### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 0448

- 17T1 N.K., Plaintiff

- Responden t/ Cross

- Appellant,

v. S.R., Defen d ant

- Appellant/ Cross

- Respondent.

_______________________

Submitted May 28, 2020

– Decided July 20, 202 0 Before Judges Alvarez and DeAlmeida. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Mercer County, Docket No. FV

- 1 1

- 0450

- 17. Deborah A. Rose, attorney for appellant/cross

respondent (Deborah A. Rose and Da vid Perry Davis , on the briefs ). Menar & Menar, attorneys for respondent/cross

appellant (Paula A. Menar, of counsel and on the brief s ). NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is bindin g only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.2 A

- 0448

- 17T1

PER CURIAM
D efendant S .R. 1 appeals fro m a n April 20, 2017 final restraining order (FRO) entered against him by the Family Part pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25

- 17 to

- 35 , and a June 3 0, 2017 amended FRO directing him to pay plaintiff N.K.'s co unse l fees

. Pla intiff cross - appeals from provision s of a n August 31, 2017 order establishing a weekly payment schedule for defendant 's payment of the counsel fee award and maintaining the tempora ry child support awarded in the original FRO

. 2 W e affirm.
I. The followin g facts are derived from the record. Plaintiff and defendant

were married in 201 2 and have one minor child

. The marriage was arranged by the parties' parent s and was contentious from its inception. On September 27, 2016, plainti ff filed a com plaint in th e Family Part seeking a temporary restraining order, custody of the child, temporary child

1 We use initials to preserve the confident iali ty of court records concerning domestic violence. R. 1:38

- 3(d)(9).

2 Although defendant's notice of appeal lists the August 31, 2017 order, which denied in part his motion for reconsideration, he does not a ddress the order in his briefs. We, theref ore, consider hi s appeal of that order to have been waived. See Sklodowsky v. Lushis , 417 N.J. Super. 648, 657 (App. Div. 2011); Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules , cmt. 5 on R. 2:6

- 2 (2019 ).3 A

- 0448

- 17T1

support , and other relief. She alleged defendant committed an act of domestic violence on September 11, 2016

. I t is undisputed that on th at date th e pa rties

were r esidents of Virginia visiting plaintiff's parents in New Jersey . They do not dispute that they took a car trip with their child to New York to visit relatives

. At a hearing, the parties offered divergent accounts of what transpi red on the ir t rip back to New Jersey. According to plaintiff, d efendant became increasingly angry during the drive home about her disagreeing with him earli er in the day. Plaintiff testified that defendant , while driving fast, was screaming at her and ba nging his hand s on the ste ering wheel , frightening the child , and endangering the safety of the occupants of the car . She testified that while on the New Je rsey Turnpike, defendant pulled the car to the shoulder of the highway and ordered her and the chil d to get o ut o f the vehicl e . A ccording to plaintiff, a fter a moment or two, defendant exited the car, grabbed plaintiff by the arm, and forcefully dragged
h er and the child back into the car . According to defendant, the parties were in New York when plain tiff got

o ut o f the car on her own volition, grabbed their daughter from the back seat, and walked a block or so while speaking to her mother on the phone. He testified he got out of the car, diffused the situation by linking arms with plaintiff, and4 A

- 0448

- 17T1

conv inced her to r eturn to the vehicle. He testified that the remainder of the trip to New Jersey was uneventful , claiming plaintiff fabricated the New Jersey
i ncident in order to establish jurisdiction here for the parties' anticipated dispute over custody o f the chil d.
T he parties s eparated for good once they arrived at the home of plaintiff's parent s. Plaintiff took the child in to her parents' house , and defendant drove away without collecting the clothes and other belongings he brought for the visit

. Def endant con cede s he returne d alone to the former marital home in Virginia after plaintiff and the child exited the car . Plaintiff has resided at her par ents' home since that day

. Plaintiff also alleged she suffered a history of abuse at defendant's hands

. She accu sed defendant of repeatedly referring to her as a "useless" wife and alleged he would frequently twist her arm during arguments. In addition, she alleged several incidents of past abuse , testifying that defendant : (1) ordered her out of the car and forced her to walk hom e in cold weather when they lived in Minnesota ; (2) locked her out of the marital house in a cold garage ; (3) became
so enrage d that she was forced several times to hide in a bathroom or bedroom ; and (4) pushed plaintiff and their child dow n a few stairs d uring an argument

