You may feel harassed by a current or past partner or spouse, but do the words or deeds justify a NJ Family Court Final Order restraining the one who said or did them? A recent New Jersey Appellate ruling broadly views what constitutes harassment, potentially widening protections for asserted victims.

The case involves two former spouses who divorced in 2006. In 2016, the wife, MLH, was awarded custody of their three children. In 2022, MLH obtained a temporary restraining order against WKP, her ex-husband, because of his harassing words and acts. WKP lived out of state.

The judge issued temporary (TRO) and final restraining orders (FRO). WKP lost his appeal to overturn the FRO.

Depending on the Content, Material Posted on the Internet Could Be Considered Harassing

WKP’s alleged harassment includes the following:

• After the custody decision, WKP started “Divorce 101” and “Lonely Farmer” YouTube channels. Over time, WKP had about 147,000 followers. He posted six videos where he discussed the end of the marriage and the parties’ divorce. WKP also talked about the contents of emails (some of which were sexual) between MLH and a man she had an affair with 18 years ago. WKP used his wife’s and his children’s actual names in the videos. One of the comments left by a viewer asked what would happen if WKP killed herself
• MLH claims that, as a result, she and their children were contacted by some of those watching the videos
• WKP stopped posting videos
• In March 2022, the two had an acrimonious telephone conversation where WKP insulted MLH and warned her, “I have a surprise for you,” apparently referring to his re-posted videos
• Later that month, MLH viewed the six re-posted YouTube videos

At a trial to determine if a FRO was warranted, MLH stated WKP’s online conduct adversely affected her life, health, and well-being. WKP didn’t deny posting the videos. He said he was chronicling his life and claimed he read the emails to viewers “for accuracy”. He also said he wanted his ex-wife to stop contacting him and promised her not to discuss the emails again.

Posting Videos and Causing Third Parties to Contact the Ex-Wife Were Prohibited By Court Order

The trial judge ruled in MLH’s favor and found WKP had harassed her. The Judge found WKP’s actions indefensible, that there was no legitimate reason to post the videos. The judge wrote that WKP “engaged in a course of alarming conduct and repeatedly committed acts with the purpose to seriously annoy [MLH].” The trial judge ordered WKP to stop harassing his ex-spouse.  He said WKP is

prohibited, specifically prohibited, from making or causing anyone else to make harassing communications to [plaintiff]. He’s prohibited from [p]osting these videos, specifically . . . .

WKP sought to overturn the FRO, but the trial judge denied his request. At the hearing, MLH testified anyone watching the videos could easily perform an internet search on their children and her:

Now, in the world that we live in today, I don’t know what these people are capable of doing or will do. I have two younger children here that are under the age of eighteen. I don’t know if somebody’s going to come burn my house . . . .

WKP unsuccessfully attempted to end the FRO twice before the appeal was decided.

Appellate Court Agrees the Ex-Husband Harassed His Ex-Wife and Affirmed the FRO

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued its decision upholding the FRO on November 1st. It stated:

New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act defines domestic violence as any one or more of eighteen crimes and offenses listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a). Harassment (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4) is one of them, and if it’s proven, a plaintiff may be entitled to an FRO.

Harassment can include:

• Making or causing to be made a communication in offensively coarse language or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm
• Engaging in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with the purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person

The Defendant’s communications and actions must be done with the intent to harass the target. That intent can be shown by the totality of circumstances and the inferences reasonably drawn from same, not just the Defendant’s words and actions.

The Appellate Court found “substantial credible evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that [WKP] committed an act of harassment.”

The decision states that WKP deliberately posted successive videos immediately fill owing telephone communications with the plaintiff and used the statement “I have a surprise for you”, which MLH reasonably interpreted as a threat, something more than what would ordinarily be said in a dispute between ex-spouses.

Kingston Law Group has successfully prosecuted and defended Domestic Violence charges for many years. We know how to present these cases in Family Court to maximize your chances of success. A finding of domestic violence will have profound impacts on people’s jobs, on custody decisions in later divorce of Family Dispute cases, and on mandatory listing in a national Domestic Violence Registry. On the other hand, a finding of “no liability” means the other party has no limit on their contacts with you, which could lead to further acts of aggression and harassment.

Undoubtedly, these are serious cases worthy of careful and complete trial preparation and presentation. We take these cases as seriously as you do.

Contact Our Family Lawyers

If you’re a victim of domestic violence or are falsely accused of committing it — and you would like to speak to a family law attorney about seeking or preventing a temporary or final restraining order, please contact our Princeton office online or by phone to arrange a near-term and reduced fee initial consultation. We accept credit cards and offer general appointments from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, plus evening appointments during the week by pre-arrangement only. Please write or call us at 609-683-7400. Call today. You will be glad you did!