Committee Summary for House Children and Family Law (02/18/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB285 00:05:06.479 - 9:03:27 AM	Public Hearing	relative to determination of parental rights and responsibilities.	Ball, Lorie(R)[B+]2025
HB177 01:01:41.960 - 10:00:02 AM	Public Hearing	relative to children in placement pursuant to an episode of treatment for which the department of health and human services has a financial responsibility.	Murphy, Nancy(D)[CT]2025
HB177 01:06:38.960 - 10:04:59 AM	Executive Session	relative to children in placement pursuant to an episode of treatment for which the department of health and human services has a financial responsibility.	Murphy, Nancy(D)[CT]2025
HB320 01:20:01.440 - 10:18:22 AM	Executive Session	relative to enforcement of marital property settlements.	Markell, Jay(R)[B]2025
HB335 01:24:53.320 - 10:23:14 AM	Executive Session	requiring courts to order a minor and their family have psychological evaluations and, if necessary, counseling, where parental rights and responsibilities are contested in a family court matter.	Post, Lisa(R)[A]2025
HB350 01:30:56.159 - 10:29:17 AM	Executive Session	requiring that all family division hearings be video and audio recorded and broadcast live.	Post, Lisa(R)[A]2025
HB433 01:50:24.520 - 10:48:45 AM	Executive Session	making 17 the age of consent for marriage if either party is active duty military and removing language regarding age waivers for marriage registration records, since age waivers are no longer issued in New Hampshire.	Drye, Margaret(R)[B+]2025
HB433 01:56:50.840 - 10:55:11 AM	Public Hearing	making 17 the age of consent for marriage if either party is active duty military and removing language regarding age waivers for marriage registration records, since age waivers are no longer issued in New Hampshire.	Drye, Margaret(R)[B+]2025
HB433 02:10:52.480 - 11:09:13 AM	Executive Session	making 17 the age of consent for marriage if either party is active duty military and removing language regarding age waivers for marriage registration records, since age waivers are no longer issued in New Hampshire.	Drye, Margaret(R)[B+]2025
HB486 02:16:13.880 - 11:14:34 AM	Public Hearing	relative to grandparents' visitation rights.	Nelson, Jodi(R)[B]2025
HB486 02:19:01.040 - 11:17:22 AM	Executive Session	relative to grandparents' visitation rights.	Nelson, Jodi(R)[B]2025
HB10 03:10:02.040 - 12:08:23 PM	Public Hearing	(New Title) establishing a parental bill of rights.	Packard, Sherman(R)[SP]2025

HB285: Representative Ball Support00:05:06.479 - 9:03:27 AM; Representative Ball introduced and supported House Bill 285, emphasizing that it is a simple addition to remind judges to consider the full environment of children in custody cases. He stressed the importance of judges being aware of any known mental health conditions that could interfere with parenting. He clarified that the bill does not seek private information or medical records but aims to ensure the safety and health of the child's environment. He highlighted the stress of divorce and the potential impact on parents with mental health issues, suggesting that judges should be informed to make decisions in the best interest of the child. Ball also mentioned the support system that married parents have, which can break down after divorce, and the need for judges to ensure safe environments for children.
HB285: Representative Raymond Information Only00:10:47.800 - 9:09:08 AM; Representative Raymond questioned how the language of HB285 increases the focus on the child's best interest rather than looking for reasons why a parent might not be able to parent effectively. He pointed out existing sections of the law that require judges to consider parents' abilities to provide for their children, suggesting that these should already cover the concerns addressed by HB285.
HB285: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:12:51.000 - 9:11:12 AM; An unnamed speaker asked how judges would determine mental health issues in parents who have not sought counseling or diagnosis, to which it was responded that judges could order psychological evaluations if deemed necessary, and that the bill would allow judges to ask relevant questions and consider additional testimony or evidence.
HB285: Representative Greg Information Only00:14:02.000 - 9:12:23 AM; Representative Greg raised concerns about the potential weaponization of mental health issues in high-conflict custody cases. He questioned the basis for determining these issues and how they could be used against parents. Representative Ball responded by explaining that the bill could actually prevent the weaponization of such issues by disarming both parents from making false allegations and allowing judges to seek the truth in the best interest of the child. Ball also mentioned that he had consulted with a former Supreme Court judge who saw no issue with judges asking relevant questions, but highlighted the need for such questions to be asked to fully assess the home environment.
HB285: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:18:11.320 - 9:16:32 AM; The speaker discussed the issue of judicial burnout in relation to the bill, suggesting that the bill might benefit from an amendment that would instruct judges to ask specific questions about mental health. They believe that judges should be trusted to make the right decisions but that a reminder in the bill could be beneficial to ensure a comprehensive view of the case is considered.
HB285: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:19:11.280 - 9:17:32 AM; The speaker clarified that judges currently have the ability to ask about mental health conditions but often do not. They highlighted the need for the bill to ensure that judges consider mental health as part of the whole picture in custody cases, not just isolated aspects. The speaker also discussed the challenges faced by pro se parents in family court who lack the knowledge to present relevant information to the judge.
