In the Matter of Diogenes Blanco and Elinol Bunols

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0155, In the Matter of Diogenes Blanco
and Elinol Bunols, the court on October 21, 2020, issued the
following order:

Having considered the parties’ briefs and the limited record submitted on
appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup.
Ct. R. 18(1). The petitioner, Diogenes Blanco, appeals orders of the Circuit
Court (Cooper and DalPra, MM., approved by Stephen and Alfano, JJ.) on his
parenting petition. We affirm.

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support the trial court’s decision. We are unable to review his appellate
argument substantively because he has failed to provide a sufficient record for
our review. As the appealing party, the petitioner had the burden of providing
us with a record sufficient to decide his appellate issues. Bean v. Red Oak
Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250, (2004); see Sup. Ct. R. 13; see also Town of
Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (explaining that the rules of
appellate practice are not relaxed for self-represented litigants). The petitioner
has not provided a transcript of the hearing on the merits nor any documents
that may have been submitted as exhibits at that hearing. Absent a complete
record, we must assume that the evidence supported the trial court’s decision.
See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250. We review the court’s orders for errors of law only,
see Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 397 (1997), and find none.

To the extent that the petitioner contends that paragraph II-a of RSA
461-A:12, which was added to the statute in 2018, see RSA 461-A:12, II-a
(Supp. 2019), precluded the respondent from relocating to Rhode Island in
2017, we consider his argument insufficiently developed for our review. See
Halifax-American Energy Co. v. Provider Power, LLC, 170 N.H. 569, 574 (2018)
(“In the realm of appellate review, a mere laundry list of complaints regarding
adverse rulings by the trial court, without developed legal argument, is
insufficient to warrant judicial review.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk