Committee Summary for House Children and Family Law (02/03/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1036 00:06:07.919 - 9:01:38 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the maximum duration of term alimony.	Vose, Michael(R)[A-]2025
HB1210 00:44:20.560 - 9:39:51 AM	Public Hearing	relative to child tax credit allocation in child support cases.	Barton, Joseph(R)[A-]2025
HB1210 01:03:46.559 - 9:59:17 AM	Executive Session	relative to child tax credit allocation in child support cases.	Barton, Joseph(R)[A-]2025
HB1225 01:07:13.280 - 10:02:44 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the definition of adjusted gross income with respect to child support guidelines.	Markell, Jay(R)[B]2025
HB1228 03:06:02.800 - 12:01:33 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the enforcement of alimony orders.	Markell, Jay(R)[B]2025
HB1229 03:35:42.239 - 12:31:13 PM	Public Hearing	relative to waivers of alimony.	Markell, Jay(R)[B]2025
HB1779 04:04:27.760 - 12:59:58 PM	Public Hearing	supporting the cultural background of children placed in foster care.	Georges, Mary(D)[D-]2025

HB1036: Representative Vose Support00:06:07.919 - 9:01:38 AM; Representative Vose introduced House Bill 1036 on behalf of a constituent, explaining that the bill caps voluntary alimony agreements at eight years unless both parties mutually agree to extend it. He shared personal experience from his divorce, emphasizing that alimony should support during difficult times rather than serve as punishment or retribution. He believes eight years provides sufficient time for recovery and self-reliance.
HB1036: Representative Patrina Information Only00:08:57.440 - 9:04:28 AM; Representative Patrina asked Representative Vose about concerns for long-term marriages where one spouse deferred education and employment, potentially facing challenges in midlife without support after the eight-year cap.
HB1036: Representative Vose (response) Support00:10:10.480 - 9:05:41 AM; In response to Representative Patrina, Representative Vose stated that eight years is ample time for recovery and charting a new path, stressing personal responsibility and citing his own positive divorce experience.
HB1036: Representative Greg Information Only00:11:36.240 - 9:07:07 AM; Representative Greg followed up on the previous question, inquiring how eight years suffices for couples married 25-30 years where one spouse was out of the workforce in their 50s or 60s, making re-entry into the job market difficult.
HB1036: Representative Vose (response) Support00:12:34.000 - 9:08:05 AM; Responding to Representative Greg, Representative Vose reiterated that eight years is a long period, especially for retirement planning, and the cap is negotiable if both parties agree to continue alimony.
HB1036: Representative Greg (follow-up) Information Only00:12:34.000 - 9:08:05 AM; Representative Greg asked why the bill uses a hard eight-year cap instead of scaling the duration based on marriage length, as in states like Texas.
HB1036: Representative Vose (response) Support00:13:39.680 - 9:09:10 AM; Representative Vose explained that he did not personally choose eight years; a later testifying constituent suggested it.
HB1036: Representative Georgees Information Only00:13:39.680 - 9:09:10 AM; Representative Georgees sought clarification on what Representative Vose meant by alimony as 'punishment,' sharing experiences where alimony was sought as retribution in contentious divorces.
HB1036: Representative Vose (response) Support00:14:48.800 - 9:10:19 AM; Representative Vose elaborated that in acrimonious divorces, alimony can feel like retribution, contrasting it with his own amicable mediated divorce where agreements were mutually beneficial.
HB1036: Unnamed Representative (follow-up) Information Only00:14:48.800 - 9:10:19 AM; An unnamed representative followed up, discussing scenarios where a spouse stayed home to raise children per the partner's request, questioning fairness if divorce leaves the homemaker without support, framing it as potential punishment.
HB1036: Representative Vose (final response) Support00:16:08.320 - 9:11:39 AM; Representative Vose shared that his divorce was mediated amicably, allowing both parties to move forward beneficially, and noted that not all divorces achieve such mutual agreement, leading to resentment.