HB285: Representative McMahon Information Only00:24:01.679 - 9:22:22 AM; Representative McMahon questioned whether the language in the bill should be more directive, requiring judges to ask about mental health rather than leaving it to their discretion. They discussed the implications of the term 'relevant' and how it might affect the judge's responsibility to consider mental health issues. The speaker expressed willingness to amend the bill based on committee feedback.
HB285: Sarah Horn, Manchester Oppose00:28:21.080 - 9:26:42 AM; Sarah Horn, a resident of Manchester and a parent, spoke in opposition to HB285. She shared her personal experiences with mental health disorders and her successful recovery, emphasizing that her history of mental illness does not impair her ability to parent. Instead, she believes it has made her more empathetic and resilient. Horn expressed concerns that the bill could lead to increased stigma and discrimination against individuals with mental health issues, potentially deterring them from seeking necessary support. She advocated for focusing on current behaviors rather than past diagnoses.
HB285: Kevin Blanchett, State of New Hampshire Oppose00:33:23.600 - 9:31:44 AM; Kevin Blanchett, a licensed clinical mental health counselor, spoke in opposition to HB285. He argued that adding mental health to the list of factors considered in determining parental rights stigmatizes mental health and presumes that individuals with mental health conditions are less capable as parents. He highlighted that a significant portion of New Hampshire's population suffers from mental health issues, and the bill might deter people from seeking treatment due to fear of legal repercussions. Blanchett also noted that current laws already allow judges to consider mental health if necessary, suggesting the focus should be on behaviors rather than diagnoses.
HB285: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:36:10.640 - 9:34:31 AM; The unnamed speaker discussed the implications of HIPAA on mental health privacy, stating that while HIPAA does protect privacy, judges can still subpoena records, which creates stress and legal concerns for clinicians. This could lead to more scrutiny and a presumption that mental health negatively impacts parenting.
HB285: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:38:32.359 - 9:36:53 AM; Another unnamed speaker raised concerns about individuals with mental health issues who deny their condition. They discussed a case where one spouse's mental health was used against the other in court, suggesting that mental health could be used in a 'blame game' rather than focusing on actual parenting behaviors.
HB285: Holly Stevens, NAMI New Hampshire Oppose00:40:10.640 - 9:38:31 AM; Holly Stevens, representing NAMI New Hampshire, opposed HB285, arguing that it furthers damaging stigma and jeopardizes the rights of individuals with mental health conditions. She emphasized that having a mental illness does not inherently impact parenting ability and that the bill discriminatorily targets mental health without considering other health conditions. Stevens suggested that existing laws already allow for consideration of mental health if it impacts parenting and criticized the bill for singling out mental health. She proposed alternative language that would consider all health conditions affecting the best interest of the child but opposed an amendment that still specifically mentioned mental health.
HB285: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:45:20.119 - 9:43:41 AM; The unnamed speaker clarified NAMI's position that merely naming a mental illness does not indicate the quality of parenting or ability to provide fit parenting. They emphasized that behaviors, not diagnoses, should be the focus when determining parental rights.
HB285: LC, Nami New Hampshire Oppose00:46:17.960 - 9:44:38 AM; LC from Nami New Hampshire expressed concern about the societal stigma surrounding mental illness. They highlighted Nami's efforts to combat discrimination against individuals with mental illnesses and specifically opposed the bill, arguing that it contributes to the stigma and discrimination against people with mental health conditions.
HB285: Karen Rosenberg, Disability Rights Center Oppose00:47:06.520 - 9:45:27 AM; Karen Rosenberg, policy director at the Disability Rights Center, testified in opposition to the bill. She argued that the bill is discriminatory and perpetuates the stigma associated with mental illness. Rosenberg emphasized that having a mental health condition does not inherently affect one's ability to be a good parent. She further stated that the current law provides sufficient factors for courts to consider in the best interest of the child, and adding specific inquiries about mental illness is unnecessary and potentially harmful.
HB285: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:49:51.680 - 9:48:12 AM; The speaker shared personal experience with mental illness in their family and the challenges of addressing it in court. They expressed belief in recovery from mental illness and sought suggestions for amending the bill to address court issues without focusing on mental health. The speaker suggested removing the mental health component from the bill and emphasized the need for the court to consider all relevant factors in the best interest of the child.
HB285: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:52:08.640 - 9:50:29 AM; The speaker questioned the number of children in DCF custody or on the adoptive track who have parents with mental illness but did not have the specific data to answer the question.
HB285: Betty Gay, Former State Representative Support00:53:01.440 - 9:51:22 AM; Betty Gay, a former state representative, supported the bill but suggested amendments to address concerns raised by others. She emphasized that the bill aims to address current active mental health conditions affecting parenting, not historical mental health issues. Gay pointed out that most states consider current mental health in parenting decisions, and New Hampshire currently does not allow this consideration to be initiated by the other parent. She stressed the need for the bill to be rewritten to protect children from negative parenting while considering input from others in court proceedings.
HB177: Representative Nancy Murphy, Town of Merrimack Support01:01:41.960 - 10:00:02 AM; Representative Nancy Murphy introduced HB 177, explaining it as a housekeeping bill to clarify language in RSA 193:27. She detailed the legislative history of the bill, noting that two previous bills had amended the same section of the law, leading to the omission of a reference to RSA 193:27. Murphy requested an OTP recommendation, emphasizing the bill's necessity to correct the oversight.
