Committee Summary for House Children and Family Law (02/24/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1241 00:02:27.772 - 9:00:28 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the calculation of income for purposes of support orders in divorce proceedings.	Barton, Joseph(R)[A-]2025
HB1263 00:35:00.953 - 9:33:01 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the definition of disposable military retirement pay and the suspension of alimony obligations.	Maggiore, Jim(D)[CT]2025
HB1378 01:54:41.843 - 10:52:42 AM	Public Hearing	relative to parental access to a minor child's electronic medical records.	Litchfield, Melissa(R)[B+]2025
HB1565 03:34:57.213 - 12:32:58 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the penalty for false reports of suspected abuse and neglect made to the division for children, youth, and families.	Spillane, James(R)[A]2025
HB1757 04:00:00.000 - 12:58:01 PM	Public Hearing	prohibiting the remedy of alimony for marriages that existed for six years or less.	Barton, Joseph(R)[A-]2025
HB1771 04:32:23.480 - 1:30:24 PM	Public Hearing	removing prospective repeal of child care staffing ratios and the associated waiver system and requiring the department of health and human services to provide certain notice regarding availability of the waiver.	Peternel, Katy(R)[A]2025

HB1241: Representative Joseph Barton, Grafton District 1 Support00:02:27.772 - 9:00:28 AM; Representative Barton introduced HB 1241, explaining that it reforms the definition of gross income for alimony and child support by excluding overtime compensation, secondary employment earnings, and other non-primary sources. He shared personal experience of being forced to work excessive hours post-divorce due to support calculations based on prior overtime, limiting time with his daughter. The bill aims to base support on primary 40-hour income to promote equal parental time with children, aligning with court preferences for 50-50 custody. He addressed questions on commissions, salaried employees, part-time jobs, and potential amendments, emphasizing stability from primary income and the need for judicial discretion.
HB1241: Attorney Matthew Hayes, Bureau of Child Support Services Oppose00:17:27.772 - 9:15:28 AM; Attorney Hayes testified that HB 1241's exclusion of certain income sources, like overtime and secondary earnings, from gross income could conflict with federal regulations requiring child support guidelines to consider all earnings and income of the noncustodial parent. He noted New Hampshire's broad definition of gross income complies with this, and narrowing it might undermine the statute's goals of minimizing economic impacts on children post-divorce and ensuring they maintain a standard of living comparable to parents' subsequent families. He submitted written testimony and answered questions on applicability to both parents' incomes and the need for a full financial picture for equitable calculations.
HB1263: Representative Jim Maggiore, Northampton Support00:35:00.953 - 9:33:01 AM; Representative Maggiore introduced HB 1263, clarifying that military retirement pay is not a pension but ongoing pay, not divisible as property in divorce settlements for alimony purposes. He deferred to subsequent testifiers for detailed cases, submitted written testimony, and addressed questions on alignment with federal USFSPA (no preemption issues, as states have discretion), differences from last year's ITL'd bill (correcting 'pension' to 'pay'), tax reporting as income, potential forfeiture, and court latitude in timing of divorce and retirement. He emphasized codifying this distinction to guide judicial consideration.
HB1263: Anna Goulet Zimmerman, Attorney, Manchester Oppose00:35:00.953 - 9:33:01 AM; Attorney Zimmerman, a former family law practitioner with experience in military divorce issues, testified on career disadvantages for military spouses due to frequent relocations every three years, preventing pension vesting or career advancement. She highlighted disparities in treating military versus non-military pensions in property division, noting inconsistencies in decrees and her own lack of claim on ex-husband's pay due to short overlap. As a divorced military spouse with no personal stake, she advocated considering these inequities.
