## Facts

- Divorced parents shared joint parenting responsibility and joint decision-making authority for their minor daughter’s education.
- Both parents were fit and had equal constitutional parenting rights.
- The mother was homeschooling the daughter; the father sought to enroll her in public school for the 2009–2010 school year.
- The parents could not agree on educational placement, prompting the father to seek court resolution.
- The family court considered evidence about the child’s educational needs, social development, and relationships with each parent, including a guardian ad litem report.
- A marital master recommended public-school enrollment, and the family court ordered the daughter enrolled in public school.
- The mother appealed, arguing the order violated her constitutional parenting rights and religious rights and was not in the child’s best interests.

## Issues

1. Whether ordering public-school enrollment over a mother’s preference for homeschooling violated the mother’s constitutional parental and religious rights where both parents shared joint decision-making authority.
2. Whether the family court committed legal error or unsustainably exercised its discretion in determining that public-school enrollment was in the child’s best interests under RSA 461-A:6, I.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the order requiring the daughter to enroll in public school for the 2009–2010 school year.
- The court upheld the decision on narrow grounds: the family court sustainably exercised its discretion under the statutory best-interests standard.
- The court rejected the mother’s constitutional challenges as a basis for reversal, concluding the order rested on best-interests findings rather than religious judgment.

## Legal Principles

- When joint custodial parents with equal decision-making authority reach an impasse over a child’s educational placement, the trial court may resolve the dispute by applying the child’s best interests under RSA 461-A:6, I.
- Courts do not adopt categorical preferences among homeschooling, public schooling, or private schooling; educational placement determinations are child-specific and record-driven.
- Fit parents with joint authority possess equal constitutional parenting rights; a court’s role in a deadlock is to choose the arrangement that best serves the child, not to privilege one parent’s educational or ideological preference.
- Religious beliefs may appear in the factual background, but an educational-placement order must be justified by secular best-interests reasoning rather than approval or disapproval of religion.
- Appellate review is deferential; reversal is warranted only for legal error or an unsustainable exercise of discretion in applying the best-interests standard.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a public-school enrollment order entered to resolve a joint-custody educational deadlock, holding that the trial court permissibly applied the statutory best-interests standard and did not violate the mother’s constitutional parenting or religious rights.


In re Kurowski, 20 A.3d 306 (N.H. 2011)