Committee Summary for House Children and Family Law (01/28/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB322 00:02:34.920 - 9:01:35 AM	Public Hearing	allowing a parent paying child support to retain the exclusive right to claim the child as a dependent on their tax return.	Barton, Joseph(R)
HB322 00:26:53.559 - 9:25:54 AM	Executive Session	allowing a parent paying child support to retain the exclusive right to claim the child as a dependent on their tax return.	Barton, Joseph(R)
HB325 00:32:22.760 - 9:31:23 AM	Public Hearing	eliminating term and reimbursement alimony in divorces granted on grounds of irreconcilable differences.	Barton, Joseph(R)
HB325 00:58:20.520 - 9:57:21 AM	Executive Session	eliminating term and reimbursement alimony in divorces granted on grounds of irreconcilable differences.	Barton, Joseph(R)
HB170 01:04:19.440 - 10:03:20 AM	Executive Session	relative to the division of military pensions during divorce proceedings.	Moffett, Michael(R)[A-]2024
HB170 01:21:49.960 - 10:20:50 AM	Executive Session	relative to the division of military pensions during divorce proceedings.	Moffett, Michael(R)[A-]2024
HB433 01:41:14.159 - 10:40:15 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)[A-]2024
HB478 03:11:24.399 - 12:10:25 PM	Public Hearing	establishing a foster care oversight subcommittee within the oversight commission on children's services.	Petrigno, Peter(D)[CT]2024
HB478 03:19:02.880 - 12:18:03 PM	Executive Session	establishing a foster care oversight subcommittee within the oversight commission on children's services.	Petrigno, Peter(D)[CT]2024
HB553 2025- 03:32:28.319 - 12:31:29 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the definition of abuse and neglect and conditions triggering a rebuttable presumption of harm in abuse and neglect cases.	Gregg, Alicia(D)[CT]2024

HB322: Representative Barton, Prime Sponsor Support00:02:34.920 - 9:01:35 AM; Representative Barton introduced House Bill 322, explaining that since 2018, child support payments are no longer tax deductible. He argued that it is unfair for the paying parent to not be able to claim the child tax credit, as they are the primary financial supporter of the child. He suggested that if the paying parent cannot claim a tax exemption, they should at least have the exclusive right to claim the child as a dependent on their tax return.
HB322: Representative Greg Information Only00:04:10.079 - 9:03:11 AM; Representative Greg questioned the fairness of allowing a parent paying minimal child support (e.g., $50 a month) to claim the child as a dependent. He discussed the financial thresholds and the implications of the bill on child support arrangements, particularly when one parent pays significantly less than the other.
HB322: Representative Raymond Information Only00:07:16.240 - 9:06:17 AM; Representative Raymond sought clarification on how one pays taxes on child support, leading to a discussion about the tax implications of child support payments. He also inquired about the relevance of child care and rent costs in New Hampshire, which was deemed irrelevant to the bill by Representative Barton.
HB322: Representative Corson Information Only00:08:29.680 - 9:07:30 AM; Representative Corson raised concerns about the fairness of automatically giving the tax exemption to the non-custodial parent when they may be paying significantly less than the custodial parent towards the child's expenses. He questioned the equity of the bill in such scenarios.
HB322: Representative Nelson Information Only00:13:12.480 - 9:12:13 AM; Representative Nelson asked about the process of claiming a tax credit or deduction related to child support based on her personal experience. She was confused about the difference between a tax credit and a deduction and sought clarification on how these relate to the bill.
HB322: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:15:05.839 - 9:14:06 AM; The speaker raises a question about the financial burden on the custodial parent receiving minimal child support, questioning the fairness and calculation of child support. They discuss the disparity in income and how courts determine support based on financial affidavits. The speaker also touches on the tax implications for the paying parent, suggesting that the primary financial support provider should be able to claim the child tax credit.
HB322: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose00:21:44.799 - 9:20:45 AM; Mary Krueger, an attorney with New Hampshire Legal Assistance, opposes HB322, highlighting its potential negative impact on low-income families. She explains that her organization represents clients in domestic violence cases where both parties often live at or below the poverty level. Krueger argues that the bill would limit judicial discretion in determining who can claim children as tax dependents, which could be detrimental in cases with low child support amounts. She urges the committee to vote against the bill.
HB322: Representative Raymond Information Only00:24:38.200 - 9:23:39 AM; Representative Raymond inquires about judicial practices regarding the allocation of tax dependency claims in divorce cases. Mary Krueger confirms that judges commonly make orders that alternate or split dependency claims among children and adjust them based on the children's needs and age. She also explains that changes to these orders can be requested every three years or upon a significant change in circumstances.
HB322: Representative Rice Information Only00:26:53.559 - 9:25:54 AM; Representative Rice moves to recommend that HB322 be deemed inexpedient to legislate (ITL).
HB322: Representative Greg Information OnlyNot Provided - 9:25:54 AM; Representative Greg seconds the motion to recommend HB322 as ITL.
