Committee Summary for House Children and Family Law (04/08/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB22 00:07:47.680 - 9:04:48 AM	Public Hearing	relative to disclosure of criminal history and criminal records to the child care licensing unit of the department of health and human services.	Pearl, Howard (R)[B]2025
SB23 00:21:47.840 - 9:18:48 AM	Public Hearing	expanding the crime of endangering the welfare of a child.	Long, Pat(D)[F]2025
SB77 01:17:10.000 - 10:14:11 AM	Public Hearing	providing children in delinquency and children in need of services (CHINS) cases the identical types of psychological evaluations as children in child protection matters.	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2025
SB278 01:45:32.159 - 10:42:33 AM	Public Hearing	including qualifying convictions from other states as grounds for termination of parental rights petitions.	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2025
SB278 01:57:09.440 - 10:54:10 AM	Executive Session	including qualifying convictions from other states as grounds for termination of parental rights petitions.	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2025
SB77 01:59:35.480 - 10:56:36 AM	Executive Session	providing children in delinquency and children in need of services (CHINS) cases the identical types of psychological evaluations as children in child protection matters.	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2025
SB72 03:24:53.040 - 12:21:54 PM	Public Hearing	(New Title) establishing a parental bill of rights.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB72 04:17:13.840 - 1:14:14 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) establishing a parental bill of rights.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB161 1539H 04:25:16.560 - 1:22:17 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) making technical corrections to statutes governing out-of-state placements for children.	Birdsell, Regina(R)[B-]2025

SB22: Grant Bossy, New Hampshire Senate Support00:07:47.680 - 9:04:48 AM; Grant Bossy, representing Senator Pearl, introduced Senate Bill 22, which aims to close gaps in the licensing of the child care system. The bill would enable appropriate background checks on individuals wishing to work with children, addressing the current system's flaw of only receiving records following a criminal conviction. The bill seeks to mirror the Department of Education's system to ensure the Department of Health and Human Services has all relevant information about an applicant's criminal history.
SB22: Melissa Clement, Department of Health and Human Services Support00:09:23.680 - 9:06:24 AM; Melissa Clement, from the Department of Health and Human Services, testified in support of the bill, explaining its purpose to close gaps in the current system. She noted that the bill would ensure the childcare licensing unit receives full information regarding an individual's criminal record, including pending charges. The bill reflects similar language used in the Department of Education's statute for school staff, aiming to extend the same level of protection to children in childcare settings.
SB22: Christine Sheay, New Hampshire State Police, Criminal Records Unit Support00:12:09.040 - 9:09:10 AM; Christine Sheay, the administrator of the Criminal Records Unit at the New Hampshire State Police, expressed support for the bill. She explained that the bill would allow the full FBI record to be released to the department, which would aid in the licensing process by enabling a comprehensive review of an applicant's background. She clarified that the confidential criminal history records include ongoing cases, dismissed cases, or cases with null pros from other states, but juvenile records cannot be released in New Hampshire. She further elaborated that without the proposed language, they would not be able to release any information that did not result in a guilty verdict, but with the bill, they could release information about dismissed or pending cases, which could be discussed with the applicant.
SB22: Representative Raymond Information Only00:12:47.040 - 9:09:48 AM; Representative Raymond inquired about the content of confidential criminal history records, to which Christine Sheay responded that it includes ongoing cases, dismissed cases, or null pros from other states, which is helpful for licensing purposes. She confirmed that juvenile records cannot be released in New Hampshire.
SB22: Representative McMahon Information Only00:13:45.920 - 9:10:46 AM; Representative McMahon sought clarification on whether a conviction is necessary before releasing a confidential record. Christine Sheay explained that without the proposed language, they could only release information with a guilty verdict, but with the bill, they could release information about dismissed or ongoing cases.
SB22: Representative Rice Information Only00:15:03.120 - 9:12:04 AM; Representative Rice asked if employers or others would be notified of the outcome of pending charges. Christine Sheay clarified that the FBI provides a snapshot in time when fingerprints are processed, and they would not receive updates unless new fingerprints were run, meaning they would not know the outcome of pending charges unless another check was performed.
SB22: Sidell Information Only00:16:30.440 - 9:13:31 AM; Sidell raised a question about the statute of limitations in New Hampshire, which is six years or more for many felonies, and how it relates to the five-year record mentioned in the bill. They asked if the prime sponsor would consider amending the bill to reflect this.
