In Re Heinrich v. Curotto

7 A.3d 1158 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W married in Florida and have three minor sons born in 2000, 2002 and 2004. During their twelve-year marriage, the parties moved from Florida to New Hampshire. On November 10, 2006, H filed for divorce, alleging that irreconcilable differences between the parties caused an irremediable breakdown of the marriage. W asked the court to award her primary residential responsibility for the children so that she could “relocate the children to the State of Florida.” The wife's extended family lives in the St. Petersburg, Florida area and owns and operates the Bon-Aire Motel on St. Petersburg Beach. Her family offered her a position as assistant general manager of the hotel with a number of benefits, including health insurance and a flexible work schedule to take care of the children. H did not believe it was in the children's best interests. The children would not be able to see him weekly and would have to move from the only home they have known. The court barred relocation outside of New Hampshire and appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to study, among other issues, whether relocation would be in the children's best interests. The GAL analyzed the proposed relocation request and recommended that it be denied and “that the children remain in New Hampshire with both parents.” The trial court agreed. The court found that: W has not resided in the State of Florida for quite some time, that the parties have resided in the State of New Hampshire for over six years, two of their children have been born in this State, all three children have known no other home other than their home in Derry, New Hampshire, the children are well acclimated to the Derry area, the local schools and the community, and the [better] quality of life argument raised by the [wife] does not overcome the negative impact to the quality of the H's relationship with the parties' minor children if the W to relocate to Florida. W appealed. W argues that the trial court erred when it applied RSA 461-A:12 in denying her petition to relocate with the children to Florida. W claims that RSA 461-A:12 applies only to a post-divorce relocation request to modify an existing permanent parenting decree. Here, she asserts, there was no permanent parenting decree in place, and, therefore, the court should have applied the best interests of the child standard