In re Guardianship of Madelyn B.
New Hampshire Supreme Court
166 N.H. 453, 98 A.3d 494 (2014)
- Written by Paul Neel, JD
Facts
Susan B. (plaintiff) and Melissa D. (defendant) were in a same-sex relationship before same-sex marriage was legal in New Hampshire. Susan and Melissa lived together as if they were a married couple. Melissa became pregnant by assisted reproduction and had a daughter, Madelyn, whom they gave Susan’s middle and last names. Both Susan and Melissa held themselves out as Madelyn’s parents and jointly made all major decisions concerning Madelyn’s life and care. The couple was advised by an attorney that Susan could not legally adopt Madelyn. To protect her parental rights, Susan became appointed Madelyn’s guardian. Six years after Madelyn was born, Susan and Melissa separated. Melissa took Madelyn to live with Eugene D. and subsequently married him. Susan had visitation, paid child support, and provided other necessaries and gifts for Madelyn. Melissa then cut off all ties between Madelyn and Susan and petitioned to terminate Susan’s guardianship. The trial court granted Melissa’s petition without a hearing. The court reasoned that Susan’s guardianship was no longer needed because of Melissa’s marriage to Eugene, who intended to legally adopt Madelyn. The court denied Susan’s motion to intervene in the adoption proceedings and dismissed her parenting petition for failure to state a claim, holding that Susan was not Madelyn’s parent. Susan appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hicks, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.