HB1263: Roberta Grady, resident of Hooksett Support00:50:00.953 - 9:48:01 AM; Roberta Grady, spouse of an Air Force veteran from Hooksett, shared her personal experiences as a military spouse over 17 years, involving seven moves and five different career fields with 17 jobs due to frequent relocations. She highlighted the challenges faced by military spouses, noting that the average active duty military spouse is a 34.9-year-old female with some college education, more likely to have children, four times less likely to be employed, and earning 42% less than civilian peers, preventing accrual of personal wealth. She described living conditions off base overseas, including small apartments, water rationing, and risks from terrorist attacks, emphasizing the instability and sacrifices made while the military member has job security. In response to questions, Grady advocated for HB 1263, stressing fairness and justice in divorce proceedings affected by the 1982 federal act. She provided examples of female veterans victimized by current laws, such as a retired Air Force enlisted woman forced to share her limited pension with an ex-husband earning $100,000 annually while having custody of their child. She argued that the bill allows courts greater discretion by treating retirement pay as income rather than property, enabling fairer alimony decisions without automatic divisions, and noted that similar measures have advanced elsewhere, including Puerto Rico.
HB1263: Representative Louis Jerris, Nashua Support01:10:00.000 - 10:08:01 AM; Representative Louis Jerris from Nashua supported HB 1263, arguing it brings equity and fairness to military divorces by ensuring the military member retains their retirement pay while still allowing for alimony, asset division, child support, and parenting time. He outlined the divorce process, including the scramble during filing, discovery of financial information, temporary parenting plans, and asset separation like 50-50 splits of checkbooks, 401Ks, and homes. He emphasized the chaos for service members, especially if overseas or deployed, and noted that under the bill, military retirement is not automatically divided but alimony can still be negotiated and paid monthly, potentially from other sources if needed. In Q&A, Jerris clarified that divorce decrees regarding pensions can be modified under certain circumstances, such as remarriage or cohabitation ending alimony, and that courts consider individual situations. He addressed scenarios where the non-military spouse might have a pension, noting disparity if only military pay is protected, but stressed the bill maintains eligibility for alimony and other assets. He also discussed potential flips where the military member is disadvantaged, affirming the process applies symmetrically but highlights the unique stresses of service.
HB1263: Deborah Childs, Executive Director of Time to Put Kids First Support01:25:00.000 - 10:23:01 AM; Deborah Childs, Executive Director of Time to Put Kids First, expressed strong support for HB 1263, drawing from real cases where veterans face financial hardship post-divorce. She cited a 22-year Army veteran whose retirement was reduced 40% because a judge included waived disability pay as available income, leaving him unable to afford housing. Childs explained that federal law distinguishes disposable military retirement from protected portions like disability pay, but New Hampshire law treats it like civilian pensions, leading to inconsistent rulings and support orders based on unavailable income. She argued HB 1263 aligns state law with federal rules by defining disposable military retirement pay and setting predictable alimony guidelines upon retirement, applying equally to men and women without favoring one sacrifice over another. Judges retain authority for alimony modifications based on financial need, and the bill does not affect child support. Childs urged support for veterans' sacrifices—missing family events and facing dangers—by ensuring fair legal treatment of their retirement, calling it a meaningful step to protect those who protected the country. In Q&A, Childs acknowledged spouses' sacrifices, sharing her own caregiving experience, but emphasized judicial discretion allows considering all factors for alimony without rigid rules. She clarified the bill excludes military retirement from gross income but permits its consideration in alimony decisions and does not impact child support calculations directly.
HB1263: Retired Air Force Veteran Support01:35:00.953 - 10:33:01 AM; The retired Air Force veteran, aged 67 and at full retirement age, testified about his 24 years of service in high technology warfare and fighters, suffering ongoing back pain from G-forces. His ex-wife, who spent four years away obtaining teaching degrees with his support, now earns a full state pension and 60% more than him after receiving 49% of his military retirement due to the marriage aligning closely with service dates. He noted paying over $400,000 total, including $24,000 since last year's testimony, and argued military retirement is mislabeled as property, preventing equitable arguments in court where judges apply a cookie-cutter 50% division. He supported HB 1263 for reclassifying it as income, allowing judges to consider alimony under New Hampshire's detailed guidelines with time limits, rather than perpetual property division. He countered outdated views of military spouses' hardships, stating his family enjoyed overseas benefits like travel to European cities, and his ex-wife gained skills and experiences. He agreed alimony is appropriate in some cases but should be limited, and noted federal expectations for states to handle divisions equitably, which current labeling prevents. In Q&A, he explained military retirement comes with stipulations like potential recall to service, restrictions on foreign employment, and retainer-like obligations, likening it to a job. He confirmed his ex-wife's pension has no recall requirements and highlighted her overseas opportunities, reinforcing that alimony laws can address individual circumstances fairly if retirement is treated as income.
