Kenneth Mr. Vercammen was included in the 2017 “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters.

To schedule a confidential consultation, email us at VercammenAppointments@NJlaws.com, call or visit www.njlaws.com

(732) 572-0500

Sunday, October 23, 2016

A.M.C. VS. P.B. A-4730-14T3


A.M.C. VS. P.B.
          A-4730-14T3
The Family Part found defendant physically assaulted his wife twice over a three-week period. Applying the two-prong analysis in Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112, 12527 (2006), the judge found an FRO was not necessary to protect plaintiff from future acts or threats of violence. We hold the Family Part failed to adequately consider the inherently violent nature of the predicate acts. Under these circumstances, the need to issue an FRO was "self-evident." Silver, supra, 387 N.J. Super. at 127.
Defendant, a Newark Police Officer, was not served with the TRO. Notwithstanding defendant’s failure to object, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28l, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28n, and the Domestic Violence Procedures Manual makes the Judiciary responsible to serve defendant with the TRO. We hold the trial court had an obligation to determine what caused this systemic failure. We further hold the trial court erred as a matter of public policy when it considered the Judiciary's failure to carry out this legal responsibility as a factor in favor of denying plaintiff's application for an FRO.