UAGPPJA Is the Exclusive Basis for Adult Guardianship Jurisdiction in New Hampshire; “Home State” Is Determined by Physical Presence and a Respondent’s Objection Defeats Significant‑Connection Jurisdiction

Introduction

This case addresses whether a New Hampshire court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over an adult guardianship petition when the respondent has been living in another state. K.S., a New Hampshire native who suffered a traumatic brain injury, had resided continuously in Maine since 2019—first with her boyfriend and then in residential rehabilitation. In 2024, New Hampshire service provider One Sky Community Services petitioned in New Hampshire to appoint a guardian over K.S.’s person, anticipating her possible return due to an impending eviction in Maine. The circuit court denied K.S.’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and venue and appointed the Office of Public Guardian as guardian.

On appeal, K.S. challenged the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and its incapacity/least‑restrictive‑means findings. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss, holding that the UAGPPJA—codified in New Hampshire at RSA chapter 464‑C—governs interstate jurisdiction for adult guardianship and that New Hampshire lacked jurisdiction because Maine was K.S.’s home state and no significant‑connection path was available in light of her objection.

Summary of the Opinion

• Exclusive jurisdictional framework: The Court held that RSA chapter 464‑C (UAGPPJA) supplies the exclusive basis for determining whether New Hampshire has subject matter jurisdiction over an adult guardianship involving multiple states (RSA 464‑C:8). RSA chapter 464‑A governs substantive and procedural matters only after jurisdiction is properly established under chapter 464‑C.
• Home state = physical presence: Applying RSA 464‑C:7 and :9, the Court concluded that Maine was K.S.’s “home state” because she had been physically present there for far more than six consecutive months immediately before the filing. Factors the trial court considered—such as New Hampshire Medicaid funding, absence of Maine identification, or the involuntariness of her out-of-state placement—were irrelevant to the UAGPPJA’s home‑state analysis, which turns on physical presence.
• No significant‑connection jurisdiction: The alternative basis under RSA 464‑C:9, II also failed. Subsection II(a) did not apply because the home state (Maine) had not declined jurisdiction. Subsection II(b) failed because K.S., a person required to receive notice, objected to New Hampshire’s jurisdiction via a motion to dismiss (RSA 464‑C:9, II(b)(2); RSA 464‑A:5).
• Disposition: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is dispositive; the Court vacated the guardianship orders and remanded for dismissal without reaching incapacity or least‑restrictive‑means issues.

Analysis

1. Precedents and Authorities Cited

• In re Guardianship of K.B., 172 N.H. 646 (2019): Cited for fundamental principles of subject matter jurisdiction (cannot be waived, may be raised at any time, and may be raised sua sponte) and for de novo review of statutory jurisdiction questions. Also used to illustrate the interpretive approach to uniform jurisdictional statutes (there, the UCCJEA; here, the UAGPPJA).
• In re Guardianship of D.E., 176 N.H. 284 (2023): Cited for de novo review of jurisdictional questions and statutory construction methodology, reinforcing that the court interprets the scope of jurisdiction granted by statute.
• UAGPPJA Comments: The Court relied on official comments distinguishing UAGPPJA’s “home state” definition from UCCJEA’s “lived” standard and emphasizing that actual physical presence—rather than domicile—controls to avoid overlapping claims by multiple states. The comments also note the six‑month period is assessed as of the filing date and that a respondent will have only one home state at a time.
• In re Estate of Kevin Lee Hanson, 848 S.E.2d 204 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020): Persuasive authority supporting the proposition that significant‑connection jurisdiction is unavailable when a person required to receive notice files an objection to jurisdiction.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) RSA chapter 464‑C controls interstate jurisdiction; RSA chapter 464‑A is not the gateway. The trial court and parties had looked to RSA 464‑A:3 (probate court jurisdiction/venue and residence concepts) to decide whether New Hampshire could hear the petition. The Supreme Court clarified that this was the wrong entry point. RSA 464‑C:8 states that chapter 464‑C “provides the exclusive jurisdictional basis” for cases within its ambit. Accordingly, whether a New Hampshire court can adjudicate an adult guardianship involving another state is answered by RSA 464‑C, not by the residence and venue rules in RSA 464‑A:3. The latter apply only after chapter 464‑C establishes that New Hampshire is the proper forum.

