H.C.F. VS. J.T.B. (FV-14-1099-15, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-5618-14T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- Wife (plaintiff) filed for a final restraining order (FRO) under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act after an altercation on June 24, 2015; she alleged husband (defendant) punched their bedroom door, knocking it off its hinges, and had previously texted a statement about ending his life.
- Parties married in 2008; child born 2011; both names on deed/mortgage; wife was primary earner, husband a part‑time worker and stay‑at‑home parent.
- At the July 1, 2015 evidentiary hearing both testified: wife said husband struck the door during an argument while their daughter was on the bed; husband admitted punching the door but said it was removed to repaint and that he did not intend to alarm her.
- Wife testified husband owned a firearm (kept at home, allegedly loaded) and had texted in February 2015 that he would end his life to stop her suffering; she feared for her and the child’s safety and sought police and the FRO.
- Trial court found wife more credible, concluded defendant committed predicate acts of criminal mischief and harassment, granted the FRO, awarded temporary custody to wife, exclusive possession of the home, and liberal visitation to husband at wife’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant committed predicate acts under the PDVA (criminal mischief, harassment) | Wife: punch knocked the bedroom door off its hinges, damaging property and alarming her and the child; prior suicide‑related text heightened danger | Husband: door was already weak/removed for painting; punch was out of frustration, not to harass or alarm; text was a joke | Court: Affirmed — by preponderance, criminal mischief and harassment proven; wife found more credible |
| Whether the Silver two‑prong analysis was satisfied | Wife: (1) predicate acts occurred; (2) FRO necessary to prevent future abuse given gun and prior threats | Husband: evidence insufficient; incident was an ordinary domestic dispute; plaintiff seeking tactical advantage | Court: Affirmed — both Silver prongs met (predicate acts shown; restraining order necessary to protect plaintiff and child) |
| Whether the February text and gun justified protective measures | Wife: text and presence of a firearm increased risk and supported issuance of FRO and protective custody orders | Husband: text was joking; gun stored with safety and not a threat; training occurred | Court: Found the text and gun statements troubling; they supported necessity of protective relief |
| Whether temporary custody to wife was appropriate despite husband being primary caregiver | Wife: statute presumes best interests served by non‑abusive parent; child witnessed incident | Husband: As primary caregiver, he should rebut the presumption | Court: Affirmed — statutory presumption controls; primary‑caregiver status alone cannot rebut when domestic violence is shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (standard for overturning trial court factual findings and deference to family courts)
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (two‑prong PDVA analysis: predicate act and need for protection)
- N.T.B. v. D.D.B., 442 N.J. Super. 205 (App. Div. 2015) (damage to a spouse’s undivided interest in the home can constitute criminal mischief under PDVA)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (N.J. 2011) (harassment intent can be inferred; courts must consider totality of circumstances)
- A.M.C. v. P.B., 447 N.J. Super. 402 (App. Div. 2016) (evaluating necessity of a restraining order under statutory factors)