Matter of Stapleford
New Hampshire Supreme Court
931 A.2d 1199 (2007)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Cheryl Stapleford (defendant) and Richard Stapleford had two children, ages 13 and 15 (plaintiffs). During the parents’ divorce proceedings, a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed to represent the minor children. In the GAL’s report, he noted the children preferred to live with Richard because he lived in their hometown and the children wanted to be near their ailing grandparents. However, contrary to the children’s wishes, the GAL recommended that awarding Cheryl primary residential custody would be in the children’s best interests. Richard retained an attorney to intervene in the divorce action on the children’s behalf, arguing the court could not give the children’s preferences the necessary substantial weight unless the children were allowed to intervene. Cheryl countered, stating the GAL’s report had already reported the children’s preferences. The trial court denied the motion to intervene, finding the GAL had acted in the children’s best interests and had accurately represented their preferences. The children appealed, arguing that (1) they had a statutory and a due-process right to intervene, (2) the trial court failed to apply the proper intervention test, and (3) they were denied due process at the hearing.
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.