HB1263: Frank Curling, retired Navy Support01:40:00.000 - 10:38:01 AM; Frank Curling, a retired Navy veteran with 21 years of service, married 17 years during service, testified in support of HB 1263. His ex-wife received 43% of his retirement after he fought for child custody, refusing to trade it for her waiving the share, stating his kids are not for sale. He has paid her longer than they were married; she remarried and divorced another veteran without receiving retirement due to a prenup, and is now in another relationship. Curling criticized the 1982 federal law (10 U.S.C. 1408) for allowing states to divide up to 50% of military retainer pay for life, misinterpreted by courts as mandatory, mislabeling it as property under the Fifth Amendment. He shared a handout about a colonel who paid his ex-wife for 43 years until his death at 95, wishing for one full paycheck. He noted military divisions exceed civilian alimony, which ends on cohabitation, remarriage, or has caps and time limits, while military pay persists until the ex-spouse's death. He advocated amending New Hampshire law to disallow division of military retirement or disability pay, citing a GAO definition that it is not a contributory pension fitting QDRO stipulations.
HB1263: Colonel Daniel Stone, US Air Force retired Support01:45:00.000 - 10:43:01 AM; Colonel Daniel Stone, retired US Air Force with over 30 years of service including 44 months in combat (24 on the ground in Afghanistan), testified that his wife divorced him while he was deployed. He emphasized military retainer pay is compensation for reduced readiness, not a pension, paid only for ongoing service obligations with restrictions, and ruled by the US and New Hampshire Supreme Courts as pay, not property. Stone supported HB 1263 to prevent automatic 50% divisions based on potential income, which disadvantaged him despite combat service. He argued the bill's exclusion of disposable military retirement pay from gross income aligns with court rulings, treating it as the service member's sole property, while allowing judicial discretion for alimony if needed, without the mandatory 'shall' division. In Q&A, he clarified that while the bill states 'shall not' be considered gross income, judges can still decide alimony using other factors, but affirmed the Supreme Court view protects it as pay for the retiree.
HB1263: Representative Geisen, retired reserves Support01:50:00.953 - 10:48:01 AM; Representative Geisen, in the retired reserves receiving under $3,000 monthly retainer pay, strongly supported HB 1263. He noted 40% division would leave him with $1,600 monthly for life and highlighted how the military incentivizes young marriages with benefits like base housing, doubled pay via allowances, leading to high divorce rates and weaponized divorces, such as delaying until after 10 years for entitlements. He shared observations from soldiers staying married for health insurance or to qualify for retirement shares, creating toxic dynamics. Geisen argued the bill addresses weaponization of divorce in New Hampshire by protecting military retirement, preventing exploitation while acknowledging broader issues unfixable in one hearing.
HB1378: Representative Henry Geisen, Hillsborough 29th District, Goffstown Support01:54:41.843 - 10:52:42 AM; Representative Geisen introduced HB 1378, which mirrors a bill that passed the committee unanimously last year but stalled in the Senate. The bill allows parental access to minors' medical records, including online portals, which are often free and already redacted under existing laws. He addressed concerns about system change costs, asserting that insurance agencies and medical facilities can implement this without significant expense, emphasizing that digital records should be accessible in real time.
