Docket No. A-2957-22
Decided January 7, 2025
Submitted by New Jersey Domestic Violence Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.
In a recent unpublished opinion the Appellate Division of New Jersey affirmed the entry of a Final Restraining Order (FRO) despite finding only one act of harassment as opposed to a series of acts.
In T.S. v. R.S., the parties had a long, tumultuous relationship and were going through a divorce at the time of the FRO hearing. Plaintiff had other children including Amy, who was born in 2001 from a different relationship. Plaintiff had a very strained relationship with Amy because she believed Amy was having an inappropriate relationship with defendant, her stepfather.
On April 20, 2020, the parties engaged in a physical confrontation, the facts of which were disputed. Although plaintiff subsequently obtained a TRO, she did not pursue an FRO. Their relationship later deteriorated again, and they ceased speaking and opted to communicate solely through text message. In August 2022, defendant asked for a divorce. Plaintiff had moved out of their home but came back periodically to see their son.
The incident giving rise to the FRO at issue took place on September 16, 2022. On that date, defendant picked up Amy and her son from the homeless shelter and brought her to the marital residence. According to defendant, he brought Amy simply because she wanted to see Tom and her cousin, Sherry, who was also staying at the house. He claimed he did not think plaintiff would be there. However, he saw plaintiff’s vehicle in the driveway when they arrived and knew plaintiff would take issue with Amy’s presence. He testified that when he saw plaintiff’s car, he said “oh, boy, here we go.” Nevertheless, he brought Amy into the residence.
Plaintiff contends that defendant’s version of events is false and that he brought Amy there to “start up a conflict again” because “everything . . . started because of her.” She testified that defendant entered the home with Amy and her child, and plaintiff became angry and upset “about the whole situation,” demanding that Amy leave. Amy was “laughing” and recorded the altercation on her phone. Defendant responded that Amy was a guest and that she would not leave. Plaintiff did not relent, and defendant insisted that if Amy had to leave, Sherry should also go. Plaintiff called the police, who arrived shortly thereafter.
Plaintiff filed a TRO and it was finalized after the trial Court found the above-referenced facts to be true. Defendant appealed, arguing that a single act of harassment is insufficient to prove harassment. The Appellate Division disagreed, finding Defendant’s purposeful acts—picking up Amy despite recognizing in advance it may cause a problem if plaintiff was at the residence; seeing plaintiff was home when he arrived, but nevertheless entering the home with Amy; refusing to have Amy leave when directed by plaintiff, thereby forcing plaintiff to contact the police; insisting Sherry leave the house; and then falsely claiming to police that plaintiff was attempting to leave with his car to constitute a course of alarming conduct for harassment.
Final restraining orders have severe consequences in New Jersey. You have a right to hire an attorney for these proceedings for both the plaintiff and defendant. However, keep in mind if you cannot afford an attorney one will not be appointed for you since this is considered family court. Harassment is the most commonly plead predicate act and can be a pitfall for both plaintiff’s and defendant’s in restraining orders.
If you have questions about final restraining orders, temporary restraining orders, parenting time, alimony, child support, divorce, custody, or appeals, contact the experienced domestic violence attorneys at Hark & Hark today.
In recognition of these trying financial times, we are reducing fees and working with clients to come up with manageable payment plans. Initial consultation is always free and we are available remotely.
We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing domestic violence charges similar to this circumstance, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Mercer, Monmouth, Ocean, and Salem counties. We represent clients in all towns in New Jersey, including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington ,Haddon Heights ,Pine Hill ,Bellmawr ,Haddon Township , Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.