Committee Summary for House Children and Family Law (02/04/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB486 00:06:46.880 - 9:05:07 AM	Public Hearing	relative to grandparents' visitation rights.	Nelson, Jodi(R)[B]2025
HB320 00:31:44.159 - 9:30:05 AM	Public Hearing	relative to enforcement of marital property settlements.	Markell, Jay(R)[B]2025
HB213 01:03:00.680 - 10:01:21 AM	Executive Session	relative to wage garnishment for child support.	Spillane, James(R)[A]2025
HB243 01:06:14.039 - 10:04:35 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to relative to the penalty for false reports of suspected abuse and neglect made to the division for children, youth, and families, and relative to the maternal mortality review committee, electric vehicle charging stations and fees for annual testing by the division of weights and measures, and relative to the acceptance of portraits of Senator Sylvia Larsen and Senator Jeb Bradley for the state house.	Spillane, James(R)[A]2025
Unclear 02:56:43.479 - 11:55:04 AM	General Working Session	Unclear
HB350 03:05:37.520 - 12:03:58 PM	Public Hearing	requiring that all family division hearings be video and audio recorded and broadcast live.	Post, Lisa(R)[A]2025
Unclear 04:40:21.840 - 1:38:42 PM	General Working Session	Unclear

HB486: Representative Nelson, Prime Sponsor Support00:06:46.880 - 9:05:07 AM; Representative Nelson introduced House Bill 486, discussing the challenges faced by grandparents in obtaining visitation rights. She highlighted the issue brought to her by a constituent and the subsequent research she conducted, which led to the proposed amendments to RSA 461a:13. The bill aims to address the needs of grandparents by including separate living arrangements as a circumstance for visitation, in addition to divorce. She emphasized the importance of maintaining a positive relationship between grandparents and grandchildren, particularly in cases where grandparents are raising their grandchildren due to parental drug abuse. Representative Nelson referenced successful legislation in other states and cited a help guide to underscore the importance of attachment and bonding for children's well-being.
HB486: Representative Greg Information Only00:11:27.399 - 9:09:48 AM; Representative Greg asked Representative Nelson about the origin of the six-month timeframe included in the bill. Representative Nelson explained that the timeframe was based on statutes from other states, specifically mentioning Arkansas, where this language has been implemented without issues.
HB486: Representative Raymond Information Only00:12:34.680 - 9:10:55 AM; Representative Raymond inquired about the requirement for a child to have lived with a grandparent for visitation rights, expressing concern for a friend who regularly cares for her grandchildren but does not live with them. Representative Nelson clarified that the proposed changes do not alter the current requirement but add to it, ensuring that the existing statute remains intact.
HB486: Frank Kland Support00:13:29.320 - 9:11:50 AM; Frank Kland testified in support of the grandparents visitation law, emphasizing the historical and emotional significance of grandparents in family structures. He argued that grandparents provide wisdom, care, and tradition, serving as peacekeepers and safe havens. Kland criticized parents who deny grandparents visitation, stating it harms the children. He urged the committee to pass the legislation to prioritize the well-being of children.
HB486: Stacy Ter Roan, concerned grandmother Support00:16:14.399 - 9:14:35 AM; Stacy Ter Roan testified in support of HB486, expressing her personal experience as a grandmother who has been alienated from her granddaughters for two years due to a legal issue with visitation rights. She described her struggle with the current RSA language that led to her case being dismissed after 18 months of litigation. She highlighted the emotional and psychological impact on her and her grandchildren, emphasizing the need for changes in the law to allow grandparents visitation rights, especially in cases involving potential abuse or neglect. She mentioned a specific incident where her youngest granddaughter was injured, underscoring her concern for their safety. She urged the committee to amend the bill to provide grandparents with a legal lifeline to their grandchildren.
HB486: Deborah Smar, representing herself and her husband Support00:27:56.080 - 9:26:17 AM; Deborah Smar spoke in support of HB486, detailing her family's situation where their son's arrest and subsequent restraining order led to the alienation of their granddaughters. They had been a close-knit family, living together for over three years, but after their son's legal troubles, their daughter-in-law restricted their access to the grandchildren. Deborah emphasized the emotional toll on the family and the need for the bill to be amended to allow grandparents visitation rights before a divorce is finalized, as their current situation left them with little hope of seeing their grandchildren until then.
HB320: Representative Marel, prime sponsor Support00:31:44.159 - 9:30:05 AM; Representative Marel introduced HB320, emphasizing the need for statutory requirements that courts enforce their final decrees. He shared a disturbing personal experience where a court refused to enforce a decree, leading to significant property deprivation. He explained the difference between enforcement and contempt, noting that contempt is discretionary and enforcement should be based on clear, well-settled legal principles. He outlined specific conditions under which a decree could be invalidated and stressed the importance of the bill in teaching litigants, especially self-represented individuals, how to effectively plead their cases. He argued that the bill would improve the administration of law by ensuring courts enforce their decrees and provide remedies to parties as if the decree had been fully performed.
HB213: Representative Sidel Support01:03:00.680 - 10:01:21 AM; Representative Sidel moved to pass HB213, an act relative to wage garnishment for child support, with an ought to pass recommendation.
HB213: Representative Greg Support01:03:00.680 - 10:01:21 AM; Representative Greg seconded the motion to pass HB213.
HB213: Chairman Pearson Information Only01:03:00.680 - 10:01:21 AM; Chairman Pearson confirmed that HB213 has no fiscal impact based on responses from the judicial branch and DHHS, and the bill was unanimously passed with 15 yes votes and no objections to being placed on consent.
HB243: Representative Nelson Support01:06:14.039 - 10:04:35 AM; Representative Nelson moved to pass the bill with an Ought to Pass (OTP) motion. He supported the bill citing that many states, including both red and blue states like California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Texas, have laws penalizing false reporting of abuse and neglect. He noted that there was no data provided during the testimony to support the claim that such laws would deter actual reporting of abuse, and no findings from other states indicated such an effect.
HB243: Representative Rice Oppose01:07:10.640 - 10:05:31 AM; Representative Rice expressed opposition to the bill, stating concerns about potential harm to children. He argued that the bill could make people afraid to report abuse or neglect due to the fear of being considered malicious, which could lead to under-reporting and increased risk to children.
HB243: Representative Petrino Oppose01:08:11.960 - 10:06:32 AM; Representative Petrino opposed the bill, explaining that while individuals could make anonymous calls, the potential for civil or criminal penalties for false reports could deter conscientious individuals from reporting, potentially putting children at risk. He emphasized that even one child at risk is too many.
HB243: Representative Greg Oppose01:09:18.399 - 10:07:39 AM; Representative Greg strongly opposed the bill, citing his concerns about the psychological impact on conscientious individuals who might hesitate to report due to fear of being considered malicious. He referenced testimony from Joe Ripsom, a former DCF chair, who opposed the bill, emphasizing that DCF should handle such cases without deterring reports.
HB243: Representative Vice Chair D Simon Oppose01:10:17.600 - 10:08:38 AM; Representative Vice Chair D Simon shared personal experiences of having to make reports and expressed concern that the bill would make conscientious individuals second-guess their decisions to report, potentially reducing the number of reports and increasing risk to children.
HB243: Representative Raymond Oppose01:11:23.679 - 10:09:44 AM; Representative Raymond opposed the bill based on advice from the Office of the Child Advocate, which opposed the bill. He highlighted the importance of the Office's oversight role and their expertise in child welfare, indicating that their opposition influenced his decision.
HB243: Representative Sure Oppose01:12:30.840 - 10:10:51 AM; Representative Sure was persuaded by a conversation with the Office of the Child Advocate, which argued against criminalizing child neglect and suggested that DCF should handle such issues. This perspective influenced his opposition to the bill.
HB243: Representative D. Simon Support01:14:06.800 - 10:12:27 AM; Representative D. Simon expressed strong support for the bill, emphasizing personal experiences with reporting child abuse. They noted the lack of data proving that the bill would decrease legitimate calls, and despite potential consequences of being labeled a troublemaker, they felt compelled to call on behalf of the child. They are ready to accept any consequences for their actions in support of child protection.
HB243: Representative Patrino Support01:15:31.199 - 10:13:52 AM; Representative Patrino discussed a social media post from Milford about a resident's uncertainty in reporting a screaming child, indicating public hesitation due to fear of penalties for false reporting. They argued that this hesitation could put children at risk and supported the bill to encourage reporting without fear of repercussions for honest mistakes.
HB243: Representative Love Support01:18:37.639 - 10:16:58 AM; Representative Love supported the bill, arguing that criminalizing false reporting would require proving intent, which is a high bar. They believe this would not deter honest callers and emphasized that the police and DCF would prefer to investigate and find no abuse than miss a case of actual abuse. They believe the bill is necessary to address intentional false reports.
HB243: Counselor Information Only01:20:21.920 - 10:18:42 AM; The counselor provided legal clarification on the intent required to prove a crime of false reporting, stating that a good faith error would not meet the high standard of malice needed for criminal conviction. They reassured the committee that the bill would not deter honest reporting and might provide relief for victims of repeated false reports.
HB243: Representative Rice Oppose01:22:21.080 - 10:20:42 AM; Representative Rice opposed the bill, citing existing law (RSA 641:4) that already criminalizes false reporting to law enforcement. They expressed concern that the new bill's criminalization could deter people from reporting due to the fear of legal repercussions, even if the reports are not malicious. They believe the existing law is sufficient.
HB243: Representative Sure Oppose01:23:34.040 - 10:21:55 AM; Representative Sure, a law professor, opposed the bill citing RSA 641:4, which already criminalizes false reports to law enforcement. They highlighted the overlap between the existing law and the proposed bill, noting the lower mental state requirement in the existing law ('knowingly' versus 'maliciously'). They argued that the existing law covers most of what the bill aims to do without the potential negative impact on reporting.
HB243: Representative Deimon Information Only01:27:15.840 - 10:25:36 AM; Representative Deimon expressed concerns about the relationship between the bill and RSA 641, which specifies actions related to police and courts. They highlighted the potential issue that RSA 641 does not include DCYF or DHHS, which could deter courts from making determinations in cases involving false reports to these agencies.
HB243: Representative Marel Information Only01:28:11.080 - 10:26:32 AM; Representative Marel echoed concerns about reports to entities other than law enforcement. They discussed the potential for conflicting statutes to raise reasonable doubt in legal proceedings, particularly concerning immunity from prosecution when reporting suspected child abuse. They suggested that the proposed bill might help rather than hurt by addressing these issues.
HB243: Representative Petrino Information Only01:29:27.960 - 10:27:48 AM; Representative Petrino discussed the implications of conflicting statutes on legal defense, suggesting that without the proposed bill, it could be difficult to prove cases beyond a reasonable doubt due to immunity claims. They supported the motion to recommend the bill as it might help clarify legal proceedings.
HB243: Representative Nelson Support01:31:39.719 - 10:30:00 AM; Representative Nelson moved to recommend the bill 'Ought to Pass' (OTP), indicating support for the bill. The motion was seconded by Representative Sidel.
HB243: Representative Petrino Oppose01:33:45.719 - 10:32:06 AM; Representative Petrino moved to recommend the bill 'Inexpedient to Legislate' (ITL), indicating opposition. The motion was seconded by Representative Rice. This motion passed with a vote of 10 to 6, effectively recommending against the bill.
HB243: Chair Information Only01:35:37.760 - 10:33:58 AM; The chair shared an anecdote about a past voting incident during a remote session, highlighting the human error that can occur in voting processes. They emphasized the importance of careful voting and concluded the executive session on HB243.
Unclear: Representative Grman Information Only02:56:43.479 - 11:55:04 AM; Representative Grman shared personal experiences related to foster care, emphasizing the importance of prevention of abuse. They expressed enthusiasm for being part of the Children and Family Law Committee.
Unclear: Chair Information Only03:00:12.040 - 11:58:33 AM; The chair discussed the issue of constitutionality regarding legislation, clarifying that the vice chair's advice on constitutionality is not a ruling but an opinion. They explained the process of dealing with constitutional concerns during executive sessions and the role of the courts in making final determinations.
HB350: Representative Caitlyn Katab (subbing for Representative Lisa Post) Information Only03:05:37.520 - 12:03:58 PM; Representative Katab introduced the bill on behalf of Representative Post, explaining the original intent to increase transparency in family court proceedings. They discussed concerns raised by the court about implementing such a system, including issues with private bench conversations and the potential for revealing confidential information. They proposed working with the court to develop a pilot program to test the feasibility of the bill's requirements.
HB350: Representative Erica Leon Support03:08:41.760 - 12:07:02 PM; Representative Leon, a co-sponsor of the bill, supported the initiative to record family court proceedings, citing a case where important testimony was not included in the record. They emphasized the need for accurate records to ensure justice, especially in cases involving children and families, and expressed interest in the proposed pilot program.
HB350: Representative Rice Information Only03:11:15.720 - 12:09:36 PM; Representative Rice raised concerns about the duration for which the Judiciary is required to retain court recordings and the associated storage costs. They suggested that these considerations should be included in any amendments to the bill.
HB350: Representative Patri Information Only03:12:13.080 - 12:10:34 PM; Representative Patri inquired about the rationale for live broadcasting of court proceedings. The response highlighted the importance of transparency and the ability for families to monitor court actions, while also suggesting the implementation of administrative rules for managing broadcasts, including emergency pauses if necessary.
HB350: Representative Rice Information Only03:13:31.640 - 12:11:52 PM; Representative Rice expressed concerns about the potential harm to children from live broadcasts of court hearings, especially regarding sensitive information that could lead to peer backlash. The response acknowledged the issue but also emphasized the harm caused by unnecessarily separating children from their families.
HB350: Representative Coran Information Only03:14:32.399 - 12:12:53 PM; Representative Coran sought clarification on whether the broadcasting of court cases would be optional and based on family requests. The response confirmed that the bill intended for broadcasts to be opt-in, with specific language allowing a party to request a broadcast, subject to judicial review based on potential harm.
HB350: Representative D Simon Information Only03:17:41.600 - 12:16:02 PM; Representative D Simon asked about the recipients of the broadcasted proceedings and the process if a witness objects to their testimony being broadcast. The response clarified that the broadcast link would be available through the clerk's office and addressed concerns about witness objections, emphasizing transparency and the necessity of broadcasts for ensuring fair family court decisions.
HB350: Representative Greg Information Only03:19:16.199 - 12:17:37 PM; Representative Greg discusses the balance between transparency and privacy in Family Court proceedings. He raises concerns about the involvement of the legislative branch in judicial processes and suggests an alternative approach used in other states where observers audit judicial proceedings to ensure oversight without legislative interference. He also reflects on the public nature of certain procedures, using the example of TSA searches to argue for the benefits of transparency in sensitive situations.
HB350: Representative Greg Information Only03:21:09.239 - 12:19:30 PM; Continuing his previous point, Representative Greg emphasizes the need for transparency to prevent wrongful separation of families and to expose abusive behaviors. He argues that public scrutiny can help clarify what is acceptable in raising children and can prevent harm by making it easier to identify and address abusive situations.
HB350: Representative Greg Information Only03:22:07.359 - 12:20:28 PM; Representative Greg shares his experience from sitting in on court cases, noting the high emotions involved and how broadcasting such proceedings might affect individuals' future employment. He acknowledges the emotional testimonies heard in the subcommittee on DCF and supports the idea of transparency to help families understand why children are being removed from their homes.
HB350: Representative Raymond Information Only03:23:03.640 - 12:21:24 PM; Representative Raymond questions the rights to privacy of children in family court, particularly concerning sensitive information like medical records and evidence of abuse. He asks who decides on the child's privacy rights and how the best interest of the child is protected if parents disagree on broadcasting the proceedings. He suggests that the child should have veto power over broadcasting their personal information.
HB350: Representative Rice Information Only03:25:09.680 - 12:23:30 PM; Representative Rice raises a concern about section four of the bill, which allows access to video and audio recordings of court hearings. He points out that there are no limitations specified, suggesting that anyone could access recordings of private and personal hearings, and suggests adding limitations to the bill.
HB350: Representative Nelson Information Only03:26:08.720 - 12:24:29 PM; Representative Nelson inquires whether other states have implemented similar transparency measures in their family courts. The response indicates that the speaker is unaware of any such practices in other states.
HB350: Representative Gman Information Only03:26:08.720 - 12:24:29 PM; Representative Gman discusses the contentious nature of divorce and family court proceedings and questions the implications of the bill, which states that if one party requests a recording, the judge must find reparable harm to deny the request. He notes an upcoming amendment supported by the prime sponsor, indicating a potential change to address some of the concerns raised.
HB350: Representative Love Information Only03:27:18.760 - 12:25:39 PM; Representative Love suggested amending the bill to ensure that court proceedings are recorded and the recordings are made available to the parties involved. This amendment is proposed to address privacy concerns while maintaining transparency in court proceedings.
HB350: Representative Marel Information Only03:28:20.800 - 12:26:41 PM; Representative Marel raised concerns about the reliability of audio recordings in court proceedings, noting that there have been instances where recordings seemed to be cut off. He suggested that video recordings could provide a more reliable record by visually showing any disruptions or breaks in the recording.
HB350: Representative Rice Information Only03:30:36.160 - 12:28:57 PM; Representative Rice questioned the potential misuse of court recordings, particularly regarding children's privacy and the possibility of such recordings being shared on social media. He highlighted the need for safeguards to prevent malicious sharing while acknowledging the importance of transparency in cases where recordings could prove innocence or clarify events.
