Social Accounts Sprite

Harassment Can Lead to a Final Restraining Order

By Snyder & Sarno on February 22, 2016


Domestic Violence is a serious issue that is prevalent in today’s society.  Harassment is a type of domestic violence.  Harassment is defined to include when a person, acting with the purpose to harass another, makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications that is or are likely to cause annoyance or alarm to the other person, or engages in any other course of alarming conduct with the purpose to alarm or seriously annoy the other person. 

In M.E.M. v. R.M.,the parties were married for a little less than 10 years and had two children.  They communicate as per their co-parenting responsibilities because they share joint custody.  However, these exchanges of communications worsened over time into name-calling, accusations and threats of legal action.  When the husband went to drop of his son at the wife’s house, an argument ensued and ended with the husband banging on the door and cursing.  The wife’s neighbor heard the commotion. The wife applied for and was granted a temporary restraining order (TRO). During the final restraining order (FRO) hearing, both parties and the neighbor testified. With the credited testimony from the wife’s neighbor, the trial judge granted an FRO because it was necessary to prevent further harassment against the wife. 

The husband appealed, stating that there was no credible evidence of harassment.  N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a) helps a judge determine whether to grant a FRO.  First, a judge must determine whether the plaintiff (victim) has proven by a preponderance of evidence whether the predicate act of harassment occurred.  Second, the judge must consider whether granting an FRO will protect the plaintiff from future domestic violence. 

The Appellate Division determined that were was sufficient and credible evidence that proved the husband harassed the wife.  There were specific examples of crude, offensive and alarming communications and there was clear intent to harass and engage in them. The FRO was necessary because the evidence showed that the husband’s acts and communications toward the wife were escalating.   As a result, the Appellate Division affirmed the entry of the FRO.

If you have an issue with domestic violence, contact the skilled matrimonial attorneys at Snyder & Sarno, LLC.  The attorneys at Snyder & Sarno are experienced in handling cases where the parties share children.  Call us today at (973) 274-5200.

Related to This

desktop-only

Message Us

"I was involved in a VERY complicated and tumultuous child custody, divorce, domestic violence case for two full years. I was fortunate enough to be represented by one of the top matrimonial teams in the state of NJ, and the outcome in my case exceeded my every expectation." - Former Client

"Paul personally stood by my side and represented me throughout my injury case. Whether it was business at hand, advice, or a late night phone call to help me understand what was going on; he never took a step back towards helping me. I knew that I could call on him at any time . My case was very successful and I attribute that to Paul's dedication . He even came to me during a snow storm when I could not make it to his office. I certainly would recommend him to anyone." - Former Client

X CLOSE

Bergen County Office

401 Hackensack Ave
Ste 706
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Open Today 8:30am - 5:30pm

Essex County Office

425 Eagle Rock Ave
Ste 202
Roseland, NJ 07068

Open Today 8:30am - 5:30pm

Somerset County Office

440 Route 22 E
Ste 170
Bridgewater, NJ 08807

Open Today 8:30am - 5:30pm

X CLOSE

Message Us

X CLOSE

X CLOSE

Popular Tags