Committee Summary for House Children and Family Law (01/20/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1185 00:07:51.039 - 9:03:47 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the offense of endangering the welfare of a child or incompetent.	Markell, Jay(R)[B]2025
HB1710 01:16:34.400 - 10:12:30 AM	Public Hearing	relative to procedures relating to child abduction.	Markell, Jay(R)[B]2025
HB1460 03:07:44.240 - 12:03:40 PM	Public Hearing	prohibiting the sale of location and other sensitive data regarding children.	Litchfield, Melissa(R)[B+]2025

HB1185: Committee Chair Information Only00:07:51.039 - 9:03:47 AM; The chair opens the public hearing by calling the session to order after the Pledge of Allegiance and notes the interest in testifying on the bills. The chair announces that the prime sponsor of HB 1185 is in another committee.
HB1185: Representative Petrino Information Only00:10:05.360 - 9:06:01 AM; Representative Petrino introduces House Bill 1185 on behalf of the prime sponsor, Representative Markell, who is currently testifying elsewhere. She describes the bill as relative to the offense of endangering the welfare of a child and emphasizes its importance.
HB1185: Representative Petrino Information Only00:11:17.519 - 9:07:13 AM; Representative Petrino requests to recess the hearing on HB 1185 until later in the day or the end of the session to allow Representative Markell to provide more information and handouts. The committee agrees to recess the bill.
HB1185: Beth Sergeant, New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police Oppose00:28:00.640 - 9:23:56 AM; Beth Sergeant presented testimony from Sergeant Marvin of the Newport Police Department in opposition to HB 1185. She highlighted recent changes to RSA 639:3 effective January 1, 2026, and House Bill 257, which passed the House and amends the same statute, now pending in the Senate. She noted that HB 1185 would contradict HB 257 if both pass, potentially undermining child protections. Sergeant Marvin appreciates the bill's intent but believes it would have unintended consequences. She provided copies of the statutes and his testimony for the committee.
HB1185: Representative Pearson Information Only00:29:59.360 - 9:25:55 AM; Representative Pearson questioned Beth Sergeant about HB 257, confirming it needs time to play out before changing with HB 1185. He noted HB 257 changed the mental state for child endangerment from purposely to recklessly and received support from law enforcement. He pointed out a potential typo in HB 1185 on line four ('owes a child' likely meaning 'owes a child a duty of care') and suggested an interim study or holding the bill to see HB 257's outcome in the Senate.
HB1185: Representative Raymond Information Only00:34:31.359 - 9:30:27 AM; Representative Raymond inquired about the duty of care language in HB 1185, noting it might limit charges to parents or caretakers, excluding others who endanger children. He referenced current RSA 639:3, which includes similar language, and explained that conduct by those without a duty of care is covered under the reckless conduct statute. He sought clarification from Sergeant Marvin's testimony, which did not directly address this.
HB1185: Betty Gay, Salem Support00:36:37.040 - 9:32:33 AM; Betty Gay supported holding HB 1185 to align it with HB 257's progress in the Senate. She emphasized waiting to ensure the most effective approach to child protection legislation, avoiding conflicts between bills. She agreed with concerns about restricting the law to those with a duty of care, advocating coverage for anyone inducing unsafe actions toward children.
HB1185: Representative Markel Support00:48:12.720 - 9:44:08 AM; Representative Markel, a practicing attorney specializing in family law, testified in support of HB 1185. He explained that the bill refines the endangering the welfare of a child statute to address ambiguities from last year's legislation, balancing parental rights with child protection. Key language in lines 7-8 defines the offense as engaging in conduct or a pattern exposing a child to substantial and unjustifiable risk of bodily harm, injury, or death, with negligent acts as a Class A misdemeanor and knowing acts as a Class B felony. He emphasized that this filters out lawful activities like skiing or sports, which involve justifiable risks, while targeting egregious behaviors like exposing children to drugs. During questioning, he addressed concerns about removing specific provisions on sexual exploitation and tattooing, noting they are covered under other statutes and the bill's broad language allows flexibility to avoid under- or over-inclusivity. He advocated for judging cases on totality of circumstances, ensuring due care in activities like hunting or shooting does not constitute unjustifiable risk.
HB1710: Representative Jay Markel Information Only01:16:34.400 - 10:12:30 AM; Representative Jay Markel, the prime sponsor, began opening the hearing on HB 1710, part of the Child Abduction Prevention Act. He introduced the bill as governing actions to prevent children from being abducted and taken out of jurisdiction, potentially involving Hague Convention matters, and allowing preemptive measures. He requested a moment to retrieve additional information.
HB1710: Representative Jay Markel Support01:18:11.360 - 10:14:07 AM; Representative Markel explains that HB 1710 enacts the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act from the Uniform Law Commission, providing model legislation for states to adopt and customize for uniformity and predictability. He shares a personal experience from his family law practice involving a case in Massachusetts where a mother abducted children to the Dominican Republic, and intervention by authorities prevented their departure. He emphasizes the bill's role in allowing preventative measures against child abduction. During questioning, he discusses adoption in 21 states, the 'credible risk of abduction' standard as fact-driven and akin to preponderance of evidence, potential for including 'but not limited to' in risk factors, and addresses concerns about weaponization in abuse cases, noting courts would consider totality of circumstances. He also mentions no known constitutional challenges but anticipates issues around parental rights.
HB1710: Attorney James Scully, Uniform Law Commission Support01:35:27.280 - 10:31:23 AM; Attorney Scully, a New Hampshire commissioner to the Uniform Law Commission, testifies in support of HB 1710, which enacts the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (UCAPA). He describes the ULC's role in drafting nonpartisan model legislation, noting New Hampshire's history of adopting ULC acts. The bill, developed collaboratively with experts, has been enacted in 20 states and DC since 2006. It fills gaps in existing laws by providing tools to prevent abductions before they occur, including risk factors like prior threats, abandoning employment, or obtaining travel documents. Courts can order measures like travel restrictions or passport alerts if there's credible risk, especially for international cases involving non-Hague Convention countries. During questions, he addresses potential weaponization, explaining it limits travel but allows custodial hearings, and courts can distinguish escape from abduction. He offers to research non-signatory countries to the Hague Convention and provides his written testimony.
HB1710: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Information Only01:44:44.239 - 10:40:40 AM; Mary Krueger from New Hampshire Legal Assistance cautiously supports HB 1710 or recommends study. She highlights its potential to help domestic violence survivors threatened with child abduction but raises concerns about weaponization against survivors relocating for safety. The bill is complex, intertwining with laws like the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and relocation statutes. She suggests courts need guidance from ULC comments for implementation to avoid harm. Recommending study, she questions why fewer than half of states have adopted it since 2006 and notes potential wording issues. During questions, she agrees studying implementations in other states could inform amendments to reduce weaponization risks and mentions cases of relocation for safety, where survivors seek court permission to move with children.
HB1710: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose01:50:16.880 - 10:46:12 AM; Mary Krueger expresses concerns that HB 1710 could be misused by abusers to prevent victims from relocating for safety. She notes that while the bill aims to prevent abduction threats, it might allow abusers to file prevention petitions to block emergency relocations allowed under current law, thereby further controlling victims.
HB1710: Honorable Betty Gay, Salem Oppose01:53:01.920 - 10:48:57 AM; Betty Gay highlights numerous red flags in HB 1710, including punishment prior to a crime without due process or hearing, and the potential for the state to take possession of the child. She shares personal knowledge of cases where protective parents faced prison for abduction charges after courts awarded custody to abusers. She criticizes the disbelief of mothers claiming domestic abuse, the practice of awarding custody to abusers, and fears the bill could legitimize preemptive actions as a weapon for abusive parents. She urges addressing these issues in custody hearings instead and offers to email her list of concerns.
HB1460: Representative (introducing for sponsor) Information Only03:07:44.240 - 12:03:40 PM; The representative introduces HB 1460 on behalf of the absent sponsor, Representative Leechfield, who has a family issue. He notes the bill prohibits the sale of location or sensitive data regarding children and refers questions to the sponsor or others present. He mentions allowing the sponsor to attend executive session for questions.
HB1460: Representative (questioning on existing laws) Information Only03:10:18.880 - 12:06:14 PM; A representative questions whether existing privacy and data statutes already cover the sale of children's data, suggesting the bill might be moot. The introducer responds by referencing unimplemented laws and examples like TikTok or Xbox where children lie about age, leading to data sales and risks like human trafficking.
HB1460: Representative Markle (potential co-sponsor) Information Only03:12:27.040 - 12:08:23 PM; Discussion ensues about allowing Representative Markle, a co-sponsor, to testify and answer detailed questions since the introducer lacks full information.
HB1460: Honorable Betty Gay, Salem Support03:14:22.800 - 12:10:18 PM; Betty Gay supports the purpose of HB 1460 to prohibit selling children's sensitive data but raises concerns about wording changes in RSA 507-H:6, suggesting integration with existing provisions on sensitive data and COPPA. She questions if children can consent and emphasizes specifying ages, covered entities, and careful drafting to effectively stop data sales while complying with federal and state laws.
HB1460: Representative Mel Support03:19:12.479 - 12:15:08 PM; Representative Mel spoke in support of HB 1460, noting that after reviewing the current statute, he found it acceptable, particularly with the age limit of 13 for children. He agreed that 13-year-olds are too young for such consents and referenced that platforms like Facebook do not allow accounts under 13. He also mentioned Australia's recent restriction on social media for children under 16 as a positive example.
HB1460: Representative (unnamed, questioning) Information Only03:20:06.000 - 12:16:02 PM; A representative questioned Representative Mel on whether the bill completely prohibits data collection or allows parental opt-in/opt-out. Mel responded that children under 13 lack capacity to consent, and it targets collection without parental consent. The representative raised concerns about funding for enforcement and potential penalties, to which Mel suggested adding liability provisions without needing appropriation. Discussion touched on the New Hampshire Data Privacy Act applying to educational programs like PowerSchool and homeschooling, questioning if it would prevent parental opt-ins for data sharing in programs like summer camps. Mel clarified it deals with the sale of information, so sharing for coordination might not be affected.
HB1460: Representative (unnamed, on PowerSchool) Information Only03:23:12.720 - 12:19:08 PM; Another representative speculated that the bill might stem from issues with PowerSchool, a communication tool used in New Hampshire public schools, involved in class action lawsuits for selling student data to third parties.
HB1460: Representative Sher Information Only03:24:21.279 - 12:20:17 PM; Representative Sher addressed concerns about government entities selling data, stating it violates Part 1, Article 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which he helped write. He noted that even sharing personal information with private entities by school districts could be problematic.

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