HB322: Representative D Simone Support00:27:08.840 - 9:26:09 AM; As a co-sponsor, Representative D Simone initially supported HB322 hoping it would improve child support regulations. However, after hearing the testimony, they believe the bill would weaken the current system and thus supports the ITL motion.
HB322: Representative Le Support00:27:55.000 - 9:26:56 AM; Representative Le shares personal experiences with family members and their varying arrangements for claiming children as tax dependents. They believe the current system allows courts and parents to make the best decisions based on financial stability and other factors, and supports the ITL motion.
HB322: Representative Love Support00:28:41.640 - 9:27:42 AM; Representative Love acknowledges the need for improvements in child support laws but feels HB322 is not the solution. They support the ITL motion, citing concerns over judicial discretion.
HB322: Representative Georgees Information OnlyNot Provided - 9:27:42 AM; Representative Georgees is listed to speak but no specific testimony or sentiment is provided in the transcript.
HB322: Cultural person Support00:29:18.519 - 9:28:19 AM; The speaker, identifying as a cultural person, supports HB322, arguing that it would help address situations where parents who are not consistently present in the country work minimally in the U.S. but earn significantly more abroad, yet do not financially support their children or former spouse. The speaker believes that supporting this bill would enable independent financial support for the children.
HB322: Chair Information Only00:30:05.399 - 9:29:06 AM; The chair announced the result of the vote on HB322, which was inexpedient to legislate, moved by Representative Rice and seconded by Representative Greg. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion, and it was decided that the bill would go on consent.
HB325: Unnamed Speaker Support00:32:22.760 - 9:31:23 AM; The speaker argues in support of HB325, drawing a parallel between alimony and involuntary servitude as prohibited by the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They contend that alimony, particularly in no-fault divorces, forces one party to continue financial obligations to the other despite the dissolution of the marriage contract, likening it to slavery. The speaker believes that no provision of the marital contract should survive its dissolution.
HB325: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose00:37:55.880 - 9:36:56 AM; Mary Krueger, an attorney with New Hampshire Legal Assistance, opposes HB325, arguing that it would harm domestic violence survivors by removing their ability to seek financial support through alimony in no-fault divorces, where financial abuse is prevalent. She also argues that the bill would increase adversarial divorces and negatively impact older spouses who have sacrificed careers to raise families. Krueger highlights the fairness and predictability of the current alimony law, which was updated to provide a structured approach to determining need, ability to pay, and duration of alimony.
HB325: Representative Raymond Information Only00:47:04.119 - 9:46:05 AM; Representative Raymond inquires about the impact of HB325 on couples who mutually agree on alimony in a no-fault divorce. Mary Krueger clarifies that under the proposed bill, parties could still agree on alimony, but the issue arises when there is no agreement and one party requests alimony in court.
HB325: Representative Marquel Oppose00:49:22.640 - 9:48:23 AM; Representative Marquel, an attorney, agrees with Mary Krueger's testimony and disagrees with the previous speaker's argument that alimony constitutes a violation of the 13th Amendment. Marquel states that proving fault grounds for divorce is exceedingly difficult and that the bill would unduly restrict a party's right to request and receive alimony.
HB325: Representative Grossman Information Only00:50:48.880 - 9:49:49 AM; Representative Grossman moved that the bill be deemed inexpedient to legislate.
HB325: Representative D Simone Information Only00:51:25.359 - 9:50:26 AM; Representative D Simone provided a brief tutorial on the pronunciation of names, specifically mentioning the differences between Italian and French pronunciations, and thanked Representative Petrino for bringing the bill to the committee's attention.
HB325: Representative Petrino Support00:52:11.400 - 9:51:12 AM; Representative Petrino co-sponsored the bill and expressed belief in enhancing RSA to help people during difficult family times. However, he noted that the bill does not enhance current laws and expressed concern about comparing alimony to slavery. He argued that marriage is a contract, similar to business contracts, and alimony helps one party get back on track after the contract is broken. He supports the ITL motion.
HB325: Representative Georges Oppose00:53:38.400 - 9:52:39 AM; Representative Georges shared personal testimony about her divorce experience, highlighting the lack of alimony despite her contributions to the household and family. She suffered financial hardship and believes that alimony should be provided to those in need, especially women who have supported their partners. She opposes the ITL motion.
HB325: Representative Nelson Information Only00:55:42.400 - 9:54:43 AM; Representative Nelson clarified that alimony issues are not exclusive to women and mentioned instances where men receive alimony.
HB325: Representative Love Support00:56:01.039 - 9:55:02 AM; Representative Love expressed concerns about laws that might encourage divorce and shared his personal experience of working long hours, getting injured, and facing divorce. He believes alimony should be an individual agreement in each divorce case and sees no-fault divorce as a burden on society. He supports the ITL motion but suggests that the concept could be refined for future consideration.
HB325: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:58:20.520 - 9:57:21 AM; The speaker emphasized the importance of judicial discretion in alimony cases, noting that alimony is not awarded in every case and should remain under the judge's discretion, reflecting the complexity and individual nature of divorce proceedings.