SB22: Clement Information Only00:17:16.720 - 9:14:17 AM; Clement explained that the five-year period mentioned in the statute is a direct reflection of federal requirements from the Office of Child Care in the Administration of Children and Families, and thus cannot be amended. They further clarified the process of reviewing background record checks, stating that the department does not currently consider charges but can suspend eligibility if a charge comes up after approval.
SB22: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:19:44.080 - 9:16:45 AM; The speaker asked about the frequency of fingerprinting and the process if an employee is charged with a crime after being with the organization for some time. They were informed that background checks are done every five years or upon receiving information about a charge, at which point the department reaches out to the courts for more information and may suspend eligibility.
SB23: Senator Pat Long, Manchester Support00:21:47.840 - 9:18:48 AM; Senator Pat Long introduced Senate Bill 23, which aims to strengthen the protection of children by expanding what constitutes endangering the welfare of a child. They mentioned that Lieutenant Nick Joas from the Manchester Police Department and a representative from the Nashua Police Department were present to testify and answer questions.
SB23: Representative Raymond Information Only00:23:00.640 - 9:20:01 AM; Representative Raymond asked how the bill interacts with the DCYF process, expressing concern that incarcerating parents might circumvent the process designed to help them correct parenting errors. Senator Long responded that the bill does not add criminality to parents but addresses serious violations that were previously only considered misdemeanors.
SB23: Executive Counselor Dave Wheeler Oppose00:26:48.640 - 9:23:49 AM; Executive Counselor Dave Wheeler testified against SB23, expressing concerns over the vagueness of the language in the bill, particularly the removal of the word 'purposely' from the statute. He highlighted a case in Manchester where a mother was arrested for having a firearm in her car with her children present, which was later dropped, illustrating potential unintended consequences of the bill's language. Wheeler argued that the bill's definition of 'placing a child in danger' could be interpreted too broadly and urged the committee to define it more clearly or remove it altogether.
SB23: Nicholas Georgulis, Officer Support00:34:25.839 - 9:31:26 AM; Officer Nicholas Georgulis supported SB23, explaining that the bill aims to differentiate between misdemeanor-level endangering the welfare of a child and more severe cases. He clarified that the bill adds to existing language without changing the duty of care, protection, or support elements, only removing 'purposely' to clarify the statute. Georgulis emphasized the necessity of the bill to address egregious situations like children living in squalor, and noted that other states have similar laws. He also addressed concerns about the Manchester case, stating it was unrelated to the proposed changes in SB23.
SB23: Ryan Rooney, Sergeant, Nashua PD Support00:45:22.280 - 9:42:23 AM; Sergeant Ryan Rooney from the Nashua Police Department supported SB23, sharing examples of cases where the current statute did not adequately address the severity of child endangerment. He described incidents involving a child accessing fentanyl and a child locked out in cold weather, arguing that expanding the statute would lead to more appropriate consequences and better protection for children. Rooney emphasized the need for the bill to better fit the crimes investigated by law enforcement.
SB23: Lisa Masio, Attorney, Office of the Child Advocate Support00:48:32.480 - 9:45:33 AM; Attorney Lisa Masio from the Office of the Child Advocate supported SB23, stating that the current statute has gaps that do not adequately address the severity of some cases. She mentioned that the confusion between 'knowingly' and 'purposely' hampers the ability to hold individuals accountable and protect children. Masio believed the bill's language would help close these gaps and allow for more effective prosecution of felony-level offenses related to child endangerment.
SB23: Donald Gilbert Oppose00:52:19.319 - 9:49:20 AM; Donald Gilbert opposed SB23, arguing that removing 'purposely' from the statute would harm due process and parental rights. He pointed out the subjective nature of the bill's language under section 4A, which could lead to arbitrary decisions by law enforcement and DCYF. Gilbert also referenced a case where DCYF's involvement hindered justice, suggesting that the issues lie more with DCYF than with the statute itself.
