In re Guardianship of Reena D.
163 N.H. 107
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Guardianship over Reena awarded in 2002 to Hasu D. and the petitioner’s father following a March 2002 hearing; temporary guardianship granted and permanent guardianship followed in May 2002.
- In 2003, the parties and counsel entered a stipulation with a plan for a final termination hearing two months after the petitioner submitted an alcohol-use assessment.
- In 2003 and 2004, the petitioner failed to timely submit the required alcohol-use assessment; guardian sought dismissal without prejudice.
- In 2007 the parties renewed the termination motion; an evidentiary hearing occurred in 2009 after the petitioner submitted the assessment.
- The trial court held that the petitioner and spouse bore the burden to show that termination was no longer necessary and would not adversely affect the child’s well-being, and ultimately denied termination.
- The Superior Court vacated and remanded, holding that the burden of proof and standard should align with Troxel-based presumptions and that a clear-and-convincing standard applied to guardianship termination proceedings established by consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Troxel-based burden on termination of guardianship by consent | Dalianis argues petitioner should not bear burden. | Hasu D. argues trial court correctly allocated burden. | Troxel presumption applies; guardian bears burden. |
| Burden standard to terminate guardianship | Petitioner seeks preponderance standard. | Guardian should bear burden under Troxel precedents. | Clear and convincing standard applies to guardian’s burden. |
| Constitutional scope of Troxel presumption in this context | State and federal due process protect parental rights; troxel applies. | Believes Troxel does not apply or changes burden. | Troxel presumption applies to terminate guardianship by consent. |
| Remand remedy for incorrect burden application | Court should vacate only if proper standard applied. | Court should proceed with corrected standard. | Vacate and remand for proper burden and proof standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (presumption that fit parents act in child's best interests; burden on third parties)
- In the Matter of Huff & Huff, 158 N.H. 414 (N.H. 2009) (recognizes Troxel presumption for fit parents; constitutional protection of parental rights)
- In the Matter of Nelson & Horsley, 149 N.H. 545 (N.H. 2003) (parental rights presumption; foundation for evaluating guardianship claims)
- In re D.I.S., 249 P.3d 775 (Colo. 2011) (presumption in termination proceedings; burden on guardian to justify continuation)
- In re Guardianship of Nicholas P., 162 N.H. 199 (N.H. 2011) (clear and convincing standard for guardianship decisions involving substitution of parental care)
- In re Guardianship of D.J., 682 N.W.2d 246 (Neb. 2010) (Troxel-based presumption in custody/guardianship contexts)