In Re Rupa
13 A.3d 307
| N.H. | 2010Background
- Tammy Rupa appeals a family court order granting visitation to her child’s grandparents and requiring transportation for visits.
- Child has pervasive developmental disorder, generalized anxiety, OCD, and ADHD; she previously regularly visited grandparents from 2000–2008.
- Court-ordered parenting plan gave Rupa sole residential responsibility and decision-making authority; grandparents were awarded monthly visitation and unsupervised telephonic contact.
- Trial court noted extensive grandparent contact and continued telephone contact; found no sufficient link between visits and child outbursts.
- Appellate court vacates and remands to apply RSA 461-A:13 with emphasis on parental rights and best interests; addresses statutory authority for telephonic contact and transportation requirements.
- Procedural posture: parties sought modification of visitation; petitioner challenged under constitutional and statutory grounds, which the court found not preserved for constitutional review but considered under statutory framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How RSA 461-A:13 should be applied to protect parental rights | Rupa argues parent’s rights are protected; no unfitness finding. | Respondents argue statutory factors justify visitation despite parental objections. | Remanded for proper application of RSA 461-A:13 with deference to parent’s judgment. |
| Whether the trial court gave proper deference to parental judgments under RSA 461-A:13 | Trial court failed to give special weight to the parent’s view of best interests. | Court properly weighed factors but could have given more deference to parent’s determination. | Remand to apply factors with greater deference to parental judgment. |
| Whether the court lacked authority to order unsupervised telephonic contact and transportation | Argues statutory authority does not support telephonic contact or transportation at parent’s expense. | RSA 461-A:4 contemplates information sharing, transportation, and access; authority exists. | Statutory authority recognized; remand to fix terms if visitation reinstated. |
| Whether the court’s findings were sufficient and in line with public policy on grandparent visitation | No special weight given to parent’s determination; risk to constitutional rights. | Best interests standard supports limited grandparent visitation given past interactions. | Remand for explicit findings on enumerated RSA 461-A:13 factors. |
| Role of Troxel and constitutional rights in statutory interpretation | Parent’s constitutional rights should limit grandparent visitation absent unfitness. | Statute must be interpreted in light of Troxel while considering best interests. | Constitutional considerations require narrow construction of RSA 461-A:13; remand for proper application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (fundamental right of parent; deference in best-interests analysis emphasized)
- In the Matter of Dufton & Shepard, 158 N.H. 784 (N.H. 2009) (defines standing for grandparent visitation; constitutional overlay)
- In the Matter of R.A. & J.M., 153 N.H. 82 (N.H. 2005) (plurality on constitutionality of predecessor statute; parental preference considered)
- In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200 (N.H. 2006) (recognizes parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- Roberts v. Ward, 126 N.H. 388 (N.H. 1985) (parental rights operate against state, third parties, and child)
- In re Noah W., 148 N.H. 632 (N.H. 2002) (statutory framework for parental rights and state intervention)
- In the Matter of Berg & Berg, 152 N.H. 658 (N.H. 2005) (parens patriae limits on parental rights for child welfare)
- R.A., 153 N.H. 93 (N.H. 2005) (courts weigh parental preferences within best-interests framework)
- Fisher v. Minichiello, 155 N.H. 188 (N.H. 2007) (supervisory authority on trial court findings)