HB325: Representative Marel Oppose00:59:07.559 - 9:58:08 AM; Representative Marel argued against the bill, stating it is difficult to implement and that fault grounds in divorce cases are hard to prove. They highlighted the complexity of the legal requirements needed for a court to consider fault as the cause of marriage breakdown, suggesting that the bill would not solve any problems and supported an ITL motion.
HB325: Representative George Information Only00:59:55.559 - 9:58:56 AM; Representative George discussed their personal experience with divorce and the lack of knowledge they had at the time. They emphasized the role of the committee in helping the community and those going through similar situations, suggesting a need for support and understanding in legislative decisions.
HB325: Representative Grman Oppose01:00:41.119 - 9:59:42 AM; Representative Grman opposed the bill, highlighting the restorative nature of alimony, especially in cases where one spouse has been a homemaker or caregiver. They argued for judicial discretion in awarding alimony, particularly in long-term marriages, and expressed concern over the bill's one-size-fits-all approach.
HB170: Representative Mar Oppose01:04:19.440 - 10:03:20 AM; Representative Mar moved for an ITL, suggesting the bill be deemed inexpedient to legislate.
HB170: Representative Greg Oppose01:04:58.000 - 10:03:59 AM; Representative Greg opposed the bill, arguing that it would unfairly burden military spouses who face unique challenges such as frequent moves and limited employment opportunities. They emphasized the restorative aspect of military pensions in divorce settlements.
HB170: Representative Raymond Oppose01:05:44.720 - 10:04:45 AM; Representative Raymond suggested that while they could support a bill aimed at ensuring judicial discretion and training, the current bill's one-size-fits-all approach was problematic. They advocated for changes that consider a wide variety of circumstances rather than a single experience.
HB170: Representative Love Oppose01:06:53.599 - 10:05:54 AM; Representative Love argued against the ITL motion, explaining that military pensions should not be treated as ordinary pensions but as retainers, which are active and can be affected by the retiree's conduct. They opposed categorizing military pensions as property in divorce proceedings.
HB170: Representative George Information Only01:08:30.640 - 10:07:31 AM; Representative George discussed the fairness of considering military pensions in divorce settlements, suggesting that a 50/50 split might be too burdensome for one party and that individual circumstances should be considered.
HB170: Representative Marel Oppose01:09:17.040 - 10:08:18 AM; Representative Marel argued that military pensions should be treated as pensions, requiring a specific military process for transfer. They expressed concern that separating military pensions from the overall marital asset division would undermine current statutes and renewed the ITL motion.
HB170: Representative Margaret Dry, Sullivan County District 7 Support01:21:49.960 - 10:20:50 AM; Representative Dry supports HB170, which proposes an exemption to the recent law raising the minimum age of marriage to 18. She argues for an exception for active duty military personnel, citing examples from other states like Alaska and various New Hampshire statutes where 17-year-olds on active duty are considered adults. She highlights the benefits of marriage for military personnel, such as medical coverage, insurance, housing, and the ability to accompany those stationed overseas. She mentions personal experiences with her sons serving in the military and emphasizes that the bill is narrowly crafted to require at least one party to be an active duty military member and a New Hampshire resident, with parental consent needed for any 17-year-old not on active duty. She counters concerns about 'child marriage' by comparing it to the age of consent laws, suggesting that allowing marriage could be a form of protection in cases of pregnancy. She clarifies that the bill does not repeal the existing law but adds an exemption, urging the committee to vote in favor of the bill.
HB170: Representative LC Information Only01:26:12.080 - 10:25:13 AM; Representative LC asks Representative Dry if the bill is necessary since the new marriage law has only been in effect for 30 days, suggesting they should allow more time to see if there are problems before making changes. Representative Dry responds by recalling last year's discussions on attempted amendments and exemptions, indicating this is a good time to consider such changes.
HB170: Representative LC Information Only01:26:59.199 - 10:26:00 AM; Representative LC raises a concern about potential issues with divorce proceedings under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act if a military member extends their deployment to avoid divorce. Representative Dry acknowledges this as a worst-case scenario but suggests there could be better scenarios as well.
HB170: Representative Raymond Information Only01:28:09.560 - 10:27:10 AM; Representative Raymond inquires about the definition of 'active duty' in the context of the bill, specifically whether it includes basic training or starts after signing the recruitment letter. Representative Dry suggests that this question might be better answered by someone with military experience.
HB170: Representative Georges Information Only01:29:03.159 - 10:28:04 AM; Representative Georges questions the maturity of 17-year-olds to take on the responsibilities of marriage, noting that not all 17-year-olds who graduate early are mature enough. Representative Dry responds by stating that the bill allows for the choice but does not mandate it, and that parental consent is required for any 17-year-old not on active duty. Georges expresses concern that the ability to marry at 17 may not be suitable for all individuals at that age.
HB170: Representative Dry Information Only01:30:54.600 - 10:29:55 AM; Representative Dry addressed a question about the implications of raising the age of marriage to 18, specifically regarding the ability of 17-year-olds to seek help at domestic violence shelters. The representative clarified that the bill does not directly address the issue of emancipation or the rights of minors in such situations, emphasizing that questions should focus on the bill's content. The discussion highlighted the potential unintended consequences of the bill on young individuals in abusive relationships.
