In Re Muchmore
159 N.H. 470, 986 A.2d 456 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To modify a permanent parenting plan, the moving party must first prove the existence of one of the specific statutory threshold circumstances listed in RSA 461-A:11. The "best interests of the child" standard is not an independent basis for modification but is the standard used to craft a new plan only after one of the statutory thresholds has been met.
Facts:
- Adam Muchmore and Amy M. Jaycox are the unwed parents of a daughter, born in September 2006.
- The family initially lived in Vermont, but both parents later relocated to New Hampshire.
- In June 2007, a Vermont court entered an order granting Jaycox primary legal and physical parental rights and responsibilities.
- The Vermont order provided Muchmore with regular weekly contact with the child.
- The order stipulated that either party could petition to modify the parenting schedule when the child reached the age of three or four.
Procedural Posture:
- Adam Muchmore petitioned the Lebanon Family Division, a state trial court, to register a Vermont custody order and modify it.
- Amy M. Jaycox, the respondent, objected and moved to dismiss the petition.
- The trial court denied Jaycox's motion to dismiss, finding that although Muchmore failed to prove the statutory grounds for modification under RSA 461-A:11, it could still modify the order based solely on the child's best interests.
- The trial court issued an order modifying the parties' parenting plan.
- The trial court denied Jaycox's motion for reconsideration.
- Jaycox, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's modification order to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New Hampshire law permit a court to modify a permanent parenting plan based solely on a finding that modification is in the best interests of the child, without the moving party first proving one of the specific threshold circumstances required by statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Dalianis, J.
No. A court may not modify a permanent parenting plan based solely on the best interests of the child; the party seeking modification must first satisfy one of the specific statutory prerequisites outlined in RSA 461-A:11. The plain language of the statutory scheme establishes a two-step process. First, the moving party must prove that one of the four circumstances in RSA 461-A:11, I exists (e.g., parental agreement, repeated interference, detrimental environment, or failure of a substantially equal plan). Only after this threshold showing is made may the court proceed to the second step, which is to create a new or modified plan guided by the best interests of the child under RSA 461-A:4 and RSA 461-A:6. The trial court erred by bypassing the first step and treating the "best interests" standard as an independent ground for modification, which would require the court to add language to the statute that the legislature did not include.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear, two-step framework for modifying parenting plans in New Hampshire, prioritizing finality and stability in custody arrangements. It solidifies RSA 461-A:11 as a crucial gatekeeping statute, preventing parents from continuously re-litigating custody based on a subjective 'best interests' standard. The ruling ensures that permanent orders are not disturbed without a substantial showing of specific, changed circumstances, thereby protecting children from the instability of frequent litigation. Future litigants seeking modification must now clear a higher, more defined hurdle before a court will reconsider an existing plan.
