## Facts

- A husband filed for divorce in New Hampshire on irreconcilable differences.
- He moved to amend his petition to add the fault ground of adultery under RSA 458:7, II, alleging his wife had a continuing sexual relationship with another woman.
- The wife’s partner, named as a co-respondent, moved to dismiss the adultery allegation, arguing a same-sex relationship cannot constitute “adultery” under the statute.
- The family division denied the motion to dismiss.
- The co-respondent sought interlocutory review, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether “adultery” under RSA 458:7, II includes a married person’s same-sex sexual relationship.
2. Whether the statutory fault ground of adultery is limited to opposite-sex sexual intercourse as defined by common usage.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded.
- The court held that “adultery” under RSA 458:7, II does not include homosexual sexual relationships.
- The court construed adultery to mean voluntary sexual intercourse involving coitus defined as penile-vaginal penetration, which cannot occur between two women.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute uses an undefined term of common usage, courts may apply ordinary meaning, including dictionary definitions, to construe the term.
- Under RSA 458:7, II as construed, “adultery” required “sexual intercourse,” and “sexual intercourse” was treated as coitus requiring penile-vaginal penetration.
- A same-sex sexual relationship, standing alone, could not satisfy the statute’s adultery ground under that construction; any broader definition was for the legislature rather than the court.

## Conclusion

The court construed RSA 458:7, II to limit “adultery” to opposite-sex penile-vaginal intercourse and therefore held that a married woman’s sexual relationship with another woman could not support a fault-based divorce on adultery, reversing the denial of the motion to dismiss and remanding for further proceedings.


In re Blanchflower, 834 A.2d 1010 (N.H. 2003)