HB170: Representative LC Information Only01:32:34.880 - 10:31:35 AM; Representative LC inquired about the lack of an age limit in the bill concerning active duty military members. They expressed concern over the possibility of significant age differences in marriages facilitated by the bill, questioning the rationale behind not setting an age cap. The response clarified that the bill aims to provide an exception for 17-year-olds in the military, aligning with military enlistment age but not yet the age of marriage in New Hampshire.
HB170: Representative Petrino Information Only01:33:37.880 - 10:32:38 AM; Representative Petrino sought to understand the motivation behind creating an exception for 17-year-olds in the military to marry. They questioned why the exception was not extended to all 17-year-olds. The response detailed the personal experience of the bill's proponent as a military mother and the potential need for such an exception in scenarios involving military drafts, emphasizing the importance of having legal options available.
HB170: Representative D Simone Information Only01:35:04.480 - 10:34:05 AM; Representative D Simone raised concerns about the potential impact on children born from relationships involving a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old military member, especially if the military member is deployed. The discussion focused on the benefits and challenges of marriage in such scenarios, including access to military benefits and the emotional impact on the family unit.
HB170: Representative Katie Pell, representing the towns of Walpole and Tuftonboro Support01:38:57.960 - 10:37:58 AM; Representative Katie Pell shared a personal anecdote about a friend who joined the Navy to support his family, highlighting the potential benefits of the bill for young individuals in challenging life situations. She emphasized the importance of supporting young military members and their families, suggesting that the bill could encourage military service.
HB170: Shelley Hoik, retired Major, USAF, from Hopkinton, New Hampshire Oppose01:41:14.159 - 10:40:15 AM; Major Shelley Hoik expressed opposition to the bill, citing three concerns: the transient lifestyle of military service, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the financial pressures faced by young military families. She detailed the potential dangers and isolation faced by a 17-year-old military spouse, the discretionary nature of military justice, and the economic challenges that could exacerbate the situation for young military families.
HB433: Shelley Hoik, retired Major, USAF, from Hopkinton, New Hampshire Information Only01:41:14.159 - 10:40:15 AM; Shelley Hoik provided information regarding the definition of active duty in the military. She clarified that active duty begins when an enlisted person is sworn in at the MEPS station before heading to basic training. However, she noted that cadets in service academies are not considered active duty and are not allowed to marry until they graduate.
HB433: Representative LC Information Only01:46:56.960 - 10:45:57 AM; Representative LC asked a question about the paperwork process for assigning beneficiaries in the military. Shelley Hoik responded that, from her experience, this process occurs after arriving at basic training, where recruits are taught about various forms and procedures.
HB433: Representative Terry Roy, Rockingham 32, Chairman of Criminal Justice Support01:47:48.560 - 10:46:49 AM; Representative Terry Roy testified in support of the bill as a co-sponsor. He shared his personal experience of joining the military at 17 and the potential need for young soldiers to marry if they have a pregnant partner, emphasizing the importance of military support for such families. He argued that the bill provides a necessary exception for young soldiers in specific circumstances.
HB433: Emma Savini, Children's Behavior Health Policy Coordinator at New Futures Oppose01:51:05.400 - 10:50:06 AM; Emma Savini testified in opposition to HB433, representing New Futures. She argued that child marriage is harmful and detrimental to children's health, mental well-being, and educational opportunities. She highlighted the link between child marriage and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), which can lead to severe lifelong health issues. She urged the committee to vote the bill inexpedient to legislate, stating that it would roll back progress made in preventing child marriage.
HB433: Representative Harry Bean Support01:53:30.119 - 10:52:31 AM; Representative Harry Bean testified in support of HB433, sharing his personal experience of getting married at 16 with parental consent. He argued that marriage under 18 can work if the individuals are committed and their parents approve. He emphasized the importance of military support for young families, especially if a soldier is deployed.
HB433: Specialist Britney Wright Oppose01:56:36.440 - 10:55:37 AM; Specialist Britney Wright testified strongly against HB433, sharing her traumatic experience of being forced into a marriage to her childhood abuser at 17. She detailed how the marriage allowed her abuser to legally continue the abuse and how it impacted her life. She argued that allowing child marriage under any exception enables grooming and abuse. She emphasized her military service as a means to rebuild her life and advocated for the most vulnerable.
HB433: Representative Greg Information Only01:59:31.159 - 10:58:32 AM; Representative Greg asked Britney Wright a clarifying question about the consent for her marriage at 17, to which she confirmed that her parents had signed permission. He also inquired if her situation would have been different if she were a year older, to which she responded that being an adult would have granted her access to divorce and healthcare without her spouse's permission.
HB433: Simon Information Only02:00:41.280 - 10:59:42 AM; Simon responded to a question about his divorce after turning 18, stating it occurred six months later. He also confirmed awareness of the possibility to file for divorce at 17 in New Hampshire.
HB433: Aaron Hearn from Hanson Oppose02:01:46.320 - 11:00:47 AM; Aaron Hearn, a volunteer with Unchained at Last, argued against HB433, emphasizing the dangers of child marriage. He highlighted that turning 18 does not automatically grant maturity but provides legal rights crucial for avoiding forced marriages. He detailed the challenges minors face when trying to escape forced marriages, including the lack of safe shelters and legal barriers to seeking help independently. He stressed that child marriage often leads to severe trauma, including forced sexual relations and limited legal recourse, urging opposition to the bill to prevent such situations.
HB433: Fredy Rice from Westfield, New Jersey Oppose02:04:06.159 - 11:03:07 AM; Fredy Rice, a survivor and advocate from Unchained at Last, spoke against HB433, sharing her personal experience with forced marriage and her efforts to end child marriage. She argued that allowing child marriage, especially in military contexts, is dangerous and unnecessary, citing high rates of domestic violence and difficulties in accessing help. She emphasized that military benefits could be assigned without marriage, and warned that the bill could enable legal trafficking of minors. She concluded by urging the committee to vote no on HB433 to maintain the progress made in ending child marriage in New Hampshire.
HB478: Representative Petrino from Milford Support03:11:24.399 - 12:10:25 PM; Representative Petrino introduced HB478, which aims to establish a permanent foster care oversight subcommittee within the oversight Commission on children's services. He referenced last year's Senate Bill 566, which led to a study on foster care families, and explained that the subcommittee was recommended after numerous meetings and testimonies from various stakeholders, including DCF, the Office of the Child Advocate, and foster parents. The feedback highlighted feelings of isolation, lack of support, and dysfunction within the agency among foster parents. He emphasized the need for continued oversight and support for foster care.
HB478: Cassandra Sanchez and Lisa Massio from OCA Support03:13:52.279 - 12:12:53 PM; Cassandra Sanchez and Lisa Massio, representing the Office of the Child Advocate (OCA), supported HB478. They attended the summer sessions and engaged with foster parent groups, noting the importance of creating a dedicated space within the oversight Commission for foster parents to voice their concerns. They highlighted the systemic issues heard by the Commission and the value of direct feedback from foster parents, which had previously made them feel valued and supported in their roles.
HB478: Susan Laraby and Jennifer Ross from DCF Support03:16:10.960 - 12:15:11 PM; Susan Laraby and Jennifer Ross from the Division of Children, Youth and Families (DCF) expressed no opposition to HB478. They acknowledged the efforts made over the summer to address the needs of foster parents, emphasizing the importance of retaining and supporting them. They viewed the establishment of the oversight subcommittee positively, seeing it as a collaborative effort to solve ongoing issues and improve the foster care system.
HB478: Representative Petrino Support03:19:02.880 - 12:18:03 PM; Representative Petrino moved to pass HB478, and the motion was seconded. No further discussion was noted, indicating unanimous support for the bill.
HB478: Representative D Support03:19:37.359 - 12:18:38 PM; Representative D emphasized the importance of the commission or committee being established for foster care oversight. They shared their experience from the foster care special committee over the summer, describing the complexity and depth of the issue as akin to a 'bowl of pasta'. They expressed strong support for the initiative.
HB478: Representative Simon Support03:20:05.160 - 12:19:06 PM; Representative Simon supported the sentiments of Representatives Petrino and Greg and used an analogy of layers to describe the foster care program. They stressed the necessity of a subcommittee to address the complexities of the foster care system, including kinship and fictive care. They highlighted a recent meeting discussing the need for more foster families to prevent children from being placed in facilities.
HB478: Representative Malone Support03:21:14.520 - 12:20:15 PM; Representative Malone, with 25 years of experience as a foster mom and kinship provider in New Hampshire, strongly supported the bill. They discussed the challenges foster families face, including the need for trauma training and the emotional toll on foster children. They praised the idea of an oversight committee and a subcommittee, noting the value of cross-fertilization of ideas and the depth of focus on specific issues.
HB478: Chairman Information Only03:23:36.080 - 12:22:37 PM; The chairman announced the vote on House Bill 478, which passed unanimously with 15 votes in favor and no opposition, with one member absent. The bill was moved to the consent calendar, and Representative Petrino was reminded to submit the report before leaving.
HB553 2025-: Representative Alicia Greg, Nashua Support03:32:28.319 - 12:31:29 PM; Representative Alicia Greg, representing Nashua, introduced House Bill 553 and discussed the amendment, which reverts to the original language agreed upon by stakeholders. She highlighted the bill's origin from a study committee led by Senator Carson and former Senator Whitley, focusing on updating definitions of child abuse and neglect. Greg emphasized the importance of protecting children and the necessity of revising the foundational child protection act (169C) after 45 years without a robust revision. She shared personal experiences with domestic violence to illustrate the need for updated definitions and services to prevent crises and support families. Greg stressed that the bill aims to provide a solid foundation for child protection without removing children from homes unnecessarily.