HB1378: Mara Weston, New Hampshire Medical Society Oppose01:57:00.000 - 10:55:01 AM; Mara Weston testified on behalf of the New Hampshire Medical Society, opposing HB 1378 due to its broad definition of medical records, including online portals and electronic health records, without sufficient exceptions. She highlighted the importance of confidential medical care for minors aged 12-18, particularly in areas like mental health, reproductive care, substance use, and sexual health. The bill could conflict with privacy laws, potentially deterring minors from seeking care. During questioning, she clarified that parents can access redacted traditional records but emphasized legal and policy concerns about access impacting care.
HB1378: Kathy Bizarro-Thenberg, Executive Vice President, New Hampshire Hospital Association Oppose02:09:41.843 - 11:07:42 AM; Kathy Bizarro-Thenberg represented the New Hampshire Hospital Association, agreeing with the bill's intent for parental access but raising concerns about including online patient portals in the medical records definition. Many hospitals' portal systems cannot automatically redact protected information like substance use treatment or reproductive health services, unlike traditional records which can be redacted upon request at no cost. This could lead to portals being unavailable to minors over 12 or force costly technology upgrades. She noted that portals are not complete medical records but conveniences for specific data.
HB1378: Matthew McSorley, Litchfield Support02:25:00.000 - 11:23:01 AM; Matthew McSorley, a father of four, supported HB 1378 to ensure parents have full access to minors' medical records, including portals, for informed decision-making. He shared a personal story of being denied critical information about his autistic child's gender ideology involvement, leading to referral to a gender clinic post-18 against their wishes. He criticized medical professionals influenced by gender ideology, arguing parents have a lifelong commitment unlike service providers, and the bill protects against activist agendas while allowing courts to intervene for unfit parents.
HB1378: Stephen Scare Support02:28:00.000 - 11:26:01 AM; Stephen Scare supported HB 1378 to grant parents complete access to children's records to protect against what he called a 'child abuse medical scandal' involving transgender ideology. He criticized organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics for affirming delusions with threats of suicide, citing systematic reviews showing no evidence that such affirmations improve mental health or reduce rare suicides. He urged voting ought to pass to safeguard children from ideologically driven health professionals.
HB1378: Nancy Bederman, New Hampshire Rare Disease Advisory Council Support02:39:41.843 - 11:37:42 AM; Nancy Bederman, part of the New Hampshire Rare Disease Advisory Council, supported parental access to portals, drawing from her experience with her daughter's rare disease diagnosis involving multiple unconnected doctors. She emphasized parents as the central coordinators, needing portal access to track appointments, notes, and summaries since recording is often prohibited and note-taking is inadequate during visits. She highlighted challenges for rare disease patients, like type 1 diabetes cases limited to specific providers, and noted evolving portal access over time.
HB1378: Liz Canada, Advocacy Director, Planned Parenthood New Hampshire Action Fund Oppose02:40:59.089 - 11:39:00 AM; Liz Canada from Planned Parenthood opposed HB 1378, noting many teens discuss health care with parents but some need confidential access, contributing to New Hampshire's low teen pregnancy rates. She explained Title X federal funding requires confidential services for minors at participating providers, but the bill's exceptions might not cover non-Title X providers like primary care, potentially compromising confidentiality for birth control and other services. She stressed teens will remain sexually active and need access without immediate parental involvement, though many eventually talk to families.
HB1565: Representative Ors, Merrimack 13 Support03:34:57.213 - 12:32:58 PM; Representative Ors introduced HB 1565 on behalf of sponsor Representative Spillane. He explained that the bill, previously introduced multiple times and passed the House bipartisanly but died in committee of conference, aims to penalize knowingly false reports to child protection services. These false reports are used to weaponize against families in custodial disputes, neighbor conflicts, or vendettas, causing investigations, emotional trauma, and harm especially to children. The bill targets malicious actions only, without discouraging legitimate reporting or good faith concerns, to protect the integrity of the child protection system and focus resources on real abuse cases.
HB1565: Representative Nader Support03:40:00.000 - 12:38:01 PM; As co-sponsor, Representative Nader addressed questions on the bill. She clarified that reports 'may' include name, address, and phone number, allowing anonymous calls. She noted that DCYF uses caller ID to investigate patterns of unfounded complaints from the same number. She shared a personal example of a homeschool family harmed by false accusations leading to children being taken away. She emphasized that the bill's language was agreed upon by the Senate, and previous versions failed due to unrelated issues.