HB1036: Representative Vose Support00:16:48.880 - 9:12:19 AM; Representative Vose continues testimony on HB 1036, emphasizing that alimony should not be used punitively and that the bill caps duration at 50% of marriage length, not lifetime.
HB1036: Representative Rice Information Only00:16:48.880 - 9:12:19 AM; Representative Rice questions whether rancor affects alimony decisions, confirming judges decide independently. Follow-up clarifies the bill limits alimony to 50% of marriage duration, e.g., 15 years for a 30-year marriage.
HB1036: Representative Rice Oppose00:18:14.240 - 9:13:45 AM; Representative Rice expresses concerns about spouses who supported their partner's education or stayed home with children, facing re-entry challenges in their 50s after long marriages without work experience.
HB1036: Representative Pearson Information Only00:19:22.000 - 9:14:53 AM; Representative Pearson notes the court can adjust beyond worst-case scenarios as the bill allows judicial discretion.
HB1036: Representative Greg Information Only00:19:22.000 - 9:14:53 AM; Representative Greg questions the high bar for modifications under existing law versus the bill's 8-year exceedance only if justice requires.
HB1036: Representative Markeel Information Only00:20:54.240 - 9:16:25 AM; Representative Markeel discusses changing legal policy on alimony from rehabilitative to maintaining reasonable living standards, seeking confirmation if this alters policy.
HB1036: Representative Greg Oppose00:21:59.840 - 9:17:30 AM; Representative Greg raises concerns that capping at 8 years could punish spouses, especially statistically lower-earning women, in long marriages.
HB1036: Representative Greg Information Only00:23:09.440 - 9:18:40 AM; Representative Greg confirms alimony ceases upon payer's retirement under the statute.
HB1036: Gary Carlson Support00:24:13.760 - 9:19:44 AM; Gary Carlson, from a 32-year marriage, supports the 8-year cap mirroring historical rehabilitative alimony. He describes his case: supported stay-at-home wife, now pays $38,000/year alimony despite her assets and part-time work. Argues for fairness and judicial flexibility.
HB1036: Representative Greg Information Only00:28:52.799 - 9:24:23 AM; Representative Greg asks if Gary is aware judges can adjust the 50% duration under current law.
HB1036: Representative Rice Oppose00:28:52.799 - 9:24:23 AM; Representative Rice questions Gary on career setbacks for stay-at-home spouses missing promotions.
HB1036: Gary Carlson Support00:30:10.399 - 9:25:41 AM; Gary responds that his wife chose part-time work despite plans to return full-time; he worked extra to support family.
HB1036: Representative Raymond Information Only00:31:25.039 - 9:26:56 AM; Representative Raymond asks if the bill applies retroactively to existing orders.
HB1036: Representative Sher Information Only00:31:25.039 - 9:26:56 AM; Representative Sher clarifies the bill is not retroactive but may influence future modifications.
HB1036: Mary Krueger Oppose00:33:44.240 - 9:29:15 AM; Mary Krueger, attorney at New Hampshire Legal Assistance, opposes HB 1036, arguing the 8-year cap burdens women in long marriages, increasing poverty risks later in life by shifting burden of proof for longer terms and undermining 2018 reforms for predictability and fairness.
HB1036: Representative Nelson Information Only00:35:52.320 - 9:31:23 AM; Representative Nelson asks if the bill affects pension divisions in alimony.
HB1036: Mary Krueger Oppose00:37:03.440 - 9:32:34 AM; Mary Krueger explains alimony syncs with retirement access to pensions, supporting recipients until then.
HB1036: Jan Gonzalez Support00:38:25.440 - 9:33:56 AM; Jan Gonzalez supports HB 1036, sharing his 21-year marriage experience where his capable ex-wife chooses part-time work despite court encouragement, resulting in punitive alimony based on formula without considering earning potential.
HB1036: Representative Greg Information Only00:40:52.000 - 9:36:23 AM; Representative Greg confirms Jan's divorce is ongoing and under appeal.
HB1036: Representative Joseph Barton Support00:41:57.119 - 9:37:28 AM; Representative Joseph Barton supports HB 1036, highlighting abusive delays in family courts to maximize alimony and arguing an 8-year cap prevents process abuse, as alimony is temporary support.
