Typically, general prohibitory language within a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) states that a Defendant is “prohibited from having any oral, written, personal, electronic, or other form of contact or communication
Continue Reading Contempt & Communications Initiated Prior to Entry and Service of Restraining Orders
In January 2020, the Appellate Division considered an important question: how should a judge assess a party’s request to appear at a trial and present testimony by way of video
Continue Reading Remote Proceedings: Zooming Past Litigants’ Due Process Rights By: Arrianna T. Diamantis
I have now blogged a few times about the importance for due process in domestic violence matters. The Appellate Division just gave us another unpublished case, B.L.F. v. T.G.C., to
Continue Reading Domestic Violence Defendants Require Opportunity To Prepare Defense Even When FRO Is Warranted For Another Predicate Act
A few months ago, I blogged about due process for defendants in domestic violence actions. We now have another unpublished decision on this topic but with a different due
Continue Reading Another Due Process Ruling for Domestic Violence Defendants
A new domestic violence decision, M.D.C. v. J.A.C., not only confirms that defendants in a domestic violence proceeding are entitled to due process, but also goes a step further
Continue Reading Due Process for Domestic Violence Defendants
Notice and opportunity to be heard is one of the most fundamental tenants of due process in this country. Every litigant, no matter how small the case, has the right
Continue Reading Sua Sponte Reinstatement Of Dismissed Final Restraining Order Violates Due Process, Appellate Division Says
Ah, technology. In this modern world, we navigate the roads on our phones instead of a map. We talk to a cylindrical tube to tell it to order more toilet
Continue Reading Could Service of Process Via Facebook Be the Way of the Future?
The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, NJSA 2C:25-17 to 35, is the law that governs domestic violence issues in New Jersey, including the issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders (“TROs”) and Final Restraining Orders (“FROs”). The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act was enacted to protect victims of domestic violence. Unfortunately, some individuals abuse the protections offered by the Domestic Violence Act and use it as a weapon in divorce proceedings. While many times the issuance of an FRO is appropriate, there are other times when it is clear that the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act has been abused.
If a person is a victim of domestic violence, they can obtain a TRO by contacting the local police (at anytime) or going to the county courthouse (during business hours) and explaining the circumstances by which they have been abused. At that time a judge will determine if the facts warrant the issuance of the TRO. If the judge decides that the conduct is sufficient to warrant the TRO, the accused alleged abuser will be served with the TRO, which will order the individual not to contact the victim or anyone else that needs protecting, which may include children, family members, friends, etc. Once the TRO is issued, an FRO hearing is scheduled shortly thereafter. The FRO hearing is before a Superior Court Judge and will be conducted at the county courthouse. At the FRO hearing, a judge will determine if an FRO is necessary to protect the alleged victim of the domestic violence or if the TRO was incorrectly issued and no FRO is necessary. While the TRO is usually issued ex parte or without any input from the alleged abuser, at the FRO hearing the alleged abuser has the opportunity to testify, call witnesses, present evidence, and most importantly be represented by an attorney.
What seems to be a hot topic and one ripe for review for the Appellate Division is domestic violence and the entry of final restraining orders. I have posted several other blogs on this topic and yet again, the Appellate Division has issued an unpublished decision in the matter of F.R. v. E.B., decided April 6, 2009, A-4859-07T3.
A.R. and E. B. were married and lived in Philadelphia. According to A.R. she was a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by E.B. on numerous occasions. After one specific incident, A.R. came to NJ with the parties’ child to stay with her mother. She received a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) after she claimed E.B. called and harassed her while at her mother’s threatening to take the parties’ child from her and then showed up outside A.R.’s mother’s home and screamed for her and the child.
E.B. received notice of the final restraining order hearing three days before the scheduled hearing date. A.R. appeared with counsel. E.B. also appeared but argued that he had insufficient time to retain counsel for the hearing. Also, the first time that E.B. heard the allegations contained in the FRO was when the judge read them onto the record at the final hearing.