Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Derry Family Division No. 2006-730 IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD L. STAPLEFORD AND CHERYL STAPLEFORD Argued: June 7, 2007 Opinion Issued: September 28, 2007 Walker & Buchholz, P.A., of Manchester (Kevin E. Buchholz on the brief and orally), for the children.

Law Offices of Paula J. Green, PLLC, of Manchester (Paula J. Green on the brief and orally), for Cheryl Stapleford.

Mark H. Campbell, of Manchester, for Richard L. Stapleford, filed no brief. HICKS, J. The parties' minor children, currently thirteen and fifteen years old, appeal a recommended order of a Marital Master (Cross, M.) approved by the Derry Family Division (Sadler, J.) denying their motion to intervene in their parents' divorce proceedings. We affirm. The record supports the following. Cheryl Stapleford (mother) and Richard Stapleford (father) were married on October 17, 1992. On December 10, 2004, the parties filed for divorce. On July 27, 2005, the court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent the interests of the parties' two children.

On April 14, 2005, the Derry Family Division entered a temporary order awarding the mother primary physical custody of the children. On May 17, 2006, the GAL submitted a preliminary report recommending, against their preference, that the children live primarily in Milford with their mother. Subsequently, upon his attorney's recommendation, the father retained Attorney Kevin Buchholz to represent the children. On August 9, 2006, Buchholz filed a motion, on behalf of the children, to modify the court's temporary orders. The court denied the motion because the children were not parties to the case. Buchholz then filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the children. At a hearing held on the motion to intervene, Buchholz asserted a due process and statutory right of the children to be heard. He argued that the court cannot give substantial weight to the children's preferences consistent with RSA 461-A:6, II (Supp. 2006) if they are not allowed to intervene when a GAL makes a recommendation contrary to their preferences. The mother argued that intervention was unnecessary because the GAL had already represented the children's preferences in his reports. The GAL explained that the children wanted to live in Chester with their father because "they lived in Chester their entire life, their grandparents are ill . . . and they want to be there for their grandparents." He also noted that their preference, in his opinion, had more to do with their familiarity with Chester than with whom they wanted to live. The GAL opposed intervention, asserting that it would unduly empower the children, encourage them to violate rules, make parenting harder, and otherwise confuse them. The master denied the motion to intervene, finding that the GAL had represented the children's best interests and had adequately reported their preferences. He further noted in his order: The children's attorney offers more specific examples than the GAL of why the children feel as they do, but not only has the Court already heard some of those specifics from the parties themselves, but the examples are also not qualitatively different as to cause concern about the appropriateness of the Court's Temporary Order dated June 14, 2006. On appeal, the children argue that: (1) they have a statutory right to intervene as parties to their parents' divorce; (2) the trial court committed an unsustainable exercise of discretion in failing to apply the proper intervention test and denying their motion to intervene; (3) they have a due process right to

2

intervene; and (4) they were denied due process at the hearing on the motion to intervene. We address these issues in order. The children argue that RSA 461-A:6, II creates a statutory right to intervene for mature minors. We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Boulais, 150 N.H. 216, 218 (2003). The statute states, in pertinent part, that "[i]f the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a minor child is of sufficient maturity to make a sound judgment, the court may give substantial weight to the preference of the mature minor child as to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities." RSA 461-A:6, II. When construing a statute, we examine its language, ascribing the plain and ordinary meaning to the words used by the legislature. Boulais, 150 N.H. at 218. We can neither ignore the plain language of the legislation nor add words which the lawmakers did not see fit to include. Appeal of Astro Spectacular, 138 N.H. 298, 300 (1994). Here, RSA 461-A:6, II does not address intervention at all, and we will not add those words to the statute. Accordingly, the statute does not create a right for mature minors to intervene in their parents' divorce proceedings. We next address the children's claim that the court committed an unsustainable exercise of discretion in failing to apply our customary intervention test and denying intervention. The children point to the traditional intervention test, which provides: "A person who seeks to intervene in a case must have a right involved in the trial and his interest must be direct and apparent; such as would suffer if not indeed be sacrificed were the court to deny the privilege." Snyder v. N.H. Savings Bank, 134 N.H. 32, 35 (1991) (quotations, brackets and emphasis omitted). In New Hampshire, this standard has never been applied to children seeking to intervene in their parents' divorce. The children arguably have a right and interest involved in the outcome of the divorce, most notably regarding the issue of custody. However, the children are minors, maturity notwithstanding, and minors do not have the same legal rights as do adults in the legal system. See Miller v. Miller, 677 A.2d 64, 66 (Me. 1996) ("[A]t common law . . . children do not possess the requisite legal capacity to participate in litigation in their own names."). This is why the law provides for representation of a minor's interests through a GAL. See RSA 461-A:16 (Supp. 2006); see also 43 C.J.S. Infants

Download 2006-730, IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD L. STAPLEFORD AND CHERYL STAPLEFORD.pdf

New Hampshire Law