SB23: Honorable Betty Gay, House Alumni Association Information Only00:55:25.599 - 9:52:26 AM; The Honorable Betty Gay provided suggestions to improve SB23 while appreciating its intent. She recommended changing 'engaging in conduct' to 'engaging in a crime' in section 4A for clarity, and removing certain lines related to recognized religions to avoid misuse. Gay supported section 4B but emphasized the need for specificity in defining 'filthy living conditions' and other aspects of child endangerment to prevent subjective interpretations.
SB23: Regina Bartzell, State Senator for District 19, representing Derry, Hampstead, and Windham Information Only00:59:56.880 - 9:56:57 AM; Senator Bartzell introduced the legislation, noting it was requested by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. She explained that the bill was a remedial piece of legislation to Senate Bill 417, aimed at correcting inconsistencies with its predecessor Senate Bill 161. The amendment replaced references to placements for children contracted with the department with placements in New England deemed necessary and appropriate by the court. She mentioned a replace all amendment was needed due to two sections that were not changed.
SB23: Susan Laravey, General Counsel and Legislative Liaison, Department of Health and Human Services Division for Children Youth and Families Support01:01:44.480 - 9:58:45 AM; Attorney Laravey expressed support for the bill, detailing the previous legislative efforts with HB 1573 and Senate Bill 417 to enhance oversight of children in residential treatment programs. She described the implementation process over the summer, including collaboration with various stakeholders to create visitation forms and revise policies. She highlighted the discovery of minor inconsistencies and technical differences in the final merger of the two bills, which the current bill aims to rectify. The replace all bill addresses the intent to replace the term 'contract' with 'license in accordance with the laws of the state in which they operate and certified by the department', which was inadvertently missed in two sections. She clarified the circumstances for out-of-state and out-of-New England placements and corrected a scribner's error in the bill.
SB23: Betty Gay, House Alumni Association Support01:06:27.119 - 10:03:28 AM; Betty Gay supported the bill but raised a concern about the clarity of the language in lines 8 and 20, suggesting that it should specify certification by the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services to avoid confusion about which state's department is referenced.
SB23: Representative Rice Information Only01:08:12.079 - 10:05:13 AM; Representative Rice sought clarification on whether the bill's language about certification referred to other states and their certification processes. Attorney Laravey confirmed that the language meant the residential treatment placement must be licensed by their state and certified by New Hampshire's Department of Health and Human Services.
SB23: Lisa Walford, Children's Law Center Support01:10:30.960 - 10:07:31 AM; Lisa Walford supported the bill but pointed out a run-on sentence in line 22 that could be misinterpreted to suggest judicial oversight is only required for placements outside of New England. She proposed an amendment to clarify the language, ensuring that judicial oversight is required for all out-of-state placements, not just those outside New England.
SB23: Representative Rice Information Only01:14:37.600 - 10:11:38 AM; Representative Rice questioned whether the bill's language was already in statute and expressed concern that the bill might minimize judicial oversight. Attorney Laravey and others clarified that the judicial oversight in 169F is not limited to out-of-New England placements and agreed to consider an amendment to clarify the language.
SB77: Senator Deborah Uler Support01:17:10.000 - 10:14:11 AM; Senator Uler supported Senate Bill 77, which rectifies an oversight from Senate Bill 417. The bill ensures that children identified as needing services, often experiencing trauma and involved in multiple systems, receive quality mental health evaluations by licensed psychologists across all child welfare statutes. She provided the committee with the Senate hearing report and highlighted testimonies from Lisa Walford and Lisa Muscayio in support of the bill.
SB77: Lisa Massio, Office of Child Advocate Support01:19:33.360 - 10:16:34 AM; Attorney Lisa Massio supported Senate Bill 77, explaining that it corrects an oversight from SB417 by extending the same language to 169B and 169D, ensuring that children in various welfare proceedings receive evaluations from appropriately qualified professionals. She emphasized the importance of these evaluations and the need for consistency across different child welfare statutes.
SB77: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:21:15.920 - 10:18:16 AM; The speaker sought clarification on who would conduct or supervise evaluations under the bill, mentioning that currently, various levels of clinicians perform these evaluations without the required supervision. They expressed a concern about the availability of high-level clinicians and suggested that lower-level clinicians could perform the evaluations under supervision due to manpower issues.
SB77: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:22:49.840 - 10:19:50 AM; The speaker discussed the shortage of psychologists in the state, noting that the children's mental health system is expanding but higher-level clinicians are scarce. They mentioned their current difficulty in hiring a psychologist and suggested that lower-tier clinicians might have to conduct evaluations under supervision due to the shortage.