. D efendant denied having ever abused plaintiff

.5 A

- 0448

- 17T1

After nearly nineteen hours of testimony, the trial court, on April 20, 2017, issued a lengthy oral opinion granting plaintiff's application for an FR O . The

cour t found th at w ith respect to September 1 1 , 2016, "plaintiff's version was more credible, more likely to be true, than the defendant's version, applying the preponderance of the evidence standard." In addition, the court found defendant
to lack credibilit y and that smal l inconsiste ncies in plaintiff's testimony were immat erial

. Applying the two

- pronged test established in Silver v. Silver , 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006), the court first found defendant had committed a predicate act of harassment as d efined by N.J. S.A. 2C:33

- 4 . The judge based this decision on its finding t hat the t urnpike incident was alarming conduct by defendant and included an offensive touching when he dragged plaintiff back into the vehicle. The court also found plaintiff estab lished a n eed for an FRO b ecause the parties' child would bring the m into c ontact with each other , creat ing opportunities for further abusive and controlling behavior by defendant . The court found defendant's past conduct demonstrated his desire to exert power and
cont rol over pla intiff, who m he treated like a child. The court rejected defendant's argument that plaintiff's contact with him after the September 11,6 A

- 0448

- 17T1

2016 incident, including the retrieval of her belonging s from their Virginia home while defen dant was p rese nt, was evid ence of her lack of fear of defendant. The
court also awarded plaintiff temporary custody of the child and directed defendant to pay plaintiff temporary child support of $100 per week. On June 30, 2017, the court granted plainti ff's motio n fo r attorney's fees in the amount of $24,300. T he court ordered defendant to pay the award within thirty days

. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration seeking , in relevant part, an order allowing him to pay the award of couns el fees in ins tallments. Plaintiff op posed that aspect of defendant's motion and cross moved for reconsideration seeking, in relevant part, an increase in the temporary child support awarded in the FRO

. In plaintiff's moving papers and d uring oral
argume nt on the moti ons, the cou rt was infor med that plaintiff, about to complete a year of residence in New Jersey, intended to file a divorce complaint on September 12, 2017.
On August 31, 2017, the court entered an order allowing defendant to pay the counsel fees award in $100 monthly installment s . The court noted that "[a]ny further economic issue regarding the payment of these fees, such as the effect of equitable distribution, can be addressed " in the contemplated divorce7 A

- 0448

- 17T1

proceeding. Noting that the parti es dispute d th e amount of defendant's income,
t he court concluded that "all economic issues are better handled on the FM docket particularly because there may be factual disputes regarding the parties' income, earning capacity, etc." The court, therefore, denied pl aint iff's reques t to increas e the child support award. Defendant's appeal and plaintiff's cross

- appeal followed. After initial briefing, at the parties' request, we remanded the matter to allow the m to enter into a property settlement agreement (PSA) , whi ch w as incorpora ted into the final judgment of divorce in the dissolution proceeding

. The PSA contains an agreement on child support:

It is understood and agreed that the Husband has been paying child support to the Wife in the sum of $100 per w eek in acc orda nce with an Order entered on FV

- 11

- 450. Said child support [is] payable through the Probation Department. By Agreement of the parties, [t] he Husband's child support obligation shall be retroactive[ly] modified effective September 12, 2017 ( the date t he C omp laint for Divorce was filed) to be $223 per week. The Probation Department shall adjust their records accordingly. The arrears created by the retroactive modification of Husband's child support obligation shall be satisfied by Husband fo rwarding a pay men t of $2,5 00 within 30 days of the execution of this A greement, and any remaining arrears being satisfied at the rate of $100 a week.8 A

- 0448

- 17T1 Further, by Agreement, effective the date the Final Judgment of Divorce is entered, the Husband's child s upport obl igat ion shall be modified to account for the payment of alimony and his new employment that resulted in an increase in annual earned income. Accordingly, effective 2/21/19[,]

. . . the Husband's child support obligation shall be modified to be $ 248 per we ek.
A fter rema nd, defendant argues that the trial court erred by entering an FRO, both in its finding that he engaged in an act of domestic violence and in its determination that plaintiff was in need of protection from fu rther abuse. In addit ion, he ar gues pl aintiff s ettled all claims to child support in the PSA, including for the period from the filing of the domestic violence complaint to the filing of the divorce complaint. Plaintiff argues that the court erred when it granted defendant's request fo r a pay ment plan for the award of counsel fees . In addition, she denies that the PSA settled her claim for child support in the period before the filing of the divorce complaint and argues that the trial court should have held a hearing to deter mine an ap prop ria te amount of child support under the FRO until the date she filed her divorce complaint

