Cited by

intiff argues that the defendant is not entitled to immunity because she acted outside her role as GAL by “actively represent[ing] the mother’s position before the trial court.” However, the trial court in the parenting proceeding found that the defendant “at all times, acted in good faith in advocating what she believed to be in the best interests of the minor child.” See Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 798 (1982) (finding validity and reliability of guardian’s methods were questions of f

Assoc., Inc., 122 N.H. 484, 486 (1982), “[d]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976) (quotation omitted); see also Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 797 (1982).

The right to be heard in custody and visitation cases encompasses “the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, to be informed of all adverse evidence, and to challenge such evidence.” Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 797, 451 A.2d 374, 377 (1982), overruled in part by Ross v. Gadwah, 131 N.H. 391, 395, 554 A.2d 1284, 1285 (1988); sec Ross, 131 N.H. at 395, 554 A.2d at 1286.

classification involves a suspect class based on “race, creed, color, gender, national origin, or legitimacy,” State v. LaPorte, 134 N.H. 73, 76, 587 A.2d 1237, 1239 (1991) (quotation omitted), or affects a fundamental right, see Merrill v. City of Manchester, 124 N.H. 8, 14-15, 466 A.2d 923, 927 (1983) (private real property ownership rights recognized as fundamental); Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 797, 451 A.2d 374, 377 (1982) (decisions regarding custody and rearing of minor children

Guardians ad litem serve a function that “combines the best aspects of their roles as advocates for the children and as impartial Court officials.” Preface to Guidelines for Guardians ad Litem prepared by the superior court (effective June 21, 1983); see also Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 797, 451 A.2d 374, 376-77 (1982); Place v. Place, 129 N.H. 252, 256, 525 A.2d 704, 706 (1987).

Place v. Place, 129 N.H. 252, 256, 525 A.2d 704, 706 (1987) (citing Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 796-97, 451 A.2d 374, 376-77 (1982)).

As authority for the proposition that due process requires that she have an opportunity to challenge the report at the final hearing, the defendant refers us to Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 451 A.2d 374 (1982).

Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 797, 451 A.2d 374, 377 (1982); see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1435-36 (8th Cir. 1985), cert.

In Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 451 A.2d 374 (1982), a case involving the initial physical custody determination for a mature teenager after a divorce, we noted that at age fourteen, a child’s preference for a particular physical custodian is usually going to be crucial.

Perreault v. Sullivan, 124 N.H. at 42, 466 A.2d at 938; see Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 799, 451 A.2d 374, 378 (1982) (initial custody determination); Del Pozzo v. Del Pozzo, 113 N.H. 436, 437, 309 A.2d 151, 153 (1973) (initial custody determination); 3 C. Douglas, New Hampshire Practice, Family Law § 235 (1982); cf. RSA 463:14 (a minor above the age of 14 may elect any person for his guardian).

The plaintiff inappropriately relies on Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 451 A.2d 374 (1982), to support her contention that the admission of the guardian ad litem’s report was reversible error.

Appeal of Beyer, 122 N.H. 934, 938, 453 A.2d 834, 836 (1982); Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 796, 451 A.2d 374, 376 (1982).

Applying this constitutional principle to the consideration of the parents’ religions in a child custody case, we recently indicated that courts must refrain “from evaluating the merits of differing religious beliefs,” and consider the parties’ religions solely as they relate to “the concerns and temporal welfare” of the children.

Proctor v. Bank of New Hampshire, N.A., 123 N.H. 395, 402, 464 A.2d 263, 267 (1983); see also Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 796, 451 A.2d 374, 376 (1982).

r court as have retired therefrom by age limitation, when so to do will expedite the business of the court; and they may be assigned to sit in any county in the state.” The defendant contends that the plaintiff failed to preserve this issue for appeal because the record does not show that he objected or excepted to the appointment of the master, to his ruling, or to the appointment of the auditor.

Provencal v. Provencal, 122 N.H. 793, 796, 451 A.2d 374, 376 (1982); see also American Bd.