Committee Summary for House Children and Family Law (02/17/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1039 00:08:18.960 - 9:03:59 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the contents of parenting plans.	Nelson, Jodi(R)[B]2025
HB1206 00:33:37.120 - 9:29:18 AM	Public Hearing	clarifying the equity jurisdiction of the judicial branch family division.	Love, David(R)[B+]2025
HB1206 01:02:31.520 - 9:58:12 AM	Executive Session	clarifying the equity jurisdiction of the judicial branch family division.	Love, David(R)[B+]2025
HB1215 01:05:55.200 - 10:01:36 AM	Public Hearing	relative to supporting the preferred method of communication of an individual with developmental disabilities.	Kofalt, Jim(R)[A+]2025
HB1377 01:37:25.520 - 10:33:06 AM	Public Hearing	allowing parents to make alternative caregiver arrangements for their children without transferring guardianship.	Long, Patrick(D)[D]2025
HB1404 03:12:04.720 - 12:07:45 PM	Public Hearing	establishing a study committee to study the equitable division of property in divorce proceedings.	Barton, Joseph(R)[A-]2025
HB1804 03:29:42.640 - 12:25:23 PM	Executive Session	consolidating school administrative units, making chief school administrator jobs an elected position, and defining education roles.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A]2025
HB1643 03:35:54.560 - 12:31:35 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the report of a guardian ad litem.	Rice, Kimberly(R)[B-]2025
HB1687 04:05:49.680 - 1:01:30 PM	Public Hearing	removing the power of courts within the judicial branch family division to issue criminal determinations, judgments, and penalties.	Love, David(R)[B+]2025
HB1770 04:46:35.920 - 1:42:16 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and establishing a presumption of equal parenting time.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025
Unclear 05:47:12.080 - 2:42:53 PM	General Working Session	Unclear

HB1039: Rep. Jody Nelson (Derry, Rockingham 13) Support00:08:18.960 - 9:03:59 AM; Rep. Nelson introduced HB 1039, which allows parenting plans to include provisions governing the sharing of a child's image and personal information on social media. She read a statement from her constituent, emphasizing the permanence of digital footprints, risks from AI like deepfakes and identity fraud, safety concerns from predators, and the need for mutual consent in custody situations without mandating restrictions.
HB1039: Constituent (read by Rep. Nelson) Support00:09:29.279 - 9:05:10 AM; The constituent's testimony highlighted how social media posts create permanent digital records that children cannot control, potentially leading to harm from AI exploitation, identity fraud, or predator targeting. She stressed that the bill enables parents to set boundaries in parenting plans to protect children's privacy and safety without limiting parental rights.
HB1039: Rep. Greg Information Only00:11:28.480 - 9:07:09 AM; Rep. Greg expressed appreciation for the bill and asked clarifying questions about its scope, confirming it applies to parents via the parenting plan and could be extended mutually, and whether it is retroactive, noting that decisions would be made in mediation or by a judge.
HB1039: Rep. Raymond Information Only00:13:41.920 - 9:09:22 AM; Rep. Raymond inquired about the definition of social media in the bill, referencing RSA 189:70 and asking if it covers platforms like YouTube, TikTok, etc., to avoid disputes. Rep. Nelson responded that she consulted experts and was open to amendments for clarity.
HB1039: Rep. Pearson Support00:14:39.040 - 9:10:20 AM; Rep. Pearson supported defining social media explicitly in the bill, suggesting inclusion of 'including but not limited to' to cover various platforms.
HB1039: Rep. Le Support00:15:56.639 - 9:11:37 AM; Rep. Le praised the bill, noting the rise of family influencers involving children on social media, risks of negative use in divorces, and targeting by abusers or predators, emphasizing the importance of protecting children from such exposures.
HB1039: Rep. Georgees Support00:16:32.240 - 9:12:13 AM; Rep. Georgees thanked Rep. Nelson and supported the bill, stating it helps resolve conflicts by setting rules for sharing child images, preventing one parent from taking advantage.
HB1039: Rep. Nelson (closing) Support00:17:41.520 - 9:13:22 AM; Rep. Nelson clarified that the bill is not restrictive; parents can agree to share as they wish if in the child's best interest, and it only applies when both agree on boundaries.
