 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - May 7, 2004 Morning Mail Careful Accounting of Custody Modification Standard My thanks to the Bar News and to your writer, Deborah A. Fauver, for the careful reporting ("New Law Eases Child Custody Modification" 4/23/2004) on the new grounds for modification of physical custody which go into effect June 4 as Chapter 8 of the Laws of 2004. The law will read: RSA 458:17, V. (a) The court may issue an order modifying a permanent custody order under any of the following circum stances: (3) If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child's present environment is detrimental to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health and that the advantage to the child of modifying a permanent custody order outweighs the harm likely to be caused by the change in environment; While this language replaces the Perreault v. Cook standard in the RSAs, that standard remains viable in case law. There should be no need to seek to amend petitions on file unless the party seeking modification wishes to go forward on the new, Washington state standard as well. A concern has been expressed about the lack of consideration for the impact of attachment on a child's development. I believe the standard does acknowledge the critical importance of attachment in the presumption of "harm likely to be caused by the change in environment" which must be overcome. If the threshold inquiry is met - that there is "clear and convincing evidence that the child's present environment is detrimental to the child's physical, mental or emotional health" - it would certainly appear warranted to further inquire whether "the advantage to the child of modifying a permanent custody order outweighs the harm likely to be caused by the change in environment." This second inquiry looks to the moving party's household to see if the child would be moved, for instance, to a more detrimental environment, facts not admissible under a strict application of the current Perreault standard. The other advantage I see to the new standard is the elimination of the "circumstances so greatly altered" requirement of Perreault. The legislature may find it necessary to revise the new standard if experience shows some change in circumstance is necessary to halt the revolving door. However, as adopted, the language does not require any change in circumstance and will be a boon to those unrepresented parents who signed off on a stipulated arrangement without consideration of the best interests of the child, perhaps thinking the plan could be as readily changed. Many thanks to all the members of the bench and bar, and especially guardians ad litem, who took time to comment or testify on the bill during its 16-month voyage to becoming New Hampshire law. I invite you to continue to keep me informed of your experience, good and bad, as the new standard is put to use. Rep. Marge Hallyburton Knows Firsthand Race Contested in Recent Years I read with interest Mark Hodgdon's recent letter to the Bar News, as well as Russ Hilliard's comments on it. There was one egregious misstatement in Mr. Hodgdon's letter. I am, of course, referring to Mark's statement that, "The last contested race for our leadership was more than a decade ago." That's-with apologies to Al Franken-a lie. In the 1997 election I was soundly defeated by George Moore in the race for vice president, and that was less than 10 years ago. Moreover, if I am not mistaken, I think George lost the year before that to Randy Cooper. Wow, that means that I lost to the guy who lost to Randy Cooper. That's depressing. In any event, if Mark Hodgdon is half the man I think he is, he will rush to admit this unforgivable oversight. Gregory Robbins
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
