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/