HB1206: Rep. Love Support00:33:37.120 - 9:29:18 AM; Rep. Love introduced HB 1206 as a cleanup bill to simplify legal language for pro se litigants, who represent 74% of family court cases. It replaces 'notwithstanding any law to the contrary' with clearer phrasing like 'where no other special provisions have been made by law' to make it accessible without a law degree, originally proposed by Rep. Dan Sy.
HB1206: Rep. Petrino Information Only00:34:42.560 - 9:30:23 AM; Rep. Petrino asked for confirmation that the bill only cleans up language without substantive changes, noting the replacement phrasing seems equivalent. Rep. Love affirmed it's purely for simplification.
HB1206: Rep. Love (response to Petrino) Information Only00:35:39.440 - 9:31:20 AM; Rep. Love explained the change simplifies confusing legalese like 'notwithstanding' for non-lawyers and pro se litigants, many without high school diplomas, to promote access to justice without needing a lawyer.
HB1206: Rep. Corsen Information Only00:35:39.440 - 9:31:20 AM; Rep. Corsen asked how the bill changes procedures for pro se litigants. Rep. Love replied it's just simplification, reducing complex words to basic ones without altering meaning.
HB1206: Representative Love Vote01:02:31.520 - 9:58:12 AM; Representative Love made a motion for Ought to Pass (OTP) on House Bill 1206.
HB1206: Representative Patrino Vote01:02:31.520 - 9:58:12 AM; Representative Patrino seconded the motion for OTP on House Bill 1206.
HB1206: Representative Lec Information Only01:02:31.520 - 9:58:12 AM; Representative Lec commented that a C average is required to pass high school classes under the New Hampshire Board of Education's new curriculum, and students must retake classes if they score below that.
HB1206: Representative Greg Support01:02:31.520 - 9:58:12 AM; Representative Greg acknowledged the bill as a small change but cautioned against simplifying all legislation, noting the complexity of law and the role of lawyers. He supported this specific change.
HB1206: Representative Pearson Support01:03:45.680 - 9:59:26 AM; Representative Pearson noted the Bar Association's guide for pro se litigants and supported the bill but opposed ongoing language tweaks.
HB1206: Committee Roll Call Vote01:04:55.680 - 10:00:36 AM; The committee voted on the motion for OTP on HB 1206, with all members voting yes, resulting in a 12-0 vote in favor. The bill was placed on consent.
HB1215: Representative Kofalt Support01:05:55.200 - 10:01:36 AM; Representative Kofalt introduced HB 1215, discussing autism and apraxia, sharing stories of individuals like his friend's daughter and Vincent Renella who transformed their lives through spelling to communicate. He addressed pushback from ASHA, provided evidence of its efficacy, and explained the bill amends RSA 171A to affirm the right to preferred communication methods, modeled after New York's law but narrowed to avoid unintended consequences. He emphasized self-determination and dignity. In response to questions, he agreed educators may lack diversity but highlighted institutional biases; clarified differences from facilitated communication; supported adding 'including but not limited to' language; welcomed expanding to communication disabilities beyond developmental ones; and explained 'reasonable efforts' aligns with ADA standards.
HB1215: Representative Raymond Support01:20:18.159 - 10:15:59 AM; Representative Raymond expressed appreciation for the bill, relating it to his grandson's needs, and emphasized the importance of early training for professionals and school staff.
HB1215: Representative Sher Support01:17:47.840 - 10:13:28 AM; Representative Sher asked a technical drafting question about adding language for other methods beyond the listed ones and suggested 'including but not limited to.' He followed up on concerns about accrediting agencies.
HB1215: Representative Corsen Support01:15:55.520 - 10:11:36 AM; Representative Corsen inquired about addressing facilitated control concerns to promote independence and appreciated the clarification on differences from facilitated communication.
HB1215: Unidentified Representative Information Only01:15:10.239 - 10:10:51 AM; An unidentified representative shared a personal story about a family member with autism who self-taught eight languages by age nine but doesn't communicate much with others due to their perceived lower intelligence.
HB1215: Representative Greg Support01:23:22.400 - 10:19:03 AM; Representative Greg praised the bill's importance and asked about determining 'reasonable efforts' and remedies for violations, receiving explanation on its alignment with ADA.
HB1215: Karen Rosenberg, Disability Rights Center Support01:25:33.360 - 10:21:14 AM; Karen Rosenberg, policy director at the Disability Rights Center, supports HB 1215 but suggests amendments. She emphasizes promoting independent communication for individuals with disabilities, recommending language that prioritizes the individual's preferred method over parental choice. She also advocates broadening the scope to include all service providers under 171A, not just trained staff in group homes or schools, to ensure comprehensive support for communication needs.
HB1377: Representative Long Information Only01:37:25.520 - 10:33:06 AM; Representative Long introduces HB 1377, which allows parents to use a caregiver authorization affidavit as an alternative to court guardianship for temporary child care during emergencies like medical issues, arrest, or deportation. He notes that most states have similar non-court options and is open to questions.
HB1377: Richard Menard, Building Community in New Hampshire Support01:45:12.000 - 10:40:53 AM; Richard Menard, former executive director of Building Community in New Hampshire, supports the bill based on experience helping refugee families create legal caregiver plans. He highlights the emotional and logistical challenges of current processes requiring attorneys and notes that the bill would simplify notarized forms, providing peace of mind for families fearing detention or deportation, especially from Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Haiti.
HB1377: Yama Plus Cona Oppose01:48:33.760 - 10:44:14 AM; Yama Plus Cona opposes HB 1377 due to concerns about its broad scope allowing parents to bypass judicial oversight via a simple signed paper, potentially leading to unintended consequences like misuse in human trafficking or other abuses. He acknowledges the good intentions to simplify processes but worries about removing checks and balances, emphasizing the importance of court involvement for the child's best interest.
HB1377: Yama Plus Cona Oppose01:48:33.760 - 10:44:14 AM; The speaker expresses concerns about the bill granting guardianship for two years, viewing it as a blank check for DCF without sufficient checks and balances. They share experience as a foster parent and emphasize the need for judicial oversight and proper guardianship documents to ensure accountability, particularly in emergencies or for service members.
HB1377: Representative Corsen Information Only01:52:59.199 - 10:48:40 AM; The representative questions the speaker on suggested changes to the bill, highlighting concerns about the two-year custody period and its difference from short visits. They note the bill's intent to allow parents to decide on child care during deployments.
HB1377: Committee Member (unnamed) Information Only02:01:59.440 - 10:57:40 AM; Suggests asking the researcher about practices in other states with similar laws and their wording. The chair agrees to email the researcher.
HB1404: Representative Moffett Support03:12:04.720 - 12:07:45 PM; Introduces the bill on behalf of the sponsor, explaining it establishes a study committee for equitable property division in divorces.
HB1404: Representative Barton Support03:21:48.239 - 12:17:29 PM; The sponsor explains the bill proposes a study modeled after Maine's system to protect premarital assets in divorces. He notes the high divorce rate, lack of protections for pre-marital property in NH, and how the study would simplify asset division for judges and protect parties without needing prenups, especially for younger couples.
HB1804: Representative Nelson Information Only03:29:42.640 - 12:25:23 PM; Moved for interim study on HB 1804 to allow more time to compare New Hampshire's current law on divorce with other states like Maine for fairness.
HB1804: Representative Petrino Information Only03:29:42.640 - 12:25:23 PM; Seconded the motion for interim study.
HB1804: Representative Nelson Information Only03:31:14.239 - 12:26:55 PM; Explained the need for more time to dig into the issue and compare laws with other states.
HB1643: Representative Nelson (introducing for prime sponsor) Support03:35:54.560 - 12:31:35 PM; Introduced HB 1643 on behalf of the ill prime sponsor. Read her testimony emphasizing that the bill reinforces the guardian ad litem's (GAL) role as an investigative arm of the court, not a substitute decision-maker. The GAL gathers facts through interviews and records, but ultimate decisions on parenting plans and authority remain with the judge to protect judicial independence, reduce bias, and preserve due process. The bill does not prevent attorneys from asking for GAL recommendations during testimony but removes the requirement for proposed outcomes in written reports.
HB1643: Representative Raymond Information Only03:38:17.359 - 12:33:58 PM; Asked if the bill changes the GAL's obligation to report the child's expressed wishes and whether they differ from the GAL's feelings, such as recommending against a child's wish due to circumstances like rehab.
HB1643: Representative Petrino Information Only03:39:06.080 - 12:34:47 PM; Asked if the bill would increase the burden on courts by requiring judges to develop parenting plans themselves, given the overburdened system.
HB1643: Representative Nelson Support03:39:06.080 - 12:34:47 PM; Responded that the bill does not increase the burden; the issue is judges relying solely on GAL recommendations instead of using them as one tool among many. Fact-gathering remains important, but decisions should not depend only on the GAL.
HB1643: Denise Costello, resident of Concord, New Hampshire Support03:41:09.439 - 12:36:50 PM; Agreed with Representative Nelson that the GAL's role is investigative. Urged reviewing the judge's checklist for GAL tasks beyond the bill's proposals, questioning GAL qualifications and training for assessing parent-child bonds, home environments, substance abuse, residential responsibilities, and parenting time. Noted biases in assessments and emphasized that parenting plans should be 50/50 presumptively, worked out by parents, not GALs. Offered to provide the checklist from the court order on appointment of guardian ad litem, suggesting it be found on the court website or shared with redactions. Stressed objective reporting over gut feelings, citing biases in the system, high costs to parents, and the need for unbiased, qualified opinions for children's best interests.
HB1643: Representative Petrino Information Only03:42:24.239 - 12:38:05 PM; Asked for clarification if current statute already prohibits GALs from making recommendations.
HB1643: Representative Raymond Information Only03:45:41.279 - 12:41:22 PM; Requested a link to the checklist for the committee to review all items.
HB1643: Representative Corson Information Only03:46:46.960 - 12:42:27 PM; Sought clarification on whether GALs should report objective evidence rather than gut feelings, sharing personal experience as a foster parent where a GAL included bias about political leanings and racism in a report.
HB1643: Denise Costello Support03:48:04.000 - 12:43:45 PM; Clarified that GALs must report objectively without biases, as children's futures depend on it. Noted that families in court are already spending tens of thousands, and GALs should provide unbiased opinions, though not criticizing all GALs.
HB1643: Unnamed Speaker (possibly Representative Sher) Information Only03:49:32.160 - 12:45:13 PM; The speaker discusses issues with the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) board, including delays in handling complaints, with one case pending for two years despite follow-ups. They note an increase in complaints based on recent graphs and question the board's efficiency. They reference a form on the state judicial branch website entitled 'order on appointment of guardian ad litem (divorce parenting)' and express concerns about the GAL process.
HB1643: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Information Only03:55:37.040 - 12:51:18 PM; Mary Krueger provides information on the GAL system in divorce cases, noting that the bill may not go far enough to address systemic issues. She discusses the discretionary role of courts in using GAL recommendations, distinguishing between the CASA program for abuse/neglect cases and private GALs for parental rights cases under RSA 461A. She highlights problems such as lack of oversight, varying qualifications of GALs, excessive costs exceeding time caps, and disparities in access for low-income families due to no public funding. Complaints can only be filed post-case, delaying accountability. She emphasizes the need for judges to assess the child's best interest based on GAL-gathered information.
HB1687: Representative David Love, Derry Support04:05:49.680 - 1:01:30 PM; Representative Love introduces HB 1687, arguing that allegations of crimes like assault, including against children, occurring in family court contexts should be referred to criminal court for proper investigation and prosecution rather than being buried or swept under the rug in family court. He emphasizes that crimes belong in criminal court with professional investigators to ensure truthful outcomes and protect victims, particularly children who cannot make decisions for themselves. He addresses questions by suggesting amendments to specify appropriate courts (e.g., circuit court for misdemeanors), clarifying that the bill does not negate victim agency but aims to prevent overlooking crimes due to fear or pressure. He opposes family court handling incarcerations without due process, advocating for professional criminal proceedings.
HB1687: Representative Joseph Barton, Grafton, District 1 Support04:22:43.199 - 1:18:24 PM; Representative Barton explains that family courts are courts of equity without rules of evidence, making it easy to file domestic violence petitions without due process. He supports the bill as it corrects this by ensuring criminal matters are processed through courts of common law with full due process, discovery, and proper forum for criminality.
HB1687: Randy Collier Support04:25:04.239 - 1:20:45 PM; Randy Collier supports the bill, highlighting fallacies in recent testimonies. He notes no rules of evidence in circuit court, issues with executive branch practices violating statutes, and loss of rights in circuit court compared to criminal court. He argues circuit court operates on presumption, not law, and urges passing the bill to remove criminal statutes from civil court to protect rights and prevent abuse.
HB1687: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel, Judicial Branch Information Only04:27:21.600 - 1:23:02 PM; Lauren Warner provides neutral information on the bill, noting it applies only to family court, which has limited jurisdiction and does not handle criminal matters except contempt. Criminal aspects like domestic violence are handled in district court with concurrent jurisdiction possible. She clarifies rules of evidence apply but can be waived in family division on a case-by-case basis, unlike in criminal courts. She addresses questions on evidence rules, judge training, and jurisdiction.