SB77: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:23:36.560 - 10:20:37 AM; The speaker emphasized the importance of supervision in evaluations to ensure accuracy and efficacy, especially given the long-term impact on the child. They mentioned the involvement of the Office of Child Advocate and the need for equity in evaluations between different legal sections (169C and 169D).
SB77: Attorney Masio Information Only01:24:58.480 - 10:21:59 AM; Attorney Masio responded to a question about the fiscal note for the bill, stating they are not in charge of fiscal notes and were unsure about the current status of the fiscal note. They suggested checking with another attorney present.
SB77: Attorney Masio Information Only01:25:41.040 - 10:22:42 AM; Attorney Masio addressed a question about the number of qualified individuals needed to implement the bill, stating that while they couldn't provide a specific number, the bill allows for evaluations to be conducted or supervised by higher-level clinicians, which is feasible given the availability of lower-level clinicians.
SB77: Attorney Masio Information Only01:26:27.840 - 10:23:28 AM; Attorney Masio clarified that the term 'personality functioning' used in the bill mirrors language from a previous law and was written with the input of a licensed psychologist. They noted that these terms are well-understood within the field, although they are not defined in New Hampshire law.
SB77: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:28:34.560 - 10:25:35 AM; The speaker questioned whether the terms used in the bill, such as 'personality functioning,' are internal procedures familiar to social workers and DCYF staff, suggesting that explicit statutory detail might not be necessary. Attorney Masio confirmed that these are terms of art well-known in the field.
SB77: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:29:18.080 - 10:26:19 AM; The speaker asked if 'personality functioning' is defined in the DSM-5, which is used by social workers and psychologists for diagnosing. Attorney Masio believed it was, and the speaker confirmed their familiarity with it.
SB77: Unnamed Speaker Oppose01:29:53.920 - 10:26:54 AM; The speaker expressed opposition to the bill, citing concerns from emails received about potential delays in the evaluation process for children already in the system. They questioned the availability of psychologists to conduct timely evaluations. The response to their query explained that other sections of the statute and federal law already address time frames for evaluations and placements, ensuring that the bill would not interfere with these processes but would ensure evaluations meet federal standards.
SB77: Lisa Walford, Executive Director of the Children's Law Center of New Hampshire Support01:31:50.560 - 10:28:51 AM; Lisa Walford supported the bill, emphasizing its importance due to her experience with a case where inadequate evaluations were concerning. She highlighted that the legislation aims to ensure that children, especially those in multiple systems and facing various challenges, receive evaluations from qualified professionals. She addressed concerns about cultural competence in evaluations, acknowledging the need for further inquiry into this aspect.
SB77: Representative Georgees Information Only01:34:26.560 - 10:31:27 AM; Representative Georgees raised concerns about the cultural sensitivity of the evaluations for children from diverse backgrounds. Lisa Walford responded by acknowledging the importance of cultural competence but admitted she did not know the specifics of how the state addresses this, promising to look into it further.
SB77: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:36:07.120 - 10:33:08 AM; The speaker expressed concern about the decision-making process for culturally diverse children placed in residential facilities, questioning the consideration of their background and future. Lisa Walford clarified her role with a legal services nonprofit and agreed on the importance of community-based services and considering cultural backgrounds in decision-making processes.
SB77: Betty Gay Support01:37:39.199 - 10:34:40 AM; Betty Gay supported the intent of the bill but expressed concerns about the provision allowing evaluations to be supervised by licensed psychologists rather than conducted by them directly. She highlighted the shortage of psychologists and suggested that encouraging more people to enter the field could be beneficial. She also hoped that children would not be denied services while waiting for evaluations.
SB77: Representative Rice Information Only01:40:36.639 - 10:37:37 AM; Representative Rice asked Lisa Walford about the potential for longer wait times if evaluations were not allowed to be supervised. Walford clarified that psychological evaluations are not required for admission to residential facilities, and children are placed based on other assessments. She reassured that the bill's focus on ensuring quality psychological evaluations should not impact the wait for services.
SB77: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:42:32.639 - 10:39:33 AM; The speaker discusses the qualifications and supervision of professionals involved in psychological evaluations, particularly in the context of residential facilities. They clarify that evaluations are currently conducted by individuals in training under the supervision of licensed clinical social workers. The speaker emphasizes that certain evaluations require the expertise or supervision of psychologists, highlighting the existing practice of supervision in social work and psychology.
SB278: Senator Suprentice, District 5 Support01:45:32.159 - 10:42:33 AM; Senator Suprentice introduces Senate Bill 278, which aims to establish reciprocity for certain criminal convictions as grounds for termination of parental rights. The senator explains that the bill would align out-of-state convictions with in-state convictions for serious crimes like murder and aggravated assault, emphasizing the importance of protecting children and ensuring clarity in the law. The senator also mentions the presence of a Health and Human Services staff member to provide expert testimony.
SB278: Susan Larabby, DCYF General Counsel and Legislative Liaison Information Only01:52:14.560 - 10:49:15 AM; Susan Larabby provides detailed background on the current law regarding termination of parental rights under RSA 170-C:5. She explains that the bill focuses on subsection VII, which lists specific offenses under New Hampshire law but does not include equivalent out-of-state convictions. Larabby references a recent Supreme Court case that upheld a termination based on an out-of-state conviction, but notes a dissenting opinion that highlighted inconsistencies in statutory language. She emphasizes the need for clear statutory language to avoid ambiguity and ensure public understanding.
SB278: Representative Raymond Vote01:57:09.440 - 10:54:10 AM; Representative Raymond moves to recommend Senate Bill 278 ought to pass (OTP). The motion is seconded by Representative Rice, and the committee votes unanimously 15-0 in favor of the bill. The session concludes with the bill passing by consent.
SB77: Representative Greg Vote01:59:35.480 - 10:56:36 AM; Representative Greg moves to recommend Senate Bill 77 ought to pass (OTP). The motion is seconded by Representative Rice. The committee proceeds with the vote on this bill.
SB77: Unidentified Speaker Information Only02:00:31.920 - 10:57:32 AM; The speaker expressed concerns about the statement that no evaluation is better than a bad evaluation, particularly in relation to supervised evaluations. They highlighted the potential dangers of having evaluations that are either heavily or lightly supervised, drawing parallels to other industries where oversight might be insufficient. They also mentioned the issue of inadequate supervision of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the medical field, suggesting that perhaps supervisory agencies could monitor the supervision more closely.
SB77: Chairman Information Only02:02:04.800 - 10:59:05 AM; The Chairman called for any other comments and, seeing none, proceeded to discuss Senate Bill 77FN. They confirmed the motion and seconding of the bill, and conducted a roll call vote, which resulted in unanimous approval with no objections.
SB77: Chairman Information Only02:04:31.480 - 11:01:32 AM; The Chairman mentioned that they would hold out on discussing bill 161 until an amendment is available. They then shifted focus to SB23, which expands the crime of endangering the welfare of a child, asking if any serious amendments were needed. Representative Greg moved to pass SB23 as is, and it was seconded by Representative Dimony.
SB77: Representative Raymond Support02:06:05.280 - 11:03:06 AM; Initially, Representative Raymond was concerned about the bill potentially leading to the incarceration of parents instead of providing rehabilitative services. However, after hearing testimony from law enforcement about the specific cases the bill targets, they changed their stance. They now support the bill, believing it broadens the safety net for children in dire situations.
SB77: Representative Love Oppose02:07:01.520 - 11:04:02 AM; Representative Love raised concerns about the bill's placement in the legislative process, suggesting it should be under the criminal justice committee due to its criminal penalties. They also opposed the removal of the word 'purposely' from the bill, arguing that it would make the law too vague and broad, potentially criminalizing accidents. They engaged in a discussion about the difference between 'knowingly' and 'purposely,' expressing their difficulty in supporting the bill without the word 'purposely.'
SB77: Representative Greg Support02:08:34.639 - 11:05:35 AM; Representative Greg clarified the distinction between 'knowingly' and 'purposely' in the context of the bill. They argued that 'knowingly' implies awareness of the danger to the child, which is sufficient for the purposes of the bill. They provided examples to illustrate that if someone is aware of a dangerous situation and proceeds with a child present, it should be covered under the bill.
