In the Matter of Dana Albrecht and Katherine Albrecht, 2022-0517

Background

Parties divorced in 2018; a bifurcated parenting plan was entered in September 2017 and was not timely appealed.
On November 1, 2019, Dana Albrecht filed an ex parte contempt motion alleging Katherine violated the parenting plan’s joint decision-making and "promote healthy relationship" provisions by removing the children from school early for a week‑long vacation without notifying him.
The trial court denied ex parte relief and, for unexplained reasons, did not schedule or decide the contempt motion for over two and a half years.
On July 22, 2022, the trial court denied the November 2019 contempt motion without a hearing, finding no willful violation (noting family bereavement and school arrangements) and concluding much requested relief was moot.
The trial court also denied petitioner’s motion to reconsider (ruled it exceeded the 10‑page Family Division limit and alternatively denied on the merits). Petitioner appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by not finding respondent in contempt of parenting plan	Respondent willfully violated joint decisionmaking and healthy‑relationship provisions by taking children on vacation without notice; contempt should have been found	Respondent took reasonable steps (school notified, family bereavement) and did not willfully violate plan	No abuse of discretion — record supports trial court’s finding of no willful violation
Whether trial court’s >2.5 year delay and ruling without a hearing violated RSA 461‑A:4‑a and entitled petitioner to a hearing	Statute’s 30‑day “review” requirement and due process require a hearing and timely decision; delay prejudiced petitioner	Delay was regrettable but petitioner did not show prejudicial error or that outcome would differ	Even assuming statutory or constitutional violation, petitioner failed to show prejudice; no reversible error
Whether petitioner could raise collateral/post‑decree claims and judicial‑conduct challenges in this contempt appeal	Those additional claims relate to other proceedings and were raised on reconsideration; they demonstrate broader pattern of error	Such issues are not directly related to the November 2019 contempt motion and are improper on reconsideration/appeal	Trial court properly declined to address new, unrelated issues; they are not before the Court
Whether trial court erred in denying motion to reconsider for exceeding Family Div. R. 1.26(F) without waiving page limit	Court should have waived 10‑page limit for good cause	Court properly enforced rule and alternatively denied on merits; petitioner failed to show oversight or error	No reversible error; alternative merits ruling independently supports denial

Key Cases Cited

Germain v. Germain, 137 N.H. 82 (1993) (bifurcated decisions are final for appeal purposes)
In the Matter of Ndyaija & Ndyaija, 173 N.H. 127 (2020) (contempt relief is within trial court’s discretion)
Holt v. Keer, 167 N.H. 232 (2015) (standard for reviewing discretionary family‑court rulings)
In the Matter of Kurowski & Kurowski, 161 N.H. 578 (2011) (appellate review asks whether record supplies objective basis for discretionary decision)
Appeal of Ann Miles Builder, 150 N.H. 315 (2003) (non‑criminal appellants must show prejudicial effect of errors)
McIntire v. Woodall, 140 N.H. 228 (1995) (due process claims require showing of actual prejudice)
Lillie‑Putz Trust v. Downeast Energy Corp., 160 N.H. 716 (2010) (reconsideration and receipt of further evidence rest within trial court’s discretion)
Mt. Valley Mall Assocs. v. Municipality of Conway, 144 N.H. 642 (2000) (trial court reasonably may decline to address new issues on reconsideration)
Koor Communication v. City of Lebanon, 148 N.H. 618 (2002) (appellate relief may be denied where trial court furnishes alternative, independent grounds)
Panas v. Harakis & K‑Mart Corp., 129 N.H. 591 (1987) (issues raised first in reply brief are waived)