In the Matter of Robert Asipi and Melinda Diaz

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0065, In the Matter of Robert Asipi and
Melinda Diaz, the court on July 31, 2017, issued the following
order:

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

The petitioner, Robert Asipi (father), appeals the final orders of the
Circuit Court (Foley, J.), following a hearing, awarding the respondent, Melinda
Diaz (mother), sole decision-making responsibility and primary residential
responsibility for the parties’ two children, and ordering him to pay child
support. He asserts that the trial court should have awarded him primary
residential responsibility for the children and, thus, that it erred by ordering
him to pay child support. We construe his brief to argue that the trial court’s
factual findings are not supported by the evidence and that the trial judge
demonstrated bias against him.

The trial court has broad discretion in matters involving parental rights
and responsibilities, and in awarding child support. In the Matter of Choy &
Choy, 154 N.H. 707, 713 (2007); In the Matter of Hennessey-Martin & Whitney,
151 N.H. 207, 212 (2004); see RSA 461-A:20 (Supp. 2016) (“Any provision of
law that refers to the ‘custody’ of minor children shall mean the allocation of
parental rights and responsibilities as provided in this chapter.”). The trial
court’s discretion “necessarily extends to matters such as assigning weight to
evidence and assessing the credibility and demeanor of witnesses.” In the
Matter of Choy, 154 N.H. at 713. “Conflicts in the testimony, questions about
the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given testimony are for the trial
court to resolve.” Id. “Our review is limited to determining whether it clearly
appears that the trial court engaged in an unsustainable exercise of
discretion.” Id. This means that we review only whether the record establishes
an objective basis sufficient to sustain the trial court’s discretionary
judgments. Id.

It is the burden of the appealing party, here the father, to provide this
court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal. See Bean v. Red
Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250-51 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 15(3)
(“If the moving party intends to argue in the supreme court that a finding or
conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he
shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding
or conclusion.”); In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 56
(2006) (self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules that
govern parties represented by counsel). In this case, the father has failed to
provide a transcript of the final hearing. Thus, he cannot meet his burden to
demonstrate that the court unsustainably exercised its discretion in its final
orders. In these circumstances, we must assume that the evidence was
sufficient to support the court’s orders. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396,
396 (1997).

The father also argues that the trial judge demonstrated bias against
him. Assuming, without deciding, that he preserved this issue for review, but
see Bean, 151 N.H. at 250, we note that adverse rulings alone do not establish
that the judge was biased, see State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 271 (2002). Based
upon our review of the record, we conclude that no reasonable person would
have questioned the judge’s impartiality and that no factors were present that
would have per se disqualified him from participating in this case. See id. at
268-71.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2