NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-1673-20 B.R., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.R., Defendant-Respondent. ________________________ Submitted September 13, 2022 – Decided October 11, 2022 Before Judges Gilson and Gummer. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Mercer County, Docket No. FM-11-0185-19. Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Michael Confusione, of counsel and on the brief). Maselli Warren, PC, attorneys for respondent (Patricia Agoes, of counsel and on the brief; Deanne J. Lowden, on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff B.R. appeals from a final judgment of divorce (FJOD).1 He argues, among other things, that the trial judge erred in holding him in contempt based on his "abhorrent and disruptive" behavior during the trial. Finding no error in that or any other decision challenged by plaintiff, we affirm. I. We glean the following facts from the trial record. The parties were married in 2001. They had two children, born in 2005 and 2008, respectively. The parties separated during the summer of 2018. On August 7, 2018, defendant filed a domestic-violence complaint against plaintiff. On November 7, 2018, the court entered a final restraining order (FRO) against plaintiff on behalf of defendant. In the FRO, the court granted defendant temporary custody of the children and banned plaintiff from having contact with defendant and with the children unless permitted by the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. Defendant had filed other domestic-violence complaints against plaintiff dating back to 2004, all of which she withdrew. On August 14, 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce based on irreconcilable differences. On October 18, 2018, defendant filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce. 1 We use initials to protect the confidentiality of the participants in these proceedings. R. 1:38-3(d)(10). A-1673-20 2 Plaintiff's first outburst occurred on the opening day of the trial. While the trial judge and counsel were discussing plaintiff's use of funds and with no question pending, plaintiff declared the funds at issue were his funds and called defendant "a thief." The trial judge instructed plaintiff to "wait until you are in the witness chair and until it’s your turn to tell me your story and certainly not blurting it out. It doesn’t help. I can’t consider it, okay?" Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, then asked to speak with the judge alone in her chambers. The judge appropriately denied that request. On the second day of trial, plaintiff took the stand to testify. He refused to look at defendant when his counsel asked him to identify her. Plaintiff repeatedly gave unresponsive and inflammatory answers to the questions posed to him and made extraneous comments when no question was pending. When asked to explain the circumstances of …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals