Cited by

Father argues, citing In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630 (2011), that the trial court erred when it issued its parenting plan because it failed to cite or discuss the factors set forth in RSA 461-A:6, I (Supp. 2024) in its order.

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

“When determining matters of child custody, a trial court’s overriding concern is the best interest of the child.” In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011) (quotation omitted); see RSA 461-A:6 (Supp. 2022).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

We have recognized that “children do best when both parents have a stable and meaningful involvement in their lives.” In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011) (quotation omitted).

The trial court has wide discretion in matters involving parenting rights and responsibilities, and “[o]ur review is limited to determining whether it clearly appears that the trial court engaged in an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011) (quotation omitted).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

contact with the other parent, including whether contact is likely to result in harm to the child or to a parent.” RSA 461-A:6, I(e); see In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640-41 (2011).

We also reject the father’s argument that this case is similar to In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

3 In this case, the trial court “genuinely question[ed] whether Mother would support, endorse and preserve the children’s relationships with Father, should she remain the custodial parent.” Cf. In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 641 (2011) (stating that “a sustained course of conduct by one parent designed to interfere in the child’s relationship with the other casts serious doubt upon the fitness of the offending party to be the custodial parent” (quoting Renaud v. Renaud, 721 A.2d 4

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).

RSA 461-A:6, I; In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 641 (2011).

In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 641 (2011) (stating that “the obstruction by a custodial parent of visitation between a child and the noncustodial parent may, if continuous, constitute behavior so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to raise a strong possibility that the child will be harmed” (quotation omitted)); In re Sheena B.

Our role is only to determine whether the trial court’s decision was a sustainable exercise of discretion, meaning that we review “only whether the record establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment made.” In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011) (quotation omitted).