In the Matter of Kyle Norway and Rebecca Shattuck

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0357, In the Matter of Kyle Norway and
Rebecca Shattuck, the court on April 7, 2023, issued the
following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See
Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The respondent, Rebecca Shattuck (Mother), and the
petitioner, Kyle Norway (Father), are the unmarried parents of a young child.
Mother appeals the final parenting plan issued by the Circuit Court (Rauseo,
J.). We affirm.

The trial court has broad discretion in matters involving parenting rights
and responsibilities. In the Matter of Miller & Todd, 161 N.H. 630, 640 (2011).
Its overriding concern in such matters is the best interest of the child. Id. We
will not overturn the trial court’s decision on a parenting petition absent an
unsustainable exercise of discretion. Id. This standard of review means that
we review 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. Id. We do not
decide whether we would have ruled differently than the trial court, but rather,
whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the trial
court based upon the same evidence. O’Malley v. Little, 170 N.H. 272, 275
(2017).

In examining the trial court’s discretionary decisions, we defer to its
judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in testimony, evaluating witness
credibility, and deciding the weight to be accorded evidence. In the Matter of
Aube & Aube, 158 N.H. 459, 465 (2009). The trial court is free to accept or
reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness, and is not required to
believe even uncontested evidence. Id. at 466.

As the appealing party, Mother 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, Mother’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that she has
not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2