Committee Summary for Senate Children and Family Law (02/03/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB23 00:03:46.879 - 9:03:22 AM	Executive Session	expanding the crime of endangering the welfare of a child.	Long, Pat(D)[F]2025
SB76 00:05:09.560 - 9:04:45 AM	Executive Session	relative to the office of the child advocate.	Long, Pat(D)[F]2025
SB72 00:09:47.880 - 9:09:23 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) establishing a parental bill of rights.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB72 01:26:18.840 - 10:25:54 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) establishing a parental bill of rights.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025

SB23: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:03:46.879 - 9:03:22 AM; The speaker moved to pass Senate Bill 23 without any discussion. The motion to pass was seconded and approved with a vote of three to zero. Additionally, a motion was made and seconded to move the bill to consent, which was also approved.
SB76: Unnamed Committee Member Oppose00:05:09.560 - 9:04:45 AM; The speaker expressed concerns about Senate Bill 76, stating that it was discussed in a commission chaired by Senator Hon and aimed to specify the scope of the Office of Child Advocate's oversight. The speaker highlighted significant issues raised during the hearing, including concerns about overreach under the Right-to-Know law (91a), and the bill's language extending from executive to agency, potentially impacting any state vendor. The speaker felt the bill was not ready and needed substantial revision, suggesting a complete rewrite due to the broad exemption of all records and the unclear scope of services that could apply to children who should have received services but did not. The speaker supported a motion to find the bill inexpedient to legislate, which passed with a vote of two to one.
SB72: Senator Kim Lang Support00:09:47.880 - 9:09:23 AM; Senator Kim Lang introduced Senate Bill 72, which seeks to establish a Parental Bill of Rights in Education. The bill aims to consolidate and clarify parental rights scattered across various statutes into a single, accessible document. It reaffirms parents' fundamental rights to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children and mandates schools to notify parents of these rights at the start of each school year. The bill also proposes mechanisms for notifying parents of their rights and addressing violations, with remedies including declaratory, injunctive relief, and monetary damages against the school district, not individual teachers. Senator Lang emphasized the bill's role in clarifying and consolidating existing laws for parents' benefit.
SB72: Senator Long Information Only00:13:29.839 - 9:13:05 AM; Senator Long asked about the consistency of notifying parents of their rights across the state, suggesting it should be in plain language. Senator Lang clarified that the bill requires schools to list all parental rights as set forth in statute 189 DB:3, ensuring a clear and concise notification to parents.
SB72: Senator Zin Information Only00:15:24.560 - 9:15:00 AM; Senator Zin inquired whether the bill expands parental rights beyond current statutes. Senator Lang responded that it clarifies and consolidates existing rights, with some restatements for clarity. When asked about a lawsuit against the Manchester school district, Lang suggested the bill would help by clearly outlining parental rights. Regarding remedies, Lang explained that the bill allows for civil actions against the school district, not individual teachers, and clarified there are no criminal penalties for teachers under this bill.
SB72: Kimberly Allen from Hudson Support00:19:20.440 - 9:18:56 AM; Kimberly Allen, an educator and mother from Hudson, strongly supported Senate Bill 72, emphasizing its importance in safeguarding parental rights in education. She shared a personal experience where her son's class was changed without her knowledge, highlighting the need for transparency and parental involvement. Allen proposed an amendment to include parental rights regarding mental health services, arguing that such an amendment would ensure comprehensive protection of parental rights. She urged the committee to support the bill and its amendment to promote a collaborative educational environment.
SB72: Anarie Banfield, Parental Rights Advocate in New Hampshire Support00:24:15.919 - 9:23:51 AM; Anarie Banfield expressed support for SB72 but raised concerns about specific areas needing improvement. She highlighted the struggle of parents against well-funded lobbying organizations and school administrators with taxpayer-funded legal teams, arguing that a parental Bill of Rights would shift power back to parents. Banfield pointed out significant omissions in the bill, such as the lack of rights to privacy for children's personally identifiable information and the right to informed consent for mental health services in schools. She provided examples of unethical practices in schools, including the sharing of mental health data without consent, and stressed the importance of amending the bill to include protections against blanket consent forms. She also discussed the need for due process for parents similar to that afforded to teachers and suggested amendments to clarify parental rights and expectations, particularly regarding surveys and questionnaires.