HB177: Jenny O'Higgins, Legislative Liaison for Behavioral Health at DHHS Information Only01:05:06.520 - 10:03:27 AM; Jenny O'Higgins from DHHS provided information on the bill, clarifying that episodes of treatment are not court-ordered and thus might not fall under the statute as intended. She suggested further review and discussion with Representative Murphy to ensure clarity on the bill's impact.
HB177: Chair Support01:06:38.960 - 10:04:59 AM; The chair moved for an ought to pass (OTP) recommendation on HB177, which was seconded. There was no further discussion, and the vote was unanimous in favor of passing the bill, with 13 votes to 0.
HB320: Representative Martel Support01:20:01.440 - 10:18:22 AM; Representative Martel moved for an ought to pass recommendation on HB320, which requires courts to enforce property settlement orders in divorce cases. The bill sets out measurable standards for enforcement and provides remedies if the decree cannot be fully performed. It aims to help unrepresented parties in Family Division and provide a clear yardstick for appeals. The motion was seconded, and the vote was unanimous in favor, with 14 votes to 0.
HB335: Representative Martel Support01:24:53.320 - 10:23:14 AM; Representative Martel moved for a motion on HB335, which requires courts to order psychological evaluations and, if necessary, counseling for minors and their families in contested parental rights and responsibilities cases in family court. The motion was introduced, but the transcript snippet ends before any further discussion or vote on the bill.
HB335: Representative Martel Information Only01:24:53.320 - 10:23:14 AM; Representative Martel moved that HB335 be deemed inexpedient to legislate (ITL). He argued that the bill, if passed, would require services of a clinical psychologist to diagnose and treat psychological conditions and necessitate a licensed psychologist to evaluate and file a risk assessment report within 8 weeks. He expressed concerns about the availability of licensed psychologists in the state to perform these evaluations. Additionally, he noted that the bill's procedural requirements demand a court order for a risk assessment within 14 days of the initial divorce petition, which does not consider children subject to parenting petitions outside of divorce cases.
HB335: Representative Raymond Information Only01:26:37.520 - 10:24:58 AM; Representative Raymond supported Representative Martel's concerns about HB335. She highlighted issues with the bill's impact on a previous law that required court-ordered psychological services to be covered by health insurance unless both parties agreed otherwise. She explained that the risk assessment required by the bill is not a recognized service covered by insurance and might be unconstitutional based on Supreme Court cases. She concurred with Representative Martel's motion to deem the bill ITL.
HB350: Representative Sidel Information Only01:30:56.159 - 10:29:17 AM; Representative Sidel initially moved to deem HB350 inexpedient to legislate (ITL), but later withdrew the motion to allow for amendments to be considered. He then moved to pass the bill with an amendment. The discussion shifted to considering amendments to the bill.
HB350: Representative Greg Information Only01:31:49.480 - 10:30:10 AM; Representative Greg seconded Representative Sidel's initial ITL motion for HB350 and later agreed to withdraw the second when the motion was pulled back to consider amendments.
HB350: Representative Love Information Only01:36:07.000 - 10:34:28 AM; Representative Love moved an amendment to HB350, but the amendment did not receive a second and therefore did not carry.
HB350: Representative D Simone Information Only01:36:53.600 - 10:35:14 AM; Representative D Simone seconded Representative Sidel's motion to pass HB350 with an amendment. He also seconded the motion for Amendment 0441H, which establishes a pilot program to look at the original bill's intent. There was some discussion about whether the amendment was germane, but it was deemed to be so, and the amendment was moved forward for consideration.
HB350: Representative D Simone Oppose01:38:12.560 - 10:36:33 AM; Representative D Simone expressed concerns about the amendment's failure to adequately address the issue of child confidentiality in Family Division proceedings. They highlighted the potential for recordings made by media or individuals to be dispersed, which could lead to sensitive information about children, such as details related to domestic violence, child abuse, medical, and therapeutic records, being exposed on the internet. This exposure, they argued, could have long-lasting negative impacts on the children involved, leading to their opposition to any measure that would allow such recordings.
HB350: Representative Support01:39:39.520 - 10:38:00 AM; The representative supported the idea of a pilot program to address the issues surrounding the recording of family court proceedings. They argued that a pilot program would provide valuable information before enacting permanent legislation, suggesting it as a step towards addressing constituent concerns about what happens in family court.
HB350: Representative Petrino Oppose01:40:35.119 - 10:38:56 AM; Representative Petrino opposed the underlying bill and expressed skepticism about the utility of a pilot program. They stated that without significant changes to the bill, a pilot program would be a moot point, as they would ultimately not support the legislation.
HB350: Representative Sher Oppose01:41:04.280 - 10:39:25 AM; Representative Sher echoed concerns raised by Representative Raymond and added their own reservations about the bill. They mentioned the need for consultation with the Ninth Circuit and expressed inability to support the bill without confirmation that the court system could effectively implement it.
