J.B.C. v. T.C.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

J.B.C.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

T.C.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________________

January 5, 2015

Submitted November 17, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Simonelli and Guadagno.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FV-14-323-14.

T.C., appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant T.C. (Tiffany)1 appeals from a final restraining order (FRO) entered pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, after a hearing on November 12, 2013. She argues that the Family Part judge "permitted extensive hearsay evidence to come in . . . [relating] to [her] medical and psychological condition, all of which were [inaccurate]." For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Tiffany and plaintiff J.B.C. (Jeremy) have two children, M.C. (Mark) and A.C. (Anthony). In a Title 9 matter that preceded this action, a different judge entered an order on October 10, 2013 (Title 9 order), awarding physical custody of Mark and Anthony to Jeremy. That order provides in part

The children, [Mark and Anthony], shall continue under the care and supervision of the Division [of Child Protection and Permanency] . . . . Legal custody of the children . . . shall be continued with the parents . . . . Physical custody of . . . [Mark and Anthony] shall be continued with the father, [Jeremy].

The order further provided that Tiffany was to submit to psychological and psychiatric evaluations arranged by the Division and sign releases so that records and reports of these services could be sent to the Division. Tiffany's visitation with the children was temporarily suspended "until deemed therapeutically appropriate," and she was restrained from the home where Jeremy and the children were living.

Jeremy obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) on October 21, 2013, and a hearing was held on his application for an FRO on November 12, 2013. Jeremy testified that in January 2013, Tiffany forcibly dragged Anthony by the arm from the living room to the bedroom, upsetting both children. The police were called, and Tiffany was removed by them and committed to the psychiatric unit at Saint Clare's, in Boonton, where she remained for two weeks.

Jeremy testified that after the entry of the Title 9 order, Tiffany repeatedly entered the marital home, told him she was allowed to be there, and threatened to have Jeremy thrown out of the house and arrested. Jeremy said this occurred on October 14, 19, and 21, 2013. Jeremy also played a voicemail left on his phone by Tiffany on October 19, 2013, where she threatened again to have him arrested.

Jeremy testified that Tiffany called him eight or nine times when he was at his son's baseball game "saying the same things over and over and over again," denying the existence of the court order, and threatening to have him arrested. Jeremy also testified that, on at least two occasions after the entry of the TRO, Tiffany parked her car up the street from the marital home and waited for him and the children to leave.

Tiffany testified and admitted that she was hospitalized at Saint Clare's in January 2013, but claimed it was for "anxiety" caused by Jeremy's abuse. She also admitted that the Division implemented a safety protection plan in July 2013, and that she signed the plan, agreeing to stay away from the house. Tiffany testified that her understanding of the Title 9 order was that she was permitted to return to the marital home as long as she agreed to submit to the mental health evaluations, even if the evaluations were not completed. She admitted that she returned to the marital home on October 14, 2013, because she thought "everything was cleared. . . . There's no more court order." She admitted to parking her car down the street from the marital home but claimed that the children did not see her. She also explained that she returned to the area "just to save face in the neighborhood . . . ."

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge James M. DeMarzo issued a cogent and thorough forty-six page oral decision. Since Tiffany claimed that the Title 9 judge led her to believe that she could reenter the marital home once she agreed to submit to the mental health evaluations, Judge DeMarzo listened to a recording of the entire Title 9 proceeding and determined that the judge

made it perfectly clear that if [Tiffany] underwent the psychiatric evaluations and signed the required releases that he would not hesitate in signing an order allowing her to begin the reunification process, the terms get back in the house were kind of were bantered about. But he's never signed any order since October 10th, 2013, nor has [Tiffany] sought that.

Judge DeMarzo noted that Tiffany attempted to reenter the home on September 2, 2013, after the entry of a prior order in the Title 9 proceeding barring her from the home. He found that this was "another instance" of Tiffany trying to get into the home when "clearly she was advised not to go in . . . [and] went in anyhow."

On appeal, Tiffany repeats her claim that the October 10, 2013 order "states that I could go home which I did. I did nothing wrong . . . ." She also makes non-specific claims that the judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence.

The only hearsay evidence discussed during the FRO hearing involved Jeremy's attempt to introduce portions of a Title 9 complaint filed by the Division against Tiffany on August 7, 2013. The complaint apparently2 referenced Tiffany's history of psychiatric treatment, including her hospitalization in January 2013. Tiffany's counsel objected, and although the court overruled the objection, the complaint was not received in evidence and there is no indication in the record that it was considered by the court. Jeremy was permitted to testify from his own recollection as to Tiffany's mental health issues, which is not hearsay. See N.J.R.E. 801(c). (defining hearsay).

We find Tiffany's other arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm on the basis of Judge DeMarzo's thorough analysis and well-expressed reasons for granting the FRO.

Affirmed.

1 Fictitious names are used to preserve confidentiality and for ease of reference.

2 We have not been provided with a copy of the complaint.