In the Matter of Kristie Tetreault and Paul Tetreault

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0401, In the Matter of Kristie Tetreault
and Paul Tetreault, the court on May 2, 2019, issued the
following order:

Having considered brief filed by the defendant, Paul Tetreault (father),
and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is
unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). The father appeals a final
order of the Circuit Court (Alfano, J.) in his divorce from the plaintiff, Kristie
Tetreault (mother). We affirm.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the trial court awarded
the mother sole residential and decision-making responsibility for the parties’
two teenage daughters. In its narrative order, the trial court granted the
mother’s request that the children have no contact with their father until such
time as they request such contact and denied the father’s request for
reunification therapy with them. On appeal, the father argues that the trial
court’s order constitutes an unsustainable exercise of discretion and effectively
terminates his parental rights over his daughters. We disagree.

When determining matters of parental rights and responsibilities, a trial
court’s overriding concern is the best interest of the children. In the Matter of
Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011). “We consider only whether the record
establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment
made, and we will not disturb the trial court’s determination if it could
reasonably have been made.” In the Matter of Kurowski & Kurowski, 161 N.H.
578, 585 (2011) (quotation omitted). “The trial court’s discretion necessarily
extends to matters such as assigning weight to evidence and assessing the
credibility and demeanor of witnesses.” Id. “Conflicts in the testimony,
questions about the credibility of witnesses, and the weight assigned to
testimony are matters for the trial court to resolve.” Id. We will uphold the trial
court’s factual findings unless the evidence does not support them or they are
legally erroneous. See In the Matter of Kempton & Kempton, 167 N.H. 785,
798 (2015). “If the trial court’s findings can reasonably be made on the
evidence presented, they will stand.” Id. at 792.

In the instant matter, the trial court’s denial of the father’s request for
reunification therapy and its grant of the mother’s request that the children
have no contact with the father until they seek such contact was based upon
the following factual findings, which the record supports. The court found that
the father had physically abused the mother throughout their marriage and
that this abuse culminated in an assault in 2012 when he attempted to
strangle her while screaming that he was going to kill her. The court found
that the children witnessed the assault and were traumatized by it. The court
observed that the father admitted at the final hearing that his physical abuse of
their mother had impacted his children. One of the children sleeps with a
hammer under her bed because she is afraid of her father returning. The court
found that the children were also traumatized by the father’s addiction to
heroin and other drugs and his frequent relapses. The court further found that
the father had not had any contact with his daughters for at least three years
and that his emotional bond with them had been broken. Moreover, the court
found that the children, who at the time of the court’s order, were thirteen and
fourteen, “do not want to see their father at this time.” In light of these factual
findings, which we uphold because the record supports them, we cannot say
that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by denying the
father’s request for reunification therapy at this time and granting at this
juncture the mother’s request that the children have no contact with the father
until they seek such contact.

To the extent that the father contests the trial court’s decision to award
the mother sole residential and decision-making responsibility for the parties’
children, we conclude that he waived that challenge by agreeing to those terms
at the final hearing. See In the Matter of Ball & Ball, 168 N.H. 135, 142 (2015).
All issues that the father raised in the notice of appeal, but did not brief, are
deemed waived. See In re Estate of King, 149 N.H. 226, 230 (2003).

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2