Custody in New Hampshire.
The starting point the law actually sets, what the judge has to weigh, and the deadlines that catch people out.
See a different stateNew Hampshire
New Hampshire presumes joint DECISION-MAKING, and separately requires the court to justify any schedule that is not roughly equal — but that second rule is a findings requirement, not a presumption. On decision-making, RSA 461-A:5 provides: "Except as provided in paragraph III, in the making of any order relative to decision-making responsibility, there shall be a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint decision-making responsibility is in the best interest of minor children" where the parents have agreed to it, or upon the application of either parent, in which case "it may be awarded at the discretion of the court." In either situation, "[i]f the court declines to enter an order awarding joint decision-making responsibility, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for the denial." On TIME, RSA 461-A:6, I-a (added by 2024, 262:2, effective January 1, 2025) provides: "If the court concludes that approximately equal parenting time between each child and both parents is not in the best interest of the child, the court shall make findings supporting its order." That is a duty to explain, not a presumption of 50/50, and it is important not to confuse the two. The state policy in RSA 461-A:2, I(a), amended at the same time, is "[t]o encourage approximately equal parenting time between each child and both parents if it is in the best interest of the child." Note the conditional: "if it is in the best interest of the child."
Use the state’s own words
New Hampshire abolished "custody" language in 2005. The statutory terms in RSA chapter 461-A are "parental rights and responsibilities" (RSA 461-A:1, V: "all rights and responsibilities parents have concerning their child"), "decision-making responsibility" (RSA 461-A:1, II: "the responsibility to make decisions for the child"), "residential responsibility" (RSA 461-A:1, IX: "a parent's responsibility to provide a home for the child"), "parenting plan," and "parenting schedule." RSA 461-A:20 converts the old words: "Any provision of law that refers to the 'custody' of minor children shall mean the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities as provided in this chapter. Any provision of law which refers to a 'custodial parent' shall mean a parent with 50 percent or more of the residential responsibility and any reference to a non-custodial parent shall mean a parent with less than 50 percent of the residential responsibility."
How New Hampshire decides
Decisions against where the child lives
New Hampshire splits them as "decision-making responsibility" and "residential responsibility," and they are allocated separately in the parenting plan. Decision-making may cover "all issues or . . . specified issues," so a court can give one parent final say on, for example, medical decisions while the rest stays joint. Residential responsibility is the parent's responsibility to provide a home, expressed as a percentage of time in the parenting schedule.
What the judge must weigh
RSA 461-A:6, I lists factors (a) through (m): (a) the relationship of the child with each parent and each parent's ability to provide nurture, love, affection, and guidance; (b) each parent's ability to assure the child receives adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a safe environment; (c) the child's developmental needs and each parent's ability to meet them, now and in the future; (d) the quality of the child's adjustment to school and community and the potential effect of any change; (e) the ability and disposition of each parent to foster a positive relationship and frequent and continuing physical, written, and telephonic contact with the other parent, including whether contact is likely to result in harm to the child or to a parent; (f) each parent's support for the child's contact with the other parent as shown by allowing and promoting such contact, including whether contact is likely to result in harm; (g) each parent's support for the child's relationship with the other parent, including whether contact is likely to result in harm; (h) the relationship of the child with any other person who may significantly affect the child; (i) the parents' ability to communicate, cooperate with each other, and make joint decisions concerning the children, including whether contact is likely to result in harm; (j) any evidence of abuse as defined in RSA 173-B:1, I or RSA 169-C:3, II, and the impact of the abuse on the child and on the relationship between the child and the abusing parent; (k) if a parent is incarcerated, the reason for and length of the incarceration and any unique issues that arise as a result; (l) the state policy in RSA 461-A:2; and (m) any other additional factors the court deems relevant. RSA 461-A:6, III bars any preference "for one parent over the other because of the sex of the child, the sex of a parent, or the financial resources of a parent."
What the child wants
There is no minimum age, but there is a standard of proof. RSA 461-A:6, II: "If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a minor child is of sufficient maturity to make a sound judgment, the court may give substantial weight to the preference of the mature minor child as to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities. Under these circumstances, the court shall also give due consideration to other factors which may have affected the minor child's preference, including whether the minor child's preference was based on undesirable or improper influences." The same language appears at RSA 461-A:11, I(e) for modifications, where the preference concerns "the parent with whom he or she wants to live." The court must first be convinced, by clear and convincing evidence, that this child is mature enough — and it will look hard at whether a parent influenced the child.
