Cited by

[¶22] “When dealing with legislative activity in the area of fundamental rights this court has applied the strict scrutiny test.” State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 716 (1978), overruled on other grounds by In re Craig T., 147 N.H. 739, 744-45 (2002).

“We have recognized that the loss of one’s children can be viewed as a sanction more severe than imprisonment.” In re Noah W., 148 N.H. 632, 636 (2002); see also State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 716 (1978) (“The permanent termination of the rights of parents over their children is even more final than involuntary commitment or delinquency proceedings.”), overruled on other grounds by In re Craig T., 147 N.H. 739, 10 744-45 (2002)).

12 Almost forty years ago, we recognized that “[t]he role of parents in the life of a family has attained the status of a fundamental human right and liberty.” State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 715 (1978), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Craig T., 147 N.H. 739, 744-45 (2002).

State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 718 (1978), overruled, on other grounds by In re Craig T., 147 N.H. 739 (2002).

See, e.g., In re Father 2006-360, 155 N.H. at 95; In the Matter of Jeffrey G. & Janette P., 153 N.H. 200, 203 (2006); Brittany S., 147 N.H. at 491; Petition of Kerry D., 144 N.H. 146, 149 (1999); State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 716 (1978), reversed on other grounds by In re Craig T., 147 N.H. 739, 744-45 (2002).

1993) (same); State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713 (1978) (parent challenging termination of parental rights), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Craig T., 147 N.H. 739, 744-45 (2002).

Citing State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 718 (1978), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Craig T., 147 N.H. 739, 744-45 (2002), In re Doe, 123 N.H. at 643, and In re Kristopher B., 125 N.H. at 684-85, she contends that the probate court erred, stating: “[M]erely having the condition of mental deficiency] is an insufficient basis to terminate her p

The elements of RSA 170-C:5, III must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 716 (1978), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Craig T., 147 N.H. 739, 744-45 (2002).

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); State v. Robert H. _, 118 N.H. 713, 715-20 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Craig T., 147 N.H. 739.

State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 716 (1978), overruled on other grounds by In re Craig T, 147 N.H. 739, 744-45 (2002).

State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 719 (1978) (quotation omitted).

State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 719 (1978); see also In re Diana P., 120 N.H. 791, 798 (1980).

State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 718, 393 A.2d 1387, 1390 (1978) (quotations and citations omitted).

State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 716, 393 A.2d 1387, 1389 (1978), disavowed on other grounds by In re Trida H., 126 N.H. 418, 424, 493 A.2d 1146, 1151 (1985).

State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 715, 393 A.2d 1387, 1388 (1978), disavowed on other grounds by In re Trida H., 126 N.H. 418, 424, 493 A.2d 1146, 1151 (1985).

Our legislature has declared that “whenever possible family life should be strengthened and preserved.” RSA 170-C:1 (1994); see State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 715, 393 A.2d 1387, 1389 (1978) (holding that “family and the rights of parents over it” are fundamental and within N.H. CONST. pt.

State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 715, 393 A.2d 1387, 1388 (1978) (quoting N.H. Const, pt.

[and] is now incarcerated and there [were] no other available relatives.” Although return of Joshua to Kathleen may not have been ideal, “this is not an ideal world.” State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 718, 393 A.2d 1387, 1390 (1978).

The termination of parental rights is a severe measure that divests “the parent and the child of all legal rights, privileges, duties and obligations.” RSA 170-C:12; see State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 716, 393 A.2d 1387, 1389 (1978) (“The loss of one’s child can be viewed as a sanction more severe than imprisonment.”).

Generally, neither the State nor this court will interfere with the fulfillment of these parental obligations.

In New Hampshire, the rights of parents over the family are considered “natural, essential and inherent rights within the meaning of the New Hampshire Constitution, part I, article 2.” In re Diana P., 120 N.H. 791, 798, 424 A.2d 178, 182 (1980), cert.

This protection stems from the recognition that “the role of parents in the life of a family has attained the status of a fundamental human right and liberty.” State v. Robert H._, 118 N.H. 713, 715, 393 A.2d 1387, 1388 (1978).

Given the significance of the constitutionally protected parental rights implicated by the phrase “family unity,” see State v. Robert H._, 118 N.H. 713, 716, 393 A.2d 1387, 1389 (1978), RSA 169-C:21, II (Supp. 1987) imposes responsibility on a district court to plan for the reunification of families that have been split by dispositional orders in abuse cases, where there is any practical hope of parental reformation.

This case does not involve a custody determination, as in Provencal, or an attempt to terminate parental rights, as in State v. Robert H._, 118 N.H. 713, 393 A.2d 1387 (1978).

Their first joint claim is that the evidence was insufficient to support several of the probate court’s specific findings beyond a reasonable doubt.

We agree that these regulations, as well as the purpose of the termination of parental rights statute, RSA chapter 170-C, require a showing in the record that the division made “every effort” and “worked with the parents” prior to terminating parental rights.

State v. Robert H. _, 118 N.H. 713, 716, 393 A.2d 1387, 1389 (1978) (under New Hampshire Constitution, State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to terminate parental rights); see also C. Douglas, 3 New Hampshire Practice: Family Law 442 (1982) (“Since Robert H. was decided in 1978, no justice, despite changes in *221 the Court, has dissente

Indeed, this court has recognized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the family relationship.

See, e.g., State v. Robert H. _, 118 N.H. 713, 715-16, 393 A.2d 1387, 1388-89 (1978) (holding that parental rights are “fundamental” and “natural, essential and inherent rights” under our State Constitution).

“The role of the parents in the life of the family has attained the status of a fundamental human right and liberty.” State v. Robert H._, 118 N.H. 713, 715, 393 A.2d 1387, 1388 (1978).

We have recognized that the parent-child relationship is a fundamental liberty interest clothed with constitutional protections.

State v. Robert H._, 118 N.H. 713, 715, 393 A.2d 1387, 1388-89 (1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972); see N.H. Const. pt.

nless 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.” The defendant argues that the division of welfare as custodian of the children has the burden of proving either beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. Robert H. _, 118 N.H. 713, 393 A.2d 1387 (1978), or by clear and convincing evidence, In re Brenda H., 119 N.H. 3

at 141, 399 A.2d at 965; see In re Irene W., 121 N.H. 123, 126, 427 A.2d 24, 26 (1981); State v. Robert H. __, 118 N.H. 713, 715-16, 393 A.2d 1387, 1388-89 (1978).

The defendant asserts that State v. Robert H. _, 118 N.H. 713, 393 A.2d 1387 (1978), requires that the case against the natural parents be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Robert appealed from the decision and was successful in this court.

Furthermore, this court has recognized that parental rights relating to custody and care of minor children occur naturally in our society and are prior to the State itself.

This court has recognized that the family and the rights of parents over it are fundamental and inherent within the federal and our own State constitutions.

This court recognizes the importance of the rights of parents, State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 393 A.2d 1387 (1978), but such rights are not unlimited.

In considering permanent termination of parental rights under RSA ch. 170-C, this court stated that “to hold merely that inadequate *388 parenting, absent specific harm to the [child], is sufficient to terminate parental rights in the ‘best interest of the child’ is too vague a concept and places undue emphasis on the parental conduct rather than any harm to the child.” State v. Robert H., 118 N.H. 713, 718, 393 A.2d 1387, 1390 (1978).