Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Bryan Luikart appealed a circuit court order which imposed a portion of his suspended sentence. Defendant argue the trial court erred in finding that the State met its burden of proving he violated the good behavior condition of his suspended sentence by committing witness tampering. In 2018, defendant pled guilty to various charges and was sentenced to 90 days’ incarceration, suspended for a period of two years. Conditions on defendant’s suspended sentence included that defendant “complete [a] batterer’s intervention program and be of good behavior.” Following his sentencing, defendant enrolled in his first batterer’s intervention program, but his participation in the program ended on January 24, 2019, for reasons irrelevant to this appeal. As a result of defendant’s departure from the program, the State moved to impose defendant’s suspended sentence on February 8. Defendant enrolled in a second batterer’s intervention program on February 19, and the State withdrew its motion to impose. Three days later, defendant sent an e-mail to his ex-wife. On March 7, the State filed a new motion to impose defendant’s suspended sentence. After a hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion to impose, finding the evidence before it “sufficient to grant the State’s motion, at least generally.” The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence adduced at the motion hearing failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant committed witness tampering. Witness tampering was the only theory advanced by the State in support of its motion alleging that defendant violated his condition to be of good behavior, and Supreme Court did not interpret the trial court’s ruling as having independently found, from the evidence before it, that the defendant’s behavior amounted to another type of criminal conduct which violated the good behavior condition. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire v. Luikart" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jonathan Merrill appealed a circuit court's final divorce decree, arguing the trial court erred by: (1) including the assets of a spendthrift trust in the marital estate; (2) excluding from the marital estate assets owned by respondent Lea Merrill, and her mother as joint tenants; and (3) incorporating parts of the temporary order into the final decree. After review of the circuit court record, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded: (1) the circuit court erred in including certain trust assets which erroneously increased the value of the marital estate; (2) respondent’s mother’s condominium was not marital property; and (3) because of the error including certain assets in the martial estate, the incorporation of the temporary order into the final decree had to be vacated: "because the trial court did not consider these expenses in isolation, but rather considered these figures in its equitable division of the marital estate." View "In the Matter of Jonathan & Lea Merrill" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal, respondent Robert Blaisdell challenged a circuit court decision granting a motion to dismiss his cross-petition for divorce on fault grounds of adultery alleging sexual intercourse between petitioner Molly Blaisdell, and another woman based upon In the Matter of Blanchflower & Blanchflower, 150 N.H. 226 (2003), which limited the definition of adultery under RSA 458:7, II (2018) to sexual intercourse between persons of the opposite sex. The New Hampshire Supreme Court overruled Blanchflower and reinterpreted the term “adultery,” as it was used in RSA 458:7, II, to include sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person’s spouse, regardless of either person’s sex or gender. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of Blaisdell" on Justia Law

Father, petitioner Michael Greenberg, appealed a circuit court order that modified his child support obligation pertaining to shares of vested restricted stock, and ordered him to pay child support arrearages of nearly $91,000 to mother, respondent Anne Greenberg. The shares of vested restricted stock were listed as “taxable benefits” on Father's paystub. Father testified that the restricted stock awards were “part of [his] total compensation,” and that the Internal Revenue Service treated his vested restricted stock as income. Since the parties’ December 2015 divorce, Father has netted $324,856.63 from the sale of vested restricted stock. Pertinent here, the parties’ final divorce decree awarded Father “any stock options he may have an interest in with [his current employer] free of any interest on the part of [Mother].” The uniform support order issued with the decree required Father to pay Mother “28% of any bonus he may receive within 3 days of receipt” as child support in addition to regular monthly child support. Neither the decree nor the uniform support order expressly referred to Father’s restricted stock awards. Father did not include the initial 5,000 shares of restricted stock he received on his financial affidavit submitted during the parties’ divorce proceedings; none of those shares had vested as of the time of the decree. Nor did he voluntarily disclose to Mother when he sold restricted stock. He also did not pay any portion of those proceeds as child support. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held Father's exercised stock options “must be included as income for the purposes of calculating child support” because “such options are analogous to a ‘bonus’” and “are also included within the phrase ‘all income from any source.’” To the extent that Father argued the trial court’s child support order impermissibly modified the parties’ divorce decree, the Supreme Court disagreed. "Even if we were to agree with him that the restricted stock awards were distributed to him in the divorce as property, doing so would not preclude the trial court from treating vested restricted stock as income for child support purposes." View "In the Matter of Michael & Anne Greenberg" on Justia Law

The New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) petitioned the New Hampshire Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent a circuit court from joining DCYF as a party to an ongoing guardianship case and from ordering the agency to provide services for the benefit of private litigants. This petition arose from a guardianship case involving an ongoing dispute between the father of a three-year-old child and the child’s guardians, who were the child’s maternal grandparents. The father alleged the child’s guardians were willfully interfering with his rights to unsupervised parenting time and notice of his child’s medical appointments as established by previous court orders. The circuit court credited the father’s allegations and expressed concern that the case “has not progressed” since the last hearing in September 2018. The trial court was ordered to provide services on a weekly basis to father, and joined DCYF as a party to the case. DCYF contended the circuit court lacked the authority to join the agency to the private case because no statute authorized the circuit court to do so. The Supreme Court agreed and, accordingly, granted DCYF’s petition for a writ of prohibition. View "Petition of New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families" on Justia Law

