RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5890-17T4
T.H.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
C.B.,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Submitted March 19, 2019 – Decided April 2, 2019
Before Judges Fisher and Suter.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County,
Docket No. FV-12-1861-16.
Jabin & Fleming, LLC, attorneys for appellant
(Christian P. Fleming, on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
This is the third appeal in this action brought pursuant to the Prevention
of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35.
In the first appeal, we vacated the final restraining order entered in
plaintiff's favor and remanded for further proceedings because the judge did not
adequately consider the admissibility of a video. T.H. v. C.B., No. A-4858-15
(App. Div. July 13, 2017) (slip op. at 4-6). Following our remand, the judge
conducted additional proceedings and entered an FRO after finding defendant
committed numerous acts of harassment described in our second opinion. T.H.
v. C.B., No. A-2217-17 (App. Div. May 31, 2018) (slip op. at 4-5). In that
second appeal, we found there was sufficient evidence to support the judge's
finding that acts of harassment had occurred, id. at 8-9, but we vacated the FRO
and remanded because the judge mistakenly failed to determine whether plaintiff
required an FRO to protect her from future acts of domestic violence, id. at 9
(citing Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112, 128 (App. Div. 2016)).
Following that second remand, the judge conducted a hearing at which
both parties were represented by counsel. Additional testimony was taken as
well. At the hearing's conclusion, the judge thoroughly described prior acts of
domestic violence and other circumstances he found sufficient to meet the
previously omitted Silver requirement. The judge again entered an FRO in
plaintiff's favor.
Defendant appeals, arguing:
A-5890-17T4
2
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT
A FINAL RESTRAINING ORDER IS NECESSARY.
II. THE COURT IMPROPERLY ADMITTED
EVIDENCE OF OTHER ACTS OF ALLEGED
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant further discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-5890-17T4
3