Committee Summary for House Children and Family Law (01/13/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1323 00:02:27.920 - 9:02:23 AM	Public Hearing	relative to parental alienation.	Rice, Kimberly(R)[B-]2025
HB1177 03:04:16.000 - 12:04:12 PM	Public Hearing	adding a definition to the labor laws regarding remote work and defining the nature of such employment.	MacKenzie, Mark(D)[F]2025
HB1717 03:29:22.800 - 12:29:18 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, family division.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025
HB1762 04:33:29.680 - 1:33:25 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the calculation of child support.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025

HB1323: Chair (Unnamed) Information Only00:02:27.920 - 9:02:23 AM; The chair opens the meeting by reminding attendees to silence phones, prohibiting coffee and food except water to protect carpets, restricting access past the testimony desk to staff and committee members for security, requiring representatives to be addressed formally, enforcing respectful conduct with no audience interruptions, limiting testimony to three minutes, requiring written testimony submission, allowing questions post-testimony, and repeating rules when more arrive.
HB1323: Representative (Unnamed) Information Only00:07:25.280 - 9:07:21 AM; The representative clarifies that only committee members may request questions through the chair, emphasizing proper procedure for recognition during testimony.
HB1323: Representative Pearson Information Only00:08:52.320 - 9:08:48 AM; Representative Pearson thanks the chair and notes that substitutes cannot discuss in executive sessions but can ask questions during hearings to gather information for informed decisions.
HB1323: Ranking Member Representative Petrino Information Only00:11:00.079 - 9:10:56 AM; The ranking member welcomes everyone, stresses prioritizing children's welfare per the committee's mission under House Rule 31, encourages voting by conscience without coercion, and highlights the committee's successful bipartisan record last year with agreement on 29 of 33 bills, expressing pride and hope for continued collaboration.
HB1323: Representative Rice Information Only00:13:32.160 - 9:13:28 AM; Representative Rice agrees with the ranking member, emphasizes the committee's focus on children and family law to ensure children are happy, safe, and family units healthy emotionally and mentally, thanks for past work, and looks forward to the new session.
HB1323: Vice Chair (Unnamed) Information Only00:14:56.160 - 9:14:52 AM; The vice chair introduces themselves, expresses happiness and privilege in the role, and anticipates a wonderful session of collaborative work for the best outcomes.
HB1323: Representative Right Information Only00:29:59.039 - 9:29:55 AM; Leads the Pledge of Allegiance.
HB1323: Chair (Unnamed) Information Only00:29:59.039 - 9:29:55 AM; Announces the opening of the hearing on House Bill 1323 after the pledge.
HB1323: Chair (Unnamed) Information Only00:30:45.360 - 9:30:41 AM; The Chair reviews committee room rules, emphasizing silencing phones, no food or drink except water, addressing representatives respectfully, no outbursts, three-minute testimony limit, submitting written testimony, and safety protocols.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice Support00:33:56.399 - 9:33:52 AM; Representative Rice presents on HB1323, explaining parental alienation's lasting harm to children, including anxiety, guilt, and long-term issues like depression. She describes the bill as preventative and corrective, providing courts tools for early intervention to prioritize the child's well-being over adult conflicts. She shares a personal story about her stepson alienated from his father, now 30 and struggling with guilt, depression, and unhealthy relationships, urging support for the bill.
HB1323: Representative Greg Information Only00:37:31.040 - 9:37:27 AM; Representative Greg questions the speculative future-tense definition of parental alienation and how judges can determine potential damage. He also asks for a tighter definition of disparaging remarks to distinguish factual conversations from alienating ones.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice (response) Support00:38:26.400 - 9:38:22 AM; Representative Rice responds that judges should educate themselves on alienation's effects, speak directly with children, and order counseling. She suggests refining the disparaging remarks definition in committee, emphasizing reassurance to children and the need to address parental alienation patterns.