Where there has been violence or abuse
RSA 461-A:5, III: "Where the court finds that abuse as defined in RSA 173-B:1, I has occurred, the court shall consider such abuse as harmful to children and as evidence in determining whether joint decision-making responsibility is appropriate. In such cases, the court shall make orders for the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities that best protect the children or the abused spouse or both. If joint decision-making responsibility is granted despite evidence of abuse, the court shall provide written findings to support the order." That last sentence is the teeth: a judge who orders joint decision-making anyway must write out why. Abuse is also a mandatory best-interest factor under RSA 461-A:6, I(j), and several other factors ask whether contact "is likely to result in harm to the child or to a parent." RSA 461-A:6, IV lets the court prohibit contact between a parent convicted of sexual assault, or found by a court to have committed sexual abuse against the parent's minor child or stepchild, and the victim and the victim's siblings and step-siblings. RSA 461-A:6, IV(a) protects a parent who reports in good faith: a parent who makes a good faith allegation based on a reasonable belief supported by facts that the child is a victim of physical abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse by the other parent, and who acts lawfully and in good faith to protect or get treatment for the child, "shall not be deprived of parenting time, or contact with the child based on reasonable actions taken in accordance with that belief." RSA 461-A:4, V allows the court to order supervised visitation at a visitation center with a metal detection device and trained security personnel on site.
The paperwork and the people
The parenting plan
Yes. RSA 461-A:4, I: "In any proceeding to establish or modify a judgment providing for parenting time with a child, except for matters filed under RSA 173-B, the parents shall develop and file with the court a parenting plan to be included in the court's decree. If the parents are unable to develop a parenting plan, the court may develop it." RSA 461-A:4, II lists what a plan may include: decision-making responsibility and residential responsibility; information sharing and access, including telephone and electronic access; legal residence of the child for school attendance; the parenting schedule, including holiday, birthday, and vacation planning and weekends; transportation and exchange of the child; relocation of parents; a procedure for review and adjustment including the RSA 461-A:11 grounds for modification; and methods for resolving disputes. RSA 461-A:4, VI requires that "[e]ach parenting plan shall include a detailed parenting schedule for the child, specifying the periods when each parent has residential responsibility or non-residential parenting time," and then draws a hard line: "Neither parent shall be described as having the child 'reside primarily' with him or her or as having 'primary residential responsibility' or 'custody' or be designated as the 'primary residential parent.'" We could not confirm the name or link of an official New Hampshire form; the Circuit Court Family Division publishes one, so ask the clerk for the current version.
Mediation
Not automatically. RSA 461-A:7, III provides that "[i]n all cases involving disputed parental rights and responsibilities or grandparents' visitation rights, including requests for modification of prior orders, the court MAY order the parties to participate in mediation." If ordered, all issues in the case get mediated, including child support, property, and alimony, unless the court orders otherwise. RSA 461-A:7, IV lists reasons the court may decline to order mediation, including undue hardship to a party, an agreement for alternate dispute resolution, an allegation of abuse or neglect of the child, a finding of alcoholism or drug abuse unless all parties agree, an allegation of serious psychological or emotional abuse, and the lack of an available suitable mediator within a reasonable time. The domestic violence rule is stronger and mandatory: RSA 461-A:7, V provides that "[t]he court shall not order mediation if there is a finding of domestic violence as defined in RSA 173-B:1, unless all parties agree to mediation." RSA 461-A:7, X provides a state-funded fee where both parties are indigent, paid from the mediation and arbitration fund.
If the court appoints someone to look into it
RSA 461-A:16 governs guardians ad litem: "In contested proceedings under RSA 461-A, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor child when the court has reason for special concern regarding the welfare of the child. The role of the guardian ad litem shall be to gather information to assist the court in determining the best interests of the child." The court weighs the wishes of the parties, the age of the child, the nature and contentiousness of the proceeding, the financial resources of the parties, how much a guardian would help, whether the family has a history of domestic abuse, abuse of the child by one of the parties, the child's educational needs, and any other relevant factors. The court must specify the issues the guardian will address, and RSA 461-A:16, I-c requires the guardian to file a report no later than the final pretrial hearing — a report that "shall not propose" an allocation of decision-making responsibility, a parenting plan, or a specific parenting schedule unless the court specifically asks. On cost, RSA 461-A:17 is blunt: "The judicial council shall have no responsibility for the payment of the costs of a mediator or guardian ad litem for any party under this chapter." In other words, the parents pay.
