.
Plaintiff also testified that defendant terminated cable/internet service (account in his name) without notice and removed a vehicle titled in his name that had been purchased by plaintiff's mother.
The Family Part granted an FRO, finding the combined contacts constituted harassment; the Appellate Division reversed for insufficient evidence of a purpose to harass and insufficient proof of need for restraints.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant committed the predicate act of harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4	Letter on windshield, termination of services, removal of vehicle, and contact violated court's no-contact direction and evinced intent to harass	Actions were attempts at reconciliation or ordinary domestic disputes, not acts done with purpose to harass	Reversed: insufficient evidence defendant acted with the conscious purpose to harass
Whether a restraining order was necessary to prevent further abuse (Silver prong two)	Plaintiff argued ongoing conduct showed need for protection	Defendant argued no immediate danger or fear demonstrated	Not reached on merit because predicate act not proven; court also found plaintiff did not show fear or need for restraint

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (family-court factual findings are binding on appeal if supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence)
Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (two-step framework for entering PDVA restraining orders: predicate act and need for restraints)
J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (N.J. 2011) (plaintiff's subjective alarm insufficient; must prove defendant's improper purpose to harass)
State v. Castagna, 387 N.J. Super. 598 (App. Div. 2006) (defines "harass" as purposefully to annoy, torment, wear out, or exhaust)
Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div. 1995) (distinguishes harassment from ordinary domestic contretemps; disruptive acts like disconnecting phone may not prove intent to harass)