A New Jersey court has upheld a restraining order against W.G., affirming that he engaged in harassment against P.B., the mother of their child. The ruling, issued by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division on November 13, 2026, affects the couple's ongoing custody arrangements and highlights the serious implications of domestic violence allegations.

The case, documented under docket number A-4125-24, stems from a series of disputes between W.G. and P.B., who were never married but share custody of a fifteen-year-old daughter. The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the legal protections available under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) in New Jersey.

Background

P.B. filed a complaint against W.G. on February 21, 2025, seeking a final restraining order (FRO) after alleging multiple instances of harassment. The court's records indicate that W.G. made baseless reports to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) regarding P.B.'s parenting, claiming she was medically neglecting their daughter. These allegations were ultimately found to be unfounded by DCPP.

The couple's relationship has been strained, particularly concerning their child's medical care. W.G. insisted on maintaining a medical provider in Manhattan, while P.B. sought to change the child's care to a local physician in New Jersey. This disagreement escalated into a series of hostile communications between the two, culminating in W.G.'s threats to report P.B. to child protective services.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division, consisting of Judges Mawla and DeAlmeida, affirmed the Family Part's decision to grant the FRO. The court found that W.G.'s actions constituted harassment under New Jersey law, specifically noting that he acted with the purpose to annoy and alarm P.B. The court stated, "Defendant acted with the purpose to annoy and alarm plaintiff when he repeatedly threatened to report her to DCPP and reported her to the agency alleging baseless claims of medical neglect."

The trial court's analysis included a review of the statutory factors outlined in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a), which assess the history of domestic violence, the existence of immediate danger, and the best interests of the victim and any children involved. The court concluded that W.G.'s conduct posed a continuing threat to P.B. and their child, necessitating the restraining order.

Impact

The ruling has significant implications for P.B. and W.G., particularly concerning their custody arrangements and the well-being of their child. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the serious consequences of domestic violence and the legal protections available to victims. It underscores that harassment, particularly involving threats to involve child protective services, can lead to legal repercussions.

This case also highlights the importance of credible evidence in domestic violence cases. The court found P.B.'s testimony credible and supported by documentary evidence, while W.G.'s testimony was deemed evasive and inconsistent. This distinction played a crucial role in the court's decision to uphold the FRO.

What's Next

W.G. has the option to appeal the decision further, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The ruling may also influence similar cases involving domestic violence and custody disputes in New Jersey, setting a precedent for how courts handle allegations of harassment and the use of child protective services as a weapon in custody battles.