Cited by

The father argues, however, that the trial court misapplied RSA 458:17, V(a)(3) because the “pattern of mutual recrimination [between him and the mother] has been consistent since their divorce [and] does not present a change in the child’s living environment.” In Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440 (1974), we articulated the standard for trial courts to use in determining whether to modify a child custody arrangement: “The relationship established by the custody award should not be disturbed unless

Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 443 (1974) (recognizing that “[t]he shuffling of a child back and forth between a father and mother can destroy his sense of security, confuse his emotions, and greatly disrupt his growth as an individual”).

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in modifying custody of the boys where the plaintiff failed to show altered circumstances as required for modification of physical custody under Perrault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440 (1974).

A petition for transfer of custody will be awarded where “the moving party demonstrates that the circumstances affecting the *735 welfare of the child have been so greatly altered that there is a strong possibility the child will be harmed if he continues to live under the present arrangement.” Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 443, 322 A.2d 610, 612 (1974).

Arguing that there was insufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances to justify a transfer of custody in the best interests of the children, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to apply correctly the standard required by Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974) for the modification of a child custody decree.

Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 443, 322 A.2d 610, 612 (1974); see Butterick v. Butterick, 127 N.H. 731, 734-35, 506 A.2d 335, 337-38 (1986).

The parties stipulated that modifications of physical custody of their children would be governed by the best interests of the child standard of Del Pozzo v. Del Pozzo, 113 N.H. 436, 309 A.2d 151 (1973) rather than the stricter standard of Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974), which requires a showing that there is a strong possibility of harm to the child if he remains with the custodial parent.

The plaintiff argues that the master wrongly applied the standard of Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974) in denying her joint legal custody.

Brock, J. In this appeal, the plaintiff, Valerie Richards, alleges that the Trial Court (Dalianis, J.) erred in approving a master’s recommendation and ordering a modification of custody of the parties’ two minor children using a standard other than that set forth in Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974).

The standard for modification of custody orders that we articulated in Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 443, 322 A.2d 610, 612 (1974) (“a strong possibility that the child will be harmed”) does not apply only to physical harm.

correctly applied the standard required by Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974) for the modification of a child custody decree.

The plaintiff first argues that, under our decision in Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974), the trial court could not lawfully modify the children’s legal custody in the absence of new findings of fact indicating a change in circumstances affecting their welfare.

applied the standard required by Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974), for determining whether there should be a change of child custody.

The division of welfare and the guardian ad litem urge us to apply the standard enunciated in Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 443, 322 A.2d 610, 612 (1974), by which “[t]he relationship established by the custody award should not be disturbed unless the moving party demonstrates that the circumstances affecting the welfare of the child have been so greatly altered that there is a strong possibility the child will be harmed if he continues

He found that “the circumstances affecting the welfare of the children have been so greatly altered [that] there is a strong possibility that the children will be harmed if permitted to remain with the defendant.” This language closely parallels the standard set forth in Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 443, 322 A.2d 610, 612 (1974).

Plaintiff first attacks the order changing custody on the basis that there is not a change in circumstances sufficient to meet the requirements of Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974).

Bois, J. The principal issue in this divorce case is whether the burden imposed in Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974), on a parent seeking to modify a permanent custody decree applies to a parent seeking to modify a temporary custody decree.

Basically, plaintiff’s claim is that under the rule set down in Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974), the evidence in the instant case mandates a transfer of custody of the minor child to him.

The court, quoting from Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 443, 322 A.2d 610, 612 (1974), stated that “[a] child custody decree is not to be modified ‘unless the moving party demonstrates that the circumstances affecting the welfare of the child have been so greatly altered that there is a strong possibility the child will be harmed if he continues to live under the present

Peterson v. Buxton, 108 N.H. 77, 227 A.2d 779 (1967); Perrault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974).

The law in this state is clear: A child custody decree is not to be modified “unless the moving party demonstrates that the circumstances affecting the welfare of the child have been so greatly altered that there is a strong possibility the child will be harmed if he continues to live under the present arrangement.” Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 443, 322 A.2d 610, 612 (1974).

We have expressed a judicial reluctance to modify an existing custody relationship and have imposed upon the party seeking a modificatiorr a heavy burden of persuasion.

The plaintiff *110 contends that the court’s decision to transfer custody of the children was an abuse of discretion in light of this court’s recent decision in Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974), to which counsel directed the master’s attention.

In Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 322 A.2d 610 (1974), we noted that in child custody proceedings the focus was on the welfare of the child.