In re Guardianship of A.C.; In re Guardianship of K.C.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0433, In re Guardianship of A.C.; In re
Guardianship of K.C., the court on January 30, 2015, issued the
following order:

We construe the petitioner’s “complaint of decision,” filed with this court
on January 5, 2015, as a supplement to her brief filed on October 10, 2014.
Having considered the brief, as supplemented, and the record submitted on
appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup.
Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The petitioner, the paternal grandmother of A.C. and K.C., who are minor
children, appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Ryan, J.) denying her petitions
for guardianship over the children. The children’s mother objected to the
petitions. To establish guardianships over the mother’s objections, the
petitioner was required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
best interests of the children required “substitution or supplementation of
parental care and supervision” either “to provide for the [children’s] essential
physical and safety needs,” or “to prevent specific, significant psychological
harm to” them. RSA 463:8, III(b) (Supp. 2014). Following an evidentiary
hearing at which both the petitioner and the children’s mother testified, and
following the subsequent submission of a report by the New Hampshire
Division for Children, Youth, and Families, the circuit court found that the
petitioner had failed to carry her burden of proof, and terminated temporary
guardianships that it had earlier granted the petitioner.

On appeal, the petitioner does not argue that the evidence compelled a
contrary decision. Instead, she asserts that she was “denied” a hearing by the
circuit court. She further requests that this court grant her visitation rights,
custody of the children, and “re-guardianship” of them, asserting that since the
temporary guardianships had terminated, the mother “ha[d] not let any family
member see [the] children,” and had threatened “to take flight with” them.

As the appealing party, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. ___, ___ (decided September 12,
2014). Based upon our review of the circuit court’s order, the petitioner’s brief,
as supplemented, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated reversible error. See id. To
the extent that the petitioner requests that we grant her visitation rights,
custody of the children, or “re-guardianship” due to the mother’s refusal to
allow her to see them, we note that our role on appeal is limited to reviewing
whether the circuit court erred by denying the guardianship petitions. This
order is without prejudice, however, to any relief that the petitioner may seek
from the circuit court for grandparent visitation rights pursuant to RSA 461-
A:13 (Supp. 2014).

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2