R.L. VS. M.H. (FV-05-000142-16, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1242-15T3

Parties married in 2011 and were in the process of divorcing when the incident occurred.
On Sept. 16, 2015, plaintiff R.L. went to the marital home, escorted by two police officers and family, to retrieve personal belongings; defendant M.H. disputed the timing and presence.
Accounts conflict: R.L. testified M.H. blocked rooms, grabbed her arm, threw items, and was verbally aggressive; M.H. denied harming her and said items taken were his.
R.L. observed a small cut and sought a Temporary Restraining Order; the trial court entered a Final Restraining Order (FRO) and also granted the divorce.
Trial judge found harassment (impeding access and taking items) and assault (grabbing her arm), referenced prior immigration-related stress and past interactions with the parties, but made no detailed credibility findings.
Appellate court reviewed whether evidence proved a predicate offense under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and whether a restraining order was necessary to prevent further abuse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a predicate offense (harassment) under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4 was proven	R.L. argued M.H. impeded access, grabbed items, threw belongings — conduct amounted to harassment	M.H. argued the encounter was a disputed retrieval; he lacked intent to harass and acted in response to unexpected arrival	Reversed: record lacked proof M.H. acted with the requisite purpose to harass; findings were conclusory and not tethered to credibility findings
Whether assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1 occurred	R.L. argued M.H. grabbed her arm causing pain — sufficient for assault	M.H. denied harming R.L.; disputed facts about contact	Appellate court accepted that facts could support assault but held even if assault occurred, a FRO was not necessary to prevent further abuse
Whether a final restraining order was necessary under Silver factors	R.L. contended restraining order needed due to unpredictability and prior conduct	M.H. argued no ongoing danger: divorce granted, belongings removed, no children, lease changed	Reversed: no immediate danger or ongoing potential for contact shown; FRO vacated
Adequacy of trial court’s factual findings	R.L. relied on trial court’s conclusions and prior interactions cited by judge	M.H. argued trial judge failed to make specific credibility findings or detailed factual findings supporting harassment	Held for M.H.: judge’s reasoning was opaque and insufficient to sustain FRO on harassment theory

Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (review of trial court factual findings)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (deference to trial judge credibility determinations)
J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (domestic violence defined by predicate criminal offenses; intent requirement for harassment)
Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (two-step domestic violence review: predicate offense then necessity of restraining order)
Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243 (context of breakup and evaluation of alleged predicate acts)