In re McArdle, 34 A.3d 700

McArdle and Lisa McArdle were married 23 years, with four children, living in Madison, NH.
On June 8, 2010, in the home, Patrick McArdle yelled at Lisa and threw papers about their relationship at her.
Later that evening, Patrick chased Lisa with an unlit propane torch, demanding the papers, as she moved between rooms.
Lisa testified Patrick burned the papers in the wood stove; police were called, and she filed a domestic violence petition the next day.
The day before the hearing, Lisa sought to amend the petition with three prior alleged incidents of anger and destruction; the motion to amend was unverified.
The trial court admitted the amended allegations after Lisa attested to them at the hearing and granted a final domestic violence protective order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendment evidence was properly admitted	McArdle argues amendment was proper under Rule 1.2 waiver.	McArdle argues statements required verification and notice were lacking.	Amendment evidence admitted; proper under waiver.
Whether prior incidents were too stale to support abuse	McArdle contends prior incidents corroborate current fear and credibility.	McArdle contends incidents are too remote to establish current abuse.	Court properly relied on June 8, 2010 incident, with prior incidents also informing credibility.
Whether the evidence supported a credible threat to safety	McArdle shows repeated pursuit with torch and escalation as credible threat.	McArdle contends no violence toward plaintiff was shown.	Yes; conduct fulfilled criminal threatening and posed credible threat.
Whether required notice and factual attestation were satisfied	McArdle contends waiver allowed attestation at hearing.	McArdle asserts lack of prior verified notice invalidates	Waiver permitted; notice and attestation deemed sufficient.
Whether the trial court properly interpreted RSA 173-B	McArdle relies on text that abuse requires credible threat and at least one offense.	McArdle disputes statutory interpretation supporting order.	Court's interpretation consistent with statute; order affirmed.

Kenison v. Dubois, 152 N.H. 448 (2005) (statutory interpretation of 173-B; de novo review)
Walker v. Walker, 158 N.H. 602 (2009) (purpose of 173-B; protection framework)
Aldrich & Gauthier, 156 N.H. 33 (2007) (amendments to petitions must be pre-hearing)
Ossipee Auto Parts v. Ossipee Planning Board, 134 N.H. 401 (1991) (notice and affidavits; distinguishable by notice to party)
Fillmore v. Fillmore, 147 N.H. 283 (2001) (staleness of incidents; timeliness in proving abuse)