HB1565: Dr. Deborah Childs, Executive Director, Time to Put Kids First Support03:49:57.213 - 12:47:58 PM; Dr. Childs strongly supported HB 1565 based on three decades working with families facing false allegations. She described the lifelong damage to victims, including emotional trauma, isolation from parents, and damaged reputations, even when proven false. False reports harm real abuse victims by making them hesitant to come forward. She cited statistics: about 45% of reports not accepted for investigation, and of the rest, only 7% proven true. The bill targets only 'knowingly' false reports, protecting good faith reporters like teachers or doctors, and does not weaken mandatory reporting or child protections. She urged Ought to Pass (OTP) on behalf of families and survivors.
HB1565: Representative Barthon Support03:52:00.000 - 12:50:01 PM; Representative Barthon briefly supported HB 1565, noting DCYF receives many false reports that burden the system. She mentioned other states like Florida have laws against weaponizing child protection services against parents, and this bill aims to prevent that.
HB1565: Denise Costello, Concord, NH Support03:56:47.827 - 12:54:48 PM; Denise Costello supported HB 1565, highlighting the emotional and psychological abuse to children from false allegations used by one parent to undermine the child's relationship with the other parent in custody disputes. She discussed devastating effects including trauma, financial hardship, damaged reputations, and unfair custody outcomes. False allegations stem from revenge, money, or mental health issues, exemplified by Munchausen syndrome by proxy as severe child abuse. She cited the Masters v. Masters court case condemning such actions as not in the child's best interest. She noted no current consequences for false reports to DCYF, courts, or law enforcement, unlike other misdemeanors, and urged passage to deter bad faith reporting, restore accountability, and free resources for real cases.
HB1757: Representative Barton, Grafton District 1 Support04:00:00.000 - 12:58:01 PM; Representative Barton, the prime sponsor, introduced HB 1757, which prohibits term and reimbursement alimony for marriages of six years or less, including time until final decree. He argued for proportionality in alimony based on marriage duration, as short-term marriages do not create long-term economic dependencies. Alimony addresses inequities from sustained interdependence, like career sacrifices, which are limited in brief unions. The bill promotes fairness, predictability, reduces litigation costs, avoids incentivizing short-term marriages for financial gain, and preserves property division and child support. Parties can still agree to alimony voluntarily, but courts cannot order it for short marriages.
HB1757: Robert Wallace, Pembroke Oppose04:15:00.000 - 1:13:01 PM; Robert Wallace opposed HB 1757, arguing it addresses a non-existent problem. He stated that experienced judges already handle alimony appropriately and questioned the bill's necessity, urging the committee to let judges do their job and focus on real issues.
HB1771: Representative Katie Peternell, Wolfeborough and Tuftonboro, Carroll District 6 Support04:32:23.480 - 1:30:24 PM; Introduced HB 1771, which removes the sunset provision for the child care staffing ratios waiver system, making it permanent to help address child care shortages economically by allowing slight increases in ratios with multiple teachers present, such as nine infants instead of eight with two teachers, while maintaining safety. This lowers costs for parents. The bill also requires DHHS to provide annual notice to licensed providers about waiver options to increase awareness and usage. Noted a possible error in the RSA reference on line 10, which may need correction as it appears to be an education statute.
HB1771: Melissa Clement, Chief of the Child Care Licensing Unit Information Only04:36:00.000 - 1:34:01 PM; Answered committee questions on the waiver system. Reported an interim report from November with five waiver requests received, three granted, and two withdrawn by programs after reconsideration; no negative incidents or issues occurred. Notification was provided via email from Representative Ross Berry to all providers. Clarified the waiver applies to center-based programs, not home-based, and that a general waiver process for any rule already exists in regulations. The current sunset date is December 31, 2026. Stated no strong opinion on whether to keep the provision in statute versus rule, as the process functions either way.

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