HB1687: Shirley Haranto Support04:41:12.400 - 1:36:53 PM; Shirley Haranto, a single mom, supports HB 1687. She disagrees with prior testimony, stating her evidence in a family matter has not been considered despite requirements. She emphasizes that criminal and family matters should be investigated carefully and treated differently, opposing giving district court full power over criminal matters in family contexts.
HB1687: Donald Gilbert Support04:42:56.000 - 1:38:37 PM; Donald Gilbert testified in support of HB 1687, emphasizing that domestic violence, child abuse, and criminal sexual assault are crimes that must be prosecuted under statutes like 173B, 21M, and 169C. He highlighted the failure of a 2021 legislative effort to provide psychological maltreatment training to DCYF, law enforcement, and judges, which was contracted to the domestic violence coalition but never occurred. He raised concerns about judicial impartiality, noting that in one case, the other litigant was a sitting judge. Gilbert argued that family court judges should focus on family law rather than issuing criminal orders, aligning with the bill's intent to separate these functions.
HB1770: Representative Shaborn Dwan Support04:46:35.920 - 1:42:16 PM; Representative Shaborn Dwan introduced HB 1770, explaining it establishes a presumption of 50/50 equal parenting time with limited deviations, while preserving existing domestic violence statutes and allowing consensual parental agreements. He noted that current law encourages approximately equal parenting but grants broad discretion; this bill specifies 50/50 overnights as the default in court. Dwan cited written testimony from the National Parents Organization on benefits like reduced anxiety and trauma, mentioned South Dakota's similar SB224 passing, and highlighted 90% public support in NH for shared parenting as in the child's best interest. He urged support for an Ought to Pass motion.
HB1770: Representative Raymond Information Only04:48:41.520 - 1:44:22 PM; Representative Raymond asked technical questions about HB 1770, questioning why a 'constitutional presumption' is not a Constitutional Resolution (CACR), and raised concerns about the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for parental fitness, noting it differs from the preponderance standard for abuse findings and could deem abusive parents fit unless rights are terminated.
HB1770: Representative Greg Information Only04:50:08.080 - 1:45:49 PM; Representative Greg questioned the basis for a 'constitutional presumption' of equal parenting, noting no explicit mention in the NH Constitution, and sought clarification on whether it was an inherent or actual constitutional provision.
HB1770: Representative Levette Information Only04:51:08.000 - 1:46:49 PM; Representative Levette inquired about 50/50 overnights in cases where a parent relocates for work, such as moving from NH to Massachusetts, and how that would affect overnight arrangements if living situations change.
HB1770: Representative Georgees Information Only04:52:16.798 - 1:47:57 PM; Representative Georgees asked if the bill prioritizes children's best interests over parents', emphasizing availability for children and concerns about child support motivations or unsafe environments with new partners, especially for young children.
HB1770: Representative Love Information Only04:54:28.878 - 1:50:09 PM; Representative Love asked about studies showing benefits of both parents' involvement and statistics on negative outcomes like high school dropouts and substance abuse when one parent is absent.
HB1770: Representative Greg (follow-up) Information Only04:55:29.120 - 1:51:10 PM; Representative Greg sought comparison of current 'approximately equal' parenting language to the bill's 50/50 presumption, questioning the definition of 'approximately equal' and whether the committee's prior discussions on nuances were considered.
HB1770: Representative Raymond (follow-up) Information Only04:56:23.280 - 1:52:04 PM; Representative Raymond noted the bill strikes 'best interest of the child' throughout, asking if NH would be the only state without this standard, and clarified South Dakota's bill also moves to 50/50 without it.
HB1770: Representative Nelson Information Only04:57:34.638 - 1:53:15 PM; Representative Nelson referenced South Dakota's SB224, noting it uses 'reasonably equal' similar to current NH law, questioning if the sponsor meant another bill.
HB1770: Representative Sher Information Only04:58:36.320 - 1:54:17 PM; Representative Sher questioned if family court judges qualify as constitutional judicial officers under articles 72A and 73A, and what specific constitutional protections apply to orders granting less than 50/50 parenting.