b) Home state under RSA 464‑C:7 and :9 is determined by physical presence. The UAGPPJA defines “home state” as the state where the respondent was physically present for at least six consecutive months immediately before the filing (or a slightly modified window if there is no such state). The Court emphasized, consistent with the UAGPPJA commentary, that “actual physical presence is necessary.” Domicile, intent, benefits source, and identification documents do not control. Here, K.S. had been physically present in Maine since 2019, easily satisfying the six‑month requirement. Therefore, Maine was the home state, and New Hampshire lacked home‑state jurisdiction under RSA 464‑C:9, I.

c) Significant‑connection jurisdiction (RSA 464‑C:9, II) was unavailable on two grounds.

• Subsection II(a) allows jurisdiction in a significant‑connection state only if the respondent has no home state, or if the home state declines jurisdiction as a more appropriate forum. Because Maine was the home state and had not declined jurisdiction, II(a) did not apply.
• Subsection II(b) allows jurisdiction in a significant‑connection state when, among other conditions, before the appointment: “An objection to the court’s jurisdiction is not filed by a person required to be notified of the proceeding” (RSA 464‑C:9, II(b)(2)). Incorporating RSA 464‑A:5’s notice provisions, the Court held that K.S.—the respondent—was a required‑notice party, and her motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction constituted an objection. This independently defeated significant‑connection jurisdiction. The Georgia Hanson case reinforced this reading.

d) Result: No subject matter jurisdiction; orders vacated and case dismissed. Because jurisdiction under chapter 464‑C was lacking, the Court did not reach the merits (incapacity or least‑restrictive alternatives under RSA 464‑A:9). The lack of subject matter jurisdiction compelled vacatur and remand with instructions to dismiss.

3. Why the Court Rejected the Trial Court’s Approach

The trial court’s narrative order relied on RSA 464‑A:3 and “residency” concepts to maintain New Hampshire jurisdiction, pointing to K.S.’s New Hampshire Medicaid funding, the absence of Maine identification, and the involuntary character of her stay in Maine. The Supreme Court held these factors are legally irrelevant to the UAGPPJA’s home‑state determination, which focuses strictly on six months of physical presence as of filing. Moreover, because RSA 464‑C supplies an exclusive interstate jurisdictional framework, the residence/venue provisions in RSA 464‑A:3 cannot bootstrap subject matter jurisdiction that chapter 464‑C withholds.

4. Impact and Forward-Looking Considerations

• Clear jurisdictional roadmap for multi-state adult guardianships: Courts and practitioners must begin with RSA chapter 464‑C to determine interstate jurisdiction. Only after New Hampshire is properly selected as the forum under chapter 464‑C should courts proceed under RSA chapter 464‑A to address substantive guardianship standards.
• Physical presence controls the “home state” inquiry: Agencies and families cannot rely on domiciliary intent, funding source (e.g., New Hampshire Medicaid), or identification documents to keep a case in New Hampshire if the respondent has been physically present elsewhere for the statutory period. Extended out‑of‑state placements, even when driven by service availability, will likely shift the home state.
• Respondent’s objection is outcome‑determinative for significant‑connection jurisdiction: When the respondent (or any person required to receive notice) objects to New Hampshire’s jurisdiction, RSA 464‑C:9, II(b)(2) forecloses the significant‑connection path unless the home state declines under II(a). Strategic and ethical practice requires addressing objections and, where appropriate, seeking a declination from the home state rather than proceeding in New Hampshire.
• Comity and one‑court-at‑a‑time principle: The decision advances uniformity and comity by preventing competing guardianship orders across states, echoing the UCCJEA’s structure in the child custody context.
• Procedural sequencing and risk management: Trial courts should resolve chapter 464‑C jurisdiction at the outset. Petitioners concerned about urgent care or risk should consider the appropriate jurisdictional tools recognized by the UAGPPJA (and coordinate with the home state) rather than proceeding on an incorrect assumption of New Hampshire “residency.”

