FRO reversed where no danger or abuse E.T. v. J.B.

Following a contentious relationship, respondent left the parties' home with their child. Respondent sought a temporary restraining order testifying she was afraid of appellant and that she had no friends or family in the country. Following oral argument, the trial judge granted respondent a final restraining order (FRO) against appellant. Although the trial judge did not find that any of the incidents between the parties constituted a predicate act of domestic violence, he did conclude that appellant engaged in a "course of conduct" on two occasions with a purpose to harass respondent pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c). Moreover, the trial judge cited respondent's immigration status as "a real power imbalance" between the parties and that a restraining order was necessary because respondent "showed a lack of empathy and kind of domineering style." In adjudicating a domestic violence case, a trial judge must: (1) determine whether a plaintiff proved a defendant committed one of the predicate acts references in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a); and (2) assess whether a restraining order was necessary to protect the victim from an immediate danger or to prevent further abuse. Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super 112 (App. Div. 2006). Here, the court reversed holding it could not conclude from the trial judge's findings that, although appellant told respondent he was going to send her back to the Philippines and even drove her to the airport, such actions did not constitute the type of "course of alarming conduct" necessary to sustain the entry of a FRO. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge's findings did not support his conclusion that the FRO was necessary to protect respondent from immediate danger or to prevent further abuse. Accordingly, the court reversed. source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1516158906NJA087316T/

FRO requires finding need to protect from danger or abuse L.M.W. v. A.P.

Following respondent's ending the parties' relationship, appellant continued sending her text messages, repeatedly asking her to call him and expressing his desire to continue their union. Respondent sent appellant a text message stating: "Listen - please stop contacting me. I'm not interested anymore." Appellant failed to comply and continued to send text messages as well as call respondent. Respondent subsequently obtained a temporary restraining order against appellant based on harassment. Following a hearing, the trial judge found the parties had a dating relationship, there were no prior acts of domestic violence, and there was no threat of violence. Although the trial court did not find a purpose to harass or that a final restraining order (FRO) was necessary to protect respondent from further harassment, it granted the FRO as a result of appellant's failure to cease communications with respondent. In adjudicating a domestic violence case, the trial judge had a "two-fold" task: (1) determine whether appellant committed one of the predicate acts referenced in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a); and (2) whether a restraining order was necessary to protect respondent from an immediate danger or further abuse. Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super . 112, 125 (App. Div. 2006). Here, the trial judge made no finding, and the evidence did not show, that appellant acted with the requisite purpose, nor may appellant's text messages be viewed as implicitly embodying a purpose to harass. Moreover, the trial court did not find a FRO was necessary to protect respondent "from immediate danger or to prevent further abuse." As such, the court reversed and remanded to the trial court to vacate the FRO. source https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1515813198NJA114516T/