The Appellate Division did not necessarily agree with Defendant’s arguments but required a remand because of troubling statements made by the trial judge, the haphazard manner in which the hearing was conducted, and the erroneous information the judge gave to defendant about the use of his testimony.
Both parties were self-represented when they appeared for the FRO hearing. The judge began questioning them about the nature of their relationship without placing either party under oath. The judge then indicated that he had reviewed plaintiff's complaint and, even though plaintiff alleged prior acts of domestic violence, he stated that the complaint did not allege "any real domestic violence history." The judge also noted that the TRO had not been issued by a superior court judge, but by a municipal court judge. He remarked that municipal court judges "usually have a little quicker level of reviewing consideration than maybe a DV hearing officer who's trained to do this all the time and/or a superior court judge, but it's a low threshold, okay, to get a TRO." The judge heard unsworn testimony. When the judge finally addressed the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, he did not elicit testimony, but read the complaint. The Court concluded, without hearing a word of testimony from plaintiff, that the allegation was nothing more than a "domestic contretemps." The trial court to improperly cautioned Defendant that his testimony could be too used against him in a subsequent criminal trial arising from matters applicable to the Domestic Violence. Defendant's ability to respond to the allegations in plaintiff's complaint was so inhibited by the judge's erroneous warning that he was denied his due process right to respond to the allegations.
The Court was compelled to comment on the procedure employed by the trial court. Both parties were questioned at length by the judge before being placed under oath. When the judge considered the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, he did little more than read the complaint and asked plaintiff if that was what happened. While we are mindful of the heavy volume of domestic violence cases our Family Part judges face and the difficulties pro se parties may occasionally present, we are troubled by the informality of the proceedings, and the failure of the judge to afford the essential procedural safeguards to both parties.