HB553 2025-: Representative Raymond Information Only03:42:45.199 - 12:41:46 PM; Representative Raymond inquired about the amendment to HB553, specifically what changes it made from the original bill and why those changes were important. Representative Greg responded, noting that certain elements, such as the term 'in utero', were removed from the original text provided by the Office of the Senate (OS). She mentioned that the Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) would be better equipped to explain the technical changes, such as the placement of commas, which significantly affect the meaning of the text.
HB553 2025-: Representative Love Information Only03:44:04.520 - 12:43:05 PM; Representative Love questioned the measurement of emotional and psychological abuse as mentioned in the bill, suggesting that it goes beyond mere disagreement with children and involves belittling or damaging behavior. They also raised concerns about the difference between preponderance of the evidence standard in civil cases versus beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, pointing out the challenges in defining abuse clearly. Representative Love further questioned the definition of abandonment in the amendment, noting the difference in leaving children of different ages unsupervised and the potential for misinterpretation.
HB553 2025-: Sergeant Brian Fleming, Manchester Police Department Support03:47:51.680 - 12:46:52 PM; Sergeant Brian Fleming from the Manchester Police Department spoke in support of the bill. He highlighted the importance of expanding definitions to include emotional and psychological harm, which he believes are often invisible and difficult to address legally. He stressed the necessity of early intervention to prevent cases from escalating to criminal levels and supported the introduction of a reputable presumption of harm to intervene earlier. Fleming also praised the bill's trauma-informed approach, emphasizing the need to keep children safe and promote their healing and resilience.
HB553 2025-: Cassandra Sanchez, Child Advocate for the State of New Hampshire and Attorney Lisa Masio, Associate Child Advocate Support03:56:26.199 - 12:55:27 PM; Cassandra Sanchez and Attorney Lisa Masio provided detailed support for the bill, addressing technical questions. They shared instances where DCF was unable to act due to judicial findings and emphasized the importance of voluntary cases and early intervention. They highlighted the need to maintain families together whenever possible, and discussed the benefits of a well-built children's system of care. They also stressed the importance of updated language to catch families in need, and the relevance of psychological research on adverse childhood experiences and trauma. They explained the process of revising the bill, including collaboration with various stakeholders, and clarified the civil statute standard of preponderance of the evidence. They also discussed the importance of not assigning specific ages for supervision due to developmental differences among children and the need to encourage mothers seeking prenatal care.
HB553 2025-: Representative Love Information Only04:10:44.439 - 1:09:45 PM; Representative Love sought clarification on the lack of age-specific language for proper supervision within the bill. They shared an anecdote about a friend arrested for leaving an 8-year-old granddaughter unsupervised briefly, emphasizing the need for clearer definitions regarding age-related requirements. The response from the advocates highlighted the importance of not assigning ages due to varying developmental levels and explained the process of DCF's assessment for potential neglect.
HB553 2025-: Representative Information Only04:14:34.600 - 1:13:35 PM; A representative asked about the bipartisan nature of the bill, noting that several committee members cited in the final report were Republicans. The response affirmed that the bill's support was bipartisan, emphasizing Senator Carson's advocacy and the collaborative effort in vetting the language of the bill.
HB553 2025-: Unknown Information Only04:16:15.680 - 1:15:16 PM; The speaker raises concerns about the neglect section of the bill, particularly paragraph E, which deals with newborns exposed to substances. They question the criteria for intervention, noting the variability in outcomes for infants exposed to the same substances in utero. They argue that the current definitions require visible harm to the child, which may not always be apparent at birth. The speaker suggests that without clear harm, families might be unnecessarily involved in the system, but also acknowledges the importance of offering voluntary services to at-risk families.
HB553 2025-: Unknown Information Only04:19:21.840 - 1:18:22 PM; The speaker discusses the challenges of measuring psychological well-being, admitting it is difficult but necessary to assess how a child interacts in various settings. They mention that children often seek out therapists or school counselors to express their experiences, which can flag potential psychological issues. They emphasize the importance of believing children's accounts of their experiences and suggest that consistent behaviors can indicate psychological abuse, warranting further investigation.
HB553 2025-: Unknown Information Only04:22:31.439 - 1:21:32 PM; The speaker, who has experience as both a DCF attorney and a parent attorney, discusses the gaps in the current law regarding psychological indicators of neglect. They argue that expanding the language to include emotional and psychological well-being could help identify cases where children are exposed to trauma but do not exhibit physical signs, thereby preventing cases from falling through the cracks until they become severe.
HB553 2025-: Unknown Information Only04:24:06.159 - 1:23:07 PM; The speaker questions the purpose and nature of services offered to families, asking if they are punitive or supportive. They explain that services are evidence-based and family-guided, aimed at helping families reach a better place through community support and professional assistance. They also note that some high-intensity services are primarily accessible through DCF involvement, though there is a push to increase community access.
HB553 2025-: Office of the Child Advocate Support04:26:26.159 - 1:25:27 PM; The Office of the Child Advocate supports the amended version of the bill, believing it would change the trajectory for cases involving infants with unexplained injuries. They highlight the importance of the bill's additions, such as indeterminate means, serious impairment, and rebuttable presumption of harm, which would allow DCF to intervene in cases where a perpetrator is not identified but the child has been harmed.
