the history of abuse and the physical dispute on June 28, 2020,
C.F.A. testified that she was afraid of B.A.A.
B.A.A. also appeared at the hearing and was ready to proceed even though
he received a copy of the Essex County TRO against him at the hearing itself.
During the hearing, B.A.A. provided a conflicting version of the events on June
28, 2020. B.A.A. testified that C.F.A. had been drinking that day and began
yelling at him. B.A.A. also testified that C.F.A. struck him with some type of
utensil on his left hand. B.A.A. later admitted to putting C.F.A. in a bear hug
and moving her to her son's room in an act of alleged self-defense. B.A.A. then
A-0169-20 testified that after he put C.F.A. in her son's room, he called the Cherry Hill
Police Department. B.A.A. also testified that he does not currently know where
C.F.A. lives or where she works. The parties filed for divorce on July 20, 2020.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge found C.F.A. credible and
B.A.A. not credible. The judge's entire opinion is as follows:
I have -- I've made the finding that the plaintiff [C.F.A.] is a credible witness. I find that [B.A.A], on the other hand, is not a credible witness.
The Court needs to make a decision based on proofs of credible evidence. [B.A.A.] explains in his testimony that he was able to grab and take control of his wife and put her in a room. I find that action to be committing an act of assault. Other than that, his testimony, [B.A.A.] did not sound credible. His restraining order will be denied. [C.F.A.] on the other hand, the Court finds is credible. Suffered (indiscernible) behavior from her husband. This was (indiscernible) acts of assault and she is in true fear of her husband. I will grant her a final restraining order and possession of the property where the parties lived as husband and wife.
The judge ultimately vacated the TRO in favor of B.A.A., denied an FRO in
favor of B.A.A., and granted an FRO in favor of C.F.A. This appeal followed.
On appeal, B.A.A. raises the following issues for our consideration:
POINT I
THE TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN THE MANNER IN WHICH HE CONDUCTED THE HEARING.
A-0169-20 A. THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE WIFE'S DV COMPLAINT.
B. THE INTERPRETERS WERE NOT SWORN.
C. THE HEARING IS REPLETE WITH INDISCERNIBLE SPEECH AND INTERRUPTIONS THUS OBLITERAT- ING A CONSISTENT RECORD.
D. THE HUSBAND HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH THE WIFE'S DV COMPLAINT AND TRO PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
E. THE TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY DENIED THE HUSBAND'S ATTEMPTS TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE.
F. THE TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY DENIED THE HUSBAND'S PROOFS AS HEARSAY.
G. THE TRIAL JUDGE EXHIBITED IMPATIENCE AND LACK OF FAIRNESS WITH THE PRO-SE HUSBAND.
POINT II
THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THE HUSBAND COMMITTED AN ACT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
A-0169-20 A. THERE WAS