HB350: Representative from Nashua Oppose01:41:41.080 - 10:40:02 AM; The representative from Nashua opposed the amendment, stating it undermines the original purpose of the bill, which was to have an official document of the proceedings. They pointed out that the amendment specifies that recordings made under the section would not be considered the official transcript, thus defeating the purpose sought by the bill's proponents. Additionally, they highlighted that judges already have discretion over whether proceedings can be recorded, suggesting that the issue could be handled within the Judiciary Branch without legislative intervention. They also mentioned the possibility of addressing these issues in a subcommittee on Family Court.
HB350: Representative from Nashua Information Only01:41:41.080 - 10:40:02 AM; The representative expressed concerns about not considering the 'love Amendment' due to lack of seconding. They emphasized the importance of complete audio and video transcription for Family Division hearings, arguing that allowing judges to control recordings could undermine transparency. They suggested that this issue is more critical than allowing random recordings by the public or media.
HB350: Representative Sidel Information Only01:44:30.320 - 10:42:51 AM; Representative Sidel moved amendment 2025-0441H to HB350, which was seconded by Representative D. Simon. The amendment was related to the recording of Family Division hearings.
HB350: Chairman Pearson Information Only01:45:19.480 - 10:43:40 AM; Chairman Pearson oversaw the voting process on amendment 2025-0441H to HB350. The vote resulted in a tie, leading to the failure of the amendment. The committee then returned to the original bill, which was to require all Family Division hearings to be recorded and broadcast live.
HB350: Representative Sidel Information Only01:46:53.599 - 10:45:14 AM; Representative Sidel moved to recommend HB350 as Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL). This motion was seconded by Representative Greg and passed unanimously with a vote of 14 to 0.
HB433: Representative Sidel Support01:50:24.520 - 10:48:45 AM; Representative Sidel moved for HB433 to pass, arguing that it provides an opportunity for young adults in the military to form stable families. She shared personal experiences of the challenges of military life on young families, emphasizing that the bill would help prevent scenarios where a parent might be separated from their child for extended periods due to military service. She highlighted that maturity, not age, should determine readiness for marriage.
HB433: Representative Patrino Oppose01:54:02.400 - 10:52:23 AM; Representative Patrino opposed HB433, focusing on the issue of minors marrying, specifically mentioning the female spouse under 18 years old. They expressed difficulty in supporting the idea of children marrying, regardless of other circumstances.
HB433: Representative Craig Oppose01:54:37.480 - 10:52:58 AM; Representative Craig argued against HB433 by likening 17-year-olds marrying to 17-year-olds being child soldiers, suggesting both scenarios are inappropriate.
HB433: Representative Greg Oppose01:55:01.280 - 10:53:22 AM; Representative Greg opposed HB433, citing the recent change in law to raise the marriage age to 18 in New Hampshire. They argued that there have been no real-world problems from this change and suggested sticking with the current law until complications arise. They also addressed concerns about military housing allowances, stating that unmarried military personnel can still live with their families off-base.
HB433: George Oppose01:56:50.840 - 10:55:11 AM; George expressed opposition to the bill, highlighting the suffering of young girls who marry at an early age. He mentioned personal experiences and observations from his community, emphasizing that young marriages lead to problems without any positive outcomes. He argued against allowing 17-year-olds to marry, stating as a parent he would not accept it for his children, suggesting that early marriages cause significant future issues including potential divorce and lack of personal development.
HB433: LC Oppose01:58:23.679 - 10:56:44 AM; LC opposed the bill, focusing on the readiness of 17-year-olds for marriage, especially in the context of military life. They pointed out that at 17, individuals can still withdraw from military commitments until they are 18, and discussed the unpreparedness of young spouses, using an anecdote about a young military spouse who suffered a mental breakdown due to lack of basic life skills. LC emphasized the potential negative impacts of young marriages, particularly in the absence of spousal support during deployments, and questioned the maturity of young adults to handle such responsibilities.
HB433: Sidel from Raymond Support02:01:20.920 - 10:59:41 AM; Sidel from Raymond supported the bill, questioning the inconsistency in allowing 17-year-olds to enlist in the military with parental consent but not permitting them to marry. He argued that if society trusts parents to decide on their children's readiness for military service, which involves life-threatening situations, the same trust should apply to decisions about marriage. Sidel expressed belief in the majority of parents' judgment and suggested that most would not consent to marriage if they deemed their child immature.
HB433: Representative from an unspecified location Oppose02:02:11.800 - 11:00:32 AM; The representative opposed the bill, clarifying that while 17-year-olds can join the military with parental consent, they cannot be deployed until they are 18 and can legally withdraw their commitment before turning 18. They contrasted this with the permanence of marriage, highlighting the difficulty in reversing such a decision. The representative also referenced testimonies from military members who married young and faced severe challenges, indicating that reversing the recent legislation on marriage age would be detrimental and insensitive to those experiences.
HB433: Cen Support02:03:36.000 - 11:01:57 AM; Cen expressed confusion and support for the bill, questioning the logic behind allowing 17-year-olds to engage in sexual activities with consent while restricting their ability to marry. They highlighted what they see as a contradiction in societal norms regarding the maturity and rights of 17-year-olds.
HB433: Nelson Information Only02:04:17.639 - 11:02:38 AM; Nelson discusses the specific nature of the bill, indicating it as a carve-out that would be rarely used. He references a case of a woman who married at a young age to an older military person, clarifying that this scenario would not be applicable under the bill. Nelson's testimony aims to clarify the scope and implications of the bill.
