We have yet to determine whether a party may limit the scope of an appeal to the superior court when seeking de novo review of the dispositional order only, and, without sufficient briefing on this issue, we decline to resolve it. See In re Juvenile 2003–604–A, 151 N.H. 719, 721, 871 A.2d 62 (2005) (declining to review inadequately briefed argument). In any event, Father could not have appealed to the superior court the trial court's post-dispositional order denying his request to regain custody of his children.
We will not consider what the legislature might have said or add words that the legislature did not include." In re Juvenile 2003-604-A, 151 N.H. 719, 720 (2005) (citation omitted). We find RSA 482-A:3, I, to be ambiguous in that the word "remove" has no obvious direct object.
We conclude that these arguments were not adequately briefed and, therefore, decline to address them. See In re Juvenile 2003-604-A, 151 N.H. 719, 721 (2005). II. Insurance consulting violations