Cited by

Accordingly, “[w]hen findings depend upon debatable inferences deducible from the evidentiary facts, we cannot hold as a matter of law that there was error.” Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 466, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978).

We defer to the trial court’s judgment on such issues.

The trial court’s determination in any custody case depends to a large extent upon a firsthand assessment of the credibility of witnesses, as well as the character and temperament of the parents, and the findings of the trial court are binding upon this court if supported by the evidence.

The master, who is the trier of fact, has the benefit of observing the parties and their witnesses, and may credit or discredit the conflicting testimony of witnesses before him.

Trial courts are necessarily given broad discretion in the assessment of a witness’s credibility and in the weighing of testimony.

Any “conflicts as might be found in the testimony, questions about the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given to testimony are for the [trial court] to resolve.” Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 465-66, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978).

This review standard requires that any “conflicts as might be found in the testimony, questions about the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given to testimony are for the [referee] to resolve.” Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 465-66, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978).

Furthermore, any “conflicts as might be found in the testimony, questions about the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given to testimony are for the master to resolve.” Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 465-66, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978).

The master denied plaintiff’s request for a finding that his illness was either “caused or exacerbated by the job-related stress.” The weighing of testimony is within the trial court’s province, Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 465-66, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978).

We have also held, with respect to our standard of review in these cases, that “such conflicts as might be found in the testimony, questions about the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given testimony are for the master to resolve.” Parker v. Parker, 122 N.H. 658, 662, 448 A.2d 414, 416 (1982) (quoting Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 465-66, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978)) (emphasis added).

This was within his discretion and we will uphold the finding unless unsupported by the evidence.

See, e.g., Case v. Case, 121 N.H. 647, *747 651, 433 A.2d 1257, 1260 (1981); Wonser v. Wonser, 120 N.H. 436, 437, 415 A.2d 881, 882 (1980); Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 464, 387 A.2d 1169, 1169-70 (1978).

The master’s findings of fact, if supported by the evidence, will be upheld by this court, and “such conflicts as might be found in the testimony, questions about the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given to testimony are for the master to resolve.” Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 465-66, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978).

Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 465-66, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978); see Town of Croydon v. Current Use Advisory Board, 121 N.H. 442, 446, 431 A.2d 126, 129 (1981).

Duby v. Osgood, 120 N.H. 356, 357, 415 A.2d 326, 326 (1980); Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 465, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978).

While it is true that the plaintiff contested much of this evidence, the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given evidence are questions to be determined by the trial court.

Hynes v. Whitehouse, 120 N.H. 417, 415 A.2d 876 (1980); Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 465-66, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978).

“When findings depend upon debatable inferences deducible from the evidentiary facts, we cannot hold as a matter of law that there was error.” Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 466, 387 A.2d 1169, 1170 (1978).

Starkeson v. Starkeson, 119 N.H. 78, 397 A.2d 1043 (1979); Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 387 A.2d 1169 (1978).

There may be times when joint custody would be desirable but there will be other times when, despite the fitness of each parent, a division of authority would not be in the best interest of the children, the paramount concern.

Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 387 A.2d 1169 (1978); Marcou Const. Co., Inc. v. Tinkham Indus.

overrule the plaintiff’s exceptions which were transferred by Cann, J. In resolving this issue we begin by observing that a master’s findings of fact are binding on this court if supported by the evidence.

for that time” but his intention was “to find another place to live.” Given all the evidence, the finding of the trial court is amply supported by the evidence and must stand.

See, e.g., Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 387 A.2d 1169 (1978); Brown v. Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hosp., 117 N.H. 739, 378 A.2d 1138 (1977).

Kierstead v. Betley Chevrolet Buick, Inc., 118 N.H. 493, 389 A.2d 429 (1978); Doe v. Doe supra; Ballou v. Ballou, 118 N.H. 463, 387 A.2d 1169 (1978).

It therefore must stand.

We repeat what we have so often said, that we will not disturb a trial court’s or a master’s determination if it could reasonably be *81 made.

The record supports this finding and so it must stand.

In Perreault v. Cook, 114 N.H. 440, 443, 322 A.2d 610, 612 (1974), we held that: The 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 to live under the present arrangement.