In the Matter of Ahmed Olama and Icel Khater

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0073, In the Matter of Ahmed Olama and
Icel Khater, the court on July 20, 2015, issued the following
order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude
that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.

The respondent, Icel Khater, appeals a final decree and parenting plan
issued by the Circuit Court (Introcaso, J.) in her divorce from the petitioner,
Ahmed Olama. See RSA 458:16-a (2004); RSA 461-A:4, :14 (Supp. 2014). We
construe the respondent’s brief to argue that the trial court erred by: (1) ordering
the petitioner to pay $50.00 per month in child support; (2) awarding the
petitioner the 2012 Jeep; and (3) allowing the petitioner one overnight every other
weekend with the parties’ children.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of issues
they did not raise in the trial court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248,
250 (2004). It is the respondent’s burden on appeal to provide a record that is
sufficient to decide the issues she is raising and to demonstrate that she raised
those issues in the trial court. Id. Absent a transcript, we assume the evidence
was sufficient to support the result reached by the trial court. Id.

In this case, the respondent has not supplied a transcript of the hearing
before the trial court. Thus, we cannot determine what evidence was offered or
what arguments were raised. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. Therefore, we assume
that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s determinations. Id.
We review the trial court’s order for errors of law only, see Atwood v. Owens, 142
N.H. 396, 397 (1997), and find none.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk