In order to obtain a domestic violence restraining order under NJ law, the alleged victim must show (1) that the offending party had the intent to commit the underlying act, and (2) that the issuance of a restraining order is necessary for ongoing protection. If the court does not make these specific findings, then as the decision below holds, a restraining order should not be issued.
FAMILY LAW 20-2-1488 A.S. v. R.D., App. Div. (per curiam) (14 pp.) Defendant appeals from a final restraining order (FRO) under the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act obtained by defendant’s former boyfriend. The trial was conducted informally. The court concluded that defendant committed harassment based on the hundreds of text messages she sent the previous fall and two recent text messages. Defendant argues that her actions did not constitute harassment; the court failed to make essential findings that a restraining order was necessary to protect plaintiff, and the court failed to afford defendant an opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff. The appellate panel agrees and reverses. Even absent defendant’s opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff, he failed to present sufficient evidence to support entry of an FRO. The trial court failed to make a finding that defendant acted with a purpose to harass. Her two recent text messages on their face were written to keep plaintiff away. Defendant’s statement about making her presence known did not threaten violence, but apparently signaled an intent to take appropriate action against plaintiff to combat what she perceived to be tortious interference with her career. The statement that she would take pleasure in plaintiff’s misery was gratuitous, but within the scope of “domestic contretemps.” Further, the court failed to make the requisite finding that plaintiff needed the protection of a restraining order.
