Opinion ID: 1917510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Salem Family Division's Authority to Enforce the Support Order

Text: The father raises twenty-one issues on appeal, including several jurisdictional arguments stemming from his claim that the court's authority to award support pursuant to RSA 458:17 (2004) (now codified at RSA 461-A:14, I (Supp.2009)) is dependent upon its authority to award custody. Therefore, he argues, the support order is unenforceable because in Jeffrey G. we held that the Salem Family Division did not have jurisdiction to award custody of the children to the aunt. DHHS counters that the father's arguments are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel because he failed to appeal the family division's earlier decisions. Alternatively, DHHS argues that support and custody are independent, so that the family division retained authority to enforce the support order. We first address whether the father's failure to appeal the family division's previous rulings bars his jurisdictional arguments in this appeal. Subject matter jurisdiction is [j]urisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought; the extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things. Black's Law Dictionary 931 (9th ed. 2009). In other words, it is a tribunal's authority to adjudicate the type of controversy involved in the action. Shoop v. Kittitas County, 108 Wash.App. 388, 30 P.3d 529, 532 (2001), aff'd on other grounds, 149 Wash.2d 29, 65 P.3d 1194 (2003). A court lacks power to hear or determine a case concerning subject matters over which it has no jurisdiction. Daine v. Daine, 157 N.H. 426, 428, 951 A.2d 133 (2008) (bracket and quotation omitted). A party may challenge subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the proceeding, including on appeal, and may not waive subject matter jurisdiction. Close v. Fisette, 146 N.H. 480, 483, 776 A.2d 131 (2001). Therefore, the father may raise these arguments on appeal. To determine whether the family division had subject matter jurisdiction over the father's support order, we must interpret the relevant statutes. When undertaking statutory interpretation, [w]e first examine the language found in the statute and where possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to words used. Appeal of Garrison Place, 159 N.H. 539, 542, 986 A.2d 670 (2009) (quotation omitted). When a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, we need not look beyond it for further indications of legislative intent. Id. (quotation omitted). Courts can neither ignore the plain language of the legislation nor add words which the lawmakers did not see fit to include. Appeal of Astro Spectacular, 138 N.H. 298, 300, 639 A.2d 249 (1994) (quotation omitted). We interpret statutes not in isolation, but in the context of the overall statutory scheme. Coco v. Jaskunas, 159 N.H. 515, 519, 986 A.2d 531 (2009) (quotation omitted). The plain language of RSA chapter 490-D (Supp. 2009) grants subject matter jurisdiction to the family division over the father's support order. See Daine, 157 N.H. at 427, 951 A.2d 133 (finding court's authority in matters of marriage and divorce is strictly statutory). Pursuant to RSA chapter 490-D, the legislature has granted the family division jurisdiction over [p]etitions for divorce, nullity of marriage, alimony, custody of children, support, and to establish paternity. RSA 490-D:2, I. The family division's authority includes the power to address child support in divorce proceedings. See RSA 458:17. The family division's decrees remain in effect until they are judicially modified, unless the court has provided for earlier cessation of payments or the child support obligation terminates by operation of law. In the Matter of Feddersen & Cannon, 149 N.H. 194, 200, 816 A.2d 1033 (2003). The family division's jurisdiction continues with respect to all subsequent proceedings which arise out of the original cause of action. Daine, 157 N.H. at 427-28, 951 A.2d 133 (quotation omitted). Therefore, the family division retained the ability to modify and enforce the support order. The father, however, argues that our decision in Jeffrey G. terminated his obligation to comply with the support order. We disagree. In Jeffrey G., we only considered whether the family division had statutory authority to award custody of the minor children to the aunt. Moreover, we unequivocally stated that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine custody of the children pursuant to RSA 458:17. Jeffrey G., 153 N.H. at 204, 892 A.2d 1234. We went on to hold that the court did not have authority to grant custody to [the aunt] in this context. Id. at 205, 892 A.2d 1234. This was based on RSA 458:17, VI, which identifies only two classes of third parties, grandparents and stepparents, who may be awarded custody if the court determines that such an award is in the best interests of the child. Id. at 203-04, 892 A.2d 1234 (quotation omitted). Because the aunt did not fall into either of those two classes of third parties, the family division could not award her custody in this case. Id. at 205, 892 A.2d 1234. Our decision did not divest the family division of jurisdiction over the issues of custody or support; we merely held that the family division could not award custody to the aunt. Id. We conclude that the family division retained jurisdiction over the issue of child support after it ceded jurisdiction over the custody dispute to Maine. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, codified at RSA chapter 546-B (2007), governs support orders. It provides that the family division has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order ... [a]s long as this state remains the residence of the obligor. RSA 546-B:7, I. Under the plain language of the statute, a New Hampshire court retains jurisdiction over a child support order even when the children move to a different state. Therefore, although the family division no longer has jurisdiction over custody, it may enforce the support order because the record reflects that the father, the obligor, continues to reside in New Hampshire.