In the Matter of Erica Cowen and Charles Cowen

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0080, In the Matter of Erica Cowen and
Charles Cowen, the court on August 7, 2019, issued the
following order:

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

The petitioner, Erica Cowen (wife), appeals the final decree of the Circuit
Court (Lemire, J.), following a hearing, in her divorce from the respondent,
Charles Cowen (husband). We construe her brief to argue that the trial court
erred in: (1) managing discovery and trial; (2) denying her request for a divorce
on fault grounds; (3) awarding the husband final decision-making
responsibility for the parties’ child; (4) calculating child support; (5) denying
her request for a lump-sum property settlement; (6) granting the husband’s
request to change the child’s name; and (7) denying her request for attorney’s
fees. She also argues that the trial judge was biased against her.

We afford trial courts broad discretion in fashioning a final divorce
decree. In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006). We
review the court’s decisions regarding the management of discovery and trial
under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard. Id. at 280. To meet
this standard, the wife must demonstrate that the trial court’s rulings were
clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of her case. Id. at 285. The
issue of whether the irremediable breakdown of the marriage was caused by
irreconcilable differences or the fault of one of the parties is a factual question
for the trial court. In the Matter of Martel & Martel, 157 N.H. 53, 61-62 (2008).
We will affirm the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are
unsupported by the evidence or are legally erroneous. In the Matter of Nyhan
and Nyhan, 147 N.H. 768, 770 (2002). We defer to a trial court’s judgment on
such issues as resolving conflicts in testimony, measuring the credibility of
witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence. In the Matter of
Aube & Aube, 158 N.H. 459, 465 (2009).

The record in this case shows that the parties were married for less than
eleven months when the wife filed her petition for legal separation, which she
later amended to a petition for divorce alleging fault grounds. The trial court
granted the divorce based upon irreconcilable differences, finding that the wife
failed to show that the husband treated her so as to seriously injure her health
or endanger her reason. See RSA 458:7, V (2018). The court awarded the wife
primary residential responsibility for the parties’ child. The court awarded the
parties joint decision-making responsibility for the child and gave the husband
final decision-making responsibility for any major issues on which the parties
cannot agree. The court ordered the husband to pay child support according
to the guidelines, based upon his current income. The court awarded the
husband the property that he brought to the marriage and denied the wife’s
request for a lump-sum property award. The court granted the husband’s
request to change the child’s legal name, finding it to be in the child’s best
interest.

As the appealing party, the wife has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s well-reasoned order, the wife’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the wife
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id. Moreover, we conclude, based
upon our review of the record, that no reasonable person would have
questioned the trial judge’s impartiality, and that there were no factors that
would have per se disqualified the judge. See State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265,
268-71 (2002).

Affirmed.

Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2