HB350: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose03:32:37.399 - 12:30:58 PM; Mary Krueger, an attorney with New Hampshire Legal Assistance, opposed the bill, arguing that it would harm children during parental separations and could lead to the broadcasting of sensitive family court cases. She expressed concerns about the potential for live streaming and video recordings to be misused on social media, which could further impact children and discourage domestic violence victims from seeking protection orders.
HB350: Dana Albre Support03:37:58.279 - 12:36:19 PM; Dana Albre supported the bill, presenting evidence of judicial misconduct and inaccuracies in court transcripts. He argued that the bill would increase transparency and accountability in the judicial system, particularly by addressing the deliberate omission of judicial misconduct from court records. He also mentioned a personal experience where he was denied the opportunity to film a family court proceeding despite following proper channels.
HB350: The Honorable Betty Gay Support03:43:34.960 - 12:41:55 PM; The Honorable Betty Gay supported the bill, citing instances where court recordings were altered or deleted, which she believes is unfair to litigants. She argued that allowing individuals to make their own recordings would increase transparency and accountability in family court proceedings, potentially leading to better behavior from court officials.
HB350: Gail Drat, Amherst, New Hampshire Support03:48:28.880 - 12:46:49 PM; Gail Drat from Amherst, New Hampshire, supported the bill, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in family court proceedings. She argued that audio and video recordings would provide a precise and accessible record, benefiting both litigants and court officials by reducing misunderstandings and ensuring fairness in the judicial process.
HB350: Aon Kgan, General Counsel for the Court System Information Only03:51:09.279 - 12:49:30 PM; Aon Kgan, the General Counsel for the Court System, provided information on the bill, noting the balance between transparency and privacy in court proceedings. She mentioned ongoing discussions with the bill's sponsors about potential amendments, such as not live streaming but recording proceedings for later redaction and starting with one courthouse as a pilot. She did not comment on whether the bill should move forward but highlighted the dialogue with the sponsors.
HB350: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:53:41.040 - 12:52:02 PM; The speaker discussed an incident where court transcribers were unsure whether to transcribe an expletive, leading to the termination of an employee. They raised a question about judicial review when a judge cuts out sections of a recording, to which the response was that in Superior Courts, court monitors ensure the accuracy of the record, but in circuit courts, there are no such monitors, and recordings are typically off when the judge is not present. The speaker suggested that errors might occur but did not believe it was intentional.
HB350: Representative Love Information Only03:54:52.080 - 12:53:13 PM; Representative Love expressed concerns about the lack of confidence in family courts among their constituents and asked about the feasibility of providing litigants with copies of proceedings at a reasonable cost. They highlighted the high cost of transcripts and the need for transparency, especially for pro se litigants who cannot afford legal representation. The response acknowledged the high cost of transcripts, which are outsourced to a private company, and suggested that security video could be requested to verify periods when the audio is off.
HB350: Representative Kein Cab Support03:58:53.640 - 12:57:14 PM; Representative Kein Cab introduced House Bill 335 on behalf of the prime sponsor, Lisa Post. They mentioned an amendment to change the word 'shall' to 'May' in the bill, which pertains to the court's ability to order a risk assessment within 14 days in certain family conflict situations. The bill aims to enable judges to have this tool at their discretion rather than making it mandatory. Representative Cab emphasized the importance of this tool for cases involving potential abuse or parental rejection, and clarified that the costs of the assessment would be borne equally by the parties involved.
HB350: Representative Raymond Information Only04:01:24.680 - 12:59:45 PM; Representative Raymond inquired about the specifics of who would conduct the risk assessments under HB335, whether there would be a pool of court-appointed assessors, and if there was a standard assessment protocol. Representative Cab responded that the assessments would be conducted by credentialed clinical psychologists, and the choice of the assessor could be left to the judge or agreed upon by the parties, emphasizing the flexibility in the bill to accommodate existing relationships with providers.
HB350: Representative Rice Information Only04:03:52.359 - 1:02:13 PM; Representative Rice raised concerns about the financial implications of the assessments required by HB335, asking who would pay for them. Representative Cab clarified that the costs would be split equally between the parties as stated in the bill. Representative Rice also questioned the feasibility of completing the assessment within the 14-day timeframe given the shortage of clinical psychologists, to which Representative Cab explained that the assessment could be ordered within 14 days but completed within a reasonable period not exceeding 8 weeks.
