In DV, plaintiff here did not need to prove "course of conduct" M.B. v. C.C.

In DV, plaintiff here did not need to prove  "course of conduct" M.B. v. C.C.

Plaintiff appealed trial court's denial of her request for a final restraining order. Plaintiff and defendant had a romantic relationship until plaintiff moved out of defendant's apartment while pregnant with their child. Plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order, after which trial court conducted a trial regarding issuance of an FRO. Plaintiff testified and offered evidence that defendant had a history of texting and calling her repeatedly, using obscene language in texts and voicemails, and threatening her. Defendant's behavior was erratic, at times seeming normal after an outburst of obscene language and non-specific threats. Plaintiff also testified that in the past defendant had strangled her, threatened to strike her in an attempt to cause her to miscarry their baby, and had punched holes in a bathroom door, which she documented with photographs. Trial court concluded plaintiff was credible and that her allegations were not disputed by defendant. Trial court nonetheless denied an FRO because it found plaintiff failed to prove terroristic threats, stalking, or harassment. Plaintiff appealed. Court vacated and remanded for a new trial before a different judge who was to consider the evidence and testimony from the first trial. Trial court's findings were not supported by credible evidence, court said. To the contrary, they were inconsistent with the evidence and admissions offered at trial. Trial court misapplied the law when it found plaintiff failed to prove harassment or a course of conduct by defendant on the theory defendant had purportedly legitimate reasons to contact plaintiff on different occasions. Court admonished further that a plaintiff did not need to prove a "course of conduct" to establish harassment. Indeed, court said, a single act, under proper circumstances, can meet the statutory definition of harassment. Here, defendant's non-specific threats had no legitimate goal, but appeared intended to annoy or harass without any other purpose. Court directed that the new trial court address and make new determinations, also, on plaintiff's claims of terroristic threats and stalking. Court also noted that the probability for further abuse to plaintiff was supported in the record where defendant admitted his inability to control his behavior. unreported  A-3319-21

source  NJNJ September 07, 2023