## Facts

- J.D. and M.D.F. cohabited for years, had two children, and jointly purchased a home; after their separation, J.D. remained in the home with the children.
- After the breakup, the parties faced related disputes, including custody-related tensions.
- In 2009, J.D.’s new partner, R.T., observed M.D.F. outside J.D.’s residence early in the morning taking photographs; J.D. and R.T. saw camera flashes before M.D.F. drove away.
- J.D. filed a complaint under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) alleging only that single photo-taking incident and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO).
- At the final hearing, J.D. also testified about multiple alleged prior incidents not identified in the complaint.
- M.D.F., appearing pro se, objected to the new allegations and requested additional time to prepare to respond; the trial court denied an adjournment.
- M.D.F. admitted taking photographs but asserted a non-harassing purpose: collecting evidence for a custody-related application.
- M.D.F. sought to question R.T., the only other eyewitness to the incident; although R.T. was sequestered, the court did not permit M.D.F. to examine him.
- The trial court found harassment and entered a final restraining order (FRO); the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether due process is violated when a plaintiff introduces alleged prior acts of domestic violence at the FRO hearing that were not identified in the complaint, and what procedures are required to protect both parties’ rights.
2. What due process requires regarding a defendant’s ability to call and examine witnesses in an FRO proceeding.
3. What proof and on-the-record findings are required to issue an FRO for harassment, including a determination that restraints are necessary to prevent future abuse or immediate danger.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division, vacated the FRO, and remanded for a new hearing.
- The trial court violated due process by allowing testimony about unpleaded prior incidents without ensuring notice and a fair opportunity for M.D.F. to meet those allegations, including by denying a requested adjournment.
- The trial court denied due process by refusing to allow M.D.F. to examine R.T., a material witness to the alleged predicate act.
- The trial court failed to make adequate factual findings on harassment, including findings addressing intent and context.
- The trial court did not conduct the required separate analysis of whether an FRO was necessary to protect J.D. from immediate danger or further abuse.

## Legal Principles

- PDVA proceedings must satisfy basic due process, including notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and examine adverse witnesses.
- A court may consider prior acts of domestic violence as part of the parties’ history, but if prior acts are raised at the hearing and were not identified in the complaint, the court must ensure fairness by clarifying the allegations on the record and providing the defendant a reasonable chance to prepare and respond, which may require an adjournment.
- A defendant must be permitted to call and examine material witnesses when their testimony may affect whether a predicate act occurred or whether restraints are warranted.
- Entry of an FRO requires a two-step determination: (1) proof of a predicate act of domestic violence (such as harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4), and (2) a separate, explicit finding that an FRO is necessary to protect the plaintiff from immediate danger or to prevent further abuse.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the restraining order because the hearing procedures denied the defendant fair notice and a meaningful chance to test the evidence, and because the trial court did not make sufficient findings on both harassment and the separate requirement that restraints were necessary for protection.


J.D. v. M.D.F., 25 A.3d 1045 (N.J. 2011)