SB77: Representative Howland Support02:10:15.679 - 11:07:16 AM; Representative Howland supported the bill, emphasizing the duty of care towards children. They argued that 'knowingly' covers the aspect of awareness and responsibility, which aligns with the intent of the bill to protect children from endangerment, even if the action wasn't 'purposely' done to harm.
SB77: Representative Markel Support02:11:00.880 - 11:08:01 AM; Representative Markel, with their experience in criminal law, supported the use of 'knowingly' in the bill. They explained that 'knowingly' relates to awareness, similar to possession in drug laws, and argued that it provides the necessary flexibility to address various situations of endangerment without needing to define every scenario explicitly.
SB77: Unidentified Representative Support02:12:33.679 - 11:09:34 AM; The representative agreed with Representatives Greg and Markel, stating that 'knowingly' sets a higher standard for convictions and investigations. They provided an example of a parent neglecting a child's dire living conditions, emphasizing that the parent's awareness and continued neglect would fall under the bill's scope.
SB77: Unidentified Representative Information Only02:12:33.679 - 11:09:34 AM; The representative mentioned that the discussion on the bill made them realize that the legislation also pertains to non-parental figures like babysitters who might engage in endangering practices, which is not covered by DCYF. This perspective was what changed their mind on the bill, as it expands accountability beyond just parents.
SB77: Representative Georgees, Manchester Information Only02:14:13.599 - 11:11:14 AM; Representative Georgees expressed concern about the bill, citing the potential for cultural misunderstandings in Manchester. They noted that many cultural communities may not fully understand the implications of the law, and there's a risk that parents could be arrested without fully understanding the law. They stressed the need for better understanding and communication within diverse communities.
SB77: Unidentified Representative Information Only02:15:46.639 - 11:12:47 AM; The representative mentioned the possibility of a 'willful blindness' jury instruction in cases where someone claims ignorance of their actions. This was mentioned in the context of the bill's provision on 'knowingly' engaging in certain behaviors.
SB77: Chairman Pearson Vote02:16:32.318 - 11:13:33 AM; Chairman Pearson oversaw the voting on Senate Bill 23, which expands the crime of endangering the welfare of a child. The vote was unanimous with 15 yes votes and no objections, thus passing the bill.
SB77: Chairman Pearson Vote02:18:04.879 - 11:15:05 AM; The Chairman called for a vote on Senate Bill 22, which is relative to disclosure of criminal history and criminal records to the child care licensing unit of DHS. The vote was unanimous with 15 yes votes and no objections, thus passing the bill.
SB72: Senator Tim Lang, District 2 (Lakes Region) Support03:24:53.040 - 12:21:54 PM; Senator Lang introduced Senate Bill 72, explaining that it is a reintroduction of last year's Senate Bill 272. The bill aims to define and list parental rights within the state's educational system, including rights that are already in statute and some that are newly defined. The bill also includes a violation section for when these rights are not respected, a process for when school personnel may need to infringe upon these rights, and a requirement for schools to notify parents annually of these rights. He emphasized the importance of restoring trust between parents and the school system, which he believes has eroded, to ensure a better educational environment for children.
SB72: Representative Petrinho Information Only03:30:44.560 - 12:27:45 PM; Representative Petrinho expressed appreciation for the bill but raised concerns about mandatory disclosure within the educational context. They questioned whether discussions with teachers should be limited to the educational mission and school conduct, drawing parallels to confidentiality with lawyers, doctors, and priests. They sought clarification on the scope of what should be discussed with teachers, emphasizing the need for parameters around the educational mission and school conduct.
SB72: Senator Tim Lang, District 2 (Lakes Region) Support03:31:30.399 - 12:28:31 PM; Senator Lang responded to Representative Petrinho's concerns by explaining that the exemptions for lawyers, doctors, and priests are explicit in law due to their specific professional roles. He argued that teachers do not have such privileges and should not keep secrets from parents about their children, except for mandatory reporting of abuse and neglect. He emphasized that any conversation initiated by a teacher outside the educational scope is within the rights of parents to inquire about, reinforcing the importance of transparency to maintain trust.
SB72: Unidentified Representative Information Only03:36:06.319 - 12:33:07 PM; The representative, who is also an Anglican priest, discussed the concept of privileged communication, noting that it is limited to specific professional contexts like legal, medical, or spiritual matters. They clarified that teachers are not included in such privileged communications and should not consider any information outside of their educational role as privileged.
