In the Matter of Aquil Eaglin and Kelli MacDonald ( 2016 )

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0617, In the Matter of Aquil Eaglin and
Kelli MacDonald, the court on June 14, 2016, issued the
following order:
Having considered the briefs and limited record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.
The petitioner, Aquil Eaglin (father), appeals the order of the Circuit
Court (Zucker, R., approved by Carbon, J.) ordering him to pay child support to
the respondent, Kelli MacDonald (mother). The father argues that given the
parties’ equal parenting time, it would be more equitable for each party to pay
child care expenses incurred while the child is in his or her care, and for the
parties to share equally in expenses relating to sports or other extra-curricular
activities.
The trial court found $117 per week to be the presumptively correct
amount of child support due from the father according to the guidelines, but it
ordered a downward deviation to $100 per week effective September 15, 2015,
with each party responsible for child care expenses and other costs incurred
while the child is in his or her care. The mother is responsible for the expenses
of routine extra-curricular activities. The court ordered the parties to share in
the enrollment decisions and costs of any major outlays such as camps. The
court ordered each party to be responsible for 50 percent of uninsured medical
expenses.
The trial court ordered the Division of Child Support Services to calculate
the father’s arrearages based upon the temporary child support orders of
March 12, 2010, June 12, 2015, and July 30, 2015, with a credit for child
support payments of $17,410.97. The court ordered the father to pay on the
arrearages at the rate of $30 per week.
It is the burden of the appealing party, here the father, to provide this
court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on appeal. See Bean v. Red
Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004); see also Sup. Ct. R. 13. Each of
the issues raised by the father contains factual components and challenges the
weight given by the trial court to the evidence presented. See Sup. Ct. R. 15(3)
(“If the moving party intends to argue in the supreme court that a finding or
conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, he
shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding
or conclusion.”).
On September 9, 2015, the court held a child support hearing. Absent a
transcript of the hearing, we must assume that the evidence was sufficient to
support the decision reached. See Atwood v. Owens, 142 N.H. 396, 396 (1997);
see also, e.g., Town of Nottingham v. Newman, 147 N.H. 131, 137 (2001) (rules
of appellate practice not relaxed for self-represented litigants). Accordingly, we
review the trial court’s decision for errors of law only, see Atwood, 142 N.H. at
397, and find none.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2