HB1323: Representative Sherman Information Only00:40:31.359 - 9:40:27 AM; Representative Sherman asks if true statements automatically exempt from being disparaging. Representative Rice clarifies that children should not be involved in such conversations regardless of truth, highlighting the damage from alienation based on her stepson's experience and the need for judicial intervention.
HB1323: Representative Gray Information Only00:41:39.119 - 9:41:35 AM; Representative Gray expresses appreciation but concerns about statutorily managing parental relationships, potential negative consequences for speech, and First Amendment issues with legal penalties for patterns of statements.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice (response) Support00:43:06.560 - 9:43:02 AM; Representative Rice notes the bill requires a pattern, not isolated incidents, and trusts judges to discern. She argues emotional and psychological abuse is not protected under the First Amendment.
HB1323: Unnamed Representative Information Only00:44:19.839 - 9:44:15 AM; The representative discusses struggles with defining emotional and verbal abuse from prior legislation, questioning how to create punitive measures without clear definitions.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice (response) Support00:45:32.160 - 9:45:28 AM; Representative Rice urges taking a leap of faith to start addressing the problem, as parents often prioritize their behavior over the child's best interest.
HB1323: Representative Pearson Information Only00:46:49.920 - 9:46:45 AM; Representative Pearson confirms the bill refers to family court.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice (response) Support00:46:49.920 - 9:46:45 AM; Representative Rice confirms it applies to family court and expresses willingness to collaborate, driven by her stepson's ongoing struggles at age 30.
HB1323: Representative Jordis Support00:48:08.960 - 9:48:04 AM; Representative Jordis shares a personal divorce example, emphasizing not involving children in parental conflicts and the need for parenting modifications to educate parents on behavior during divorce.
HB1323: Representative Love Support00:49:20.559 - 9:49:16 AM; Representative Love shares personal experience of alienation at age 11 and his nephew's suicide due to it. He suggests adding perjury statements to prevent false testimony in family court.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice (response) Support00:50:27.119 - 9:50:23 AM; Representative Rice agrees to discuss perjury provisions, noting current lack of repercussions empowers liars and creates more conflict.
HB1323: Representative McMahon Information Only00:51:20.000 - 9:51:16 AM; Representative McMahon questions if the bill eliminates judges' selective acceptance of evidence on parental alienation under RSA 461-A, and whether it forces acceptance of all presented evidence.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice (response) Support00:52:34.079 - 9:52:30 AM; Representative Rice states the bill requires judges to consider evidence of parental alienation, preventing arbitrary exclusion, while still allowing weighing and questioning of evidence.
HB1323: Representative Sherman (follow-up) Information Only00:53:37.520 - 9:53:33 AM; Representative Sherman clarifies if 'shall accept' means considering evidence or accepting its truth without discretion.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice (response) Support00:54:34.240 - 9:54:30 AM; Representative Rice explains it means judges must take and weigh the evidence, performing due diligence.
HB1323: Representative Corson Support00:54:34.240 - 9:54:30 AM; Representative Corson agrees, analogizing disparaging one parent to ruining half a child's foundation, and notes millions of affected children, referencing provided articles.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice (response) Support00:55:48.079 - 9:55:44 AM; Representative Rice confirms the widespread issue and encourages reading the articles.
HB1323: Representative Georges Information Only00:55:48.079 - 9:55:44 AM; Representative Georges asks about consequences for a manipulating parent if discovered.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice (response) Support00:55:48.079 - 9:55:44 AM; Representative Rice outlines remedies like changing parenting time to favor the other parent, emphasizing the need for consequences to prevent ongoing harm to children.
HB1323: Representative Pearson (final) Information Only00:57:09.040 - 9:57:05 AM; Representative Pearson suggests a carveout in rules of evidence for equity courts to narrow judicial freedom when addressing probative abuse evidence.
HB1323: Representative Kim Rice (response) Support00:57:09.040 - 9:57:05 AM; Representative Rice agrees it might be possible.