SB72: Representative Raymond Information Only03:37:23.279 - 12:34:24 PM; Representative Raymond questioned the use of 'clear and convincing evidence' in the bill as the standard of proof for when school personnel can withhold information from parents. They compared it to the lower standards used for mandatory reporters and court decisions on abuse and neglect, seeking the rationale behind this higher standard. Senator Lang explained that this higher standard applies when a teacher consciously decides to withhold a parent's right, emphasizing the need for a stronger justification for such actions.
SB72: Forensic Interviewer Information Only03:39:51.359 - 12:36:52 PM; The speaker, a forensic interviewer, discussed the conflict teachers face under the proposed bill. They highlighted the dilemma where teachers are instructed by law enforcement and child protective services (DCYF) not to discuss certain matters with parents during investigations, yet the bill requires them to inform parents unless there is clear and convincing evidence against it. The speaker questioned how teachers would navigate this conflict, emphasizing the need for teachers to stay out of investigations to avoid complicating them.
SB72: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:41:27.760 - 12:38:28 PM; The speaker addressed concerns about the bill's impact on students identifying as gay or transgender. They discussed a scenario where a student fears parental reaction to their sexual orientation, suggesting that the bill's requirement to inform parents could put such students at risk of harm or self-harm. The speaker emphasized the vulnerability of these students and the potential danger of forcing teachers to disclose sensitive information without considering the student's safety.
SB72: Parent and Abuse Worker Oppose03:45:50.800 - 12:42:51 PM; The speaker, a parent and someone who has worked with abusive situations, opposed the bill. They shared an example of a child testing the safety of disclosure by first revealing a less severe issue (being gay) before disclosing sexual abuse. The speaker argued that the bill could remove safe spaces for children to test and disclose abuse, potentially endangering them by forcing teachers to inform parents prematurely.
SB72: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:48:51.040 - 12:45:52 PM; The speaker further discussed the scenario of a young child revealing their sexual orientation to a teacher with the request not to inform parents. They highlighted the potential danger if the bill required the teacher to disclose this information, especially when the child's safety at home was at risk due to the stepfather's behavior. The speaker questioned the bill's impact on protecting children in such vulnerable situations.
SB72: Unknown Speaker Information Only03:50:34.399 - 12:47:35 PM; The speaker discussed the balance between parental rights and the safety of children, particularly those at risk of self-harm. They argued that withholding information from parents could be detrimental unless there is clear and convincing evidence to do so, emphasizing the importance of parental rights over the relationship between students and teachers.
SB72: Senator Information Only03:53:17.840 - 12:50:18 PM; The Senator responded to questions regarding the implications of the bill. They clarified that the bill does not assume all parents are problematic but recognizes that a small portion may be, aligning with the legal presumption that parents are fit unless proven otherwise. They also discussed the mandatory reporting obligations of teachers, stating that under clear and convincing evidence, teachers are obligated to report potential abuse, but there are no obligations to report based solely on a child's fear of parental reaction without evidence of wrongdoing.
SB72: Representative Petrinho Information Only03:55:12.239 - 12:52:13 PM; Representative Petrinho thanked the Senator for their response but did not provide further commentary on the bill itself.
SB72: Representative Greg Information Only03:55:58.239 - 12:52:59 PM; Representative Greg questioned the Senator about the potential harm to a child from mandatory reporting in scenarios where domestic violence is suspected. The Senator clarified that the mandatory reporting would only apply under a clear and convincing standard, not just on the basis of a child's fear or hearsay.
SB72: Representative Howard Information Only03:57:32.319 - 12:54:33 PM; Representative Howard asked about the rights of students to privacy under the state constitution and whether a child's wish not to disclose certain information to parents would be a violation. The Senator explained that while there are circumstances where child privacy is protected by law, if a child discloses information about a crime, there is an obligation to report it, not to keep it secret, which aligns with the bill's provisions.
SB72: Representative Dimony Information Only03:59:19.680 - 12:56:20 PM; Representative Dimony discussed scenarios where children express fear of parental reaction to bad grades and clarified that such statements do not necessarily constitute grounds for mandatory reporting under the bill. The Senator agreed, emphasizing the importance of trust between parents and schools and the context in which such statements are made.
