In a Decision – A.D.J. v. A.G.,, (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division ruled that the Trial Court failed to identify the specific conduct that constituted the predicate act of harassment. The trial court here did not adequately identify the specific conduct that constituted the predicate act of harassment. Second, there was no evidence offered as to why an FRO was necessary.
The trial court made no express finding regarding the predicate act of assault, concluding that it could not determine which party started the fight. However, the trial court found that defendant harassed plaintiff because her unexpected and forceful arrival at plaintiff's home started the conflict between the parties. In making its ruling, the Trial Court never expressly made any credibility findings. The court also never addressed the need for an FRO. In that regard, there was no finding of a prior history of domestic violence by defendant against plaintiff. Nor was there any finding of a need for an FRO to protect plaintiff or to prevent further acts of domestic violence.