HB1323: Honorable Cody Blancher Support00:58:29.200 - 9:58:25 AM; Honorable Cody Blancher, a former legislator and father, testified in support of HB1323 based on his personal experience with parental alienation after his divorce. He described how his ex-wife undermined his relationship with their 11-year-old adopted son through negative comments and false abuse allegations, leading to him not seeing his son since July 2025. Blancher emphasized that parental alienation causes emotional harm to children by isolating them from a loving parent and highlighted the need for the court system to recognize and address it to protect the best interests of the child, which include meaningful relationships with both parents. He urged the committee to support the bill as a necessary first step and offered to provide written testimony.
HB1323: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose01:13:15.920 - 10:13:11 AM; Mary Krueger, supervising attorney for the domestic violence advocacy project at New Hampshire Legal Assistance, opposed HB1323 as written. She argued that naming parental alienation in the statute could create dangerous situations for children by increasing litigation in family law cases and allowing abusers to use it as an affirmative defense against valid abuse allegations, including domestic violence and child sexual abuse. Krueger noted that parental alienation is a highly debated concept without a reliable protocol for identification, potentially enabling abusers to minimize proven abuse and continue harming children through the court system. She recommended voting inexpedient to legislate.
HB1323: Robert Tangway Oppose01:18:09.280 - 10:18:05 AM; Robert Tangway opposed HB1323 as written, arguing that while parental alienation exists, the bill should make it a criminal statute and refer it to the criminal committee. He claimed RSA 173B is unconstitutional and biased towards women, citing statistics on child support awards and alleging systemic bias in the courts, including agreements between the Supreme Court and other entities that limit appeals. Tangway suggested striking references to 173B and criticized the use of false allegations for strategic advantage in parenting matters.
HB1323: Thomas McCarthy Support01:22:22.800 - 10:22:18 AM; Thomas McCarthy, who has been involved in family court since 2009, supported HB1323 by sharing his experience of not seeing his daughter for over 15 years due to parental alienation and court biases. He described false accusations of molestation that were later unfounded after extensive evaluations, yet the court ignored his daughter's expressed desire for a relationship with him. McCarthy emphasized the importance of equal shared parenting time and criticized the reliance on hearsay in abuse allegations, recommending resources like Dr. Steve Miller's testimony on the effects of alienation. He advocated for both parents' involvement to prevent child neglect and emotional harm.
HB1323: Robert Lamontaine, Vermont Support01:27:46.000 - 10:27:42 AM; Robert Lamontaine from Vermont supported HB1323 by recounting his personal story of losing contact with his children for over a decade due to what he described as injustices in the family court and child welfare systems, including withheld exculpatory evidence in his trial. He noted that his children were taken away at young ages and he only reconnected with some later in life, urging the committee to investigate the Department of Child Welfare and family court practices to address parental alienation and prevent similar separations.
HB1323: Jenna McIntyre, Jaffrey, NH Oppose01:29:59.760 - 10:29:55 AM; Jenna McIntyre opposed HB1323, describing how parental alienation was weaponized against her in family court since 2022 to silence her reports of abuse by her ex-husband against their son. She detailed how despite evidence including CAP reports, CAC interviews, and therapist testimonies, the court used hearsay claims of alienation to remove her son from her custody without notice, forcing him to relocate with his father. McIntyre argued that the concept, originating from Richard Gardner, is used to discredit protective parents and enable abusers, equating the forced relocation to child trafficking. She highlighted ongoing silencing of her son's disclosures and lack of involvement in his care.
HB1323: Christopher McIntyre Oppose01:36:26.560 - 10:36:22 AM; Christopher McIntyre opposes the bill primarily because it can be weaponized against protective parents. He points out that while the bill excludes good faith actions based on reasonable belief of abuse or neglect under RSA 169-C, there is no protection against backlash for those parents who may not fully understand the law. He acknowledges parental alienation as a real issue but argues the term 'parental' makes it weaponized. He calls for simplified terminology to prevent twisting or bending, ensuring it helps those who can't protect themselves, and emphasizes the best interest of the child without malicious use.
HB1323: Honorable Betty Gay, Salem, NH Oppose01:38:45.280 - 10:38:41 AM; Betty Gay supports addressing parental alienation early but warns that such charges can be part of harassment. She highlights missing criteria for proving alienation, with the only remedy being reduced parental time. She criticizes family courts for routinely dismissing mothers' domestic violence filings, ignoring or muzzling them with silence orders that risk further loss of child time. Parents are often not allowed to present evidence, judges can ignore rules per Rule 1.2, children are not heard, evaluations are done by uncertified counselors, parents don't choose them, and costly $40,000 forensic evaluations are ordered without clear funding. The bill only mentions withholding parenting time, already covered elsewhere. She urges corrections to these issues if the bill proceeds.
HB1323: Theresa Basarash, Registered Nurse, Loudon, NH Support01:41:38.960 - 10:41:34 AM; Theresa Basarash, an adoptive mother of two boys from DCYF care, supports the bill based on her nine years in family court. She describes fighting to keep her 11- and 10-year-old sons together after one had parental rights terminated and the other guardianship granted to her. The biological grandfather, deemed unsafe by DCYF due to sexual assault allegations, petitioned for visitation rights under RSA, which the judge treated as a parenting plan, granting access to records, weekly calls, and unsupervised visits despite the DCYF history. Filing a complaint led to retaliation with emergency hearings and emotional distress. Judges backed each other, ordering an eight-hour unsupervised Christmas visit separating the brothers, which she and her husband refused. The grandfather later withdrew after being charged with molestation. She argues complaining to judges doesn't work and relates it to parental alienation as the severe punishment of separation from children, which should involve criminal charges if not justified. She emphasizes no one should lose access to their child without cause.
HB1323: Melinda Nicoloi, Derry, NH Information Only01:47:47.679 - 10:47:43 AM; Melinda Nicoloi shares her personal ordeal in family court since 2018, not seeing her nine-year-old son since 2022. Supervised visits were suspended unilaterally via email without abuse or neglect. Her son was neutropenic and critically ill; she improved his numbers but held a visit due to medical advice against vaccinating him with 10 vaccines at once from three holistic and medical doctors. He received them anyway, leading to no contact. She receives only quarterly email updates with minimal pictures and sentences, no school records or drawings unless requested. She was active in his life, co-parenting initially, attending soccer, but now seeks to regain access. She tried changing venue, but it was denied without reasons; the judge was cautioned for editing hearing tape, yet she remains with the same judge, Judge Jakovich, who signed off on termination. The court made a non-biological man the legal father, denying the biological father's rights.
HB1177: Representative Saborin Dishwan Information Only03:04:16.000 - 12:04:12 PM; Introduces HB1177, notes it was filed amid uncertainty about HB652 on abolishing family court. Recommends focusing on HB652 now that it has been recommitted. Encourages incorporating liked elements from HB1177 into HB652 discussions. Mentions a potential amendment from HB652's sponsor. Defers questions on marital masters, constitutional compliance, and fiscal concerns.
HB1177: Representative Timothy Han, Durham, NH Oppose03:14:09.200 - 12:14:05 PM; Testifies on the marital masters program, noting it was discontinued around 2010 with only one part-time marital master remaining. Explains the family division's setup to share judges with probate and district courts. Opposes replacing marital masters with administrative law judges, stating the bill is not ready and won't solve family court issues, which stem from human nature. Recommends against the bill as presented.
HB1177: Robert Tanguay Information Only03:19:21.279 - 12:19:17 PM; Discusses confusion over whether family court judges are constitutional or administrative. Claims Article 73A is fraudulent and references cases like Squeezy v. New Hampshire and SEC v. Jarski on administrative procedures needing juries and bonds. Notes court officials lack required bonds under chapter 93B 1A, allowing suits against them. Supports addressing administrative law judges for accountability in family court frustrations.
HB1177: The Honorable Daniel Support03:22:25.120 - 12:22:21 PM; Supports HB1177 for addressing family court issues. Clarifies jurists are judges or referees (contract employees), with marital master term removed in 2012. Praises the bill for restoring equity jurisdiction under common law and rules of equity, ensuring due process like seeing evidence and presumption of innocence. Notes current statutes exclude these, and the bill corrects common law aspects but not fully rules of evidence or referees' oath powers. Explains common law as 2,000 years of judicial due process maxims.
HB1717: Joseph Nent, Jefferson, New Hampshire Support03:29:22.800 - 12:29:18 PM; Joseph Nent supports HB1717, though he views it as imperfect and prefers HB652 for addressing constitutional issues in New Hampshire courts, particularly family courts. He praises HB1717 for promoting full disclosure and accountability, ensuring individuals are informed of rights violations in administrative courts. He shares his personal experience starting in 2017, expecting due process in court but facing violations, including quasi-judicial immunity for appointees and forced psychological exams. He emphasizes the bill's requirement for a superior court judge's sign-off on removing children, restoring constitutional checks and balances. During questioning, he provides examples of denied due process, such as withheld exculpatory 911 evidence and conflicts of interest with his lawyer and the judge. He argues the bill informs people of their limited rights in administrative settings, countering biases and restoring fundamental protections like innocence until proven guilty.
HB1717: The Honorable Betty Gay Support03:36:35.840 - 12:36:31 PM; The Honorable Betty Gay explains that HB1717 was drafted when HB652 seemed unlikely to pass, serving as a placeholder to address key issues in family law. She supports keeping it alive for potential negotiations while prioritizing HB652. The bill reestablishes common law in family courts, which currently do not follow constitutional rights like due process, testimony, and evidence by statute. She notes that some provisions reflect current problematic practices in family law, which HB652 aims to correct comprehensively. During questions, she clarifies that constitutional courts should provide protections, but family courts, set up statutorily, do not require common law adherence, even with constitutional judges. She argues the bill ensures common law supersedes statutes that deny it, without mutually excluding statutory law.
HB1717: Christopher McIntyre Support03:42:44.960 - 12:42:40 PM; Christopher McIntyre advocates for HB1717 to enhance transparency in family courts, citing his experience as a non-party where a court motion proceeded without his subpoena or notification, leading to a verdict based on false documentation. He criticizes the lack of due process, no contempt or sanctions against the lawyer or party involved, and resulting punishment for him. He urges the committee to ask probing questions to uncover issues, accusing them of contributing to problems by not doing so. His testimony was cut short due to accusatory statements toward the committee.
HB1717: Vivian Gerard Support03:45:18.479 - 12:45:14 PM; Vivian Gerard, referencing her Silva v. Silva case, testifies on due process failures in family court, including ignored rules of evidence, false police reports presuming her as the abuser despite her size, and biased judges with connections to opposing counsel. She endured nine years to prove innocence, facing unethical conduct, multiple Supreme Court appeals ignored by lower courts, and ongoing losses in child support and alimony. She highlights how initial accusations predetermined outcomes, suppressing her evidence like hospital and DCYF documents. Despite financial ruin ($250,000 in fees) and family alienation, she appreciates the committee's efforts but stresses the need for judges to follow the law, reduce delays, and prevent steamrolling of rights. During extensive questioning, she defines due process as fair evidence consideration, which was denied as judges dismissed documents and favored lies. She views HB1717 as a start but needing strengthening, potentially complementing HB652, and supports black-and-white law application to deter frivolous cases.
HB1717: Jenna McIntyre Support04:02:21.600 - 1:02:17 PM; Jenna McIntyre supports HB1717 for addressing due process lacks in family court, emphasizing that law should be black and white to deter frivolous accusations and focus on children as pawns. She criticizes delays allowing children to age out and notes that non-black-and-white approaches enable abuse. In response to questioning, she acknowledges varying word interpretations but stresses clarification and enforcement, sharing her divorce experience where motions to enforce a decree were ignored, leading to financial losses without contempt holdings.
