Cited by

For example, in Stanley D. v. Deborah D., 124 N.H. 138 (1983), a young girl’s mother married a man who was not the child’s biological father.

RSA 458:17, VI (1992) (right of stepparents to seek custody or visitation of stepchildren in some situations); RSA 546-A:l,:2 (1997) (obligation of stepparents to support stepchildren); Stanley D. v. Deborah *599 D., 124 N.H. 138, 143 (1983) (stepparent can be awarded custody based upon the best interests of the child).

Of course, a natural parent’s role in the family life is a fundamental liberty interest under Part I, Article 2 of the State Constitution.

At the same time, the courts’ overriding concern in structuring custody and visitation matters is the best interests of the child, Richelson v. Richelson, 130 N.H. 137, 144, 536 A.2d 176, 180-81 (1987), and this consideration may require circumscribing one or both parents’ rights to promote the child’s welfare, see Stanley D. v. Deborah D., 124 N.H. 138, 142, 467 A.2d 249, 250-51 (1983); Chasan, 119 N.H. at 867, 409 A.2d at 788.

RSA 458:17, VI; Stanley D. v. Deborah D., 124 N.H. 138, 467 A.2d 249 (1983).

The standard of proof required for termination is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Relying upon Stanley D. v. Deborah D., 124 N.H. 138, 467 A.2d 249 (1983), and Preston v. Mercieri, 133 N.H. 36, 573 A.2d 128 (1990), the Superior Court (Goode, J.) approved the recommendation of the Master *264 (Peter J. Bourque, Esq.)

Because parental rights are fundamental under the New Hampshire Constitution, we have held that the party seeking to terminate parental rights “must prove the statutory ground for termination beyond a reasonable doubt.” Stanley D. v. Deborah D., 124 N.H. 138, 142, 467 A.2d 249, 251 (1983); see N.H. Const, pt.

I, art. 2; Robert H., 118 N.H. at 715, 393 A.2d at 1389, this court has held that any party seeking to terminate parental rights “must prove the statutory ground for termination [under RSA chapter 170-C] beyond a reasonable doubt.” Stanley D. v. Deborah D., 124 N.H. 138, 142, 464 A.2d 249, 251 (1983).

Therefore, we will not overturn the superior court’s decision unless we find it is unsupported by the evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.

In a child custody determination, the court is required to make such decree as shall be most conducive to the child’s benefit.

“We will affirm a master’s findings and rulings ‘unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.’” Terzis v. Estate of Whalen, 126 N.H. 88, 91, 489 A.2d 608, 611 (1985) (quoting Stanley D. v. Deborah D., 124 N.H. 138, 143, 467 A.2d 249, 251 (1983)).

We will affirm a master’s findings and rulings “unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Stanley D. v. Deborah D., 124 N.H. 138, 143, 467 A.2d 249, 251 (1983).

“It is well established that this Court will not overturn a master’s findings and rulings unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.” Stanley D. v. Deborah D., 124 N.H. 138, 143, 467 A.2d 249, 251 (1983).