RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2257-19 S.S.,1 Plaintiff-Respondent, v. B.G., Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Argued May 24, 2021 – Decided June 22, 2021 Before Judges Currier and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County, Docket No. FV-19-0215-20. John M. Breslin argued the cause for appellant (Oller & Breslin, LLC; John M. Breslin, on the brief). Colleen M. Cunningham argued the cause for respondent (Legal Services of Northwest New Jersey, attorneys; Colleen M. Cunningham, on the brief). PER CURIAM 1 We use initials to protect the confidentiality of the victim. R. 1:38-3(c)(12). Defendant B.G. appeals from the December 23, 2019 final restraining order (FRO) entered against him in favor of plaintiff S.S. pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. He challenges the FRO on procedural grounds only, arguing the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to inform him of his right to counsel or the consequences that could result from an FRO. Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal principles, we discern no due process violation and affirm. We glean these facts from the record. On November 19, 2019, plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against defendant based on a domestic violence complaint alleging harassment. The complaint, which was amended on December 6, 2019, alleged that after the parties ended their dating relationship in September 2019, for the following two months, defendant engaged in a course of harassing behavior by following plaintiff, telephoning plaintiff, and using social media applications to contact plaintiff after she repeatedly told him to leave her alone. The harassing conduct included defendant calling plaintiff ninety-eight times on November 2 and 3, 2019; following her to and from work on November 19, 2019; creating two fake social A-2257-19 2 media accounts to try to make contact with her on November 19, 2019; and threatening to kill himself in October 2019 if she did not talk to him. On December 12, 2019, the first listing of the case since the issuance of the TRO, the parties appeared in court for an FRO hearing. Prior to the calendar call, the trial court provided the litigants, defendant included, with thorough and comprehensive preliminary instructions. Specifically, the court informed the litigants that while "domestic violence cases are serious cases . . . . [t]hey are not criminal cases" but rather "civil cases." The court explained that "because domestic violence cases are civil cases, the [c]ourt can[not] appoint a lawyer to represent either a plaintiff or a defendant." The court continued: However, both parties have a right to obtain an attorney if they so choose. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals