About a month ago, I blogged about the first reported Appellate Division decision since the Domestic Violence statute was amended, to include consideration of coercive control when considering the need for a Final Restraining Order.
On March 9, 2026, another unreported (non-precedential) decision gave some examples of coercive control that supported the finding of the need for a FRO, in the case of H.T.H. v. B.B.W.
For purposes of this post, there is no need to go into the nuts and bolts of the domestic violence alleged in the case, other than to say that since it was an assault that the court found plaintiff to be credible about, the need for more analysis was negligible given the case law that says that when it is an assault, the need for a TRO (i.e. analysis of the second prong of Silver) is self-evident.
That said, the trial judge did, in fact, do the analysis including an analysis of coercive control. As to coercive control, the Appellate Division noted:
“The court also found the financial circumstances of plaintiff and defendant were of issue pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(3) because defendant “controlled the money during the marriage . . . [and] certainly did [c]ome into play with . . . the controlling aspect of th[e] relationship.” In addition, the court concluded under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(4), requiring consideration of the best interests of the victim and any child, that “plaintiff does have fear,” “has not been able to be the mother she wants to be,” “[defendant] controls [when she] takes [the kids] to doctors,” and the granting of a FRO is in “her best interest.” Finally, the court found under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(7), any pattern of coercive control, that the “[t]estimony showed . . . she had to ask for money for school [and could not take] . . . money from the account without his ‘permission.’” (Emphasis added)
Now, at least as to the first highlighted section, it is not particularly uncommon in the division of labor during a marriage that one party “controls the money.” That in and of itself is not coercive financial control. The second highlighted portion is potentially indicia of coercive financial control depending on the context.
The takeaway from this case is that it didn’t take much for the court to find coercive control so when litigating a domestic violence case, you need to be prepared to present or defend the issue.
[View source.]
