In re Guardianship of Madelyn B., 166 N.H. 453

Background

Susan B. and Melissa D. were long-term partners who planned and raised a child, Madelyn, together; Madelyn was born in 2002 and given Susan’s middle and last names.
Susan was actively involved in caregiving, was listed as a parent in church, school, medical records and public announcements, and was appointed Madelyn’s guardian in 2002 after legal advice that adoption was not then available.
The partners separated in 2008; Melissa later married Eugene D.; Susan continued visitation and financial support but contact deteriorated in 2013.
In April 2013 Melissa moved to terminate Susan’s guardianship and later initiated proceedings to have her husband adopt Madelyn; the family court terminated the guardianship, denied Susan’s motion to intervene in the adoption, and sua sponte dismissed Susan’s verified parenting petition.
On appeal Susan challenged (1) dismissal of her parenting petition, (2) termination of guardianship without a hearing, and (3) denial of intervention in the adoption. The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo where implicated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Susan)	Defendant's Argument (Melissa)	Held
Whether Susan’s verified parenting petition stated a claim under RSA 168-B:3(I)(d) (the “holding out” presumption)	Susan argued the statute’s "father" language must be read gender-neutrally and that she alleged facts showing she received Madelyn into her home and openly held her out as a child	Melissa argued the statute applies to fathers/males and that the guardianship served only practical caregiving/insurance purposes and is no longer necessary	Court held RSA 168-B:3(I)(d) applies to women as well; Susan adequately alleged facts to invoke the holding-out presumption — dismissal reversed and remanded for a hearing on temporary relief
Whether the family division properly dismissed the parenting petition sua sponte for failure to state a claim	Susan argued dismissal was erroneous because her complaint alleged sufficient facts under the holding-out presumption	Melissa implicitly argued no viable statutory claim existed	Court reversed the sua sponte dismissal, concluding the petition alleged sufficient facts when construed in plaintiff’s favor
Whether the guardianship could be terminated without hearing/discovery and whether termination was proper	Susan argued termination occurred without a hearing and before her parentage claim was resolved, improperly depriving her of rights	Melissa argued guardianship was no longer necessary because Madelyn’s needs were met by her new family and stepfather	Court vacated the termination and stayed related proceedings pending final determination of Susan’s parentage
Whether Susan should have been allowed to intervene in the adoption proceedings	Susan sought intervention to protect parental claims; contended she had a legally cognizable parentage claim	Melissa opposed intervention, proceeding toward stepfather’s adoption	Court vacated denial of intervention and stayed adoption proceedings until parentage is finally resolved

Key Cases Cited

Kennedy v. Titcomb, 131 N.H. 399 (1989) (standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim)
Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. v. Town of Rollinsford, 155 N.H. 669 (2007) (assume truth of plaintiff’s allegations on review)
Town of Newbury v. N.H. Fish & Game Dep’t, 165 N.H. 142 (2013) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning and legislative intent)
Chretien v. Company, 87 N.H. 378 (1935) (limits on construing masculine terms to include females)
In the Matter of J.B. & J.G., 157 N.H. 577 (2008) (parental status may be established absent biological ties when statutory routes suffice)
Watts v. Watts, 115 N.H. 186 (1975) (longstanding acknowledgment can preclude rebuttal of paternity presumption)
Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 117 P.3d 660 (Cal. 2005) (holding-out presumption applied to same-sex partner under parentage statute)
Chatterjee v. King, 280 P.3d 283 (N.M. 2012) (applying hold-out presumption to same-sex partner)