In a recent unreported decision, the NJ Appellate Division authored the opinion summarized below. What is interesting about this decision is the additional requirement that the trial judge must determine if other forms of relief are available in the pending divorce case that could eliminate the need for a restraining order. Having handled many domestic violence cases I am aware of no basis for this reform in the existing law and am conflicted over whether or not is in a appropriate modification to the standing body of NJ domestic violence law.
FAMILY LAW 20-2-1125 E.B. v. M.N., App. Div. (per curiam) (15 pp.) Defendant M.N. appeals the Family Part’s final domestic violence restraining order (FRO) in favor of his wife, plaintiff E.B. E.B. sought and received a temporary restraining order (TRO) pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991. She alleged that M.N. had made terroristic threats against her in a text message. Her complaint referred to a prior incident of domestic violence in 2011, which involved allegations of threats and physical assault. The 2011 complaint had been withdrawn by E.B. prior to a hearing on the merits. Here, prior to the start of the trial, E.B.’s attorney moved to amend the DV complaint to add a claim that M.N.’s conduct also constituted harassment. There is no doubt that the parties were having marital difficulties, which included disputes over money, and that M.N. desired to control E.B. through her access to money. Both parties apparently used some amount of abusive language, although M.N.’s rose to the level of harassment, as found by the trial judge. What is not clear from the judge’s opinion is (1) whether the problems could have been resolved through an order in the matrimonial action giving E.B. exclusive possession of the marital residence and temporary custody of the parties’ son with a parenting time schedule, as well as provisions for support pendente lite or (2) whether an FRO was necessary to protect E.B. “from . . . immediate danger or to prevent further abuse.” The appellate panel remands to the trial judge for further consideration of whether an FRO is required and an articulation of his reasons.