HB553 2025-: Susan Laraby, DCF General Counsel Support04:31:16.000 - 1:30:17 PM; Susan Laraby emphasizes that the bill does not change the burden of proof or due process rights of parents but enhances definitions and evidentiary sections to better address harm, serious impairment, and risk. She stresses that DCF's role is to support youth, children, and families, not to be adversarial, and highlights the importance of voluntary services and prevention efforts.
HB553 2025-: Jennifer Ross, Deputy Director DCF Support04:35:10.840 - 1:34:11 PM; Jennifer Ross reiterates the importance of voluntary services and community support for families. She discusses the challenges of staffing and case numbers, noting that DCF is at 78% capacity for assessments and 90% for family services. She acknowledges the rise in voluntary services contributing to increased case loads and emphasizes the need to support both families and staff.
HB553 2025-: Unknown Information Only04:38:31.000 - 1:37:32 PM; The speaker inquires about the provisions for clinical assessment of psychological harm within the bill and DCF's practices. They are informed that DCF relies on information from various sources, including schools, medical professionals, and mental health providers, and can provide referrals for evaluations to help understand the situation better.
HB553 2025-: Unknown Information Only04:40:18.480 - 1:39:19 PM; The speaker asks if DCF has the expertise to make clinical assessments of psychological harm. They are told that DCF does not have such expertise on staff but works with contracted or certified providers and community partners to conduct necessary evaluations and assessments, which are used as evidence in court proceedings.
HB553 2025-: Representative Paige Bosman, Nashua's Ward 4 Oppose04:42:58.440 - 1:41:59 PM; Representative Paige Bosman, representing Nashua's Ward 4, expressed her gratitude for the drafting of HB553, emphasizing her background in Maternal Child Health and her support for child protection. However, she voiced concerns about the language in the bill and the amendment, leading her to oppose it in its current form. As a registered nurse with over 15 years of experience working with mothers, babies, and families, she highlighted her expertise in maternal mental health and the challenges of substance use during pregnancy. She argued that the bill's definition of substance use as neglect or abuse does not align with clinical definitions and could deter mothers from engaging in recovery and prenatal care programs due to fear of DCF referrals. Bosman shared an anecdote about a healthcare provider's fear of losing her children due to mental health screenings, illustrating the potential chilling effect of the bill on maternal care engagement. She concluded by requesting a vote of Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on the bill, suggesting the need for more input from clinical experts in maternal substance use to refine the bill's language.
HB553 2025-: JMA Wilder, Campton, New Hampshire Oppose04:49:21.080 - 1:48:22 PM; JMA Wilder from Campton, New Hampshire, opposed HB553 due to its vague and ambiguous language, which she believed could lead to unconstitutional abuses of power. She expressed concerns that the bill's broad language on emotional, mental, behavioral, and psychological needs could unjustly target both children and parents. Wilder shared her experiences with her own children and others, emphasizing the importance of parental guidance in teaching life lessons. She criticized the rise in suicide and decline in mental health among children, attributing it partly to inappropriate questioning by counselors and doctors. Wilder recounted an instance where a doctor's survey on body image negatively impacted her child, highlighting the potential harm of such interventions. She argued that the bill's broadness could circumvent due process and strain already taxed resources, urging reconsideration for the sake of the children.
HB553 2025-: Matthew Hassel Oppose04:52:30.680 - 1:51:31 PM; Matthew Hassel opposed HB553, citing the legal principle of the state action doctrine as his primary concern. He argued that the bill represents state action, which should be limited by constitutional rights to prevent government overreach. Hassel detailed how the doctrine applies to all levels of government and prevents the state from infringing on constitutional rights without due process. He referenced a recent Supreme Court decision, Wilson versus Hawaii, to support his argument that constitutional rights should not be treated as second-class protections. Hassel warned that the bill, if enacted, could lead to unconstitutional state action, potentially resulting in litigation in federal courts. He mentioned his ongoing litigation against state actors for similar violations, suggesting that HB553 could be added to his case if it progresses to the Supreme Court. Hassel concluded by asserting that he does not consent to the bill as proposed and highlighted its potential to violate due process and equal protection under the law.
HB553 2025-: Leah Kushman Information Only04:57:59.840 - 1:57:00 PM; Leah Kushman began to introduce herself and thank the committee but the transcript ends before she could provide further testimony or details regarding her stance on the bill.
HB553 2025-: Leah Kushman, Weare, NH - former state representative, board member of Rebuild New Hampshire, member of New Hampshire Family Justice Oppose04:58:04.160 - 1:57:05 PM; Leah Kushman continued her testimony, focusing on the constitutionality of the bill. She referenced the SEC v. JY case to argue that due process rights must be honored when actions resemble those that historically required common law court adjudication. She criticized the Family Court's treatment of abuse and neglect cases as civil rather than criminal, which she believes results in leniency on crime and delays in protecting children. Kushman pointed out the inefficiencies in the DCF screening process compared to criminal investigations, suggesting that the voluntary cooperation aspect of the Child Protection Act allows for child endangerment. She proposed that the bill should define abuse based on criminal convictions to align with historical precedents and ensure immediate child safety.