. II. "In our review of a trial court's order entered following trial in a domestic violence matter, we grant substantial deference to the trial court's findings of
f act and the legal conclusions based upon those findings." D.N. v. K.M. , 4299 A

- 0448

- 17T1

N.J. Super. 592, 596 (App. Div. 2013) (citing Cesare v. Cesare , 154 N.J. 394,
411

- 12 (1998)). We should not disturb the "factual findings and legal conclusions of t he trial j udge un less [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." Cesare , 154 N.J. at 412 (quoting Rova Farms Resort, I nc. v. Inv 'rs Ins . Co. , 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). Deference is particularly appropriate when the evidence is testimonial and involves credibility issues because the judge who observes the witnesses and hears the testimony has a perspective the reviewing c ourt does not enj oy. Pasc ale v. Pascale , 113 N.J. 20, 33 (1988) (citing Gallo v. Gallo , 66 N.J. Super. 1, 5 (App. Div. 1961)). The entry of an FRO requires the trial court to adhere to the two

- pronged test established in Silver , 387 N.J. Super. at 125

- 27 , and endor sed by our Supre me Court in J.D. v. M.D.F. , 207 N.J. 458 (2011). First, the court "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

- 1 9[(a)] has occ urr ed." Sil ver , 387 N.J. Super. at 125. The court should make this determination "in light of the previous history of violence between the parties." Ibid. (quoting Cesare , 154 N.J. at 402).10 A

- 0448

- 17T1

Next, the court must determine "whether a restr aining ord er i s necessary, upon an evaluation of the factors 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." Id. at 127 (citing N.J.S.A. 2C:25

- 29(b)); see also J .D. , 207 N.J. at 47 6. Th is determi nation requires evaluation of:

(1) The previous history of domestic violence between the plaintiff and defendant, including threats, harassment and physical abuse; (2) The existence of immediate danger to person or property; (3) The finan cial circumstanc es of the plaintiff and defendant; (4) The best interest of the victim and any child; (5) In determining custody and parenting time the protection of the victim's safety; and (6) The existence of a verifiable order of protectio n fro m ano ther jurisdictio n. [N.J.S.A. 2C:25

- 29(a); see also Cesare , 154 N.J. at 401.] Further, the need for a restraining order turns on whether "the victim was, at the time of the precipitating event, subjected to potential abusive and controlling beha vior relat ed t o and arisin g out of the past domestic relationship. If so, the11 A

- 0448

- 17T1

victim is in need of and entitled to the special protection provided by the Act." Tribuzio v. Roder , 356 N.J. Super. 590, 597 (App. Div. 2003). Having carefully reviewed the re cord in li ght of these pri nciples, we affirm the April 20, 2017 FRO , later amended, for the reasons stated in the trial
court's comprehensive April 20, 2017 oral opinion. We add the following
comments. Harassment is a predicate act under the statutory fra mewor k. N .J.S .A. 2C:25

- 19 (a)(13). A person commits harassment if, "with purpose to harass another," he or she:

(a) Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively course lan guage , or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; (b) S ubjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or (c) E ngages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpo se t o alarm or s eriously annoy such other person. [N.J.S.A. 2C:33

- 4.] For a finding of harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33

- 4, the actor must have the purpose to harass. Corrente v. Corrente , 281 N.J. Super. 243, 249 (App. Div. 1995) (citing D.C. v. T. H. , 2 69 N .J. Super. 4 58, 461

- 62 (App. Div. 1994); E.K.12 A

- 0448

- 17T1

v. G.K. , 241 N.J. Super. 567, 570 (App. Div. 1990)). Finding a party had the purpose to harass must be supported by "some evidence that the actor's conscious object was to alarm or annoy; mere aw arene ss th at s omeone might be alarmed or annoyed is insufficient." J.D. , 207 N.J. at 487 (citing State v. Fuchs , 230 N.J. Super. 420, 428 (App. Div. 1989)). A purpose to harass may be inferred from the evidence. See State v. McDougald , 120 N.J. 523, 566

- 67 ( 1990)

. C ommon sense and experience may also inform a determination or finding of
purpose. State v. Hoffman , 149 N.J

. 564, 577 (1997) (citing State v. Richards , 155 N.J. Super. 106, 118 (App. Div. 1978)). The trial court, having had the opportunity t o observe the testimony of each of the witnesses first

