Petition of Pamela Lundquist and Robert Lundquist
168 N.H. 629
| N.H. | 2016Background
- Pamela and Robert Lundquist (grandparents) filed for grandparent visitation with their three minor grandchildren after the death (2010) of the children’s father (the Lundquists’ son-in-law).
- The children’s mother (respondent) opposes the petition and moved to dismiss, arguing the nuclear family remains intact because she is fully capable of parenting, so maternal grandparents lack standing.
- Trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the statutory trigger for grandparent standing did not apply because the mother’s parental authority meant the family structure was not absent.
- Petitioners argued on appeal that the father’s death met RSA 461-A:13’s listed conditions, vesting standing regardless of which side of the family filed the petition.
- The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and the standing issue based on undisputed facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lundquist) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grandparents have statutory standing under RSA 461-A:13 after the death of a parent | Death of the father created an "absence of a nuclear family," so grandparents (maternal) have standing | Nuclear family is intact because the mother is capable; statute’s triggering events not met for maternal grandparents | Court held standing vested: father’s death met statute’s condition and conferred standing to petitioning grandparents |
| Whether standing depends on which side of the family files the petition | Statute does not differentiate between maternal or paternal grandparents; any grandparent may petition when a listed condition occurs | Only the deceased parent’s own parents (paternal) should have standing; maternal grandparents lack standing here | Court rejected kinship-based limitation; standing is not limited by bloodline or which parent died |
| Whether trial court may resolve standing by deferring to parent's best interest determination | Petitioners contend standing is a threshold statutory question distinct from best-interest analysis | Respondent contends mother’s determination shows no absence of nuclear family, so threshold unmet | Court: standing is a statutory threshold; best-interest and parental-weight considerations occur after standing is established |
| Proper standard of review for dismissal on standing grounds | Petitioners: de novo review because facts undisputed and issue is statutory interpretation | Respondent: (implicit) trial court’s view should stand | Court applied de novo review and reversed trial court’s dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of P.B. & T.W., 167 N.H. 627 (N.H. 2015) (clarifies when grandparents obtain standing under RSA 461-A:13)
- O’Brien v. O’Brien, 141 N.H. 435 (N.H. 1996) (unwed parent status as "other cause" creating absence of nuclear family)
- In re Athena D., 162 N.H. 232 (N.H. 2011) (termination of parental rights as statutory trigger for grandparent standing)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental decisions entitled to special weight in visitation disputes)
- In re Guardianship of Reena D., 163 N.H. 107 (N.H. 2011) (adopting Troxel plurality's presumption that fit parents act in children's best interests)
- In re Estate of McCarty, 166 N.H. 548 (N.H. 2014) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Appeal of Local Gov’t Ctr., 165 N.H. 790 (N.H. 2014) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- Preston v. Mercieri, 133 N.H. 36 (N.H. 1990) (court will not add language to statute to create kinship-based limits)