SB72: Deborah House, President of the American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire Information Only00:38:36.119 - 9:38:12 AM; Deborah House, representing the American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire, stated a neutral stance on SB72, viewing it as a codification of existing parental rights in education. She suggested clarifications to make the bill stronger, expressing concern over vague language that could imply an expansion of rights, particularly on page two, lines 27 and 28. House emphasized the need to recognize that directing a child's education in a public setting cannot conflict with other parents' rights and stressed the importance of using opt-out provisions and school board policies for curriculum concerns. She also raised concerns about potential confusion over mandatory reporting standards due to the language on page five, lines three through five, and suggested adjustments to clarify the bill's intent without changing mandated reporter requirements.
SB72: Susan Stevens, Samton Oppose00:46:35.200 - 9:46:11 AM; Susan Stevens, from Samton, expressed fundamental opposition to SB72, citing concerns over its potential impacts and need for further discussion. She highlighted issues with the language on page five, lines three through five, and the potential for conflicting bills if similar rights were already established in other laws. Stevens argued that the bill does not account for situations where children are in crisis and cannot talk to their parents, emphasizing the importance of student agency and privacy. She also questioned the bill's implications for funding private and charter schools and suggested that it lacks provisions for a student Bill of Rights. Stevens advocated for more open communication between parents, teachers, and students rather than legislating strict disclosure requirements.
SB72: Brian Hawkins, NEA New Hampshire Information Only00:57:48.480 - 9:57:24 AM; Brian Hawkins from NEA New Hampshire expressed appreciation for the effort to communicate statutory rights to parents and supported an amendment in a previous iteration of the bill. He echoed concerns about the vagueness of language on page five, lines three through five, and suggested alternative language. Hawkins raised questions about the potential expansion of parental rights in directing moral or religious training and education, particularly how it might conflict with other parents' rights. He also pointed out the vagueness of the section on children's fundamental rights and suggested clarifying what the bill does not intend to do to avoid confusion, especially regarding free speech and discipline in schools.
SB72: David Trumble, Town of Ware Oppose01:06:34.160 - 10:06:10 AM; David Trumble, from Ware, opposed SB72 for two main reasons: the expansion of parental rights to a fundamental right and the requirement that schools cannot withhold any information from parents. He used the example of a child discussing their sexual orientation with a teacher, emphasizing the importance of children having a voice in their lives. Trumble referenced the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision in Doe v. Manchester, which upheld that parental rights are not unqualified and supported schools using the rational basis test rather than the stricter scrutiny test proposed in the bill. He argued that the bill could endanger the role of schools as safe spaces for children, particularly for LGBTQ youth, and suggested using the preponderance of evidence standard instead of clear and convincing evidence for school judgments.
SB72: Senator Long Information Only01:19:13.239 - 10:18:49 AM; Senator Long discusses the evidentiary standards required for school personnel to infringe on parental rights, expressing concerns about the clarity of 'clear and convincing evidence' versus 'preponderance of evidence'. He argues that these standards are commonly used in law and should be understandable to school staff, even without legal training. He mentions that school personnel should consult with legal counsel to understand these standards better and emphasizes that mandatory reporting requirements remain unaffected by these changes.
SB72: Courtney Tanner, Dartmouth Health Information Only01:21:22.159 - 10:20:58 AM; Courtney Tanner from Dartmouth Health discusses the need for alignment between the bill and existing state and federal statutes, particularly regarding medical records and procedures. She highlights issues with the current language on page three regarding access to medical records and suggests aligning it with HIPAA standards. Additionally, she mentions federal protections for vulnerable populations under 42 CFR part two, and the need for the bill to account for minors' rights to certain medical care without parental consent, as per existing laws.
SB72: Committee Members Information Only01:26:18.840 - 10:25:54 AM; The committee discusses Senate Bill 72 in an executive session. They focus on evidentiary standards, the implications for divorced parents, and the need for training school personnel on parental rights. Concerns are raised about the clarity of 'clear and convincing evidence' and its applicability to non-legal professionals. The committee also considers the need for rules to be made by the Department of Education to clarify these rights. The possibility of amending the bill to include mandatory training and rule-making authority is discussed. The session ends with the committee adjourning without moving the bill to a vote.