## Facts

- Susan B. and Melissa D. were in a long-term same-sex relationship and jointly planned to raise a child.
- Melissa conceived through assisted reproduction and gave birth to Madelyn B.; the child was given Susan’s middle and last names.
- From birth, Susan and Melissa held Susan out as a parent and jointly made major child-rearing decisions.
- Because marriage and second-parent adoption were not available to them at the time, Susan became Madelyn’s court-appointed guardian to secure parental functions (including health insurance and day-to-day caregiving authority).
- After the couple separated, Melissa and Madelyn moved in with Eugene D., whom Melissa later married; Susan continued frequent contact, financial support, and active involvement.
- In 2013, Melissa cut off contact between Susan and Madelyn and petitioned to terminate the guardianship, asserting it was unnecessary and that Madelyn did not want a relationship with Susan; Melissa also indicated a step-parent adoption by Eugene was being pursued.
- The trial court terminated the guardianship without an evidentiary hearing, dismissed Susan’s parentage/parenting petition under RSA 168-B:3, and denied Susan’s motion to intervene in the adoption proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by terminating a long-standing guardianship that functioned as a parental relationship without an evidentiary hearing, discovery, and a proper best-interests analysis.
2. Whether RSA 168-B:3 may be applied in a gender-neutral manner to permit a non-biological, non-gestational mother in a same-sex relationship to seek adjudication of parentage.
3. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the parentage/parenting petition and denying intervention in the step-parent adoption while parentage and guardianship issues remained unresolved.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the order terminating Susan’s guardianship.
- The Court reversed the dismissal of Susan’s parentage/parenting petition.
- The Court vacated the denial of Susan’s motion to intervene in the adoption proceeding.
- The Court stayed the adoption proceeding and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its rulings.

## Legal Principles

- A guardianship used as a functional substitute for parentage, and supporting a long-standing parent-like relationship, may not be terminated summarily; the court must provide appropriate process and consider the child’s best interests.
- “Necessity” to continue or end such a guardianship is not determined solely by a biological parent’s remarriage, the adequacy of a new household, or unilateral assertions about the child’s wishes where material facts are disputed.
- RSA 168-B:3 must be construed and applied in a gender-neutral manner so that similarly situated parents in same-sex relationships are not excluded from establishing parentage based on statutory gendered wording.
- A pleading alleging facts consistent with parentage under RSA 168-B:3 states a claim and should not be dismissed at the threshold.
- Where parentage/guardianship determinations may affect a pending step-parent adoption, the adoption proceeding should not move forward as if the asserted parent has no protectable interest.

## Conclusion

The court held that ending a de facto parental guardianship requires procedural safeguards and a meaningful best-interests inquiry, and it interpreted RSA 168-B:3 gender-neutrally to allow a non-biological mother in a same-sex relationship to seek legal parentage, staying the related adoption pending resolution.


In re Guardianship of Madelyn B., 166 N.H. 453, 98 A.3d 494 (2014)