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/