RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4626-18T3

J.M., 

Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v. 

D.W., 

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted March 16, 2020 – Decided April 7, 2020

Before Judges Ostrer and Vernoia. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Gloucester County, 

Docket No. FV-08-1228-19.

Hark & Hark, attorneys for appellant (Jeffrey S. Hark, 

on the brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-4626-18T3

Defendant, D.W.,1appeals from a final restraining order (FRO) entered in 

favor of his former girlfriend, plaintiff, J.M., pursuant to the Prevention of 

Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. 

On May 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a domestic violence 

restraining order against defendant. The complaint alleged plaintiff "broke off 

[her] relationship with . . . defendant in March" and thereafter defendant 

"refuse[d] to comply with plaintiff's wishes and continue[d] to try to meet and 

be in a relationship with her." Plaintiff also alleged defendant knocked on her 

bedroom window "to get her attention." She further asserted that on May 30, 

2019, defendant appeared at her sister's house, and, when plaintiff left in her 

vehicle, defendant followed in his vehicle through three municipalities, driving 

recklessly and at a high rate of speed. 

Plaintiff alleged defendant's actions constituted the predicate act of 

harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, under the PDVA. See N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a)(12). 

The court issued a domestic violence temporary restraining order against 

defendant.

 

1

 We use initials to identify the parties to protect the identity of an alleged victim 

of domestic violence because that information is exempt from public access 

under Rule 1:38-3(d)(10). Plaintiff did not participate in this appeal.
3

A-4626-18T3

At the ensuing, brief hearing on plaintiff's request for an FRO, plaintiff 

testified defendant is her former boyfriend, and, on May 30, 2019, she received 

"multiple missed calls" from him on her phone. Plaintiff said she went to her 

sister's house; she did not tell defendant she was there; defendant "somehow 

found out where [she] was"; and she saw defendant drive up to her sister's house 

in a vehicle. According to plaintiff, when she saw defendant, she drove away, 

and defendant "began to follow [her] and cut [her] off." She reached speeds of 

"[seventy] miles per hour" while defendant tried "to cut [her] off," "getting very 

close to" the "rear end" of her vehicle. Plaintiff further explained that during 

the "couple of months" prior to the May 30 incident, defendant on "maybe" three 

occasions went to "[her] window at night," and at other times "talked down on"

her. 

Defendant testified he and plaintiff broke up two weeks prior to May 30, 

2019. He explained that prior to seeing plaintiff on May 30, he exchanged 

messages with her and she indicated that she wanted a "break" in their 

relationship. He wanted to speak with plaintiff and went to her sister's house 

because plaintiff "always goes there," and that evening she posted a picture on 

"Snapchat" showing she was there. 
4

A-4626-18T3

According to defendant, when he arrived at plaintiff's sister's house, 

plaintiff "took off" and was "swerving" and "doing like [eighty]." He said 

plaintiff was "pretty far ahead of" him; he was never behind her; and he "did not 

catch up with her." He also admitted following plaintiff for "a mile [or] two,"

and catching up with her when she stopped at a light. Defendant testified he 

stopped because he "feared . . . she was going to get in . . . a car accident or 

something." He said plaintiff called him on the phone and told him her "sister 

already called the cops so [he] might as well just stop." Defendant said when 

he received the call, he "was already done following her" and "already went 

home." 

Following defendant's testimony, plaintiff further stated defendant lives 

around the corner from her house and that he drove past her home each night 

prior to entry of the temporary restraining order. She also stated that following 

entry of the temporary restraining order, defendant no longer drives past her 

house but his "friend" did. Plaintiff testified she did not "want to say [she] 

feel[s] not safe." She said that instead, she "just feel[s] on edge" and is "always 

looking out the window."

Based on the abbreviated testimony provided, the court made terse factual 

findings. It found that while plaintiff was at her sister's house, defendant 
5

A-4626-18T3

appeared in his vehicle. The court noted defendant testified he went to the house 

to speak with plaintiff about their relationship, but the court stated it did not 

know how defendant would have known plaintiff was at her sister's house unless 

defendant "had some kind of tangential contact with her or otherwise was 

following her."

2

 The court further explained plaintiff testified "she pulled away 

and [defendant] followed her at a high rate of speed, pulling up next to her in a 

reckless manner." The court further noted defendant testified plaintiff "was 

going [eighty] miles an hour and he caught up with [plaintiff] at a traffic light." 

The court found plaintiff's "testimony . . . to be credible," and noted it was 

"having a lot of trouble with [defendant's] version of what occurred and what 

the relationship is." 

Based on those limited findings, the judge concluded "there was an act of 

domestic violence" and "the necessity of a restraining order does, in fact, exist." 

The court then declared it was "going to enter a [FRO]." The court entered the 

FRO, and this appeal followed. 

