## Facts

- Michelle Hemenway (wife) and Edmund J. Hemenway, Jr. (husband) lived in Florida with their four children.
- On July 16, 2008, the wife left Florida with the children and moved to New Hampshire.
- In August 2008, the wife obtained a temporary restraining order in Massachusetts after alleging the husband criminally threatened her and the children.
- Later in August 2008, she filed a domestic-violence petition in New Hampshire under RSA chapter 173-B, alleging criminal threatening in:
  - Florida on July 16, 2008; and
  - Massachusetts on August 2, 2008.
- The petition alleged no abusive conduct occurring in New Hampshire.
- The husband did not appear personally; counsel filed a special appearance to contest jurisdiction.
- The family division issued a final protective order that, among other terms:
  - barred threats, abuse, contact, and proximity to the wife, her home, and her workplace;
  - restricted interference with the wife’s property;
  - required the husband to relinquish deadly weapons and surrender concealed-carry permits and hunting licenses, and barred firearm and ammunition purchases during the order; and
  - awarded the wife custody and barred visitation pending further order.
- The husband’s motion to reconsider was denied, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether New Hampshire courts have subject-matter jurisdiction under RSA chapter 173-B to issue a protective order for a victim residing in New Hampshire when the alleged abuse occurred outside the state.
2. Whether New Hampshire may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident respondent for a domestic-violence protective order based on out-of-state conduct affecting a protected party in New Hampshire.
3. Whether, consistent with due process, a New Hampshire protective order against a nonresident may impose affirmative obligations (including surrender of firearms, permits, and licenses).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held the family division had subject-matter jurisdiction under RSA chapter 173-B to protect a victim who has taken refuge in New Hampshire, even if the alleged abuse occurred elsewhere.
- The court upheld the prohibitory portions of the order restraining the husband from threatening, contacting, or approaching the wife in New Hampshire.
- The court reversed provisions requiring affirmative acts by the nonresident husband—specifically, relinquishment of weapons and surrender of permits and licenses, and the ban on purchasing firearms or ammunition—because they exceeded the permissible scope of jurisdiction over a nonresident.
- The case was remanded for modification of the order consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Domestic-violence proceedings under RSA chapter 173-B are civil and protective; they are not constrained by the territorial limits applicable to criminal prosecutions.
- A victim who has taken refuge in New Hampshire may invoke RSA chapter 173-B to obtain protection in New Hampshire even when alleged abuse occurred in other states.
- Personal jurisdiction requires authorization under RSA 510:4, I (construed to reach the limits of federal due process) and compliance with due process minimum-contacts and fairness requirements.
- In this context, a court may issue a prohibitory protective order against a nonresident to restrain conduct directed at a protected person in New Hampshire.
- A court may not, absent adequate jurisdictional basis, compel a nonresident to perform affirmative acts that operate beyond New Hampshire, such as surrendering firearms and related licenses.
- The allegations in the petition define the scope of the contested hearing; due process requires notice of the factual allegations and an opportunity to respond to any amendment.

## Conclusion

New Hampshire courts may protect an in-state domestic-violence petitioner from a nonresident respondent through prohibitions on threats, contact, and approach, but may not impose affirmative, out-of-state-directed obligations—such as mandatory relinquishment of firearms and surrender of licenses—without a sufficient jurisdictional basis.


Hemenway v. Hemenway, 992 A.2d 575 (N.H. 2010)