HB1210: Representative Barton Support00:44:20.560 - 9:39:51 AM; Representative Barton, sponsor of HB 1210, explains it restores fairness in child tax credit allocation post-2018 federal changes by allowing paying parents to claim it if paying significant support, encouraging compliance and aligning with federal tax law.
HB1210: Representative Rice Information Only00:46:47.280 - 9:42:18 AM; Representative Rice questions if both parents support the child equally, suggesting shared tax benefits.
HB1210: Representative Barton Support00:48:08.960 - 9:43:39 AM; Representative Barton clarifies financial support is unequal, with payers taxed on support while recipients are not, justifying credit to payers.
HB1210: Representative Craig Information Only00:49:17.440 - 9:44:48 AM; Representative Craig asks about 'significant' support threshold for claiming the credit.
HB1210: Representative Barton Support00:50:28.720 - 9:45:59 AM; Representative Barton explains 'significant' means support exceeding tax credit value, e.g., over $2,000 annually, to ensure meaningful contribution.
HB1210: Representative Pearson Information Only00:52:44.319 - 9:48:15 AM; Representative Pearson questions if the bill oversteps into federal tax matters without state income tax.
HB1210: Representative Barton Support00:53:46.400 - 9:49:17 AM; Representative Barton notes courts already decree tax claims, giving them purview over federal credits.
HB1210: Representative Sher Information Only00:55:00.640 - 9:50:31 AM; Representative Sher notes federal law allocates credit to custodial parent unless waived.
HB1210: Representative Barton Support00:55:00.640 - 9:50:31 AM; Representative Barton disputes, stating no such federal mandate exists.
HB1210: Chris Andrews Oppose00:56:07.359 - 9:51:38 AM; Former Representative Chris Andrews opposes HB 1210, sharing a story of a single mother raising a 7-year-old alone while the absent father pays only court-mandated support. Argues the credit aids custodial parents' daily costs, not absent payers, and corrects that child support counts against welfare benefits.
HB1210: Representative Gray Information Only00:59:40.240 - 9:55:11 AM; Representative Gray thanks Chris for his service and testimony.
HB1210: Mary Krueger Oppose01:00:21.440 - 9:55:52 AM; Mary Krueger opposes HB 1210, warning it creates court confusion over multiple child tax credits with varying requirements for low-income families, undermining policies to help those in need.
HB1210: Representative Rice Oppose01:03:46.559 - 9:59:17 AM; Moved for Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 1210 during the executive session.
HB1225: Representative Markeel Support01:07:13.280 - 10:02:44 AM; Introduced HB 1225, proposing additions to the child support calculator by deducting 50% of Social Security and Medicare taxes for employees, and full self-employment taxes for self-employed obligors, to make calculations more equitable. Explained that child support is non-taxable income for the recipient but comes from after-tax income for the payer. Provided examples showing a 3.8-4% reduction in child support payments, using real case numbers. Noted the scope with statistics on child support cases in NH. Responded to questions clarifying differences between employee and self-employed deductions, emphasizing fairness and that it's a small adjustment to recognize mandatory payroll taxes.
HB1225: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose01:28:18.880 - 10:23:49 AM; Opposed HB 1225, arguing it creates a double-dipping deduction for obligors since the child support guidelines already account for federal taxes, Social Security, and Medicare in income calculations. This would lower child support amounts unfairly, as both parties' incomes are combined and reduced similarly in the formula to ensure equity. Emphasized that the recipient's responsibility is also considered in the calculation, maintaining balance without the proposed change.
HB1228: Representative Markell Support03:06:02.800 - 12:01:33 PM; Representative Markell introduced HB 1228, explaining that it addresses a gap in the law similar to one closed by last year's HB 320 for child support. Currently, courts can decline to enforce alimony orders without reason, leaving recipients without remedy. The bill mandates enforcement of alimony orders, treating them like child support obligations. He noted that alimony orders can be written or oral, and enforcement mechanisms include wage assignment or withholding.
HB1228: Representative Corsen Information Only03:07:12.640 - 12:02:43 PM; Representative Corsen asked if the bill would prevent informal 'handshake' agreements between parties regarding alimony payments.
HB1228: Representative Markell Information Only03:07:12.640 - 12:02:43 PM; Representative Markell clarified that the bill applies only to formal court orders, not informal agreements. Modifications require court approval.
HB1228: Representative Rice Information Only03:08:15.920 - 12:03:46 PM; Representative Rice inquired if the bill requires a complaint to enforce, unlike automatic child support withholding.
HB1228: Representative Markell Information Only03:08:15.920 - 12:03:46 PM; Representative Markell confirmed enforcement needs a complaint but noted alimony can be enforced via withholding or wage assignment. Informal agreements are not enforceable without court order; modifications require judicial approval under RSA 458:19A.
HB1228: Representative Raymond Information Only03:09:26.240 - 12:04:57 PM; Representative Raymond asked how the bill changes current procedures for enforcing alimony.
HB1228: Representative Markell Information Only03:09:26.240 - 12:04:57 PM; Representative Markell explained the bill curbs judicial discretion, preventing judges from refusing enforcement arbitrarily. He cited general examples of whimsical judicial decisions without breaching confidentiality, noting it's a hole in court rules.
HB1228: Representative Sher Information Only03:10:40.399 - 12:06:11 PM; Representative Sher asked if a judge could sua sponte modify the alimony order instead of refusing enforcement.
HB1228: Representative Markell Information Only03:10:40.399 - 12:06:11 PM; Representative Markell stated modifications must be properly pled; judges cannot change orders unilaterally.
HB1228: Representative Greg Information Only03:11:45.920 - 12:07:16 PM; Representative Greg asked if the bill requires specifying amounts or percentages to avoid weaponization in contentious cases.
HB1228: Representative Markell Information Only03:11:45.920 - 12:07:16 PM; Representative Markell responded that enforcement needs a specific amount or ascertainable sum; courts retain discretion for attorney fees against vexatious litigants.
HB1229: Representative Markell Support03:35:42.239 - 12:31:13 PM; Representative Markell introduced HB 1229, arguing for enforcing agreements waiving past, present, or future alimony unless invalid due to coercion, fraud, duress, or unconscionability. He highlighted societal changes, shifts in alimony purpose from rehabilitative to maintaining living standards, and contrasts with enforceable prenups. The bill allows buyouts for predictability, retains court jurisdiction for modifications, and aligns with policies in states like Massachusetts. Unconscionability could apply to unforeseen hardships like illness or accidents.
HB1229: Representative Patrino Information Only03:36:56.319 - 12:32:27 PM; Representative Patrino asked why a party would waive alimony.
HB1229: Representative Markell Information Only03:36:56.319 - 12:32:27 PM; Representative Markell explained waivers often involve substantial consideration, like property or money in wealthy divorces.
HB1229: Representative Patrino Information Only03:38:00.640 - 12:33:31 PM; Representative Patrino followed up on proving coercion under preponderance of evidence.
HB1229: Representative Markell Information Only03:38:00.640 - 12:33:31 PM; Representative Markell described coercion examples like threats and noted these defenses are standard in contract and family law.
HB1229: Representative Greg Information Only03:39:03.520 - 12:34:34 PM; Representative Greg asked about procedural safeguards like waiting periods or counsel requirements, referencing the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act.
HB1229: Representative Markell Information Only03:39:03.520 - 12:34:34 PM; Representative Markell noted New Hampshire judges prenups individually; best practices include separate competent counsel to avoid invalidation.
HB1229: Representative Sher Information Only03:40:07.279 - 12:35:38 PM; Representative Sher referenced the 1989 McFarland v. Rich case with three factors for prenup enforceability, noting the bill lacks the third factor on changed circumstances, and asked if amendable.
HB1229: Representative Markell Information Only03:40:07.279 - 12:35:38 PM; Representative Markell agreed to an amendment adding changed circumstances language, viewing it akin to unconscionability, which covers shocking injustice.
HB1229: Representative Sher Information Only03:41:14.000 - 12:36:45 PM; Representative Sher followed up that changed circumstances differ from unconscionability and asked about property settlements.
HB1229: Representative Markell Information Only03:41:14.000 - 12:36:45 PM; Representative Markell acknowledged the distinction and noted property settlements are generally non-modifiable unless agreed or under specific factors.
HB1229: Representative Sher Information Only03:42:14.560 - 12:37:45 PM; Representative Sher asked if Representative Markell would accept an amendment adding the language.
HB1229: Representative Markell Information Only03:42:14.560 - 12:37:45 PM; Representative Markell had no problem with the amendment.
HB1779: Representative Mary Georgees Support04:04:27.760 - 12:59:58 PM; Representative Mary Georgees introduced HB 1779 FN, emphasizing its importance in honoring and preserving the cultural backgrounds of children in foster care. She noted children are uprooted from homes into environments not reflecting their identities, and research shows embracing cultural background aids development. This is her second bill presentation in her first term.
HB1779: Unnamed Speaker Support04:06:21.840 - 1:01:52 PM; The speaker emphasizes that maintaining a child's cultural heritage is essential for their emotional and psychological well-being. They describe the profound impact of placing a child in a foster home where their cultural traditions, language, and values are unfamiliar, potentially hindering development. Studies show that connections to cultural heritage improve emotional health, resilience, and overall outcomes for children.
HB1779: Representative (likely sponsor) Support04:07:16.720 - 1:02:47 PM; The speaker argues that the bill strengthens New Hampshire's foster care system by ensuring culturally sensitive and appropriate care that respects children's traditions and heritage. They advocate for implementing a training program for foster providers to understand diverse cultural backgrounds, incorporating cultural practices into daily lives to foster belonging, and facilitating connections to extended family and community resources. The testimony highlights the importance of enabling children to thrive through cultural respect.
HB1779: Marie Nunan and Susan Larby, DCYF Information Only04:25:29.920 - 1:21:00 PM; Marie Nunan, division director for DCYF, and Susan Larby, general counsel and legislative liaison, introduce themselves. In response to questions, they confirm that DCYF currently strives to place children in homes that consider their cultural backgrounds as part of existing practices. They address concerns about recruitment, retention, and how the bill might integrate with current efforts.
HB1779: Susan Larby, DCYF Information Only04:27:00.399 - 1:22:31 PM; Susan Larby from DCYF continues testimony on kinship care, cultural competency training, and existing licensing requirements under He-C 6446 and 6447 that mandate respect for children's cultural, religious, and ethnic backgrounds. She describes the 30-hour pre-licensing training adapted from federal standards, including modules on supporting children's social and cultural identities. She addresses recruitment and retention concerns, noting current training exists but additional dedicated cultural advocates as proposed would require hiring 14 new staff and a supervisor to meet the bill's requirements for every child in care.
HB1779: Representative Raymond Information Only04:30:30.479 - 1:26:01 PM; Representative Raymond asks about resources for foster parents needing extra support for cultural-specific needs like hair care or foods, and inquires about the role of the 14 new case aides mentioned in the fiscal note.
HB1779: Susan Larby, DCYF Information Only04:31:37.199 - 1:27:08 PM; Susan Larby explains DCYF's parent partner program, networking with local agencies and the Department of Health and Human Services for community resources. She clarifies that the new case aides would be trained cultural advocates, one per child in foster care, to fulfill the bill's requirements.
HB1779: Representative Petrino Information Only04:33:31.600 - 1:29:02 PM; Representative Petrino notes that much of the bill's intent is already in practice and asks if the legislation would affirm current work.
HB1779: Marie Nunan, DCYF Information Only04:33:31.600 - 1:29:02 PM; Marie Nunan agrees the bill would elevate focus on cultural needs with dedicated advocates, though some elements like training and case management already exist, and implementation would require additional staff.