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Subject matter jurisdiction: A court’s power to hear a particular kind of case. It cannot be waived and may be challenged at any time. If lacking, the court must dismiss.
• Interstate jurisdiction vs. venue: Interstate jurisdiction (which state’s courts may act) in adult guardianship is governed by RSA 464‑C. Venue (which county within a state) and other procedural rules in RSA 464‑A come into play only after chapter 464‑C identifies the proper state forum.
• Home state (RSA 464‑C:7, :9): The state where the respondent was physically present for at least six consecutive months immediately before filing (allowing for temporary absences). This is a bright‑line, presence‑based test. Domicile, intent, funding, or ID are not part of the analysis.
• Significant‑connection state (RSA 464‑C:7, :9): A state with substantial ties to the respondent (e.g., family, services, property). Even then, New Hampshire may proceed only if the home state declines as a more appropriate forum, or if concrete conditions are met—including no objection by any required‑notice party.
• Required‑notice parties (RSA 464‑A:5): The respondent and other specified persons must receive notice of a guardianship proceeding. Their objections matter; under RSA 464‑C:9, II(b)(2), any such objection blocks significant‑connection jurisdiction.
• Temporary absence: Short periods away from a state do not break the six‑month continuity for home‑state status. But multi‑year residence in another state, as here, makes that other state the home state.

Practical Guidance for Practitioners and Courts

• Always start with RSA 464‑C: Before filing or hearing an adult guardianship with any interstate component, analyze home state and significant‑connection jurisdiction under RSA 464‑C:7–:12.
• Document physical presence: Build a clear record of where the respondent physically resided in the six months immediately preceding the petition. This will often be dispositive.
• Check for objections and pending cases: Confirm whether any required‑notice party has objected and whether any petitions are pending in the home state or another significant‑connection state. An objection by the respondent or another required‑notice party will defeat RSA 464‑C:9, II(b) jurisdiction.
• Coordinate with the home state: If New Hampshire is not the home state but has significant ties, consider approaching the home state to request a declination of jurisdiction under RSA 464‑C:9, II(a) if New Hampshire is a more appropriate forum. Absent declination, New Hampshire cannot proceed.
• Do not conflate residency/benefits with jurisdiction: Medicaid funding, driver’s licenses, or historical New Hampshire ties do not substitute for physical presence in the UAGPPJA home‑state analysis.
• Sequence merits after jurisdiction: Courts should decide jurisdiction under RSA 464‑C before taking evidence on incapacity, necessity, or least‑restrictive alternatives under RSA 464‑A.

Conclusion

In re Guardianship of K.S. makes explicit that RSA chapter 464‑C (UAGPPJA) is the exclusive gatekeeper for adult guardianship jurisdiction in New Hampshire. The decision cements three core principles: (1) home‑state jurisdiction is determined by the respondent’s physical presence for six months immediately pre‑filing; (2) factors like domicile, funding source, or identification are immaterial to that determination; and (3) significant‑connection jurisdiction cannot be used when the home state has not declined jurisdiction and a person required to receive notice—here, the respondent—objects in New Hampshire. The Court’s vacatur and dismissal underscore that subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental and must be resolved before any merits inquiry. Going forward, petitioners and trial courts must chart their course through RSA 464‑C, not RSA 464‑A, when a respondent’s life crosses state lines, thereby advancing uniformity, comity, and clarity in adult guardianship proceedings.