M.F. VS. R.W. (FV-11-1425-16, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-4943-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Mary (plaintiff-respondent) returned to Trenton to assist her grandmother and lived in the same household as her father, Ryan (defendant-appellant).
- On May 17, 2016 Mary alleges Ryan grabbed her, pulled her down stairs, stomped on her chest/head and kicked her; she was hospitalized with a documented lung contusion.
- Ryan denied being the aggressor, claimed limited contact to prevent a fall; third parties present did not witness the assault but corroborated that Mary’s clothes had been thrown down stairs.
- Mary obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO); Ryan later obtained a TRO against Mary; Mary's TRO was prosecuted pro se at trial.
- The trial judge found both parties partially non-credible but credited medical records corroborating Mary’s chest injury, concluded Mary proved assault and harassment (but not terroristic threats), and entered a final restraining order (FRO) on July 7, 2016.
- Ryan appealed arguing insufficient credible evidence of assault/harassment and sought a new judge on remand; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether predicate offenses (assault, harassment) were proven by preponderance of credible evidence | Mary: medical records (lung contusion) corroborate her account of physical injury caused by Ryan | Ryan: denied being aggressor; claimed only incidental contact and denied causing injury | Court: affirmed assault and harassment proven by preponderance given medical corroboration and credibility findings |
| Whether terroristic threats were proven | Mary: alleged threats as predicate act | Ryan: denied making threats | Court: dismissed terroristic threats claim (not proven) |
| Whether an FRO was necessary to prevent further abuse (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29 factors) | Mary: prior incidents of domestic violence and fear of recurrence justified protection | Ryan: challenged sufficiency of evidence and necessity of relief | Court: found record supported need for protection based on history and credibility findings; FRO proper |
| Whether factual findings/credibility were unsupported and warrant reversal or reassignment | Mary: N/A (did not appeal) | Ryan: argued findings lacked sufficient credible support and asked for a different judge on remand | Court: applied deferential standard to family-court credibility findings, found them supported by substantial credible evidence (including medical records), denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (trial-court findings binding on appeal when supported by substantial credible evidence)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (family-court findings entitled to enhanced deference; consider history of violence)
- Weiss v. I. Zapinsky, Inc., 65 N.J. Super. 351 (deference to trial-court credibility assessments)
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (court must find predicate acts by preponderance and assess necessity of restraining order under statutory factors)
- Bittner v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 338 N.J. Super. 447 (entry of restraining order requires more than proof of predicate offense)
- N.B. v. T.B., 297 N.J. Super. 35 (same: restraining order not automatic upon predicate offense)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (requiring finding that relief is necessary to prevent further abuse)