Our scope of review is limited when considering an FRO issued by the 

Family Part following a hearing. A trial court's findings are binding on appeal 

 

2

 The court did not address defendant's testimony explaining how he knew 

plaintiff was at her sister's house. 
6

A-4626-18T3

"when supported by adequate, substantial, and credible evidence." N.J. Div. of 

Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 217 N.J. 527, 552 (2014). This deference is 

particularly appropriate where the evidence at trial is largely testimonial and 

hinges upon a court's ability to assess credibility. Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 

428 (2015). We also recognize the expertise of trial court judges who routinely 

hear domestic violence cases in the Family Part. R.G., 217 N.J. at 553. We will 

not disturb the "factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless 

[we are] convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent 

with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the 

interests of justice." S.D. v. M.J.R., 415 N.J. Super. 417, 429 (App. Div. 2010) 

(quoting Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998)).

When making a determination whether to grant an FRO, the trial court 

must engage in a two-step analysis. Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112, 125-

26 (App. Div. 2006). "First, the judge must determine whether the plaintiff has 

proven, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that one or more of the 

predicate acts set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19[(a)] has occurred." Id. at 125; see 

also N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a) (providing that an FRO may only be granted "after a 

finding or an admission is made that an act of domestic violence was 

committed"). Second, the court must determine that a restraining order is 
7

A-4626-18T3

necessary to provide protection for the victim. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. at 126-

27. As part of that second step, the judge must assess "whether a restraining 

order is necessary, upon an evaluation of the fact[or]s set forth in N.J.S.A.

2C:25-29(a)(1) to -29(a)(6), to protect the victim from an immediate danger or 

to prevent further abuse." J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 475-76 (2011) (quoting 

Silver, 387 N.J. Super. at 127).

The court is also required to make specific findings of fact and state his 

or her conclusions of law. R. 1:7-4(a); see also Shulas v. Estabrook, 385 N.J. 

Super. 91, 96 (App. Div. 2006) (requiring an adequate explanation of the basis 

for a court's action). "Failure to make explicit findings and clear statements of 

reasoning [impedes meaningful appellate review and] 'constitutes a disservice 

to the litigants, the attorneys, and the appellate court.'" Gnall, 222 N.J. at 428 

(quoting Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980)). Thus, although our 

standard of review is generally limited, where inadequate factual findings are 

made or where issues are not addressed, we are constrained to vacate the FRO 

and remand for further proceedings. Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424, 443 

(App. Div. 2015); see also Franklin v. Sloskey, 385 N.J. Super. 534, 544 (App. 

Div. 2006) (vacating an FRO where the facts in the record did not support a 
8

A-4626-18T3

determination of harassment, and there was no history of domestic violence 

between the parties).

Here, the court failed to place adequate findings of fact and conclusions 

of law on the record. In the first instance, the court did not make any findings 

as to the alleged acts by defendant that it determined constituted the predicate 

act of domestic violence alleged in plaintiff's complaint —harassment under 

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. See Silver, 387 N.J. Super. at 125. Instead, the court briefly 

summarized portions of the parties' testimony, found plaintiff's testimony 

credible, and, in conclusory fashion, declared it was "satisfied there was an act 

of domestic violence." See Silver, 387 N.J. Super. at 125; see also N.J.S.A. 

2C:33-4. 

To prove harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, it must be established 

defendant committed an act prohibited under subsections (a), (b), or (c) with the 

purpose to harass. C.M.F. v. R.G.F., 418 N.J. Super. 396, 402-03 (App. Div. 

2011). Here, the court did not make factual findings that defendant either 

committed one of the acts prohibited by the statute or that he acted with the 

purpose to harass. See ibid. Indeed, the court did not identify which subsection 

of the statute it determined defendant violated.
9

A-4626-18T3

Moreover, the court did not make any findings as to why an FRO is 

necessary. See Silver, 387 N.J. Super. at 126-27. The court stated only that it 

was "satisfied . . . the necessity of a restraining order does, in fact, exist." The 

court did not make any findings or explain how contact by defendant would 

constitute an immediate danger to plaintiff or how an FRO would prevent further 

acts of domestic violence against her. See J.D., 207 N.J. at 476. The court also 

did not consider, evaluate, or make any findings concerning the factors set forth 

in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1) to (6), see Silver, 387 N.J. Super. at 126-27, and did 

not consider or make findings concerning whether there was a history of 

domestic violence between the parties, see id. at 126 (noting that determining 

whether an FRO is necessary requires consideration of "the evidence in light of 

whether there is a previous history of domestic violence"). 

Accordingly, we vacate the FRO because there are inadequate findings 

supporting it, and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the court shall 

reconsider the trial record, hear additional arguments from the parties, and make 

appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision to 

either grant or deny the requested FRO. See R. 1:7-4. The May 30, 2019 

temporary restraining order shall remain in effect pending further order of the 

remand court. 
10 A-4626-18T3

Vacated and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain 

jurisdiction.