F.A. VS. G.D.P. (FV-02-0473-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1311-19

Background

Parties divorced after a history of conflict; they had a 2018 consent order requiring non-harassing communication via Our Family Wizard (OFW) and no unannounced visits to each other’s homes.
Plaintiff obtained a TRO in September 2019 alleging defendant repeatedly summoned police to her home during her parenting time (complaint alleged six calls; she later testified to five specific June and September 2019 incidents).
Police reports in the record reflect five incidents (four in June 2019 and one on September 4, 2019) in which the children were found safe.
Defendant conceded he called police several times after unsuccessful attempts to contact the children and after sending OFW messages; he maintained calls were to locate children or to facilitate a custody exchange after a parenting coordinator’s email.
The trial judge found a predicate act of harassment (course of conduct) and issued a final restraining order (FRO), concluding the FRO was necessary to stop the wellness checks; the judge relied on an erroneous finding that police had been summoned ten or eleven times.
The Appellate Division vacated the FRO, reinstated the TRO, and remanded for further proceedings because the judge’s factual error about the number of calls infected the Silver analysis and might have affected the necessity finding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Number of police calls	Calls occurred repeatedly (complaint alleged six; testified to five) as part of a course of harassment	Calls were five or six; many were legitimate welfare checks after failed contact and OFW messages	Appellate: Trial judge erred in finding 10–11 calls; record shows five; vacated FRO and remanded for reassessment
2. Whether defendant contacted plaintiff before calling police	Defendant summoned police without proper prior contact to harass and intimidate	He sent OFW messages and called the children before contacting police; some calls arose from custody-dispute communications	Appellate: Left factual-contact issue for remand; reinstated TRO and directed trial judge to reassess intent and context
3. Whether Sept. 4, 2019 call was a predicate act	Sept. 4 call was part of the course of conduct intended to intimidate and remove the children	Sept. 4 call was to facilitate a custody exchange based on parenting coordinator’s email—reasonable	Appellate: Declined to resolve; remanded for trial court to determine whether five calls (including Sept. 4) satisfy harassment and necessity analysis
4. Claim that plaintiff lacked evidence of physical abuse and that judge led testimony	Plaintiff relied on harassment predicate and past abusive history to justify FRO	Defendant contends plaintiff offered no physical-abuse evidence and judge led her testimony	Appellate: Did not decide these evidentiary contentions on merits; directed trial court on remand to analyze prior history of domestic violence and the statutory factors

Key Cases Cited

Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div.) (deference to Family Part discretion)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (discussing review standard and consideration of prior history)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (Family Court expertise)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (appellate review of factual findings)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (no special deference to legal conclusions)
Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (two-step test for FROs under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act)
J.D., 207 N.J. (standards for harassment predicate and restraining-order necessity)
State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564 (inferring intent from circumstances)
State v. Castagna, 387 N.J. Super. 598 (prior conduct may support intent inference)
State v. J.T., 294 N.J. Super. 540 (course of alarming conduct can arise from limited incidents)
Bresocnik v. Gallegos, 367 N.J. Super. 178 (appellate canvass when trial findings insufficient)
Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243 (distinguishing harassment from ordinary domestic disputes)