## Facts

- Wife filed a libel for divorce after the parties married in 1970, had one child in 1973, separated in 1973, and arranged temporary custody, visitation, and support by agreement and court approval.
- At a 1974 superior court hearing, the court found: the husband initially worked unsteadily and made statements during the pregnancy about preferring a boy and considering adoption if a girl were born.
- After the child’s birth, the husband became attached to the child, visited regularly, and made weekly support payments under the temporary order for a period of time.
- The husband asserted he loved his wife and did not want a divorce; the wife asserted she no longer loved him and continued to seek divorce.
- By the time the legal questions reached the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, the parties had been separated for about two and a half years.

## Issues

1. Whether RSA 458:7-a (no-fault divorce for “irreconcilable differences” causing “irremediable breakdown”) is constitutional, including whether the standard is impermissibly vague and whether limits on misconduct evidence violate due process or equal protection.
2. Whether, on the superior court’s findings (including extended separation and the wife’s continued pursuit of divorce), the trial court could find “irreconcilable differences” causing an “irremediable breakdown of the marriage” under RSA 458:7-a.
3. What role, if any, a spouse’s opposition to divorce plays in determining whether an irremediable breakdown has occurred.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court upheld RSA 458:7-a against constitutional challenge, concluding the statutory standard is sufficiently definite to satisfy due process.
- The Court upheld the statute’s general exclusion of specific misconduct evidence, reasoning the trial court may admit such evidence when necessary to determine whether an irretrievable breakdown exists and in custody-related disputes.
- The Court concluded the length of separation and the wife’s sustained effort to obtain a divorce were evidence from which the trial court could find the marriage had irremediably broken down, notwithstanding the husband’s stated desire to remain married.
- The Court answered the transferred questions and remanded to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion rather than ordering a divorce decree itself.

## Legal Principles

- A no-fault divorce statute requiring “irreconcilable differences” and an “irremediable breakdown of the marriage” can satisfy due process and is not unconstitutionally vague when applied as an assessment of the present condition of the marriage relationship.
- A legislature may limit pleadings and proof of specific misconduct in no-fault divorce proceedings without denying due process when relevant exceptions permit admission of such evidence where necessary to decide breakdown or when custody is at issue.
- Extended separation attributable to marital difficulty, combined with a spouse’s continued insistence on divorce, is substantial evidence supporting a finding of irremediable breakdown.
- One spouse’s desire to preserve the marriage may be considered as evidence bearing on reconciliation, but it does not bar a finding of irreconcilable differences if the relationship is otherwise irremediably broken.

## Conclusion

The court sustained New Hampshire’s no-fault divorce framework, approved restrictions on fault-type evidence, and held that prolonged separation coupled with a spouse’s persistent pursuit of divorce can support a finding of irremediable marital breakdown even over the other spouse’s objection, remanding for the trial court to apply that standard.


Desrochers v. Desrochers, 115 N.H. 591, 347 A.2d 150 (N.H. 1975)