Cited by

at 314-16; see also RSA 461-A:6, V (pertaining to determinations of parental rights and responsibilities that likewise involve grandparents and stepparents); In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 203-04 (2006) (explaining grandparents and stepparents are the “only two classes of third parties” identified in RSA 458:17, VI, the predecessor to RSA 461-A:6, V); cf. RSA 461-A:13 (2018) (as referenced by RSA 461-A:6, V, prescribing special rules for awarding visitation to a grandpar

at 7; see also In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 204 (2006) (biological parents are presumed to be fit until found unfit in either RSA chapter 169-C or RSA chapter 170-C proceedings).

“Similarly, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 203 (2006) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) (plurality opinion)).

hild Protection Act, which is to “provide protection to children whose life, health or welfare is endangered.” RSA 169-C:2, 1(a) (2002); see In re Shelby R., 148 N.H. 237, 241 (2002) (“the Act’s primary interest is protecting children, which often trumps other competing goals of the Act”), overruled on other grounds by In re C.M., 163 N.H. 768 (2012); In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 204 (2006) (“Under [the Child Protection Act], the welfare of an allegedly abused or n

In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 204 (2006).

parents in the care, custody and management of their children does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents.” In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 204 (2006) (quotations omitted).

See, e.g., In re Father 2006-360, 155 N.H. at 95; In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 203 (2006); Brittany S., 147 N.H. at 491; Petition of Kerry D., 144 N.H. 146, 149 (1999); State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 716 (1978), reversed on other grounds by In re Craig T., 147 N.H. 739, 744-45 (2002).

Because the State Constitution provides at least as much protection as the Federal Constitution under these circumstances, see In re Jeffrey G., 153 N.H. 200, 204-05 (2006), we reach the same result under the Federal Constitution as we do under the State Constitution.

ee Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of parents, protect rights of parents to make decisions concerning the religious upbringing of their children); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925) (parents have liberty interest to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control); see also In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P, 153 N.H. 200, 203 (2006).

R.A., 153 N.H. at 99; In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette R, 153 N.H. 200, 203 (2006) (“[T]he right of biological and adoptive parents to raise and care for their children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by Part I, Article 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution.”); Roberts v. Ward, 126 N.H. 388, 391 (1985) (concluding that parental rights “have been found to operate against the Sta

In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 204-05 (2006).

“The superior court’s jurisdiction to award custody is purely statutory, and the best interests of the child guide all custody decisions in New Hampshire.” In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 203, (2006).

In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 203 (2006).

In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 203 (2006).