HB553 2025-: Grelli Glenn, Manchester, NH - parent Oppose05:04:26.360 - 2:03:27 PM; Grelli Glenn shared a personal experience of having her children removed by DCF due to homelessness, despite them being with older siblings. She criticized the expart relief process, claiming it was improperly used in her case and arguing that DCF oversteps its authority. Glenn presented a petition for redress, asserting that DCF, as a legislative creature, violates fundamental constitutional rights of parents. She opposed the bill, believing it would grant DCF more power to abuse its authority.
HB553 2025-: Farah Shen, Alstead, NH - resident, registered nurse Oppose05:09:55.520 - 2:08:56 PM; Farah Shen, a registered nurse with extensive experience in Maternal Child Health, opposed the bill as written. She highlighted her involvement in implementing the Eat Sleep Console model of care across New Hampshire's birth hospitals and criticized the bill's language regarding the presumption of harm related to parental substance use. Shen argued that substance use by a parent does not inherently equate to child harm, using examples like breastfeeding guidelines from the American Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. She emphasized the need to focus on actual harmful behaviors rather than stigmatizing substance use, and suggested that the bill's current language could harm children and families.
HB553 2025-: Unknown Speaker Oppose05:17:28.600 - 2:16:29 PM; The speaker expressed strong opposition to the bill, emphasizing concerns about child safety and the potential for increased child mortality due to parents' access to non-childproofed medication like fentanyl. They argued that the bill does not make sense and could lead to more child deaths, indicating a deep personal and professional concern over the issue.
HB553 2025-: Paige Information Only05:18:13.958 - 2:17:14 PM; Paige provided information about the importance of family engagement with the system, stating that when families are not afraid to engage, it leads to better outcomes for children, including reduced mortality and morbidity. They challenged the cultural stigma around substance use, suggesting that not all substance use leads to harm and that blanket presumptions of harm are discriminatory and inaccurate.
HB553 2025-: Simone Information Only05:19:06.680 - 2:18:07 PM; Simone, identified as a nurse, responded to questions about the effects of substance use on infants, particularly focusing on the condition known as failure to thrive. They clarified that failure to thrive is complex and multifactorial, and while interventions may be necessary in cases of substance use affecting care, a blanket presumption of harm from substance use is not appropriate and should not be part of the statute.
HB553 2025-: Representative George Information Only05:20:41.840 - 2:19:42 PM; Representative George asked about protecting children in situations where parents use substances unsafely. The response highlighted the need for comprehensive resources including housing, mental health care, substance use treatment, and trauma-informed services across various sectors to ensure child safety and well-being without stigmatizing substance use.
HB553 2025-: Randall Coler Oppose05:23:04.120 - 2:22:05 PM; Randall Coler opposed the bill, arguing that it is unconstitutional and that the current system, particularly in family court, does not follow due process. He referenced Title 42 and the Fourth Amendment, suggesting that civil disputes cannot establish probable cause and criticized the lack of application of Rules of Evidence in family court cases, claiming it leads to unfair judgments.
HB553 2025-: Courtney Tanner, Dartmouth Health Information Only05:26:56.320 - 2:25:57 PM; Courtney Tanner from Dartmouth Health provided insights on the amendment to HB553, expressing concerns about the definition and implementation of 'born alcohol or substance exposed.' They emphasized Dartmouth Health's commitment to child safety but highlighted potential issues with the amendment's language. Tanner also noted that Dartmouth Health was not involved in drafting the bill and offered to work with the committee on the amendment.
HB553 2025-: Betty Gay, Salem Information Only05:31:39.520 - 2:30:40 PM; Former Representative Betty Gay from Salem discussed the bill's implications and suggested improvements. She raised concerns about the definitions of psychological and emotional abuse, the speed and accuracy of child removal and investigation processes, and the need for a review board independent of the court system. She also criticized the 'rebuttable presumption of harm' as presuming guilt, suggesting it be reversed to presume innocence until proven guilty.
HB553 2025-: MSV, New Futures Oppose05:40:56.920 - 2:39:57 PM; MSV from New Futures opposed the bill as written, specifically citing concerns over the provision defining neglect related to substance exposure at birth. They argued that this could deter pregnant parents from seeking necessary treatment and prenatal care, suggesting the removal of this provision to potentially neutralize their opposition to the bill.

Pearson, Mark(Chairman)(R)[B-]2024	Nelson, Jodi(Clerk)(R)[B+]2024	DeSimone, Debra(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2024
McMahon, Charles(R)[A-]2024	Rice, Kimberly(R)[B-]2022	Love, David(R)[A]2024
Korzen, Lori(R)	Georges, Mary(D)	Seidel, Sheila(R)[A-]2024
Raymond, Heather(D)[CT]2024	Gregg, Alicia(D)[CT]2024	Petrigno, Peter(D)[CT]2024
Grossman, Gaby(D)[CT]2024	Levesque, Cassandra (D)[CT]2024	Malone, Amy(D)
Markell, Jay(R)