HB433: Representative Raymond Oppose02:04:59.559 - 11:03:20 AM; Representative Raymond expresses concerns about the bill, pointing out that it does not prohibit a person of any age from marrying a 17-year-old if the older individual is in the military. He finds this aspect problematic, though he personally would not support such marriages.
HB433: Representative Greg Information Only02:05:28.760 - 11:03:49 AM; Representative Greg discusses the distinction between the age of consent and the marriage age, emphasizing that the bill concerns the legal ability to enter into a marriage contract and access services as a minor. He notes the potential liabilities and the bill's context in addressing issues like sex trafficking.
HB433: Representative Deimon Oppose02:06:58.239 - 11:05:19 AM; Representative Deimon argues against the bill, sharing personal anecdotes about maturity and responsibilities at a young age. She refutes claims about shelters not accepting minors and highlights the risks of cohabitation and abuse among young women, suggesting the bill could lead to more harm than good.
HB433: Unidentified Speaker Oppose02:09:18.719 - 11:07:39 AM; The speaker shares personal experiences and stories about forced marriages at young ages, even with parental consent, leading to abusive situations. They express concern that the bill could open the door to further abuse and neglect, and point out there are no active duty military bases in New England.
HB433: Chairman Pearson Information Only02:10:52.480 - 11:09:13 AM; Chairman Pearson oversees the executive session on HB433. The committee votes on the bill, resulting in a tie on the motion to pass the bill as is, and another tie on the motion to find it inexpedient to legislate (ITL). Due to the ties, the bill will proceed with two reports, one for ought to pass (OTP) and one for ITL, requiring volunteers to draft these reports.
HB486: Representative Nelson Support02:16:13.880 - 11:14:34 AM; Representative Nelson, the prime sponsor of HB486, introduces the bill, explaining its origins from a constituent's situation. She discusses the significant number of grandparents raising their grandchildren due to parental issues, particularly substance abuse. The bill aims to facilitate consistent relationships between grandparents and grandchildren, clarify judicial interpretations, and respect parental rights, noting support from parental rights groups.
HB486: Unnamed Speaker Support02:19:01.040 - 11:17:22 AM; The speaker commended Representative Nelson for the work on the bill, indicating that it strikes a good balance between recognizing the rights of parents in healthy situations and acknowledging the important role grandparents can play in children's lives. The speaker appreciated the language of the bill.
HB486: Chairman Information Only02:19:46.638 - 11:18:07 AM; The chairman conducted a roll call vote on House Bill 486. The bill passed unanimously with a vote of 14 to 0. The chairman then asked Representative Greg if the bill should be placed on the consent calendar, to which Representative Greg agreed, suggesting it should be included despite potential financial implications.
HB10: Representative Packard from Rockingham County 16 Support03:10:02.040 - 12:08:23 PM; Representative Packard introduced House Bill 10, emphasizing it as the original version with amendments that essentially replace the entire bill. He explained that HB10 is a response to growing concerns from parents about government overreach in decisions concerning their children. He stressed the importance of parental responsibility in upbringing, health, and providing for their children, asserting that schools should focus on education, not raising children. He advocated for the amendment, which requires full transparency in programs affecting children, giving parents the right to access all related records and ensuring no decisions are made without their consent. He highlighted the family as the foundation of a free society and urged support for the amendment to reinforce parental roles, mentioning Representative D Simone as the one who prepared the amendment.
HB10: Deborah D Simone, Rockingham County District 18, Atkinson Support03:13:18.439 - 12:11:39 PM; Deborah D Simone expressed her support for House Bill 10, emphasizing the importance of establishing a clear framework for parental rights. She highlighted the bill's focus on ensuring parents are informed and involved in their children's education, health, and well-being. She mentioned key provisions of the bill, including the rights of parents to direct the education, care, upbringing, and moral and religious training of their children, to enroll them in various types of schools, to access and review school and medical records, and to consent to biometric scans, DNA records, and video recordings. Additionally, she stressed the importance of annual waiver and consent forms, notification of suspected allegations or criminal offenses against their children, and the responsibilities of school boards to promote parental involvement and inform parents of their rights. She also addressed the fiscal impact, noting no new funding or positions are required, though there might be an increase in state expenditures due to potential legal complaints and appeals. She concluded by affirming that the changes made to the original bill aim to strengthen parental rights.
HB10: Representative Greg Information Only03:23:24.560 - 12:21:45 PM; Representative Greg inquired about the scope of the bill, specifically whether it codifies parental rights only for public schools or if it extends to private and religious schools as well. He also asked for clarification on the language in the amendment regarding the right of a parent to inspect school district instructional materials, expressing concern over the potential unintended consequence of allowing any parent to access such information across different schools. The response clarified that the bill extends to public, private, and religious schools and that the language regarding parental rights to inspect instructional materials was intended to accommodate various family structures, not to allow any parent to access information from any school.
HB10: Representative Raymond Information Only03:26:09.520 - 12:24:30 PM; Representative Raymond questioned the intersection of the bill's new paragraph on medical records with existing state and federal laws, particularly those that allow minors aged 14 and older to consent to STD testing and those that protect the confidentiality of children's therapeutic records. The response, provided by another speaker, explained that the bill's provisions intersect with existing laws in complex ways, particularly in cases involving custody battles or state interests. It was noted that parental rights are not absolute and can be limited in situations involving allegations of abuse or neglect, legal proceedings, or when a guardian ad litem is appointed. The bill would be applicable under normal circumstances but not in all situations.
