T.D.J. VS. J.B.-J.STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. J.B.-J. (FV-07-1568-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE ANDFO-14-278-16, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-2061-15T2/A-0828-16T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 14, 2017Background
- Parties were married (2011) and divorced (November 16, 2015); both are doctors and formerly worked together. After separation defendant repeatedly sent plaintiff threatening and harassing emails and texts from multiple accounts and left items at his car/porch.
- The parties negotiated a marital settlement agreement (Oct. 23, 2015) that included a mutual limitation on communications; defendant nevertheless continued to contact plaintiff.
- Plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order (Nov. 29, 2015) and a Final Restraining Order (FRO) was entered after a December 10, 2015 hearing, barring defendant from any direct contact with plaintiff or from causing others to make harassing communications.
- Defendant appealed the FRO. While that appeal was pending, defendant messaged plaintiff’s brother‑in‑law (May 10, 2016) asking him to ask plaintiff’s lawyer to “leave this alone;” the brother‑in‑law forwarded the message to plaintiff, who reported it to police.
- Defendant was charged with contempt for violating the FRO; after a bench trial she was convicted (Sept. 19, 2016) and sentenced to probation, community service, program enrollment, and fines. Both the FRO and the contempt conviction were appealed and consolidated here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in entering a Final Restraining Order for harassment | Plaintiff argued repeated threatening and harassing communications, including post‑agreement contacts and conduct causing fear, satisfied the harassment predicate and warranted an FRO | Defendant argued lack of prior physical domestic violence, that contacts were not objectively harassing, and court overstated danger so FRO was unnecessary | Court affirmed: judge properly applied Silver/Cesare framework, considered relationship context and objective standard, and found sufficient credible evidence of harassment to justify FRO |
| Whether defendant violated the FRO by contacting a third party (brother‑in‑law) and thus committed contempt | N/A (State prosecuted contempt) — State argued defendant knowingly sought to cause the third party to contact plaintiff with messages similar in purpose to her prior harassing communications, thus violating the FRO | Defendant argued the brother‑in‑law was not a protected party, she only asked him to “consider” speaking to plaintiff, and did not act knowingly to violate the order | Court affirmed contempt conviction: FRO prohibited “making or causing anyone else to make harassing communications”; asking third party to contact plaintiff with the intent to convey the same messages violated the FRO and was knowing conduct |
| Whether objective vs. subjective fear standard was applied properly | Plaintiff relied on objective standard while accounting for his individual circumstances | Defendant argued the court improperly relied on plaintiff’s subjective fear or exaggerated risk | Court applied the objective standard consistent with Cesare while considering plaintiff’s personal circumstances; no error found |
| Whether sentence for contempt was improper or judge failed to consider mitigation | N/A | Defendant argued sentence was excessive and mitigating factors were overlooked | Court found sentencing within discretion; judge identified aggravating factors (risk of re‑offense, need for deterrence), no mitigating factors, and explanation was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (courts must consider prior history and victim’s circumstances but apply an objective standard in restraining‑order cases)
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (two‑step analysis for entry of restraining order: predicate act and need for protection)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (2011) (context and relationship history can turn otherwise innocuous conduct into qualifying harassment)
- State v. Castagna, 387 N.J. Super. 598 (App. Div. 2006) (elements relating to harassment and causing third parties to communicate)
- State v. J.T., 294 N.J. Super. 540 (App. Div. 1996) (defendant may be liable for contempt/harassment even when attempts to evade a direct prohibition are subtle or indirect)