R.M. VS L.A.G.  (FV-14-0841-16, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4969-15T2
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Nov 3, 2017Background
- R.M. and L.A.G., married 24 years, are lawyers with four children; both filed cross-complaints seeking final restraining orders under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act after an April 11, 2016 office incident.
- L.A.G. went to R.M.’s office to deliver documents and discuss marriage counseling; while there she photographed his computer screen, ripped mail, removed a webcam, and threw/broke several items.
- R.M. stood at the office door, prevented L.A.G. from immediately leaving, called 911, and testified he blocked egress because she was out of control and might make a scene; L.A.G. said she was trying to leave and accidentally scratched R.M.
- At trial the judge found L.A.G. committed harassment and criminal mischief but not simple assault; R.M. was found not to have committed harassment or false imprisonment.
- The judge denied R.M.’s request for an FRO, concluding there was no history of domestic violence, no immediate danger of future abuse, and an FRO was unnecessary; the court referenced, but should not have relied on, financial and child-impact considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (R.M.) | Defendant's Argument (L.A.G.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an FRO was necessary to protect R.M. from future domestic violence | An FRO was necessary because L.A.G. committed predicate acts (harassment, criminal mischief) during a confrontational office incident | No ongoing danger; incident isolated and not part of a history of domestic violence | Denied — court found insufficient evidence of immediate danger or a pattern of domestic violence to warrant an FRO |
| Whether the court properly evaluated prior history of domestic violence | Prior communications and marital disputes show risk and should inform need for protection | Parties’ long marriage showed minimal history of physical domestic violence | Held that the court considered history and reasonably found no cycle of power/control; appellate court defers to factual findings |
| Whether commission of nonphysical predicate acts alone requires an FRO | Predicate acts (harassment, criminal mischief) alone are sufficient to justify an FRO | Predicate acts without physical violence or history do not automatically require an FRO | Held that commission of nonphysical predicate acts does not automatically mandate an FRO; absence of physical violence/history supports denial |
| Whether court erred by considering financial and child-impact factors when deciding necessity of an FRO | Financial and child-impact factors are irrelevant to the threshold necessity determination | The court improperly relied on such factors | Held error in considering them was harmless; independent record support justified denial of the FRO |
Key Cases Cited
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (two-step framework: prove predicate act, then assess necessity of restraining order)
- Kanaszka v. Kunen, 313 N.J. Super. 600 (App. Div. 1998) (consider relationship history to evaluate reasonableness of fear)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (2011) (necessity inquiry requires evaluating statutory factors to protect from immediate danger or future abuse)
- Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div. 1995) (need to weigh seriousness of predicate act, prior history, and immediate danger)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to family court fact-finding and consideration of prior domestic violence)
- A.M.C. v. P.B., 447 N.J. Super. 402 (App. Div. 2016) (lack of physical violence/history and only nonphysical predicate acts may not justify permanent restraints)