HB10: Representative Marel Information Only03:28:34.800 - 12:26:55 PM; Representative Marel provided a detailed legal perspective on the bill's implications regarding access to children's records. He cited the New Hampshire Supreme Court case 'In re Berg' to discuss the confidentiality of children's records and the therapeutic privilege under state law. He explained that parental rights to access records can be limited in cases involving custody disputes, allegations of abuse or neglect, or when the state has a competing interest. He also clarified that HIPAA is not preemptive, allowing for state statutes to intersect with it, and that under normal circumstances, parents as personal representatives should be able to access records, but exceptions exist.
HB10: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:32:47.279 - 12:31:08 PM; The speaker raises concerns about the bill's exception for criminal investigations and its impact on medical records confidentiality. They discuss a scenario where a minor fears abuse if their request for birth control is disclosed to their parents. The speaker questions whether physicians can hold records until DCF investigates without facing criminal penalties under the bill's current language.
HB10: Representative Marquel Information Only03:34:21.520 - 12:32:42 PM; Representative Marquel, involved in writing the amendment, responds to the concerns about the bill's impact on medical confidentiality. He acknowledges that the bill may not address all situations and suggests that there might be discretion or other sanctions involved for practitioners. He also mentions that federal guidelines might affect parental rights to know about a child's prescription for birth control.
HB10: Representative Sher Information Only03:35:58.279 - 12:34:19 PM; Representative Sher discusses the language in the bill related to parental rights to access school records. He proposes adding a limitation to the bill's text to specify that the right to access records should relate only to the parent's child. He inquires if such a modification would be acceptable.
HB10: Representative Sidel Information Only03:38:26.720 - 12:36:47 PM; Representative Sidel addresses Representative Sher's concerns about the definition of a parent in the bill, clarifying that it applies to the legal, natural, or adoptive parent of a minor. He suggests that if further clarification is needed, an amendment could be brought forward during the executive session.
HB10: Representative Greg Information Only03:41:03.880 - 12:39:24 PM; Representative Greg expresses concern about the potential financial burden on schools, including homeschools and private schools, if parents can request records from any school. He worries about the weaponization of this right and its cost implications. The discussion concludes with a suggestion to move off the topic and prepare any necessary amendments within the next two weeks.
HB10: Representative Timothy Horgan from Strafford County District 10, the town of Durham Oppose03:43:06.319 - 12:41:27 PM; Representative Horgan expressed opposition to HB10, highlighting several issues with the bill. He noted that the bill is unnecessary as parents already have the rights it seeks to enumerate. He criticized the amendment process, mentioning that the amendment was only published that day and not available on the General Court website, which he felt did not provide enough time for review. Horgan suggested that a Children's Bill of Rights might be more appropriate, emphasizing the need to prioritize children's rights. He pointed out specific sections of the bill, like the provision about blood or DNA storage, which he found unclear and unnecessary. He also criticized the bill for not addressing the rights of transgender students and for lacking protections for families of different backgrounds, including those from the LGBTQ community and different racial groups. He mentioned concerns about the bill's implications on sex education and immunizations, and its failure to address mask policies. Horgan concluded by expressing doubt about achieving a bipartisan compromise and suggested finding the bill inexpedient to legislate.
HB10: Representative Raymond Information Only03:48:33.159 - 12:46:54 PM; Representative Raymond asked Representative Horgan if he was aware that almost everything in the bill, except for medical records, was already in state law, referencing a technical advisory from the Department of Education. Horgan responded affirmatively and noted that the bill's placement in the RSA was inappropriate as it mostly applies to school districts, leaving out private schools, charter schools, and institutions subsidized by the Education Freedom Account program.
HB10: Representative Love Information Only03:49:50.680 - 12:48:11 PM; Representative Love questioned whether the state and U.S. Constitutions make exceptions for the rights of the LGBTQ community. Horgan responded by affirming that respect for all people is a principle in both constitutions and that the inclusion of the LGBTQ community aligns with evolving views on rights in the U.S.
HB10: David Trumble Oppose03:52:30.439 - 12:50:51 PM; David Trumble opposed HB10 for two main reasons. He argued that the bill goes beyond existing state law by adopting the strict scrutiny test, creating an absolute right for parents in schools, which contradicts the New Hampshire Supreme Court's ruling in the Dove v. Manchester School District case. Trumble explained that the court favored a rational basis test over the strict scrutiny test. Additionally, he criticized the bill for its vague standards about what rights are included, particularly concerning the rights of LGBTQ students. He emphasized the importance of schools as safe spaces for LGBTQ youth, citing statistics from the Trevor Project about the high rates of homelessness and suicide attempts among this group, and argued that the bill could have a chilling effect on schools' ability to support these students.
