In a Decision – J.R. v. Y.L. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division determined that the considerations the Trial Court considered were not relevant inasmuch as the Trial Court found that the victim did not prove the need for a Domestic Violence Order.
The Appellate Division noted that the trial court’s finding that there was no history of domestic violence during the parties’ marriage. The court further ruled that, although the trial court should not have considered the parties’ financial circumstances and the best interests of their children, such consideration was harmless because the record supported the trial court’s determination that Husband had failed to prove that a Domestic Violence Order was necessary.
The parties had filed their cross-complaints after an incident during a meeting between the parties at Father’s office, where Father had called 911 after Wife had destroyed several objects in Father’s office, and Father had blocked Wife’s egress from his office our of a concern that she would make a scene in front of his co-workers. The trial court ruled that, although Father had proved Wife had committed harassment and criminal mischief, if Father were afraid of Wife he would not have remained in his office to block her exit. The trial court also concluded that a Domestic Violence Order would not be in the parties’ children’s best interest, and could adversely affect Wife’s ability to practice law.