Joanne Alexander v. New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2014-0554, Joanne Alexander v. New
Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families, the court
on March 17, 2015, issued the following order:

Having considered the brief filed by the plaintiff, Joanne Alexander, the
memorandum of law filed by the defendant, the New Hampshire Division for
Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), and the record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
The plaintiff appeals an order of the Superior Court (Garfunkel, J.) granting
summary judgment to DCYF on the ground that her negligence claims against
DCYF are barred by sovereign immunity. We affirm.

On appeal, the plaintiff advances several arguments related to the merits
of her negligence claims. She also argues that the affidavit supporting the
summary judgment motion filed by DCYF was inadequate in several respects,
although she has not included DCYF’s motion as part of the record on appeal.
Finally, she contends that the trial court erred when it concluded that due care
was exercised when: (1) a police officer took her daughter into protective custody
after the daughter had run away from home five times in five months, had
alleged that the plaintiff had physically and verbally abused her, had displayed
a bruised arm and chin, and had showed the police a video recording of the
plaintiff verbally abusing her; (2) after an ex parte hearing, the circuit court
awarded DCYF protective supervision of the plaintiff’s daughter; (3) after a
preliminary hearing, the circuit court found reasonable cause to believe that
the plaintiff had neglected her daughter by being violent toward her and by
emotionally abusing her; (4) DCYF moved to withdraw the neglect petition
because the plaintiff’s daughter turned eighteen years of age; and (5) the circuit
court granted the motion to withdraw. See RSA 541-B:19, I(b) (2007) (legislature
has not waived immunity for “[a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of a
state officer, employee, or official when such officer, employee, or official is
exercising due care in the execution of any statute or rule of any state agency”).

As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. See Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon
our review of the trial court’s narrative order, the plaintiff’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk