## Facts

- A married couple moved from Florida to New Hampshire for the husband’s employment and had three children (born 2000, 2002, 2004).
- The husband filed for divorce in New Hampshire; the wife sought primary residential responsibility and permission to relocate the children to Florida.
- The wife proposed relocating to Florida to obtain employment with her extended family’s motel business, including benefits and a schedule she asserted would help with childcare.
- A temporary parenting plan gave the wife primary residential responsibility, granted the husband regular parenting time, and stated that relocation would be governed by RSA 461-A:12.
- After a final hearing, the family division issued a divorce decree that denied the relocation request, ordered reimbursement to the husband for an asserted child-support overpayment, and imposed a provision requiring third-party care for more than 48 hours before the other parent had to be offered care.
- The husband opposed relocation, citing the children’s stability in New Hampshire and reduced regular contact with him.
- A guardian ad litem reported that the children were closely connected to both parents and that the father-child relationship would likely be harmed by the distance created by relocation.

## Issues

1. Whether the family division unsustainably exercised its discretion in denying the wife’s request to relocate the children to Florida under RSA 461-A:12.
2. Whether the family division erred in ordering the wife to reimburse the husband for an alleged overpayment of child support.
3. Whether the family division erred in imposing a provision requiring third-party care for more than 48 hours before the other parent must be offered the opportunity to care for the children.

## Decision

- The relocation ruling was affirmed because the family division applied RSA 461-A:12’s best-interests factors and its findings were supported by the record.
- The child-support reimbursement order was vacated and remanded because the record and decree did not adequately show the calculation or legal basis for the overpayment determination and repayment remedy.
- The 48-hour third-party-caretaker provision was vacated and remanded because the decree did not explain why the specific threshold and requirement served the children’s best interests and it did not fit coherently within the overall parenting plan.

## Legal Principles

- Child-relocation determinations under RSA 461-A:12 require consideration of statutory best-interests factors, including parental reasons for or against the move, parent-child relationships, the effect on future contact with the nonmoving parent, likely benefits of the move, and the feasibility of preserving relationships through visitation.
- Appellate review of parenting and relocation orders is deferential; factual findings are upheld unless plainly erroneous, and discretionary determinations are reversed only for an unsustainable exercise of discretion or legal error.
- Child-support reimbursement for overpayment must be supported by a clear evidentiary basis and an explanation sufficient to permit appellate review, including traceable calculations and justification under the governing framework.
- Parenting-plan provisions affecting caretaking time must be tied to the children’s best interests and explained on the record; unexplained “right of first refusal”-type requirements are subject to vacatur.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of relocation because the trial court reasonably concluded that the disruption to the children’s stability and the reduction in the father’s regular contact outweighed the claimed benefits of moving, but it vacated and remanded the child-support reimbursement and the 48-hour caretaker requirement because the decree lacked an adequate basis and explanation for those rulings.


In re Heinrich, 7 A.3d 1158 (N.H. 2010)