HB1717: Representative Saboren Dishwan Support04:07:04.479 - 1:07:00 PM; Representative Saboren Dishwan introduces HB1762, relative to child support calculation, resubmitted after passing the House in 2024. He notes New Hampshire as one of nine states without a formulaic parenting time approach. Referencing the 2022 quadrennial review from Child Support Services and Anderson v. Anderson recommendations, he stresses using the best available information. He directs technical questions to the New Hampshire State Chapter for National Parents Organization.
HB1717: Robert Tangu Information Only04:09:27.520 - 1:09:23 PM; Robert Tangu, author of New Hampshire Oliver Twist, expresses mixed feelings on HB1762, suggesting amendments like referencing RSA 546-A:1 and :5 to require proving child need and considering assets, which was ignored in his case involving a wealthy ex. He argues for equal living situations, criticizes child support as originally for absent parents but now incentivizing separations for Title IV-D funding and lawyer profits. He equates buying child items to free speech per Citizens United, advocates jury trials for judgments over $1,500 under Article 20, and clarifies common law as case law. During questioning, he discusses lawyer biases favoring money and connections, protecting judges, and creating contentious cases; supports jury trials to counter bias but notes complications; and emphasizes parental responsibility without manufacturing absent parents, considering assets to prevent inequities like in high-wealth scenarios.
HB1717: Matthew Hayes, DHHS BCSS Information Only04:21:47.920 - 1:21:43 PM; Matthew Hayes, staff attorney and legislative liaison for the Bureau of Child Support Services, states neutrality on HB1762 but provides information. He confirms the 2022 guidelines review, notes a new vendor contract for a 2026 report with fresh data on trends and economics, and offers the 2022 report link. During questioning, he explains the review process involves studies, case reviews, and surveys; clarifies the bill is not moot as the legislature can use new data; notes fiscal notes address technology/software costs, not the report; anticipates increased modification petitions without retroactivity limits, suggesting policy decisions on substantial changes; defers on self-support reserve calculation details; confirms HB185 on 50/50 parenting is current law; and notes many states formulaically include parenting time, per the report.
HB1762: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose04:33:29.680 - 1:33:25 PM; Mary Krueger from New Hampshire Legal Assistance opposes HB1762FN, arguing that the recent 2024 change to child support law, effective January 1, 2025, already addresses the issue by incorporating special circumstances for equal or approximately equal parenting time under RSA 458-C:5. This allows courts to consider parenting time in adjusting child support, especially when parents have similar incomes, potentially reducing or eliminating support obligations. She notes that a similar bill, HB1762, was debated and rejected in favor of this approach, which provides clear guidance to courts without tying parenting time directly into the support formula, thus avoiding increased litigation over time to gain financial advantage. Krueger urges the committee to vote inexpedient to legislate and let the new law take effect.
HB1762: Vivian Gerard Oppose04:44:12.160 - 1:44:08 PM; Vivian Gerard opposes the bill, sharing her personal experience where her ex-husband earns three times more than she does, making equal parenting time without child support unfair and condescending. She argues that no support order truly results in 50/50 financial responsibilities, and cutting support based solely on time ignores income disparities. Gerard describes challenges like scheduling conflicts that prevent quality time and how wealthier parents receive preferential treatment, potentially leaving lower-income parents unable to provide adequately, such as buying simple treats for children while the other parent vacations extravagantly. She emphasizes that the bill overlooks real-life imbalances in income and living situations.

DeSimone, Debra(Chairman)(R)[B+]2025	Nelson, Jodi(Clerk)(R)[B]2025	Rice, Kimberly(V Chairman)(R)[B-]2025
McMahon, Charles(R)[B+]2025	Love, David(R)[B+]2025	Pearson, Mark(R)[B]2025
Korzen, Lori(R)[B+]2025	Georges, Mary(D)[D-]2025	Raymond, Heather(D)[CT]2025
Gregg, Alicia(D)[D-]2025	Petrigno, Peter(D)[F]2025	Grossman, Gaby(D)[IN]2025
Levesque, Cassandra (D)[D-]2025	Malone, Amy(D)[D-]2025	Markell, Jay(R)[B]2025