Sometimes people are too smart by half and unfortunately attempt to use the domestic violence system as a sword. In 2009, I wrote on this blog a post entitled The Abuse and Misuse of the Domestic Violence Statute that still gets a fair number or reads, 16 years later.
I have seen people who have obtained a Final Restraining Order, then use it to try to control or incarcerate the other party by showing up places where they know the other will be, or preventing them from being at public events regarding their children, and other similar acts.
But what happens when the holder of a Final Restraining Order repeatedly uses the FRO as a ruse to harass the other party by making multiple false or questionable calls to the police? Can that conduct be deemed domestic violence?
The question was answered by the Appellate Division in the case of R.M.K. v S.S.L., an unreported (non-precedential) Appellate Division decision released on September 26, 2025.
In that case, the parties had been in a long term relationship and had two daughters. In 2022, defendant obtained an FRO against plaintiff and since that time defendant has
repeatedly claimed that plaintiff violated the FRO.
In June 2024, during plaintiff’s parenting time, defendant called the police three times during a 36 hour period. Note that this occurred just a few days after plaintiff dismissed another TRO against defendant and the parties entered into a consent order for civil restraints.
The first call to the police took place an hour after parenting time started and defendant claimed that plaintiff violated the FRO by making negative comments about her to their daughter. The second call came at 2 am, when plaintiff was speaking, wherein defendant alleged that plaintiff was texting her when she was actually texting with his mother. The third call came later that day when defendant called the police requesting a welfare check on the children because she had spoken with her daughter who was upset, the conversation had abruptly ended, and when she tried to contact plaintiff through a parenting app, he did not immediately respond.
At trial, plaintiff also testified that defendant had a history of calling the police and alleging that he violated the FRO and that he feared that defendant was using the FRO to try to get him arrested.
The trial court granted an FRO finding that defendant had no valid justification for calling the police on any of the three occasions and that she did so with the purpose to harass. The trial court further found that plaintiff needed an FRO to protect him from future acts of harassment. The appellate decision noted, “In that regard, the trial court determined that
defendant had engaged in a series of prior misuses of her FRO and that she was using that FRO to harass plaintiff.”
Now here is where the decision gets even more interesting because the trial court found the actions to also be coercive control. The Appellate Division noted:
Finally, the court found that defendant had engaged in a series of actions that demonstrated that she was trying to coercively control plaintiff in violation of the Act. See N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(7)(e). The trial court reasoned that defendant’s reports to the police were her attempts to try to control plaintiff by setting him up so that it appeared he was violating her FRO.
In affirming, the Appellate Division held that the trial court’s finding that defendant was contacting the police to be without justification and with a purpose to harass was supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. The Appellate Division further found that there was substantial credible evidence to support the finding that an FRO was needed given:
…several prior instances where defendant misused her FRO in an improper attempt to set up plaintiff and to coercively control him.
Now this decision should not come as a complete surprise. In fact, in 2023, I blogged on how a vindictive report to DCPP could constitute harassment in support of an FRO.
That said, to bootstrap the decision by finding this to be coercive control is very interesting, because, it has rarely been seen since the domestic violence statute was amended in 2024. Specifically, now included in NJSA 2C:25-29, in the context regarding whether an FRO is needed is whether there has been a history of coercive control. Specifically, the statute requires a court to consider:
…(7) Any pattern of coercive control against a person that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with, threatens, or exploits a person’s liberty, freedom, bodily integrity, or human rights with the court specifically considering evidence of the need for protection from immediate danger or the prevention of further abuse. If the court finds that one or more factors of coercive control are more or less relevant than others, the court shall make specific written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the reasons why the court reached that conclusion. Coercive control may include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) isolating the person from friends, relatives, transportation, medical care, or other source of support;
(b) depriving the person of basic necessities;
(c) monitoring the person’s movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, economic resources, or access to services;
(d) compelling the person by force, threat, or intimidation, including, but not limited to, threats based on actual or suspected immigration status;
(e) threatening to make or making baseless reports to the police, courts, the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) within the Department of Children and Families, the Board of Social Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or other parties;
(f) threatening to harm or kill the individual’s relative or pet;
(g) threatening to deny or interfere with an individual’s custody or parenting time, other than through enforcement of a valid custody arrangement or court order pursuant to current law including, but not limited to, an order issued pursuant to Title 9 of the Revised Statutes; or
(h) any other factors or circumstances that the court deems relevant or material. (Emphasis added)
Note that in early drafts of this bill, coercive control was intended to be a predicate act of domestic violence in and of itself, however, in the final bill, it was just included as a consideration regarding the need for an FRO.
On the other hand, one wonders whether such a decision might have a chilling effect on someone reporting, in good faith, a violation of a FRO or some possible harm to children.
In any event, the takeaway from this case is that the abuse of an FRO could have ramifications on a party previously found to be a victim of domestic violence.
_______________________________
Eric Solotoff is the editor of the New Jersey Family Legal Blog and the Co-Chair of the Family Law Department of Fox Rothschild LLP. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Matrimonial Lawyer and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Attorneys. Eric is resident in Fox Rothschild’s Morristown, New Jersey office though he practices throughout New Jersey. You can reach Eric at (973) 994-7501, or esolotoff@foxrothschild.com.