A recent New Hampshire Supreme Court precedential Opinion (July 25, 2023) addressed the enforcement of a valid child custody decree in a multi-state diversity of citizenship family law matter that also involved a civil domestic violence order of protection.

On November 1, 2019, the petitioner filed a motion in a New Hampshire trial court to enforce a court-ordered parenting plan granting him time with his children. Subsequently, on November 12, the respondent requested a civil domestic violence protection order. The court, on November 19, refused to combine the parenting contempt motion with the domestic violence petition for a single hearing, citing time constraints and a conflicting schedule. The court then conducted a three-day trial on the domestic violence petition, ruling against the petitioner, partly because of whether he had scheduled parenting time. However, the court did not address the petitioner's initial parenting contempt motion until 2022 (2 1/2 years later), ultimately finding against him without ever holding any hearing.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court then concluded that a timely hearing or decision on the petitioner's parenting contempt motion would not have altered the outcome, but did not address the intervening three-day civil domestic violence trial in any way.

The first question presented is: Whether, or under what circumstances, does the Fourteenth Amendment require a trial court to hold a hearing on the enforcement of a child custody decree in a timely fashion?

The second question presented is: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require objective standards for the issuance or renewal of civil domestic violence orders of protection?

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a timely hearing on the enforcement of a child custody decree