Blog

A Final Restraining Order Does Not Have to be Forever

 

In a recent post, I wrote about the best ways to defend against a Final Restraining Order (FRO). However, unfortunately, it is not always possible to successfully defend against the entry of an FRO.  Therefore, defendants need to know the serious consequences associated with an FRO.  They also need to understand that “final” does not necessarily mean “forever” in this particular context. There is statutory authority that allows for Final Restraining Orders to be dissolved or modified under certain circumstances. This is generally not a quick fix though and the Courts will not entertain such an application lightly.

New Jersey Statute

Pursuant to the relevant statute: “Upon good cause shown, any final order may be dissolved or modified upon application to the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court, but only if the judge who dissolves or modifies the order is the same judge who entered the order, or has available a complete record of the hearing or hearings on which the order was based.”

Looking at this statutory language, there are several things of note to consider. First, the sole requirement is the showing of ‘good cause’. Secondly, it is important to note that the judge who enters the final restraining order must be the judge who considers an application dissolution or modification. If that judge is unavailable, then a different judge can hear that application ONLY if he or she has a complete transcript of the prior proceedings that led to the entry of the FRO. Please note that a different judge will require additional time and expense.

11 Factors

There is a published trial court decision. It sets forth a list of eleven (11) factors for any Court to consider when making a determination on a modification or dissolution of a FRO application. The factors are as follows:

  1. Whether the victim consented to lift the restraining order;
  2. Whether the victim fears the defendant;
  3. The nature of the relationship between the parties today;
  4. The number of times that the defendant has been convicted of contempt for violating the order;
  5. Whether the defendant has a continuing involvement with drug or alcohol abuse;
  6. If the defendant has been involved in other violent acts with other persons;
  7. Whether the defendant has engaged in counseling;
  8. The age and health of the defendant;
  9. Whether the victim is acting in good faith when opposing the defendant’s request;
  10. Whether another jurisdiction has entered a restraining order protecting the victim from the defendant; and
  11. Other factors deemed relevant by the court.

Factors #2 & #9

Factor #2 – Courts are to analyze fear as the objective fear which a reasonable victim similarly situated would have under the circumstances. The Courts are NOT analyzing the subjective fear of that particular victim, as this would simply amount to a situation where the victim would always be 100% in control of whether or not a FRO could be dissolved or modified.

Factor #9 – Courts are specifically tasked with making a determination as to the basis upon which a victim is seeking to object to this type of application. As previously noted, the Courts must be aware of the situations where “one party to a divorce action abuses the Act to gain advantage in the underlying matrimonial action.”  This is worth noting because the victim must have a good faith reason for objecting to this type of application.

Burden of Proof

It will always be the defendant’s burden of proof.  He or she must show changes in circumstances that warrant a dissolution or modification of a FRO.  And, arguments must be based upon the complete analysis of the factors set forth above. It is always best to navigate these sensitive matters with the assistance of counsel. One with experience at presenting the best application for modification or termination of the Final Restraining Order.

Contact us for more information regarding FROs, or if you have other family law questions.

Subscribe to Our Blog

SHARE THIS POST:

Related Posts

Blog
What Does Family Law Litigation Mean?

Before getting into what family law litigation means, it is helpful for readers to understand the general definition of litigation. Litigation is the process of addressing disputes by filing or answering a complaint through the court system. Consequently, a litigator is a trial lawyer who represents clients in a court of law. So, family law…

Read More
Blog
Protecting Personal Information in a New Jersey Divorce

  The basic presumption in New Jersey is that Court records are open to the public. This means that anyone can go into a New Jersey courthouse and review a divorce file of a relative, friend, or even a stranger. Before irreconcilable differences became a viable option as a cause of action for divorce, many…

Read More
Blog
Do NJ Child Support Guidelines automatically allow for an increase when my kid reaches a certain age?

Simply put, the answer is no. In New Jersey, there are no automatic increases in child support under the NJ Child Support Guidelines. The Case In a recent case, Dunigan v. Wilson, the New Jersey Appellate Division rejected the trial court’s decision to increase child support by 14.6%* because one of the children reached the…

Read More
Blog
Blended Family? Think about this

More than half of the families in the United States were formed by remarriages or re-coupling of relationships. Based on current statistics, half of all marriages in the United States end in divorce.  And, the average length of a marriage is seven years. With the ending of marriages, the subsequent remarriages or the forming of…

Read More
Blog
Equitable Distribution of Negative Equity

  The factors that must be considered by the court for purposes of determining equitable distribution of assets and debts acquired during marriage are identified in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1. Items included for purposes of equitable distribution are: marital properties vehicles bank accounts stock options retirement accounts mortgages credit card debts automobile loans any other assets and…

Read More
Blog
Extreme Higher Earning Parent – No Increase in Support

  Child Support with an Extreme Higher Earning Parent – In a recent New Jersey appellate division case of Ianniello v. Pizzo, the appellate division upheld the trial court’s denial of the custodial parent’s request to increase child support.  The non-custodial parent was paying $10,000 per month.  The custodial parent sought a $65,000 per month…

Read More
Call Now ButtonCall Us