A.L. v. A.L.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0151, A.L. v. A.L., the court on June 30,
2022, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs filed by the parties and the record submitted
on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup.
Ct. R. 18(1). The defendant, A.L., appeals a domestic violence order of protection
entered by the Circuit Court (Rauseo, J.) upon the petition of the plaintiff, the
defendant’s sibling. We affirm.

To obtain relief under RSA chapter 173-B, the plaintiff must show “abuse”
by a preponderance of the evidence. L.C. v. W.C., 174 N.H. 355, 358 (2021).
RSA 173-B:1, I, defines “[a]buse” as “the commission or attempted commission”
by “a family or household member or by a current or former sexual or intimate
partner” of one or more specified criminal acts “where such conduct is
determined to constitute a credible present threat to the [plaintiff’s] safety.” RSA
173-B:1, I (Supp. 2021). Such abuse may include “[a]ssault or reckless conduct
as defined in RSA 631:1 through RSA 631:3.” RSA 173-B:1, I(a). Thus, before
issuing a domestic violence final order of protection under RSA chapter 173-B, a
trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the defendant,
“a family or household member or . . . a current or former sexual or intimate
partner” of the plaintiff, committed or attempted to commit one or more of the
enumerated criminal acts; and (2) the defendant’s conduct constituted “a credible
present threat” to the plaintiff’s safety. RSA 173-B:1, I; see L.C., 174 N.H. at
358-59.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the record fails to support the trial
court’s factual findings. In an appeal from an order on a domestic violence
petition, the trial court’s “findings of fact shall be final,” and we review its rulings
on “questions of law” de novo. RSA 173-B:3, VI (2014). We review sufficiency of
the evidence claims as a matter of law, upholding the trial court’s findings and
rulings unless they lack evidentiary support or are tainted by error of law.
Achille v. Achille, 167 N.H. 706, 715 (2015). When performing this review, we
accord considerable weight to the trial court’s judgments on the credibility of
witnesses and the weight to be given testimony. Id. at 715-16. We view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party — here, the plaintiff.
See id.

It is the burden of the appealing party, here the defendant, 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 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 13. Although
the defendant has provided a transcript of the proceedings, he has not provided
the plaintiff’s petition or her affidavit and has not provided the text messages
entered into evidence at the hearing. Absent these portions of the record, we
must assume that the evidence supports the trial court’s findings. See Bean,
151 N.H. at 250; 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). Our review is limited to legal errors apparent on the face of the record.
Rix v. Kinderworks Corp., 136 N.H. 548, 553 (1992). Based upon the record
submitted on appeal, we are unable to conclude that the trial court committed
legal error. See id. We, therefore, uphold its decision. See id.

To the extent that the defendant argues that the Trial Court (Curran, J.)
erred when it denied his motion to reconsider and to reopen the record, we
uphold its decision as a sustainable exercise of discretion. We have reviewed the
defendant’s remaining arguments and conclude that they lack merit and warrant
no further discussion. See Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993).
All issues that the defendant included in his notice of appeal, but did not brief,
are deemed waived. See In re Estate of King, 149 N.H. 226, 230 (2003).

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2