## Facts

- Melody Stevenson obtained a final restraining order (FRO) against Robert Stevenson under New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) after a November 1997 hearing.
- The court found, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that Robert committed acts constituting attempted criminal homicide, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, criminal restraint, and burglary under the PDVA.
- The FRO barred Robert from contact with Melody, required substance-abuse and psychological evaluations, and limited him to supervised visitation with their child.
- The underlying incident (Oct. 29–30, 1997) involved a prolonged, violent assault during which Robert repeatedly punched, kicked, dragged, choked, and forcibly moved Melody while threatening to kill her.
- Melody suffered severe injuries, including a fractured skull, concussion, broken ribs, punctured lung, and facial injuries, and was transported by helicopter to a trauma center.
- About four months after entry of the FRO, Melody (appearing pro se) asked the court to dissolve it, stating she wished to reconcile and have Robert involved with their child.
- The court considered a risk-assessment report and Robert’s psychological and substance-abuse evaluations, which raised concerns about control issues, substance abuse, and unresolved treatment needs.

## Issues

1. Whether a domestic-violence FRO must be dissolved whenever the plaintiff later requests dissolution.
2. Whether dissolution requires a showing of good cause and an independent judicial finding that restraints are no longer needed for protection.

## Decision

- The court denied Melody’s motion to dissolve the FRO.
- The court held that dissolution at the plaintiff’s request is not mandatory and lies within the court’s discretion.
- The court required a showing of good cause and an independent determination, based on the evidence, that continued restraints are unnecessary.
- Given the severity of the prior violence and ongoing risk factors reflected in evaluations, the court found good cause was not shown and continued protection remained warranted.

## Legal Principles

- Final restraining orders under the PDVA are court orders serving victim safety and the public interest, not purely private arrangements terminable at will.
- A plaintiff’s request to dissolve an FRO is a relevant factor but is not dispositive.
- Dissolution requires (1) good cause and (2) an independent judicial finding that the FRO’s protections are no longer needed, assessed case-by-case.
- In evaluating good cause, courts may consider the seriousness of the prior abuse, ongoing risk indicators (including substance abuse and coercive control), the interests of children, and the likelihood of future harm.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that an FRO issued under the PDVA does not automatically end because the plaintiff seeks reconciliation; instead, dissolution requires good cause and an independent judicial safety finding, which was not met given the extreme prior violence and unresolved risk concerns.


Stevenson v. Stevenson, 314 N.J. Super. 350, 714 A.2d 986 (Ch. Div. 1998)