R.G. v. R.G.
156 A.3d 1074
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff and defendant are adult brothers who had not lived together for ~36 years; dispute arose over care and placement of their elderly mother in a skilled facility.
- Defendant sent multiple crude, angry emails and text messages to plaintiff and sister criticizing decisions, threatening litigation and to expose alleged misconduct; plaintiff produced only defendant's outgoing messages in the record.
- On Sept. 5, 2015 a heated confrontation at the facility culminated in defendant shoving plaintiff several times; plaintiff fell twice and lost his glasses; police were called and defendant was charged with simple assault.
- Plaintiff sought and the Family Part judge entered a final restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, finding harassment (from messages) and simple assault (from shoving) as predicate acts and that immediate danger existed.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the Family Part lacked jurisdiction, that evidence of an altercation with defendant’s son was irrelevant and prejudicial, and that the record did not support entry of a final restraining order under Silver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act | Act (as amended 2015) covers adult siblings who were household members at any time; court may exercise jurisdiction | No jurisdiction because brothers had not lived together for decades; prior case law limited "former household member" reach | Court: Jurisdiction proper under amended N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d); amendment broadened coverage |
| Admissibility of evidence about defendant’s altercation with his son | Evidence showed prior history of domestic violence and supported danger analysis; defendant’s admission about that incident was curative | Testimony about defendant’s son was hearsay, irrelevant to plaintiff-defendant history, and defendant did not get Cofield 404(b) analysis | Court: Admission was error — plaintiff had no personal knowledge, testimony was hearsay, no Cofield analysis; reliance on it was plain error and compels reversal |
| Whether defendant’s texts/emails constituted criminal harassment | Messages and threats show intent to harass and alarm plaintiff; supported harassment predicate | Context shows messages responded to plaintiff’s communications and focused on caring for parents; vulgarity and threats insufficient without evidence of purpose to harass | Court: Record insufficient to prove intent to harass — vulgar name-calling alone not harassment; harassment finding reversed |
| Whether a final restraining order was necessary under Silver (immediate danger/need for protection) | The combined communications, prior incidents, and the physical shoving show escalating conduct and immediate danger | The only admissible predicate act is simple assault (shoving) which, without a pattern of abusive/control behavior tied to the domestic relationship, does not satisfy Silver second prong | Court: After excluding inadmissible evidence and reversing harassment finding, remaining record does not show the required nexus or immediate danger; final restraining order reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (standard of appellate review and liberally construing remedial statutes)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (N.J. 2011) (victim’s subjective fear alone insufficient to prove harassment; requirement of improper purpose)
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (two-prong test: predicate act plus need for protection/immediate danger)
- State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (N.J. 1992) (framework for admissibility of other-crimes/wrongs evidence under Rule 404(b))
- N.G. v. G.P., 426 N.J. Super. 398 (App. Div. 2012) (discussion of "former household member" scope under pre-2015 statute)