HB1779: Unidentified Representative Information Only04:35:43.279 - 1:31:14 PM; The representative suggests changing 'shall be assigned a cultural advocate' to 'may be assigned a volunteer cultural advocate' to reduce fiscal costs, and discusses potential challenges in recruiting volunteers and ensuring coverage for all cultural identities. They also express concerns about the bill's definitions, particularly 'cultural foster care,' and potential conflicts with the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA).
HB1779: Representative Sher Information Only04:39:05.520 - 1:34:36 PM; Representative Sher asks if removing 'specialized' from the definition of cultural foster care would moderate the language and questions other potential conflicts with existing rules like RSA 170-E and He-C standards, including the foster care bill of rights.
HB1779: Susan Larby, DCYF Information Only04:40:17.600 - 1:35:48 PM; Susan Larby agrees removing 'specialized' would moderate it and notes existing foster care bill of rights already covers cultural respect without regard to identity, potentially encompassing the bill's additions. She questions the need for a cultural foster care fund if definitions change.
HB1779: Representative Greg Information Only04:42:07.760 - 1:37:38 PM; Representative Greg asks about current deficiencies in DCYF's handling of cultural aspects in foster care.
HB1779: Marie Nunan, DCYF Information Only04:42:55.440 - 1:38:26 PM; Marie Nunan discusses ongoing challenges in matching children to appropriate homes based on unique needs like sibling groups, race, identity, or religion, emphasizing the need for more foster and kinship homes, especially for non-English primary language children.
HB1779: Representative Corsen Information Only04:43:58.718 - 1:39:29 PM; Representative Corsen asks about potential litigation risks if the state cannot meet the bill's requirements due to insufficient foster homes.
HB1779: Marie Nunan, DCYF Information Only04:44:55.360 - 1:40:26 PM; Marie Nunan expresses concern over the 'shall' language mandating advocates, which could lead to issues if volunteers cannot be found for specific cultural needs.
HB1779: Representative Love Information Only04:44:55.360 - 1:40:26 PM; Representative Love seeks information on the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA).
HB1779: Susan Larby, DCYF Information Only04:46:01.440 - 1:41:32 PM; Susan Larby provides details on MEPA, a 1994 federal law amended in 1996, prohibiting race, color, or national origin as primary factors in foster placements.
HB1779: Representative Greg Information Only04:46:01.440 - 1:41:32 PM; Representative Greg asks about protocols for addressing cultural mismatches in placements.
HB1779: Marie Nunan, DCYF Information Only04:47:10.320 - 1:42:41 PM; Marie Nunan describes efforts to bridge gaps and maintain placements to avoid trauma, transitioning only if detrimental to the child.
HB1779: Shirley Haranto Support04:48:00.400 - 1:43:31 PM; Shirley Haranto, a single mother with an open DCYF case, shares her personal experience of cultural neglect, harassment by social workers, and refusal of requests to take her son to church or teach him prayers in his cultural language. She supports cultural preservation through volunteers and churches without additional funding, opposes her son's repeated dressing in princess dresses by foster parents against her wishes, and criticizes the lack of action on cultural considerations despite the 30-day requirement. She expresses frustration with visitation restrictions, termination of parental rights, and lack of credit for her volunteering efforts.
HB1779: Representative Coren Information Only04:54:25.760 - 1:49:56 PM; Representative Coren thanks Shirley for sharing and seeks clarification on her son being dressed as a girl in foster care.
HB1779: Shirley Haranto Support04:55:50.560 - 1:51:21 PM; Shirley confirms multiple instances of her son arriving at visits in a princess dress, not limited to Halloween, and notes foster parents' defensiveness when she raises cultural concerns. She emphasizes willingness of churches to help without funding and her own volunteering not being recognized.
HB1779: Representative Jonah Wheeler Support04:57:05.200 - 1:52:36 PM; Representative Jonah Wheeler, co-sponsor of HB 1779, supports the bill to protect children's cultural heritage in foster care, emphasizing its importance for identity and potential. He acknowledges existing DCYF efforts and statutes but urges making the bill workable to support children coherently.

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