New Hampshire Protection of Parenting Equality

We, the undersigned, do herein unequivocally request, and indeed demand, that the NH legislature pass into law, posthaste, fair and equitable family law policy that protects the rights of BOTH parents to nurture, love, teach, mentor, safeguard, associate with, and raise their own children. We insist upon statutory protection for the rights of New Hampshire's children to retain equal access to BOTH parents when custody is at issue. Such equitable law must include a presumption of equal shared parenting rights and responsibilities, including residential responsibility, for BOTH parents, rebuttable by clear and convincing evidence that such equal parenting would not be in the best interests of the child. If equal parenting is not granted, the court would be required to put its reasons in writing.

These protections of equal parenting rights for BOTH parents, and of the right for equal access to BOTH parents for NH's children, are without question directly provided for by the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional protection of these parental rights many times (MAY v. ANDERSON, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952), KENT v. UNITED STATES, 86 S.Ct.1045 at 1054 (1966), CABAN v. MOHAMMED, 441 U.S. 380 (1979), Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978), SANTOSKY v. KRAMER, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983), 463 U.S. 248, TROXEL v. GRANVILLE (99-138) 530 U.S. 57 (2000)), as have multiple district and appellate courts across the country.

The research and study data (K. Alison Clarke-Stewart and Craig Hayward, "Advantages of Father Custody and Contact for the Psychological Well-Being of School-Age Children," Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 2, April-June 1996, p. 239., Dick Feeman, Joseph Maiello, Mike Jebbet, "Child Custody or Child Abuse", Victoria Times-Colonist, Jan 8, 1998, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993., Deane Scott Berman "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse", Adolescence 30 (1995), P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, "Fatherless Children", New York, Wiley Press, 1984., Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce", Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988), Potash, Marlin S., Ph.D. : Psychological Support for a Rebuttable Presumption of Joint Custody : Probate Law Journal, Vol. 4, 17, 1982, and many more at www.nhcustody.org) is absolutely irrefutable as to the benefit children derive from having significant continuing access to BOTH parents.

No argument in opposition to a rebuttable presumption that both parents will retain equal access to their child holds water. The mere fact that the family courts of New Hampshire, in conjunction with the latitude afforded them by associated ambiguous New Hampshire statutes, have been unconstitutionally abrogating the rights of NH's parents and children for years during the course of child custody proceedings is no rationale for maintaining the current tragically broken family law system. New Hampshire's courts, ambiguous laws, and the amorphous and impossible to define 'best interests of the child' standard have collectively conspired to generate far too many broken hearts and dysfunctional children already.

At present NH Guardians ad litem have a tremendous amount of discretion and are not required to collect evidence. Consequently, they usually end up relying strictly on their own opinions and little else when passing judgement on NH's children's lives. Without the requirement for evidence, NH's Guardians ad litem and judges continue to be empowered to sever the parent/child relationship based upon their own personal ideals.

If New Hampshire's state motto 'Live Free or Die' means anything more than the latest marketing slogan then we must fix our backward and destructive family law system for the sake of the state's children. Our state at present feels much more like a George Orwell novel as opposed to a bastion of liberty and freedom. How free are those NH parents who, without cause and without explanation, have had their children and their parental liberties stolen from them under the guise of the 'best interests of the child'? And how free are those NH children who have had their parents stolen from them under the same pretense?


We, the citizens of New Hampshire understand what the true 'best interest of the child' is, and it is the presumption that, barring clear and convincing evidence otherwise, the child is best served by having equal access to both parents.