HB1770: Lauren Warner, Deputy General Counsel for the Judicial Branch Information Only05:00:16.560 - 1:55:57 PM; Lauren Warner testified neutrally, noting HB 1770 converts a statutory preference into a constitutional right via a regular bill, which could be found unconstitutional without amending the constitution, suggesting a CACR as the appropriate path.
HB1770: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose05:01:32.320 - 1:57:13 PM; Mary Krueger opposed HB 1770, arguing it mandates 50/50 parenting unless grounds for terminating rights exist, eliminating the 'best interest of the child' standard under RSA 461-A:6, including factors like abuse and domestic violence. She warned victims might stay in abusive relationships fearing child exposure to violence, criticized the rare 'clear and convincing' civil standard, noted it narrows protective orders, and highlighted difficulties in implementation, retroactivity, and restricting parental agreements. Krueger urged inexpedient to legislate, favoring the recent 'approximately equal' policy.
HB1770: Representative Raymond (question to Krueger) Information Only05:05:18.160 - 2:00:59 PM; Representative Raymond asked if section F applies retroactively to all suits, allowing modifications based on the new law.
HB1770: Representative Raymond (follow-up to Krueger) Information Only05:05:18.160 - 2:00:59 PM; Representative Raymond asked if the bill prevents 85% of families from making their own agreements by striking discretion language, using an example of a child needing flexible arrangements for activities like swimming.
HB1770: Representative Corsen Information Only05:06:19.760 - 2:02:00 PM; Representative Corsen expressed support for 50/50 in ideal cases but asked if the bill addresses coercive control or psychological/emotional abuse, noting it limits exceptions to termination grounds, not broader abuse definitions.
HB1770: Representative Sher (follow-up to Krueger) Information Only05:09:50.000 - 2:05:31 PM; Representative Sher asked about constitutional protections in custody, to which Krueger explained parental rights are constitutional but limited, and the bill imports termination standards into best interest determinations.
HB1770: Representative Georgees (follow-up to Krueger) Information Only05:10:57.360 - 2:06:38 PM; Representative Georgees shared a personal anecdote about a child reluctant to visit the other parent, becoming ill, and emphasized listening to the child's voice for their best interest.
HB1770: Representative Joseph Martin Support05:14:55.760 - 2:10:36 PM; Representative Joseph Martin supported HB 1770, clarifying the 'constitutional presumption' refers to existing 14th Amendment due process/equal protection and NH Constitution Part 1, Article 2 natural rights, not changing them. He addressed abuse/neglect standards in lines 26-29, positioning 50/50 as a starting point. Martin criticized current best interest findings as subjective and financial-driven, arguing time with both parents is more important than money, citing studies and his own experience with his 8-year-old daughter.
HB1770: Gail Trobat Support05:18:02.638 - 2:13:43 PM; Gail Trobat supported HB 1770, stating it modernizes RSA 461-A by presuming equal parenting as constitutional and research-backed, promoting child outcomes through both parents' involvement. She argued it restores parental fitness presumption, requires strict scrutiny for deviations with clear evidence of harm under RSA 170-C:5, protects against subjective judicial discretion, and allows family-specific plans. Trobat noted it doesn't limit domestic violence protections, aligns with US Supreme Court on fundamental liberty interests (e.g., Troxel v. Granville), and ensures equal protection without unconstitutional state interference.
HB1770: Emily Lawrence, Advocacy Director with Waypoint Oppose05:21:37.760 - 2:17:18 PM; Emily Lawrence from Waypoint provided background on their 175-year history of serving children and families across New Hampshire, including early support, counseling, court-ordered services, and advocacy. She expressed concerns about HB 1770, urging the committee to vote inexpedient to legislate. She focused on the bill's removal of the 'best interest of the child' standard, which is present in all 50 states, shifting decision-making from child-centered to parent-centered. While supporting maximum time with each parent for developmental benefits, she noted exceptions for crises, safety, or practicalities where equal time isn't best. She highlighted how the bill reduces judicial flexibility in cases involving infants, toddlers needing stability, special needs children struggling with transitions, and young children with primary attachments. During Q&A, she discussed courts' discretionary consideration of children's wishes, especially adolescents, and shared that in her experience, 50/50 parenting rarely works in most cases.
