In the Matter of Haley St. Pierre and Adam Thatcher

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed an order allowing Haley St. Pierre to relocate with her child to Florida after the trial court rescinded Adam Thatcher’s paternity affidavit and recognized Colby Santaw as the biological father. The court held that St. Pierre’s filing adequately challenged the affidavit despite its caption and that the evidence supported a material mistake of fact based on genetic testing and the parties’ mistaken beliefs regarding paternity. The court also upheld the trial court’s equitable and custody-related determinations concerning relocation and parenting responsibilities.

Holdings

1. A self-represented petition seeking removal of the presumed father's name from the birth certificate, recognition of the biological father, and custody relief adequately challenged the affidavit of paternity even though it was styled as a petition to change a court order rather than a motion to rescind or disestablish paternity.
2. Under New Hampshire law, an affidavit of paternity does not become irrebuttable merely because it was not challenged within a prescribed period; it may be rescinded under RSA 5-C:28 and challenged with genetic evidence.
3. The evidence supported rescission of the affidavit because Thatcher and St. Pierre executed it under a material mistake of fact regarding the child's biological paternity.
4. The trial court properly authorized St. Pierre to relocate with the child to Florida because the relocation served a legitimate purpose, Florida was reasonable in light of that purpose, and Thatcher did not prove that relocation was contrary to the child's best interests.
5. The trial court did not err by failing to separately analyze Thatcher's counterclaim under each RSA 461-A:6 best-interests factor because the order impliedly considered his request and expressly considered the child's best interests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether St. Pierre's self-represented petition adequately challenged the affidavit of paternity despite not being styled as a motion to rescind or disestablish paternity.
2. Whether an affidavit of paternity executed in New Hampshire could be challenged through genetic evidence after the 60-day rescission period.
3. Whether the evidence established a material mistake of fact sufficient to rescind the affidavit of paternity.
4. Whether the trial court properly authorized relocation of the child to Florida under RSA 461-A:12.
5. Whether the trial court adequately considered Thatcher's request for primary physical responsibility and the child's best interests.

Disposition

affirmed