## Facts

- During divorce and custody proceedings, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the parties’ two minor children (ages 13 and 15).
- The children told the GAL they preferred to live with their father, who remained in their hometown, in part to stay near ailing grandparents.
- The GAL’s report accurately conveyed the children’s stated preferences but recommended that primary residential responsibility be awarded to the mother as serving the children’s best interests.
- The father retained counsel for the children, and the children moved to intervene as parties in the custody aspects of the divorce.
- The children argued that party status and independent counsel were necessary to ensure their preferences received the statutorily required “substantial weight,” and that due process required direct participation.
- The mother opposed intervention, arguing the GAL adequately presented the children’s views and protected their interests.
- The trial court denied intervention, finding the GAL acted in the children’s best interests and accurately represented their preferences.

## Issues

1. Whether minor children have a statutory or rule-based right to intervene as parties in their parents’ divorce/custody proceeding when a GAL has been appointed.
2. Whether denial of intervention violates the children’s state or federal due-process rights in a custody determination affecting where and with whom they live.
3. Whether the trial court misapplied the intervention standard or conducted the intervention hearing in a manner that denied procedural due process.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the children’s motion to intervene.
- The court held that existing law did not give the children an automatic right to intervene as parties in these circumstances.
- The court held that due process was satisfied because the GAL and existing procedures adequately presented and protected the children’s interests and preferences.
- The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s application of the intervention criteria or in the conduct of the hearing on intervention.

## Legal Principles

- Intervention as of right requires, among other things, a showing that the applicant’s interest may be impaired and is not adequately represented by existing parties or court-appointed participants.
- A child-custody statute requiring a court to give substantial weight to a mature child’s reasonable preference imposes a duty on the court to consider the preference, but does not necessarily confer party status on the child.
- Due process in custody proceedings does not require children to be made parties where a GAL accurately conveys their preferences and provides independent best-interests recommendations, and where court procedures provide a meaningful opportunity for those interests to be considered.

## Conclusion

The court upheld denial of the children’s motion to intervene, concluding that when a GAL accurately reports children’s preferences and independently evaluates their best interests, neither statutory custody provisions nor due process require the children to participate as separate parties with their own counsel in the divorce/custody litigation.


Matter of Stapleford, 931 A.2d 1199 (N.H. 2007)