SB72: Chairman Information Only04:00:57.279 - 12:57:58 PM; The Chairman discusses the issue of children disrespecting parents and teachers, and how this behavior extends to school. He raises the question of how to protect teachers in such situations, suggesting that the current system has broken down the trust between parents, teachers, and the school system. The bill aims to address this by requiring districts to notify parents of their rights and mandating teachers to answer parental questions, which he believes is a reasonable standard.
SB72: Representative Petrinho Information Only04:02:35.040 - 12:59:36 PM; Representative Petrinho expresses concern about the right of individuals to act according to their good conscience, specifically regarding teachers. He highlights that teachers often have to make judgment calls and emphasizes that most parents and teachers have the best interest of children at heart. He worries that compelling someone to answer a question against their conscience could be unconstitutional and asks about the balance between a teacher's professional judgment and the requirements of the bill.
SB72: David Trumbull from Ware Oppose04:05:20.000 - 1:02:21 PM; David Trumbull from Ware opposes SB72 for several reasons. First, he believes the bill conflicts with the New Hampshire Constitution, referencing a recent Supreme Court decision (DO versus Manchester) that supports a rational basis test over strict scrutiny. He argues that parents' rights in school settings are not unqualified and that schools should be allowed to use their best judgment for the well-being of children. Second, he argues the bill infringes on children's rights by reducing honesty and preventing them from having open conversations with trusted adults. Third, he sees it as a mandatory outing bill, potentially endangering LGBTQ youth who may face unsafe home environments. Finally, he suggests the bill changes the school environment by removing the possibility of having a trusted adult, which could increase suicide risks among youth. He recommends passing a parental bill of rights without the mandatory outing aspect.
SB72: Representative Corsen Information Only04:11:10.800 - 1:08:11 PM; Representative Corsen acknowledges the extensive information provided by David Trumbull and suggests that the necessity for educational freedom accounts is verified by the concerns raised, emphasizing the need for parents to feel safe when sending their children to school. He seeks clarification on the Supreme Court case mentioned by Trumbull, which is identified as DO versus Manchester, decided on August 30th, 2024.
SB72: Representative Love Information Only04:13:12.880 - 1:10:13 PM; Representative Love questions whether parents, who are with their children forever, should be informed about their child's identity issues, particularly for transgender youth, given the high suicide rates and mental health issues in this community. He suggests that having parents informed could be more beneficial. David Trumbull responds by agreeing that in most cases parents should know, but highlights that sometimes the risk comes from the parent, and schools should have the discretion to protect the child in such situations. He shares a testimony from a father who initially couldn't handle his child's identity but later opposed the bill, illustrating the potential harm of mandatory outing.
SB72: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:17:13.840 - 1:14:14 PM; The speaker concluded the public hearing on SB72 and mentioned that an amendment was distributed by Representative Patrino. They indicated that the committee would move into an executive session on the bill, noting that the bill required minor adjustments like adding commas.
SB72: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:18:04.680 - 1:15:05 PM; The speaker mentioned holding onto SB72 due to the possibility of another amendment coming and suggested a potential meeting next Tuesday. They reminded subcommittee members to review their amendments.
SB161 1539H: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:25:16.560 - 1:22:17 PM; The speaker opened an executive session on Senate Bill 161 and discussed amendment 1539H, which involves minor changes like adding commas to clarify the text. The amendment was moved for adoption, and a Democrat seconded the motion.
SB161 1539H: Representative Sidelo Information Only04:26:48.720 - 1:23:49 PM; Representative Sidelo inquired about the oversight in the amendment and whether it was staying in the bill along with the effective date. It was clarified that the amendment only replaced sections one and two.
SB161 1539H: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:27:39.840 - 1:24:40 PM; The speaker facilitated a vote on amendment 1539H to Senate Bill 161, which passed unanimously with a vote of 14 to 0. They noted that the amendment could not go on consent due to it being an amendment, not the bill itself.
SB161 1539H: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:29:29.040 - 1:26:30 PM; The speaker moved the motion on Senate Bill 161 as amended by amendment 1539H, which was seconded by Representative Patrinho. The vote on the amended bill passed unanimously with 14 votes in favor. The speaker noted that the bill would go on consent without objections.

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