RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1827-17T1

C.L.H.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

T.F.H.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Argued November 15, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Vernoia and Moynihan.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, 

Docket No. FV-03-0708-18.

T.F.H., appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Jeffrey S. Craig argued the cause for respondent (Craig, 

Annin & Baxter, LLP, attorneys; Jeffrey S. Craig, on 

the 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

January 11, 2019
2

A-1827-17T1

Defendant appeals from the Family Part judge's final restraining order 

(FRO) entered against him in favor of his estranged wife under the Prevention 

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

his self-authored merits brief:

POINT [I] 

INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL: DEFENDANT[']S 

COUN[SEL] DID NOT CONDUCT A PRE TRIAL 

CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS A DEFENSE 

STRATEGY, UTILIZE [FIVE] DOCUMENTS 

INCLUDING PHOTOS THAT I PROVIDED TO 

IMPEACH PLAINTIFF'S CREDIBILITY AND 

DEMONSTRATE PERJURY AND FRAUD 

COMMITTED BY THE PLAINTIFF DURING HER 

DEPOSITION ON MARCH 2017 AND DID NOT 

CALL AT LEAST TWO WITNESSES ON MY 

BEHALF WHO COULD HAVE VERIFIED AT 

LEAST ONE ACT OF FRAUDULENT TESTIMONY 

AND ANOTHER WHO COULD HAVE 

COLLABORATED [sic] MY STATE OF ALARM 

AND DISTRESS AFTER THE STEAK KNIFE

INCIDENT WHEN I WAS LEAVING ON A TRIP TO 

FLORIDA. 

POINT [II]

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION TO 

ALLOW "AUTHENTICATION" OF A PERCEIVED 

NO CONTACT ORDER BASED ON TESTIMONY 

OF THE PLAINTIFF AND OVERRULED DEFENSE 

OBJECTION TO SAME. DEFENDANT WAS 

NEVER AFFORDED THE SAME OPPORTUNITY 

TO DISCUSS OR GIVE TESTIMONY. 
3

A-1827-17T1

POINT [III]

THE INITIAL TRO SPECIFICALLY BLOCK 1, 

STATES "NO PREVIOUS ACTS OF DOMESTIC 

VIOLENCE, REPORTED OR UNREPORTED[." ] 

PREJUDICIAL TESTIMONY OF ALLEGED 

ASSAULT THAT PRE DATED THE INITIAL TRO 

SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 

POINT [IV]

THERE IS NO PROOF OF INTENT OR PREDICATE 

ACTS THAT CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO BE 

ALARMED OR AWARDED A FRO FOR 

HARASSMENT. 

We are unpersuaded by these arguments and affirm.

The judge, following a full-day trial, found plaintiff qualified for 

protection under the PDVA because she was married to defendant. See N.J.S.A. 

2C:25-19(d). Applying the dual-element test set forth in Silver v. Silver, 387 

N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006),1the judge determined that plaintiff's credible 

testimony proved by a preponderance of the evidence three acts that constituted 

harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c), a predicate act under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-

 

1

 "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." Silver, 387 N.J. Super. at 125. 

If the court finds a defendant committed one or more of the predicate acts listed 

under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a), the judge must determine whether a restraining 

order is required to protect the plaintiff from future acts or threats of violence. 

Id. at 126.
4

A-1827-17T1

19(a)(13): (1) defendant entered plaintiff's car while she was in church and 

removed a tote bag; (2) defendant sent plaintiff a text message asking her, 

despite plaintiff never telling him that she would be away, when she would be 

back from her trip; and (3) after using a Google-search to find the location of 

the house where plaintiff was staying, defendant drove there and "slam[med] on 

the brakes to see if [plaintiff's] car [was] there." The judge appraised defendant's 

offered explanations for the acts, found defendant "essentially admit[ted]" the 

acts, and did not find credible defendant's "own spin on what he believes the 

context [of the acts] to be." The judge found defendant, in committing the acts, 

was "clearly trying to send a message to [plaintiff], and that message is one of 

alarm"; and that the acts – committed over a ten-day period – were an ongoing 

course of conduct with "no other purpose but to harass" plaintiff.

In considering the second Silver prong, the judge found that, based on 

"physical confrontations between the two of them, including that of a sexual 

nature," and "her [reasonable] fear of future acts of domestic violence and 

harm," the FRO was required to protect plaintiff from future acts of domestic 

violence. 

We are bound by the trial court's factual findings if they are "supported 

by adequate, substantial, [and] credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 
5

A-1827-17T1

394, 411-12 (1998) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 

474, 484 (1974)). Such deference is "especially appropriate when the evidence 

is largely testimonial and involves questions of credibility." In re Return of 

Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108, 117 (1997). Moreover, a greater degree of 

deference is to be accorded to the Family Part as it possesses "special 

jurisdiction and expertise," and we "should accord deference to the family court 

factfinding." Cesare, 154 N.J. at 413. We are not, however, bound by the 

judge's interpretations of the legal consequences that flow from established 

facts. Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).

We reject defendant's argument that the proofs did not support the judge's 

finding of harassment. A person commits harassment "if, with purpose to harass 

another, he . . . [e]ngages in any . . . course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly 

committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person." 

N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c). In State v. Hoffman, our Supreme Court determined 

"serious annoyance under subsection (c) means to weary, worry, trouble, or 

offend." 149 N.J. 564, 581 (1997).

"A finding of a purpose to harass may be inferred from the evidence 

presented." Id. at 577 (citing State v. McDougald, 120 N.J. 523, 566-67 (1990); 

State v. Avena, 281 N.J. Super. 327, 340 (App. Div. 1995)). "Common sense 
6

A-1827-17T1

and experience may inform that determination." Ibid. (citing State v. Richards, 

155 N.J. Super. 106, 118 (App. Div. 1978)). The credible testimony about the 

three closely proximate-in-time acts was sufficient evidence to support the 

judge's conclusion that defendant's pattern of conduct was committed with the

conscious object to alarm or annoy. J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 487 (2011) 

(citing State v. Fuchs, 230 N.J. Super. 420, 428 (App. Div. 1989)).

We determine defendant's arguments in his first three points to be without 

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

We add only that a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which 

applies in criminal cases based upon the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, does 

not apply to this civil proceeding. On the contrary, it has not been established 

that a constitutional right to counsel arises in a civil action under the PDVA. 

We also note that the judge never mentioned the prior restraints entered by the 

municipal court, which were memorialized in an order the judge deemed 

admissible; the admission of the order, therefore, was of no moment in the 

judge's determination of this case. And, notwithstanding that plaintiff did not 

set forth any prior domestic violence history in a prior temporary restraining 

order (TRO) application, defendant was on notice of the three acts and the prior 

history of domestic violence, including the two sexual assaults, because they 
7

A-1827-17T1

were set forth in plaintiff's TRO application submitted in this case. The judge 

properly considered evidence of those prior acts in determining whether a 

restraining order was necessary. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a); see also Cesare, 154 N.J. 

at 401.

Affirmed.