HB10: Sam Hawkins, NAMI New Hampshire Information Only03:57:44.239 - 12:56:05 PM; Sam Hawkins from NAMI New Hampshire clarified that their organization does not take a position on HB10. They emphasized the importance of the parent-child relationship but expressed two concerns regarding the bill. Firstly, they noted that current law allows parents access to their child's medical records unless prohibited, and they were concerned that the amendment might remove this provision. Secondly, they highlighted the need for a mechanism to withhold records if disclosure might lead to abuse or neglect, suggesting alignment with the state's child protection standards. Their second concern was about the language in the bill that might discourage educators from discussing issues with students, potentially impacting the student-educator relationship negatively. Hawkins suggested that the committee consider these concerns if advancing the bill.
HB10: Heather Robotti, Marlow Oppose04:01:21.720 - 12:59:42 PM; Heather Robotti from Marlow expressed opposition to HB10, highlighting concerns over its potential negative impact on public school educators and the education of New Hampshire children. She mentioned existing policies in Marlow that allow for material reconsideration and opting out of curriculum, arguing that the bill targets public schools and educators by allowing parents to object to materials based on morality, sex, religion, or perceived harm. Robotti warned that the bill's provisions could lead to a critical shortage of qualified teachers due to the fear of legal repercussions and could result in educators limiting the diversity of instructional materials. She advocated for children's right to a well-rounded education and opposed the bill, emphasizing the burden it would place on public school staff and taxpayers.
HB10: Deborah Howe, American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire Oppose04:04:45.800 - 1:03:06 PM; Deborah Howe, representing the American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire, spoke in opposition to HB10. Initially, she noted opposition due to the bill's original classification of violations as a misdemeanor, which could result in criminal records for educators. She acknowledged the amendment's removal of this language as an improvement but still had concerns. Howe argued that while parents have rights to direct their children's upbringing, these rights are not absolute in public school settings where curriculum is decided by elected school boards. She suggested that parents should engage with school boards or use opt-out provisions if they object to curriculum materials, rather than micromanaging classroom content. Howe expressed worry over the bill's potential chilling effect on what teachers provide to students.
HB10: Patrino Information Only04:09:27.920 - 1:07:48 PM; Patrino inquired about the existing procedures for handling violations of professional conduct by teachers, clarifying whether these procedures would be separate from the legislation discussed. They confirmed that there are indeed procedures in place, which could be employment-related or code of conduct-related, and investigations may start at either the local or state level.
HB10: Kathy Stratton, New Hampshire Medical Society Oppose04:11:26.600 - 1:09:47 PM; Kathy Stratton, CEO of the New Hampshire Medical Society, spoke in opposition to HB10. She highlighted the society's recognition of the role of parents in minors' care but expressed serious concerns about the bill's potential to interfere with the physician-patient relationship. Stratton specifically criticized section three of the bill, which requires written parental consent for healthcare services to minors, arguing that this provision would create delays in treatment and could dissuade minors from seeking care, especially in cases involving mental health and substance use treatment. She argued that the bill would prioritize legal complexities over patient care and could have life-threatening consequences for vulnerable minors. Stratton urged the committee to vote inexpedient to legislate on HB10.
HB10: Anarie Banfield, Parental Rights Advocate Support04:17:05.119 - 1:15:26 PM; Anarie Banfield, a parental rights advocate focused on excellence in education, spoke in support of HB10 but pointed out a significant omission in the bill. She argued that the bill should focus purely on parents' authentic rights without being influenced by political agendas. Banfield raised concerns about student data privacy, citing a data breach by Power School and a lawsuit against the company for sharing and selling student data without effective consent. She criticized the collection of sensitive student data by educational technology vendors and the legal loopholes that allow such practices. Banfield also mentioned the federal requirement for parental consent in mental health services and assessments in schools, suggesting that current practices may be violating federal law.
HB10: Dave Luno, Representative from Hopkinton and Bow Information Only04:20:45.159 - 1:19:06 PM; Representative Dave Luno discussed the recent changes to the Ed 306 rules, which set minimum academic standards for public schools in New Hampshire. He expressed concern over the lowering of these standards, which he felt were already too low and had been replaced with even weaker standards. Luno specifically addressed lines 36 and 37 of the bill, which state the expectation that academic curriculum aligns with state and federal law. He worried that this could override local control over curriculum, potentially harming the quality of education in the state.
HB10: Zoe Hill, Resident of Lebanon Oppose04:25:15.040 - 1:23:36 PM; Zoe Hill, a resident of Lebanon, testified in opposition to HB10, arguing that the bill would remove safe spaces for children outside the home. She emphasized the importance of these spaces, particularly for children from unsafe home environments, and warned that the lack of such spaces could lead to deterioration in children's mental health, potentially resulting in self-harm or suicide. Hill urged a vote of inexpedient to legislate to protect children's mental health.
HB10: Sarah Terell, lifelong resident of New Hampshire Oppose04:26:57.279 - 1:25:18 PM; Sarah Terell, a parent of two children, expressed her opposition to the bill known as the 'Parental Bill of Rights.' She argued that the bill assumes a conflict between parents and schools that does not exist and undermines the existing collaboration between them. Terell was particularly concerned about provisions that might force schools to disclose a student's LGBTQ identity before they are ready, which she believes could lead to devastating consequences for children, especially those without supportive families. She emphasized the importance of trust and vulnerability in family relationships and criticized the bill for potentially putting vulnerable children at risk. Terell urged the committee to vote 'inexpedient to legislate' on HB10, suggesting that government overreach is harmful and unnecessary.
