In re Sophia-Marie H., 165 N.H. 332

Sophia-Marie H. (born 2008) lived with her mother and father until 2009, when the father moved out; the mother sought full custody in 2010; the trial court awarded the mother sole custody and limited father visitation during incarceration; the father was incarcerated in 2010 for drug-related offenses and remained in prison for a period, with a plan that child support would accrue as arrearage after employment; in 2012 the mother petitioned to terminate the father’s parental rights on abandonment and nonsupport grounds, and a GAL recommended denial despite concerns about the father’s track record; at the termination hearing the GAL noted potential reunification benefits, and the court terminated the father’s parental rights, a decision the Supreme Court reverses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mother proved statutory grounds for termination under RSA 170-C:5, II	Hicks argues father financially able but substantially neglected to provide subsistence, education, or care.	Hicks contends evidence fails to show financial ability and substantial neglect, especially since support during incarceration was postponed.	No clear proof of financial ability or substantial neglect; reversal on grounds.
Whether termination was in Sophia-Marie’s best interest	Mother argues termination is best due to lack of bond and impending adoption by fiancé.	Father argues relationship could be rebuilt and future stability uncertain but possible.	Best interest analysis insufficient to justify termination; reversed on this basis.
Whether error occurred by considering incarceration-era nonpayment	Mother relied on nonpayment during incarceration to prove neglect.	Incarceration arrearage was anticipated by the parenting plan and should not count as failure to provide.	Error to rely on incarceration-period nonpayment; not evidence of failure to provide.
Whether court properly weighed reunification barriers and potential future relationship	Court prioritized stability with fiancé and risk of confusion.	Father has shown effort and potential for future relationship; termination inappropriate.	Court erred in terminating; potential for reunification weighed in favor of preserving parental rights.

In re Haley K., 163 N.H. 247 (2012) (standard for termination grounds; monetary support and ability considerations)
In re Adam R., 159 N.H. 788 (2010) (dominant welfare of child in 170-C analysis)
In re Jack L., 161 N.H. 611 (2011) (welfare of the child dominates parent interests)
In re Shannon M., 146 N.H. 22 (2001) (best interest standard in dispositional analysis)
In re Lisa H., 134 N.H. 188 (1991) (best interests not automatic; one factor among others)
In re Sheena B., 139 N.H. 179 (1994) (absence of contact during lack of custody burden on proving abandonment)
In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630 (2011) (custodian obstruction can impact best interests analysis)
In re William A., 142 N.H. 598 (1998) (termination not warranted where father’s visitation is involved)