Balancing Child Welfare, Abduction Risk, and Cryptocurrency Gains: Discretion in Parenting Time and Property Division

Introduction

In In the Matter of Jonathan Kent and Lei Luo (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, May 2, 2025), the New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed a complex divorce involving high-value cryptocurrency assets, domestic violence charges, and a credible risk of parental child abduction. The petitioner, Jonathan Kent (“Husband”), and respondent, Lei Luo (“Wife”), were married in 2010 and had two minor children. The trial court’s final decree included (1) an unequal division of marital property—largely driven by Husband’s cryptocurrency gains and contributions to Wife’s education—and (2) a phased parenting plan balancing the children’s best interests against the risk of their removal to China. Both parties appealed aspects of property division and parenting time. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s broad exercise of discretion on both issues.

Summary of the Judgment

The trial court awarded Husband 54.25% and Wife 45.75% of the marital estate, citing Husband’s substantial cryptocurrency windfall and contributions to Wife’s education as grounds to deviate from an equal split.
A multi‐step parenting plan was imposed: supervised visits yielded to limited unsupervised time with one child at a time, advancing to fully shared parenting when the younger child turns eleven. Significant portions of Wife’s asset share were placed in trust to guard against potential abduction.
On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial court acted within its broad discretion in both property division and crafting a nuanced parenting schedule, and that the record provided an objective basis for the findings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In the Matter of Braunstein & Braunstein, 173 N.H. 38 (2020): Established that trial courts have broad discretion in divorce decrees, including property division and parenting matters.
In the Matter of Kempton & Kempton, 167 N.H. 785 (2015): Reaffirmed deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and evidentiary weight.
In the Matter of Heinrich & Heinrich, 164 N.H. 357 (2012): Held that appellate courts will not reweigh equities or substitute their judgment for that of the trial court.
In the Matter of Dube & Dube, 163 N.H. 575 (2012): Clarified the requirement to state written reasons and specific findings when deviating from equal property division under RSA 458:16-a.
Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321 (1993): Limited further discussion on arguments deemed without merit.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court applied the well-known standard of review for divorce decrees: appellate courts will not overturn a trial court’s discretionary rulings unless there is an “unsustainable exercise of discretion.” Under RSA 458:16-a, the trial court presumes equal division of property but may deviate based on factors such as contributions to property growth (RSA 458:16-a, II(f)) and support of the other spouse’s education (RSA 458:16-a, II(h)). The trial court cited Husband’s cryptocurrency gains (“roughly 98%” capital appreciation) and his educational contributions to Wife as statutory grounds for an unequal split. It provided written findings, satisfying RSA 458:16-a, IV.

On parenting, the court balanced two competing risks: the harm from continued supervised visits—found to undermine the mother‐child bond—and the credible threat of abduction to China. It crafted a phased plan increasing unsupervised time in step with the children’s ages and immobilized assets via trust to deter removal. The Supreme Court found testimony—Wife’s reports of confusion and distress under supervision—to provide an objective basis for this tailoring.

Impact

This decision reinforces several key principles:

Trial courts retain broad discretion to tailor parenting plans when faced with unique risks—such as international abduction—so long as their findings are supported by evidence and serve the children’s best interests.
Cryptocurrency assets, like any other marital property, are subject to equitable division; substantial capital gains during marriage may justify an unequal split where the investing spouse’s actions contributed significantly to marital wealth.
Use of trusts or other financial safeguards to mitigate abduction risk is a viable tool in family law, reflecting an innovative intersection of asset protection and child welfare.

Future litigants and courts will look to this case when addressing high-value digital assets and crafting nuanced parenting arrangements under credible abduction threats.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Unsustainable Exercise of Discretion: A standard of review meaning the appellate court will not overturn a trial judge’s decision unless it is arbitrary or lacks any reasonable support in the record.
Equitable Division vs. Equal Division: “Equal” means 50/50; “equitable” means fair under the circumstances. Statutory factors allow courts to move away from a strict 50/50 split when justified.
Guardian ad Litem (GAL): An independent attorney or expert appointed by the court to represent the children’s interests in custody disputes.
International Abduction Risk: A scenario in which one parent may take children across borders without consent—a factor the court may weigh heavily in structuring parenting time and financial safeguards.
Trust Formation for Asset Safeguarding: Placing assets in a controlled trust that restricts access until certain conditions are met—in this case, a child’s age milestone—to deter misuse or removal of funds.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire’s ruling in In the Matter of Jonathan Kent and Lei Luo underscores the breadth of judicial discretion in divorce proceedings involving novel financial and custodial challenges. By affirming an unequal property division rooted in cryptocurrency gains and a phased parenting plan that mitigates both emotional harm and abduction risk, the court provides a blueprint for future cases. This decision solidifies the principle that trial courts may employ creative, evidence-based solutions to safeguard children’s welfare while ensuring just distribution of marital assets.