HB350: Representative Sher Information Only04:05:10.319 - 1:03:31 PM; Representative Sher expressed concern about the availability of clinical psychologists in New Hampshire to conduct the assessments required by HB335, and what would happen if one of the parties could not afford the assessment. Representative Cab responded that there are a number of qualified providers in different parts of the state and that the judge would not order the assessment if the parties could not afford it.
HB350: Betty Gay Support04:07:38.760 - 1:05:59 PM; Betty Gay spoke in support of HB335, emphasizing the need for risk assessments before ordering counseling in family court cases. She highlighted issues with the current system where counseling is ordered without proper evaluation, often at a high cost to the parties involved. Gay advocated for the bill's provision to assess the need and type of counseling before it is ordered, arguing that this would be more beneficial and fair to the parties involved.
HB350: Mr. DeJoy, National Association of Social Workers and New Hampshire Psychological Association Oppose04:12:06.000 - 1:10:27 PM; Mr. DeJoy, representing the National Association of Social Workers and the New Hampshire Psychological Association, expressed strong opposition to HB350. He argued that the legislation, despite being well-intended, addresses a non-existent problem. He detailed a meeting with the bill's prime sponsor and a constituent, discussing the legislation and its amendment. The core issue raised by the constituent was the lack of judicial orders for evaluations in family court cases, which Mr. DeJoy clarified is not the appropriate solution. He emphasized that mandatory evaluations without specific reasons could lead to retraumatization and would not resolve the underlying process issues in court. He suggested a performance audit of the family court as a more suitable approach to address the constituent's concerns.
HB350: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose04:23:30.399 - 1:21:51 PM; Mary Krueger, an attorney with New Hampshire Legal Assistance, opposed HB350, citing its potential harm to children involved in high-risk domestic violence cases. She argued that the bill's requirement for invasive evaluations could damage children by thrusting them into contested parenting disputes. Krueger highlighted the existing system of appointing guardians ad litem, which she believes is more appropriate for investigating issues in divorce and parenting cases. She also referenced the case 'In re Berg' to underline the importance of maintaining children's privacy in therapeutic sessions, which she feels could be compromised by the bill. Krueger urged the committee to vote the bill as inexpedient to legislate (ITL).
HB350: Representative Rice Information Only04:27:31.080 - 1:25:52 PM; Representative Rice requested a copy of written testimony presented earlier and mentioned that 16 copies were made but were taken. They also offered to circulate a case file named 'enry Berg' which they believe could be beneficial for the committee's consideration of the issues at hand.
HB350: Representative Sher Information Only04:28:19.840 - 1:26:40 PM; Representative Sher spoke about their past connection with a testifier, and discussed the role of a guardian ad litem in connecting with a child. They clarified that guardians might not always develop a relationship with the child but can communicate with the child's therapist to gather necessary information for court recommendations.
HB350: Gail Drowart, Amherst, New Hampshire Support04:29:33.359 - 1:27:54 PM; Gail Drowart from Amherst, New Hampshire, supported HB335, emphasizing the importance of risk assessments in family court cases, especially those involving reunification therapy. They highlighted the negative impact of prolonged separation between children and parents and referenced previous legislation, HB1162, which addressed psychological maltreatment. They argued for the necessity of such measures to minimize trauma and promote the mental and emotional well-being of children.
HB350: Dana Alra, Nashua, New Hampshire Support04:32:19.040 - 1:30:40 PM; Dana Alra from Nashua, New Hampshire, supported HB335, arguing that the bill addresses a real problem within the family court system. They criticized the adversarial nature of family court, suggesting that it results in unnecessary costs and trauma. Alra proposed that therapeutic interventions, rather than legal proceedings, could be more beneficial in resolving family conflicts and reducing the burden on the judicial system.
HB350: Sarah Tson, Goffstown, New Hampshire Oppose04:35:26.160 - 1:33:47 PM; Sarah Tson from Goffstown, New Hampshire, opposed HB335, citing concerns about the bill's lack of transparency and its potential negative impact on children. She criticized the bill for conflicting with previous legislation against reunification therapy and highlighted the financial and emotional burdens that mandated psychological evaluations could impose, particularly on domestic violence survivors. Tson argued that forced therapy could harm children and questioned the motives behind the bill, suggesting it might benefit certain financial interests.
Unclear: Chair Information Only04:40:21.840 - 1:38:42 PM; The chair announced the upcoming executive session to review bills heard in the past few weeks, emphasizing the urgency to finalize amendments. They mentioned a specific amendment to HB10, the Parental Bill of Rights, which would be considered in two weeks. The chair also discussed the distribution of amendment copies and the scheduling of subcommittee meetings.

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