In re McArdle

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a final domestic violence protective order issued against Patrick McArdle under RSA chapter 173-B. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the plaintiff to attest at the hearing to facts in an amended petition and by considering prior incidents of destructive behavior. The court concluded that the defendant’s conduct, including following the plaintiff while carrying an unlit propane torch, constituted criminal threatening and a credible threat to the plaintiff’s safety.

Holdings

1. The Family Division did not err by permitting the plaintiff to attest to the factual allegations in her motion to amend at the commencement of the hearing and then considering those allegations.
2. The defendant received adequate notice of the amended allegations because he received the motion the day before the hearing and the plaintiff attested to the allegations at the start of the hearing.
3. The trial court properly considered the prior incidents because the protective-order decision was based primarily on the recent June 8, 2010 confrontation, while the prior incidents were relevant to whether the defendant committed criminal threatening and posed a credible threat to the plaintiff's safety.
4. A finding of abuse under RSA chapter 173-B does not require proof that the defendant committed a violent act against the plaintiff; criminal threatening combined with a credible threat to the plaintiff's safety is sufficient.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Family Division could waive its rule requiring factual allegations supporting a motion to be verified by affidavit when the plaintiff received notice of the allegations and attested to them at the hearing.
2. Whether admitting and considering the amended allegations violated the defendant's right to advance notice.
3. Whether prior incidents were too remote in time to support a finding of abuse or a credible threat to the plaintiff's safety under RSA chapter 173-B.
4. Whether criminal threatening and a credible threat to the plaintiff's safety can establish domestic-violence abuse without proof that the defendant committed a violent act against the plaintiff.

Disposition

affirmed