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, 125–27
(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.
