The New Hampshire Supreme Court vacated a guardianship order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss, ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the proceeding in *In re Guardianship of K.S.* The decision, issued Nov. 7, 2025, addresses fundamental questions about jurisdictional requirements in adult guardianship cases.
The case involved K.S., a New Hampshire native who suffered a traumatic brain injury and subsequently began receiving case management services from One Sky Community Services of Portsmouth. The organization petitioned for guardianship over K.S.'s person, but the respondent challenged both the court's jurisdiction and the necessity of the guardianship arrangement.
K.S. had been living in Maine since 2019 with her boyfriend, and in August 2020, she entered a residential facility in Maine after One Sky Community Services struggled to find an adequate rehabilitative program in New Hampshire. This interstate living arrangement became central to the jurisdictional dispute.
The Circuit Court, with Judge Quigley presiding, initially denied K.S.'s motion to dismiss the guardianship petition and subsequently appointed a guardian over her person. K.S. appealed both orders, arguing that the trial court erred in finding it had proper jurisdiction and venue over her guardianship proceeding.
Additionally, K.S. challenged the court's determination that she was incapacitated and that a guardianship was necessary and represented the least restrictive alternative under RSA 464-A:9, III(a)-(d). This statute requires courts to consider whether guardianship is the least restrictive means of addressing an individual's needs while protecting their civil rights and liberties.
Justice Donovan authored the Supreme Court's opinion, which focused primarily on the jurisdictional issue. The court concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the guardianship proceeding, making it unnecessary to address K.S.'s arguments regarding her capacity and the necessity of the guardianship.
The jurisdictional question in guardianship cases typically centers on where the proposed ward resides or is physically present, as well as where their property is located. Courts must have proper jurisdiction before they can exercise authority over guardianship matters, and this requirement serves as a fundamental protection for individuals facing potential loss of autonomy.
One Sky Community Services was represented by Alexandra Rappaport, who presented arguments both in written briefs and during oral arguments held Oct. 9, 2025. K.S. was represented by Amy B. Davidson of Contoocook, who successfully challenged the lower court's jurisdiction.
The case highlights the complexities that arise in guardianship proceedings when individuals move across state lines, particularly those receiving services for disabilities or brain injuries. When someone begins receiving services in one state but later relocates to another, questions of which court has proper authority can become complicated.
Guardianship proceedings are among the most serious civil matters in the legal system because they can result in the loss of fundamental rights, including the right to make decisions about one's living situation, medical care, and financial affairs. Courts are required to ensure they have proper jurisdiction before making such determinations.
The Supreme Court's decision to vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss means that One Sky Community Services cannot proceed with the guardianship petition in New Hampshire courts. If the organization believes guardianship is still necessary, it would need to file in a court with proper jurisdiction, likely in Maine where K.S. was residing.
The ruling reinforces the importance of jurisdictional requirements in guardianship cases and serves as a reminder that courts must carefully examine their authority before proceeding with matters that significantly impact individual liberty and autonomy.
This case also demonstrates the appellate process working as intended, with the Supreme Court providing oversight to ensure lower courts operate within their proper authority. The decision protects K.S.'s rights while maintaining the integrity of the judicial system's jurisdictional framework.
The opinion was argued before the New Hampshire Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2025, and decided on Nov. 7, 2025. The case originated in the 10th Circuit Court-Brentwood Probate Division under Case No. 2024-0467.
As is standard with New Hampshire Supreme Court opinions, this decision is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 and formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. The court encourages readers to report any editorial errors to ensure accuracy in the final published version.