In the Matter of Haley St. Pierre and Adam Thatcher
211 A.3d 1213
N.H.2019Background
- Child born Oct. 31, 2013; petitioner Haley St. Pierre and respondent Adam Thatcher signed a hospital affidavit of paternity listing Thatcher as father; parties later divorced.
- Petitioner resumed relationship with Colby Santaw; 2015 genetic testing showed Santaw is the biological father.
- Petitioner filed a pro se "Petition to Change Court Order" seeking to remove Thatcher from the birth certificate, change the child’s name, and obtain full custody; Santaw intervened seeking paternity and custody.
- Trial court rescinded the paternity affidavit, named Santaw biological/legal father, treated Thatcher as a stepparent with parenting time, and initially denied petitioner’s relocation request.
- After child sustained serious burns while with Thatcher and emergency proceedings, trial court found material mistake of fact (and concerns about Thatcher’s supervision and communication), awarded primary residential responsibility to petitioner, and permitted relocation to Florida with limited visitation for Thatcher.
- Thatcher appealed; Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed (rescind affidavit for material mistake; relocation allowed based on changed circumstances and best interests findings).
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (St. Pierre) Argument | Respondent (Thatcher) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Standing / procedural sufficiency to challenge paternity affidavit beyond 60 days | Her petition seeking to amend parenting orders sufficiently challenged affidavit; family division is competent forum | Only signatories or a rescission motion can challenge affidavit; petitioner’s pleading was improper | Petitioner’s pro se petition was adequate to challenge the affidavit in family court; court had jurisdiction to decide paternity beyond 60 days |
| 2) Whether a New Hampshire paternity affidavit is immune from DNA challenge (relying on Gendron) | DNA proof can rebut an affidavit under NH law; no statutory time bar beyond initial 60 days | An affidavit is equivalent to final judgment and, per Gendron, cannot be overturned by genetic testing long after execution | Distinguished Gendron (Mass. statute with one-year limit); NH law permits court challenges beyond 60 days and DNA evidence can rebut paternity where appropriate |
| 3) Whether petitioner met Title IV-D standard (fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact) to rescind affidavit | Evidence established a material mistake of fact: both parties believed Thatcher was father when signing; later DNA disproved paternity | Petitioner failed to prove fraud or material mistake; affidavit should stand | |
| Held | Trial court correctly found material mistake of fact based on record and rescinded the affidavit | ||
| 4) Whether trial court erred in permitting relocation to Florida after emergency motion | Relocation became legitimate after petitioner married Santaw; change in circumstances and child-safety concerns justified relocation; trial court properly weighed best interests | Relocation was improperly granted as part of emergency ruling and unduly limited Thatcher’s parental rights | Trial court acted within broad equitable discretion; record supported legitimate purpose (be with husband) and best-interests findings (safety/communication concerns) allowing relocation |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Neal & DiGiulio, 170 N.H. 671 (N.H. 2018) (describing family division's broad equitable powers and review for unsustainable exercise of discretion)
- In the Matter of Gendron & Plaistek, 157 N.H. 314 (N.H. 2008) (addressing limits on post-acknowledgment challenges under a Massachusetts statute and concerns about stability/finality in paternity)
- Bodwell v. Brooks, 141 N.H. 508 (N.H. 1996) (holding dual paternity concept not recognized; presumption rebuttable)
- Watts v. Watts, 115 N.H. 186 (N.H. 1975) (recognizing estoppel where long acquiescence bars later paternity challenge)
- McRae v. McRae, 115 N.H. 353 (N.H. 1975) (similar bar on belated scientific proof to escape parental responsibility)
- Hansen v. Hansen, 119 N.H. 473 (N.H. 1979) (discussing paternity by estoppel doctrine)
- Bay County Prosecutor v. Nugent, 740 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (DNA evidence can establish material mistake of fact supporting disestablishment)
- Ipock v. Ipock, 403 S.W.3d 580 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013) (observing circumstances where DNA evidence should outweigh policy favoring certainty in parentage)