- hand, based its decision largely on credibility determinations. We see no basis to disturb the judge's conclusion that plaintiff presented the more credible version of events and that sh e truthfully d escribed

w hat took place o n the side of the highway in New Jersey and in the couple's past . In addition, the court's conclusion that defendant committed an act of domestic violence by harassing plaintiff is supported by sufficient, credible evidence. Com pelling pl aint iff and her small child to exit a vehicle on the shoulder of a major highway, even for a few minutes, was an alarming and dangerous act intended to instill fear and control over plaintiff. In addition,13 A

- 0448

- 17T1

grabbing plaintiff's arm and pulling he r aggressi vely back into t he car was an offensive touching. The record supports the finding of harassment under bot h
N.J.S.A. 2C:33

- 4(b) and (c). The record also supports the trial court's determination that the parties ' continued need to remain in contac t with res pect to parentin g their child, along with defendant's history of exercis ing control over plaintiff , justif ied entry of an
FRO to protect plaintiff from future abuse by defendant.
III. As compensation for a victim of domestic violence, a trial co urt may

aw ard reasonable a ttorney's fees. N.J.S.A. 2C:25

- 29(b)(4). A counsel fee award is left to the sound discre tion of the trial court and is disturbed only on the rarest occasions. Gnall v. Gnall , 432 N.J. Super. 129, 165 (App. Div. 2013). "[D]eter minations by t rial courts [regarding legal fees] will be disturbed only on the rarest of occasions, and then only be cause of a clear abuse of discretion." McGowan v. O'Rourke , 391 N.J. Super. 502, 508 (App. Div. 2007) (second alteration in original) (quot ing Packar d

- Ba mberger & Co . v. Collier , 167 N.J. 427, 444 (2001)); accord Redine v. Pantzer , 141 N.J. 292 , 317 (1995 ). Defendant challenges the award of counsel fees only if we determine the trial court erred with respect to entry of the FRO. Plaintiff, however, a rgue s the14 A

- 0448

- 17T1

trial court abused its discretion by permitting defendant to pay the fee award in monthly instal lments. We disagree. The trial court acted within its discretion to accommodate defendant's financial circumstances through a monthly paym ent schedu le

. The trial c ourt determined that, given defendant's lack of liquid assets, apart from a retirement acc ount, and the looming divorce action in which issues of equitable distribution would arise, it was unreasonable to order him to pay $2 4 , 3 00 in thirty days . It was wi thin the court's discretion to allow defendant to pay the award in installments.
IV.
Nor do we see error in the trial court's decision to continue the $100 weekly child support payment set in the FRO. After a restraining order
pr oceeding, the trial court may order "emergency support for minor children, to the victim and other dependents, if an y. An ongoing obligation of support shall be determined at a later date pursuant to applicable law." N.J.S.A. 2C:25

- 29(b)(10). At the time the court hea rd the cross

- motions for reconsideration, plaintiff's filing of a divorce complaint was imminent. As we previously explained , The Domestic Violence Procedures Manual (2004),

which "serves as a procedural guide that prescribes the15 A

- 0448

- 17T1 steps in pr ocessing d omes tic violence matters, . . . [and] continues the judiciary's ongoing system

- wide program of establishing uniform standards and best practices" specifically sets forth the manner in which a court must address issues concurrently presented in di ssolution (FM) and domesti c violence (FV) cases. If there is a pending FM, all reliefs except the restra ints shall be incorporated into the FM with the restraints continuing in the FV docket and on the FRO. Subsequent applications or modifications for su pport, cus tody or parentin g time should take place within the FM docket number. The FV should be reopene d and modified as needed so the FM and FV are consistent. [ Finamore v. Aronson , 382 N.J. Super. 514, 520 (App. Div. 2006) (alteration in original) (in ternal quo tati on omitted)

. ] Given the imminent filing of plaintiff's divorce complaint and the fact tha t defendant's income was disputed, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by deferring the question of temporary child support for resolution in the matrim onia l matter. A s noted, the parties entered in to a PSA in the matrimonial matter that establis hed defendant's child support obligation retroactive to the filing date of the divorce complaint. We see no obstacle to plaintiff seeking to reopen th e domestic vio lence matter to seek modification of the temporary child support ordered in the FRO, subjec t to defendant's argument that the PSA was intended as a global settlement of the issue of child support. Affirmed.