HB1770: Matthew Blar Support05:27:11.280 - 2:22:52 PM; Matthew Blar shared his personal experience filing for divorce in 2019 from an abusive partner, delayed by fears she would take their child, which happened. His daughter missed 300 days of school, faced multiple DCYF reports, and nearly lost custody to her mother three times, with recommendations for removal. Despite a parenting plan, he sees her only one to three hours a week, with contempt orders not enforced. He argued the bill starts at an equal 50/50 playing field, allowing deviations for abuse or other issues at hearings, protecting children and abuse victims by leveling the field currently skewed against parents like him.
HB1770: Shirley Haranto Support05:30:18.160 - 2:25:59 PM; Shirley Haranto, a single mother with an open DCYF case, spoke on behalf of herself and others in support of equal 50/50 parenting time unless proven child abuse with thorough, unbiased investigation free of conflicts. She criticized judges and DCYF for manipulating 'best interest' decisions, gaslighting, and unfair court control. She advocated for solid 50/50 parenting focused on children's mental health, behavior, and future, based on her studies in genetics, science of parenting, and certifications. She opposed limiting time based on income or other formulas, especially for those without legal backgrounds, and highlighted hidden agendas in child advocacy, including ignored abuse concerns in her case. She believes equal time from both parents fosters positivity, while unequal time leads to negative behavior, drawing from her college studies.
HB1770: Donald Gilbert Support05:34:38.558 - 2:30:19 PM; Donald Gilbert clarified that RSA 169-C already uses a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, and HB 1770 lessens it to 'clear and convincing,' potentially requiring amendment or interim study to avoid stripping due process. He emphasized the 14th Amendment's constitutional protection for raising children, presuming parents act in the child's best interest as the starting point, allowing deviations for abuse or neglect. He shared his 2011 experience where he and the mother wanted 50/50, but the court mandated a split, later aligning with child support statutes requiring deviation in the state's best interest via a DHHS-family division contract. He noted coercive control falls under psychological maltreatment statutes and supported 50/50 as a good starting point. During Q&A, he confirmed the bill relates to custody, not termination, and offered to provide the contract details.
HB1770: Randy Collier Support05:40:12.798 - 2:35:53 PM; Randy Collier supported the bill, arguing for the highest presumption of innocence before taking a child away, calling any burden shift unconstitutional, especially in family court lacking clear presumption due to conflicting testimonies. He viewed non-50/50 as effectively taking kids away and stressed staying on the bill's subject of equal parenting. He questioned if circuit court, paid by the executive branch, prioritizes the state's interest over the child's in issuing parenting plans and protective orders without evidence.
HB1770: Dana Alrech Support05:42:21.280 - 2:38:02 PM; Dana Alrech described the bill as addressing hurt to children in contentious divorces, urging focus on forgiveness and solutions over parental pain. He distributed an email from his adult son about his views and referenced case law (State v. Robert H 1978, Nelson and Horley 2003, Kowski v. Karowski, Troxel v. Granville) establishing presumption of parental fitness under the 14th Amendment, dating back to Locke's 1689 treatise on equal parental rights and duties. He shared his experience of having parental duties stripped by the state, a de facto termination, as detailed by his younger son in the email, respectfully disagreeing that the bill isn't about termination of rights.
HB1770: Anonymous Speaker Support05:45:35.760 - 2:41:16 PM; The speaker shares a personal story about family separation caused by state intervention. They mention a contention in their family where a family member lived with them, but their younger son was sent far away by the state to other states and countries. The son wants to come home, but the state has prevented this, interfering with the speaker's duty to care for him. They reference a current case where HB 185, which was supposed to address this, is not being applied, and question why. The speaker urges the committee to consider this ongoing issue.
HB1770: Anonymous Speaker Support05:46:27.040 - 2:42:08 PM; The speaker emphasizes that time may pass and feelings fade, but the hurt and the problem persist, and it remains unsolved. They ask the committee to listen to their testimony and to what their younger son, now an adult, has expressed in an email. Acknowledging potential technical drafting flaws in the bill, such as provisions about parents reaching agreements, they argue that the solution is an amendment rather than discarding the bill entirely. They stress that philosophical support from John Locke and quantitative backing from the National Parents Association strongly endorse the bill's principles, and any implementation issues can be fixed through amendments.
Unclear: Committee Chair Information Only05:47:12.080 - 2:42:53 PM; The chair announces no further pink cards and closes the hearing on House Bill 1770, thanking everyone for their testimony and time.
Unclear: Unknown Information Only05:49:15.040 - 2:44:56 PM; A brief thank you is expressed, followed by a mention of the United States.

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