This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
2007-207, IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. KALIL AND BRENDA BUZDEREWICZ
plan regarding the father’s “parenting time” with the child. unwed parents of a ten-year-old child. The parties entered into a parenting Robert A. Kalil, and the respondent-mother, Brenda Buzderewicz, are the
disclosed in a sealed report to the court. The GAL subsequently submitted a child’s request and advised the child that the information would only be Family Division (shared in confidence with the GAL. The GAL informed the parents of the requested that the GAL not disclose to her parents certain information she court appointed Marianne A. Hannagan as the GAL for the child. The child In April 2006, the father filed a motion to modify the parenting plan. The
The following facts are undisputed by the parties. The petitioner-father,
sealed guardian ad litem (GAL) report. We affirm.
Sadler, J.) denying the petitioner-father’s request to review a
HICKS, J.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a ruling of the Brentwood
Clark & Sekella, of Manchester, for the respondent, filed no brief. to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: Marianne A. Hannagan, guardian ad litem, by brief and orally, pro se.
Patricia L. DiMeo, of Derry, by brief and orally, for the petitioner.
Opinion Issued: September 25, 2007 Argued: June 20, 2007
BRENDA BUZDEREWICZ
IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT A. KALIL AND
editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes No. 2007-207 Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Brentwood Family Division Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00
well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as information.
2
Guardian ad Litem” on December 2, 2006, which did not include the sealed thereby rendering an order binding upon the parties. stipulation, the father orally agreed to it. The court confirmed the stipulation,
the request. The GAL provided the parties with another “Final Report of the court regarding the father’s request. The court examined the report and denied the provision establishing confidentiality. Although only the mother signed this report itself. On November 11, 2006, the GAL sought instruction from the motion with the court to request approval of the stipulation, which included appeal followed. GAL and the child will be kept confidential. In this case, the GAL filed a sealed report from the court file. The motion was denied and this interlocutory file a stipulation regarding issues such as whether conversations between the When a GAL is appointed, the court requires the parties and the GAL to
Juvenile 2004-789, 153 N.H. 332, 334 (2006). rights. This appeal presents questions of law, which we review de novo. In re whether refusing to allow the father to view the report violated his due process report with the guardian ad litem’s recommendations the child requests that the GAL keep specific information confidential; and (2) rules and, as required by the court, in rendering a can refuse to disclose a sealed GAL report to the parents of a minor child when such information only in accordance with applicable On appeal, the father raises the following issues: (1) whether the court
cover letter, not the report itself, prompting the father to request a copy of the 2006), which states, in relevant part: report. The court denied the request pursuant to RSA 461-A:16, III (Supp. father’s motion to modify the parenting plan. The father moved to strike the The court indicated that it would consider the sealed report in deciding the
. . . to enable the court to make an informed decision.
between themselves and the child and shall disclose Guardians ad litem shall respect communications
court on October 31, 2006. The father and mother received only a copy of the court approved the stipulation. The GAL submitted a sealed final report to the the minor child . . . will be held confidential.” Upon motion by the GAL, the modify the parenting plan, the father again requested disclosure of the October At a hearing held on December 13, 2006, to decide the father’s motion to
provided, among other things, that “[t]he conver[sations] between the GAL and stipulation, signed by the mother and orally agreed to by the father, which stipulations.
3
However, nothing in RSA 461-A:16, III prohibits enforcement of confidentiality
approved stipulation. right to review the sealed report, such a right was waived by the parties’ courtrights. Therefore, even if we were to assume that the father has a due process unlike in Ross, the trial court approved the parties’ stipulation limiting their are not absolute. See Preston v. Mercieri, 1 33 N.H. 36, 40 (1990). In this case, witnesses, to be informed of and to challenge all adverse evidence, such rights recognize that parents have a due process right to be heard, to examine his request to review the report violated his right to due process. Although we applicable rules and [ ] as required by the court,” supports his position. The father relies upon Ross and further argues that the court’s denial of and the child” and to “disclose such information only in accordance with 95. which requires a GAL to “respect [the] communications between themselves a party to and expert witness in custody proceedings.” Ross, 131 N.H. at 394stating that such a privilege would be “incompatible with the guardian’s role as recodified at RSA 461-A:16) created a privilege for GAL communications, stipulation, we refused to rule that RSA 458:17-a (2004) (repealed 2005 and In Ross v. Gadwah, 131 N.H. 391 (1988), a case without a confidentiality
maintain confidential communications. He contends that RSA 461-A:16, III, The father next argues that the GAL lacks statutory authority to
guided by the best interests of the child.”). 2006) (“In determining parental rights and responsibilities, the court shall be confidentiality is in the best interests of the child. See RSA 461-A:6, I (Supp. parties when there is a stipulation which so provides and when such does not preclude the court from keeping portions thereof confidential from the Although Rule 21 3 describes a general procedure for filing GAL reports, it
other individuals requesting access. the envelope before making the file available to any the action and their attorneys. The clerk shall remove Such reports shall be made available only to parties in an envelope marked “CONFIDENTIAL” by the clerk. relations cases involving custody . . . shall be placed in Reports filed by guardians ad litem in domestic
reviewing it. Superior Court Rule 21 3 requires that: although the court may seal a GAL report, it may not prevent the parties from sealed report. The father contends that pursuant to Superior Court Rule 213, stipulation; he nonetheless argues that both parents have a right to view the The father has not objected to the confidentiality provision in the binding 4
concurred. BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS, DUGGAN and GALWAY, JJ.,
Affirmed.
no error in the court’s decision to seal the GAL report. Accordingly, we find the stipulation to be controlling in this case and find