Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Respondent Debra D. appealed a family court order that terminated her parental rights over her sons, Michael E. and Andre E., for failing to correct conditions leading to a finding of neglect. The court issued a final dispositional order finding that the Respondent had neglected Michael E. and Andre E. by selling drugs from her home and in their presence. The final order set forth conditions the Respondent had to meet before the children could safely be returned to her. These conditions, which were intended to correct those that led to the finding of neglect, included: (1) refraining from drug and alcohol use; (2) attending individual counseling; (3) working cooperatively with a parent aide; and (4) undergoing a neurological evaluation. Twelve months after the final dispositional order was issued in the neglect case, the court held a permanency hearing and found that Respondent was not in compliance with its order. Accordingly, the court ordered a termination of parental rights petition. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Respondent's parental rights should have been terminated. The Court affirmed the family court's decision.

Defendant Kevin Hampsey appealed a final stalking protective order issued against him. Plaintiff Jessie Despres and her three children resided in an apartment for which Defendant’s company was the property manager. She testified that Defendant frequently stopped by or walked into her apartment unexpectedly, and that he made sexual comments and advances toward her. She recounted a specific incident that occurred in March 2010, when she called Defendant because her basement had flooded. After checking the basement, the two went outside. Plaintiff testified that she was in her pajamas and felt uncomfortable, and that Defendant "made comments on how he wished he would have caught [her] in less clothes and then proceeded to kiss [her] in [her] right ear," slam his body into hers, and tell her he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. She told the court that she felt threatened and intimidated by Defendant, and that her "kids [were] intimidated by the constant drive-by's, . . . which [were] . . . followed by either calls or him stopping in." On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to make findings of two or more specific acts that constitute stalking; (2) making findings that are unsupported by the record; (3) failing to weigh the credibility of the witnesses; and (4) issuing a stalking order where "most of [plaintiff's] allegations were too vague and non-specific for [him] to respond to." Upon review, the Supreme Court was unpersuaded by Defendant's arguments on appeal, and affirmed the trial court's decision to issue the protective order against him.

Petitioner Erica Tapply appealed a trial court's order that denied her motion for judicial disqualification. The issue on appeal was whether the trial judge who presided over this contentious dispute concerning the parenting rights of Respondent Benjamin Zukatis erred by not granting Petitioner's repeated requests to recuse himself. Upon review of the trial judge's order on Petitioner's motion for disqualification, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower court applied the correct standards in denying the motion. The Court noted that the trial court found that "under all circumstances, the court [was] convinced that an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of the facts, would not entertain significant doubt as to the court's impartiality or its ability to do justice in this case." Because the trial judge applied the correct standards in reviewing Petitioner's motion, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed the lower court's decision.

The Appellants, maternal grandparents of âAthena D.,â appealed an order of the probate court that dismissed their petition for grandparent visitation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied their motion to stay the adoption of Athena while they pursued their petition for visitation and denied their request to order the childâs adoptive parents to allow their continued visitation. The Division for Children, Youth and Families initial plan was for the grandparents to adopt Athena; however, for various reasons, they withdrew from consideration. The court then found that it was in the best interest of Athena to deny the grandparentsâ petition. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined the probate court indeed lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear their appeal. The Court found that the probate courtâs conclusion to place the child with her eventual adoptive family was not an unsustainable exercise of discretion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the probate courtâs decision.

Respondent "Rebecca P." appealed an order of the family court that awarded guardianship of her son "Nicholas P." to her son's half-brother "Jonathan P." Nicholas' parents, Rebecca and "Martin P." had marital difficulties, and in May 2007, Rebecca left for South Carolina, taking her teenaged daughter with her. Rebecca left a note to Martin promising to return to New Hampshire within a month, but she never did. Martin initiated divorce proceedings in 2009, but he died suddenly before the divorce was final. Rebecca unsuccessfully sought ex parte approval in divorce court to take Nicholas with her to South Carolina. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Rebecca argued that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding eighteen-year-old Jonathan custody of his younger half-brother. The Supreme Court noted that Rebecca did not provide a record in support of her appeal. Absent a transcript of the family court's hearing, the Supreme Court assumed that the evidence was sufficient to support its decision. With no errors of law otherwise, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to award custody to the half-brother.

Petitioner Richard Lister appealed the recommendation of the Family Division Master that modified his child support obligations, and that refused to grant him credit for Social Security benefits received by his adult son. The son lives with his mother, Marianne Lister, and receives Supplemental Social Security (SSI) income of approximately $450 per month. As a disabled adult, the son is eligible for child support so long as he remains dependent. The sonâs SSI is reduced by the amount of child support he receives. In 2010, Mrs. Lister requested an increase in child support from Mr. Lister. At that time, Mr. Lister argued that he should receive a dollar for dollar credit for the sonâs SSI benefits when considering how much more he should be obliged to pay. The case Mr. Lister relied on to make his âcreditâ argument depended on the parentâs status as either retired or disabled. In this case, the son receives SSI benefits because of his own disability. The family division modified the child support obligation and refused to give Mr. Lister âcreditâ in the amount of his sonâs SSI benefits. On appeal, Mr. Lister argues that the family division made a mistake in reaching its decision to modify his support obligation. The Supreme Court agreed with the family divisionâs analysis of Mr. Listerâs case, and affirmed the divisionâs decision.