In re P.B.
167 N.H. 627
| N.H. | 2015Background
- P.B. and S.B., petitioners, sought grandparent visitation with their grandson C.W.; T.W. and S.W., respondents, are C.W.’s adoptive parents.
- C.W. was born March 31, 2011; his birth parents died January 11, 2012; respondents began caring for him as guardians and then adoptive parents on June 24, 2013.
- Petition for grandparent visitation was filed February 15, 2012; a temporary visitation order granted unsupervised visits on the first and third Saturdays.
- After adoption, respondents moved to dismiss the petition and vacate the order; the trial court denied the motion.
- On February 12, 2014, the trial court denied the petition for grandparent visitation after weighing RSA 461-A:13 factors, concluding visitation was not in C.W.’s best interests.
- The cross-appeal contends the petition lacks standing post-adoption; the court held standing remained because statutory conditions for visitation were present before parental deaths.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of petitioners after adoption | 461-A:13 grants standing when conditions present; adoption does not extinguish standing. | Adoption eliminates the grandparent’s standing to petition for visitation. | Standing exists; adoption does not divest petitioners of right to seek visitation. |
| Proper interpretation of RSA 461-A:13 standing and applicability after adoption | Statute allows petitions by grandparents whether adoptive or natural; conditions were met when parents died. | The adoption should bar petitioners from seeking visitation thereafter. | Statute permits petitioning grandparents; adoption does not negate standing. |
| Best interests determination under RSA 461-A:13 II | Trial court did not properly weigh the hardships on petitioners nor prefer the grandparent relationship. | Trial court properly weighed best interests and deference to fit parents. | Trial court did not unsustainably exercise discretion; visitation denied based on best interests. |
| Modification vs. termination of visitation order | Court should have modified, not terminated, visitation. | No error in denying petition or in terminating visitation rather than modifying. | No error; court exercised discretion properly in denying petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Brien v. O’Brien, 141 N.H. 435 (N.H. 1996) (grandparents may petition when statutory conditions are met; weight to fit parents)
- Dufton & Shepard, 158 N.H. 784 (N.H. 2009) (standing analysis when challenging standing rather than sufficiency)
- Rupa & Rupa, 161 N.H. 311 (N.H. 2010) (deference to fit parent's judgment in RSA 461-A:13 factors)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (S. Ct. 2000) (parens patriae and deference to parental decisions regarding child rearing)
- Roberts v. Ward, 126 N.H. 388 (N.H. 1985) (parents’ rights are natural and deserving deference)
- Bordalo & Carter, 164 N.H. 310 (N.H. 2012) (presumption that fit parents act in child’s best interests; deference in analysis)