V.B. v. N.F.
A-1974-23
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff (V.B.) and Defendant (N.F.) are former partners with a shared child, E.F., and a consent agreement concerning child support and co-parenting.
- Plaintiff obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on October 16, 2023, citing harassment by defendant during a phone call about child therapy, and alleging a pattern of controlling and threatening behavior.
- Plaintiff later expanded her allegations to include prior verbal abuse, threats over custody, financial manipulation, and an incident involving a firearm.
- A Final Restraining Order (FRO) was issued against defendant on January 22, 2024, based mainly on ongoing financial and emotional control, without detailed findings on the predicate act of harassment.
- On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court failed to analyze whether harassment occurred and if an FRO was necessary for future protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Factual Findings on Predicate Harassment | Defendant's conduct constituted harassment justifying an FRO | Trial court did not analyze law/facts or intent on harassment | Trial court erred; insufficient factual findings/remanded |
| Necessity of FRO to Prevent Future Harm | Ongoing conduct necessitated continued protection | No finding whether FRO necessary for future protection | Trial court erred; failed to address necessity/remanded |
| Proper Legal Standard for FRO Issuance | Predicate act plus pattern warranted restraining order | Court did not apply two-prong Silver test | Court did not apply standard; remanded for new hearing |
| Remand Before a Different Judge | Not expressly addressed | Needed due to previously made credibility determinations | Case remanded to different judge for new FRO hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (sets out the two-prong test for issuing final restraining orders under NJ domestic violence law)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (deference to factual findings of the family court in domestic violence matters)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (2011) (distinction between domestic violence and ordinary disputes, and intent requirement for harassment)
- H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309 (2003) (trial courts must consider the totality of circumstances and make explicit findings)
- Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div. 1995) (commission of a predicate act does not automatically justify FRO issuance)