The New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted review of the Division for Children, Youth and Families' (DCYF) petition in its original jurisdiction to determine whether the superior court erred in denying DCYF's motions to dismiss respondent's claims on statute of limitation grounds. While under the care of DCYF, separate individuals sexually assaulted respondent on two separate occasions. The first assault occurred in February 2011, when respondent was approximately 12 years old, after DCYF placed her in the care of a foster family. While living with the foster family, a neighbor’s cousin raped respondent. The second assault occurred in June 2015 when respondent was approximately 16 years olf, after DCYF placed her in a children's home. An employee of the children’s home inappropriately touched, threatened, and raped respondent. In November and December 2018, the respondent filed two complaints alleging, in relevant part, claims of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and vicarious liability against DCYF, all relating to the sexual assaults that occurred while she was in DCYF custody. DCYF moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that they were barred by the three-year statute of limitations provided in RSA 541-B:14, IV. The respondent objected and argued, among other things, that she could not have discovered DCYF’s potential legal fault until December 19, 2016, when an independent audit of DCYF was publicly released that detailed DCYF’s various shortcomings regarding child welfare and safety. The Supreme Court determined the discovery rule in RSA 508:4, I (2010) applied to actions brought under RSA chapter 541-B (2007 & Supp. 2019), and, accordingly, affirmed the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Petition of New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth & Families" on Justia Law

Respondents, the mother and stepfather of J.P., a minor child, appealed Probate Court orders: (1) vacating the stepfather’s adoption of J.P. due to lack of notice of the adoption proceeding to the petitioner, J.P.’s biological father; and (2) awarding attorneys’ fees and costs, including the cost of a genetic paternity test, to petitioner. Because the record supported the trial court’s determination that petitioner was entitled to notice of the adoption proceeding under RSA 170-B:6, I(d) (2014), the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the decision to vacate the adoption. The Supreme Court also affirmed its award of attorneys’ fees and costs relating to the petition to vacate the adoption, but vacated and remanded the award of attorneys’ fees and costs relating to genetic testing. View "In re J.P." on Justia Law

Petitioner Matthew Kamil (Husband), appealed, and respondent Robin Kamil (Wife) cross-appealed various circuit court orders in their divorce action. The parties were married in September 2007 and had two children. Husband filed for divorce in 2015, and Wife cross-petitioned. Husband was awarded temporary primary residential responsibility for the children and Wife was awarded supervised visitation. The court also appointed a parenting coordinator. By March 31, 2017, “the parenting evidence was that [Wife] was not allowing the therapeutic reunification plan to succeed.” The court nevertheless continued to order supervised visitation for Wife at a visitation center, and, in January 2018, the court “appointed Tracey Tucker to serve in an evaluative, structured, scripted reunification capacity, focusing on the children’s needs to have safe and appropriate contact with their mother.” After only four sessions, Tucker cancelled the reunification work “when [Wife] made some impulsive and inappropriate comments to [her].” At that point, Wife’s supervised contact with the children ended. Meanwhile, the court held a series of hearings to determine the authenticity and enforceability of a prenuptial agreement executed by the parties approximately one month prior to their wedding. The court ultimately found the prenuptial agreement unenforceable. In October 2018, the circuit court issued a final divorce decree. After choosing a February 2015 asset valuation date, the court awarded Husband the marital residence, awarded Wife the entirety of her Roth IRA, and equitably divided the remaining assets between them. To effectuate the equitable division, Husband was ordered to pay Wife $1,011,359.88. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded Husband failed to meet his appellate burden of demonstrating reversible error with respect to all the issues he raised on appeal. The Court concurred with Wife that with respect to the supervised parenting time visits with Ms. Tucker: while the the trial court had already ordered a plan, it also gave Tucker the sole discretion to determine when and if the parties would resume following that plan. This constituted an improper delegation of judicial authority, and the Supreme Court vacated that portion of the final decree. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of Matthew & Robin Kamil" on Justia Law

Respondent Joshua Ndyaija appealed various Circuit Court orders following the parties’ divorce. He argued the trial court erred by: (1) dismissing his motion for contempt against petitioner Crystal Ndyaija; (2) denying his motion regarding parental interference; (3) denying his motion to restrain; (4) modifying his child support obligations for the parties’ minor child; (5) denying his motion to modify the parties’ parenting plan and permanent stipulation, vacating a provision of the parenting plan, and ordering him to pay the petitioner’s attorney’s fees; and (6) granting the petitioner’s motion to approve daycare enrollment for the child. Respondent also argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination under RSA chapter 458-A (2018), and lacked jurisdiction over the divorce action under RSA 458:5 and :6 (2018). After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concludes the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the child custody proceeding under RSA chapter 458-A and the divorce action under RSA 458:5 and :6. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the respondent’s motion for contempt, motion to restrain, and motion regarding parental interference. As for the trial court’s amended uniform support order, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by applying the petitioner’s calculation of respondent’s income in determining his amended child support obligation, declining to adjust the child support obligation, ordering the respondent to pay an arrearage, and ordering him to pay his child support obligation to DCSS by immediate income assignment. However, the Court vacate and remanded the amended uniform support order for the trial court to: (1) consider income from the petitioner’s second job; (2) require petitioner to comply with Family Division Rules 1.25-A(B)(1)(c) and 2.16 by providing four pay stubs per employer or to establish good cause to waive this requirement; and (3) consider the amount of child support the respondent paid during the arrearage period in its arrearage calculation. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by denying the respondent’s requests to modify the parties’ parenting plan and permanent stipulation and vacating paragraph G of the parenting plan. View "In the Matter of Crystal & Joshua Ndyaija" on Justia Law

Petitioner Sean Braunstein (Husband), appealed the final decree and associated orders entered by the Circuit Court in his divorce from respondent Jericka Braunstein (Wife). He argued, among other things, that the trial court erred by including his monthly federal veterans’ disability benefits as income for child support purposes. Finding no reversible error, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. View "In the Matter of Braunstein" on Justia Law