This close case calls into question the use of bench trials to decide final restraining order hearings instead of jury trials. They were many judges that would have entered a final order under the facts of this case. The imposition of the harsh penalties associated with a final restraining order should not turn on which judge happens to be assigned to the case.
The Court noted the following in the footnotes of its decision: Relevant factors with regard to whether a “dating relationship exist are: (1) Was there a minimal social interpersonal bonding of the parties over and above a mere casual fraternization? (2) How long did the alleged dating activities continue prior to the acts of domestic violence alleged? (3) What were the nature and frequency of the parties’ interactions? (4) What were the parties’ ongoing expectations with respect to the relationship, either individually or jointly? (5) Did the parties demonstrate an affirmation of their relationship before others by statement or conduct? (6) Are there any other reasons unique to the case that support or detract from a finding that a “dating relationship” exists? Andrews, 363 N.J. Super. at 260.
Neither party provided copies of any text messages, but both testified their understanding and expectation was to have “rough sex.” During her initial testimonial description of the incident, plaintiff only briefly mentioned the second punch alleged in the complaint. The court concludes that subsections (a) and (c) of the harassment statute are not applicable to the facts of this case. The court does not deny plaintiff relief because she invited defendant to her home for consensual sexual relations. She is deserving of victim status if subjected to an act of domestic violence. But when considering whether a restraining order is “necessary” under the second prong of Silver, the court concludes plaintiff’s invitation to defendant is relevant and probative.