A.F.K. v. A.S.M.

── A.F.K. v. A.S.M. ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3465-24 A.F.K.,1 Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.S.M., Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Argued April 15, 2026 – Decided May 15, 2026 Before Judges Berdote Byrne and Jablonski. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FV-02-0360-24. A.S.M., appellant, argued the cause on appellant's behalf. Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM 1 We refer to the parties by their initials. R. 1:38-3(d)(10).  Defendant appeals from a June 3, 2025, order denying her motion to dissolve an October 23, 2023, final restraining order ("FRO"). After a review of the record, we vacate the June 3, order and remand to the Family Part for a substantive analysis of the factors under Carfagno v. Carfagno, 288 N.J. Super. 424 (Ch. Div. 1995), and as they apply to a review of defendant's application to dissolve the FRO. On October 23, 2023, a Family Part judge issued an FRO against defendant. Although defendant was represented by counsel, she failed to appear at the trial and the matter proceeded in her absence. The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint alleged defendant engaged in controlling and abusive behavior towards plaintiff, including threats, and harassment, and violations of the temporary restraining order. The allegations were substantiated and supported by documentary and video evidence. The judge concluded defendant committed predicate acts of harassment and contempt of the domestic violence order warranting entry of the FRO to protect plaintiff and the parties' children. The court dismissed defendant's cross-complaint for lack of prosecution. Defendant's December 30, 2024, application to dissolve the FRO was denied and she filed the current action seeking similar relief on April 23, A-3465-24 2 2025.2 At the June 3, 2025, hearing on the motion, defendant argues she was prepared to present "extensive testament of changed circumstances [including] her early termination of probation, her continued rehabilitation and stable employment, her presence in the United States ready to testify, and her desire to reunite with her children." At the outset of the hearing, the motion judge informed defendant that she would allow her to address any changes that had occurred since her prior application for the same relief, specifically since January 23, 2025. The judge acknowledged that an evaluation had taken place in other litigation which produced results relevant to her parenting time with her children. However, the judge also noted that she did not see anything in defendant's renewed and detailed application that demonstrated any significant changes. The judge reviewed defendant's written application, highlighting certain events, including defendant's guilty plea to a contempt charge and her request for early termination of the probation sentence she had received from it. The judge never permitted defendant to explain or to elaborate on her written submission. The judge proceeded to list the Carfagn