HB10: Betsy Harrington, from Deering Support04:29:07.800 - 1:27:28 PM; Betsy Harrington, a parent from Deering with children in high school, supported the bill, emphasizing the need for parents to have the right to know what is happening in their children's education. She shared an experience where she set boundaries with a teacher regarding inappropriate books, using a website called 'ratedbooks.org' to guide her decisions. Harrington stressed the importance of parental involvement in curriculum decisions, citing her children's academic success as evidence of her effective parenting. She also mentioned her professional background in child welfare and as a therapist, arguing that the bill is necessary to support good parenting and does not conflict with existing measures to handle bad parenting. Harrington felt that the bill would help prevent secrets and prioritize the parent-child relationship.
HB10: Representative Petrino Information Only04:31:26.359 - 1:29:47 PM; Representative Petrino engaged in a dialogue with Betsy Harrington to clarify the existing parental rights concerning the review and opting out of school materials. He expressed confusion about how restating these rights in the new legislation would address Harrington's experienced violations, suggesting that if these rights already exist, their violation should be addressed by the school district. Harrington responded by affirming the necessity of the bill to prevent secrets and prioritize the parent-child relationship, emphasizing her belief in the importance of transparency and parental involvement.
HB10: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:34:51.480 - 1:33:12 PM; The speaker, addressing the chairman, discusses the assertiveness of parents in school matters. They question if many parents are not as assertive or comfortable in being assertive when dealing with school-related issues. The response confirms that some parents are indeed not as comfortable as the speaker in being assertive.
HB10: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:35:24.480 - 1:33:45 PM; Following up on the previous question, the speaker asks if a framework like a parental Bill of Rights would help parents who are less confident or assertive. The response is affirmative, indicating that people often seek the speaker's help due to their assertiveness and willingness to speak on their behalf.
HB10: James from Atkinson Support04:36:10.000 - 1:34:31 PM; James from Atkinson speaks in support of the bill and its sponsors. He mentions his background as a father's rights advocate and his expansion into advocacy for grandparents and others affected by family law. He supports the bill's intent and the necessary changes to be made, emphasizing the need for a law to clarify decision-making for children, expressing concerns about current parental control and gender-neutral bathrooms.
HB10: Karen Leo Hill from Lebanon Oppose04:38:29.278 - 1:36:50 PM; Karen Leo Hill, a former mayor and city councilor from Lebanon, and executive counselor for District 2, testifies against the bill. She acknowledges the good intention of compiling parental rights into one place but argues that the bill has unintended consequences and vague language that could be harmful and difficult to enforce. She cites specific concerns about definitions of 'parent,' 'morality,' 'sex,' and 'discipline' within the bill, and mentions potential barriers to care and safe spaces. She recommends voting inexpedient to legislate on the bill and suggests further refinement.
HB10: Betty from Salem Information Only04:42:18.680 - 1:40:39 PM; Betty from Salem believes the bill needs wording adjustments and supports the idea of consolidating parental rights into one place. She argues that some concerns are unfounded as laws already exist to protect children. She advocates for continued work on the bill to refine its language for clarity and to protect parental rights while addressing school system issues and educational achievements in Salem.
HB10: Nancy Beerman from New Boston Support04:46:24.560 - 1:44:45 PM; Nancy Beerman from New Boston, a mother of two and a teacher, supports the bill based on her experience with her child's rare disease and the medical system. She expresses concerns about the lack of access to medical records after her child turned 14 and the need for parental involvement in chronic illness cases. As a teacher, she hopes the bill will restore professionalism and clear boundaries between teachers and students, citing an incident where a teacher tried to gain custody of a student.
HB10: Brian Hawkins from National Education Association New Hampshire Oppose04:50:19.958 - 1:48:40 PM; Brian Hawkins from the National Education Association New Hampshire opposes the bill, citing concerns about its vague language and the removal of criminal penalties. He discusses the potential for disciplinary action against educators and the lack of clarity in defining parental rights, particularly regarding upbringing, morality, and religious training. He questions a specific statute reference and emphasizes the need for legislation that fosters positive relationships between parents and educators.
HB10: Ian Huitt from Cornerstone Support04:54:42.440 - 1:53:03 PM; Ian Huitt from Cornerstone supports the bill, referencing Senate Bill 272 from 2023, which was a parental Bill of Rights that narrowly failed in the House. He argues that the bill is necessary because some New Hampshire school districts have policies that conceal or lie about a child's gender transitioning from parents. He contrasts this with Massachusetts policies and criticizes the influence of national organizations on New Hampshire's policies. Huitt stresses the importance of not limiting parents' rights further and suggests that passing the bill could help address these issues.
HB10: Ian Huitt, Cornerstone Information Only04:54:42.440 - 1:53:03 PM; Ian Huitt concluded his testimony on House Bill 10. He was thanked by the chairman, and there were no questions for him.
HB10: Attorney HT Information Only04:59:00.958 - 1:57:21 PM; Attorney HT briefly spoke, mentioning a run-on sentence in their testimony. They were thanked by the chairman, and no questions were asked.

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