Jd v. Mdf, 207 N.J. 458

J.D. and M.D.F. lived together from 1993 to 2006, had two children, and pursued various disputes including a palimony case after separation.
J.D. filed a September 19, 2008 domestic violence complaint; a temporary restraining order was issued based on the complaint.
The court allowed testimony expanding beyond the complaint to include prior incidents not identified in the pleading (e.g., videotape, lacrosse field, Wawa incidents).
Defendant contended due process was violated by admitting unpleaded evidence and by restricting cross-examination of J.D.’s boyfriend, R.T.
The trial court entered a Final Restraining Order based on late-night photography and additional incidents, finding harassment.
Appellate Division affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certification to consider due process notice, cross-examination, and the sufficiency of evidence, and remanded for a rehearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Notice and expansion of claims raised at hearing	J.D. argues expanded evidence was permissible to reflect prior history.	M.D.F. asserts due process requires notice limited to pleaded acts.	Remanded for due process-focused rehearing
Right to cross-examine witnesses	Plaintiff's testimony sufficient to prove harassment without further cross-exam.	Denied opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff's boyfriend deprived defendant of defense.	Remanded for full hearing with proper cross-examination
Sufficiency of evidence to prove harassment	Past incidents, including the late-night photography, establish harassment under 2C:33-4.	Evidence does not demonstrate the requisite purpose to harass and some acts were not directed at plaintiff.	Order vacated and remanded for reevaluation of the harassment predicate and second inquiry
Second inquiry under the Act	Administration of the Act should rely on plaintiff’s testimony showing threats/annoyance.	Court failed to assess necessity of relief in light of risk of harm.	Remand to ensure proper consideration of necessity to prevent further abuse
Remedial standard governing DVROs	Harassment evidence suffices under civil standard.	Harassment must be proven with proper statutory intent and appropriate facts.	Remand to permit a fresh, properly grounded assessment

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (court must consider prior history of domestic violence)
Hoffman v. Hoffmann, 149 N.J. 564 (1997) (solicitous of victims; defines harassment standards)
Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App.Div. 2006) (second inquiry: necessity to prevent further abuse)
Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243 (App.Div. 1995) (distinguishes domestic violence from ordinary contretemps)
J.F. v. B.K., 308 N.J. Super. 387 (App.Div. 1998) (due process limits on expanding complaint at hearing)
H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309 (2003) (notice to prepare; early adjournment protections)
State v. Mortimer, 135 N.J. 517 (1994) (two-subsection framework for harassment statute)