Moving away
What you must do before you move
RSA 461-A:12, and it has an unusually strict opening rule. The section applies to the relocation of any residence in which the child resides at least 150 days a year, and it does not apply if the relocation puts the parent closer to the other parent or anywhere within the child's current school district. RSA 461-A:12, II-a states plainly: "A parent shall not relocate a child without a court order unless relocation is necessary to protect the safety of the parent or child, or both." Notice: "Prior to relocating, the parent shall provide reasonable notice to the other parent. For purposes of this section, 60 days notice shall be presumed to be reasonable unless other factors are found to be present, or the parents have a written agreement to the contrary," with shorter notice justified by safety or by the current home becoming unavailable through circumstances beyond the parent's control. At either parent's request the court shall hold a hearing, within 30 days of the request in an open case or within 30 days of service of a petition to reopen a closed case. The burden is split: under RSA 461-A:12, V the relocating parent must first show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that "[t]he relocation is for a legitimate purpose" and that "[t]he proposed location is reasonable in light of that purpose"; if that is met, RSA 461-A:12, VI shifts the burden to the other parent to prove by a preponderance that the move is not in the child's best interest. Two protective rules follow: the court "shall not give undue weight" to a temporary relocation it authorized, and it "shall not consider whether the parent seeking to relocate has declared that he or she will not relocate if relocation of the child is denied."
Later on
Changing the order
RSA 461-A:11, I sets out nine separate routes, and there is no single "substantial change" test. The court may modify a permanent order where: (a) the parties agree; (b) the court finds "repeated, intentional, and unwarranted interference by a parent with the residential responsibilities of the other parent," in which case it may change parental rights and responsibilities "without the necessity of showing harm to the child" if the change is in the child's best interests; (c) the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child's present environment is detrimental to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health and the advantage of modifying outweighs the harm of a change in environment; (d) the parties have substantially equal periods of residential responsibility and either a party asserts or the court finds "the original allocation . . . is not working," in which case best interest alone supports a change; (e) the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a mature minor child prefers to live with the other parent; (f) the modification makes a minimal change or no change in the allocation of parenting time and is in the child's best interests; (g) parenting time was based on travel time between homes and the parents now live closer or farther apart such that the order is no longer in the child's best interest; (h) parenting time was based on a work schedule that has substantially changed; or (i) parenting time was based in whole or in part on the young age of the child, in which case the court may modify on best interest alone "provided that the request is at least 5 years after the prior order." That five-year wait applies only to route (i). RSA 461-A:11, III puts the burden of proof on the moving party.
If you were never married
The same chapter applies. RSA 461-A:3, II provides that "[i]n cases where husband and wife or unwed parents are living apart, the court, upon petition of either party, may make such order as to parental rights and responsibilities and support of the children as justice may require," and all provisions of chapter 461-A apply to those proceedings. So an unmarried parent files a parenting petition and gets the same parenting plan, the same RSA 461-A:6 factors, and the same joint decision-making presumption. We did not separately confirm whether an unmarried father must establish paternity before filing a parenting petition in New Hampshire; if paternity is disputed, expect it to be resolved first, and ask the Circuit Court Family Division clerk about the correct petition to file.
The most surprising rule in New Hampshire is that your parenting plan is forbidden from calling either of you the primary parent. RSA 461-A:4, VI says neither parent may be described as having the child "reside primarily" with them, or as having "primary residential responsibility" or "custody," or be designated the "primary residential parent." If you file a proposed plan using those words, expect it to come back. The second surprise, and a good one for parents seeking more time: since January 1, 2025, if a New Hampshire judge decides that approximately equal parenting time is not right for your child, the judge has to write findings explaining why. That is not the same as a 50/50 presumption, and anyone telling you New Hampshire now defaults to equal time is overstating it — but it does mean a judge cannot simply hand down an every-other-weekend order without explanation. Third, take the relocation rule seriously: New Hampshire law says a parent shall not relocate a child without a court order unless it is necessary for safety, and 60 days' notice is the presumed standard.
What we could not confirm
- We could not confirm the name or current link of New Hampshire's official parenting plan form; the Circuit Court Family Division publishes one, so ask the clerk rather than using a copy found elsewhere. We also did not confirm whether an unmarried father must establish paternity before filing a parenting petition.
Compare all fifty states
Where 50/50 really is the default, and the twenty-six states where nothing is presumed.
And the money side
How New Hampshire calculates child support, and the overnight number that changes it.
The rest of what we have written about New Hampshire. Every figure is quoted from New Hampshire’s own statute or its courts’ own published schedule, and carries the date we last checked it.