Committee Summary for House Children and Family Law (04/15/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB269 00:05:48.240 - 8:34:54 AM	Public Hearing	removing references to matrimonial age and time waivers in the vital records act.	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024
Unclear 00:47:12.000 - 9:16:18 AM	General Working Session	Unclear
HB652 02:12:26.880 - 10:41:32 AM	General Working Session	abolishing the family division, creating the office of family mediation, and reassigning the jurisdiction of the family division.	Bernardy, JD(R)[A-]2024

SB269: Representative Peter Patrino, Children and Family Law Committee Support00:05:48.240 - 8:34:54 AM; Representative Patrino introduced Senate Bill 269 on behalf of Senator Deborah Alula, who was not present. He explained that the bill aims to replace the terms 'bride' and 'groom' with 'applicants' in the statute, aiming to remove traditional gender references due to the legalization of same-sex marriage in New Hampshire. He mentioned that he was a co-sponsor of the bill and was willing to answer questions to the best of his ability.
SB269: Representative Sidel Information Only00:06:57.319 - 8:36:03 AM; Representative Sidel asked why the terms 'bride' and 'groom' were being changed to 'applicants'. Representative Patrino responded that it was to accommodate same-sex marriages and to remove traditional gender references, explaining that 'applicant' is a more inclusive term.
SB269: Representative Bernardi Information Only00:08:15.400 - 8:37:21 AM; Representative Bernardi inquired about the origin of the bill, specifically whether it was requested by the Secretary of State. Representative Patrino confirmed that the change to 'applicants' was part of a broader effort to standardize and modernize language across the United States, driven by a need for federal standardization and gender neutrality.
SB269: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:09:03.760 - 8:38:09 AM; The speaker asked about the language concerning age and residence at the bottom of the bill. Representative Patrino was unsure of the specific reason for the changes but mentioned that the minimum age of 18 is maintained in the bill, and the changes make the process standard regardless of previous geography.
SB269: Representative Raymond Information Only00:09:59.839 - 8:39:05 AM; Representative Raymond humorously asked if it was believable that the bill passed unanimously in the Senate Child and Family Law Committee and then with an 18-0 vote in the Senate. Representative Patrino confirmed that this was indeed the case.
SB269: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:10:16.480 - 8:39:22 AM; The speaker, whose name was not provided, clarified that the bill is more of a housekeeping measure from the Secretary of State, aimed at updating and making the language more concise without changing the meaning of the statute. They emphasized that the last paragraph of the bill does not alter the meaning but makes the language clearer, which is a common goal in legislation.
SB269: Representative Schulz Information Only00:11:01.440 - 8:40:07 AM; Representative Schulz asked if the bill would change traditional marriage ceremonies, specifically if officiants would refer to the couple as 'applicants' instead of 'bride and groom.' It was clarified that the bill does not affect traditional ceremonies but changes how applicants are identified in the statute. Representative Schulz also inquired about the necessity of a caucus among Republicans before voting, indicating some members felt a need for further discussion.
SB269: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:12:30.480 - 8:41:36 AM; The speaker clarified that the bill updates the statute to use gender-neutral language, referring to those applying to get married as 'applicants' rather than 'bride and groom,' reflecting current same-sex marriage laws. They noted that traditional terms can still be used in ceremonies. There was also a humorous exchange about the possibility of the bill allowing for marriages involving more than two people, which was dismissed as the statute specifies two adult individuals.
SB269: Representative Markell Oppose00:24:31.919 - 8:53:37 AM; Representative Markell, a family law attorney, argued that the bill is redundant as similar information is already required in vital statistics forms during the divorce process. They expressed concerns that the bill might unnecessarily complicate existing laws, including potential conflicts with alimony statutes, and questioned the necessity of the bill given its lack of direct relevance to gender but rather to matrimonial age and time waivers.
SB269: Representative Petrinho Support00:26:50.640 - 8:55:56 AM; Representative Petrinho supported the bill, suggesting that having consistent language across statutes would prevent potential conflicts. They acknowledged Representative Markell's concerns but argued that even a small probability of future issues justifies the change for the sake of conformity and clarity in the law.
SB269: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:29:43.760 - 8:58:49 AM; The speaker discusses the rationale behind changing the terms 'bride' and 'groom' to 'applicants' in marriage statutes, questioning the necessity of such changes. They mention the existing legal recognition of same-sex marriages since 2010 and the conversion of civil unions to marriages, indicating confusion over the need for further amendments.
SB269: Representative Greg Support00:30:55.919 - 9:00:01 AM; Rep. Greg supports the bill, emphasizing its housekeeping nature and the need to update statutes to reflect current laws, specifically mentioning the Marriage Equality Act. They stress the importance of consistency in legal terminology to accommodate same-sex marriages and the absence of the Secretary of State's office at the hearing.
SB269: Representative Nelson Information Only00:35:03.040 - 9:04:09 AM; Rep. Nelson expresses frustration over the absence of the bill's prime sponsor and the Secretary of State's office, indicating a reluctance to vote without further clarity. They clarify their support for same-sex marriage but are concerned about making decisions based on assumptions.
SB269: Representative Petrinho Information Only00:36:57.839 - 9:06:03 AM; Rep. Petrinho discusses their experience with marriage certificates and raises questions about how same-sex couples identify as bride or groom on these documents, highlighting a practical issue with the current terminology.
SB269: Representative Raymond Information Only00:37:28.320 - 9:06:34 AM; Rep. Raymond provides legal clarity by citing New Hampshire state law, explaining that marriage is recognized as a union of two people and each party can be designated as bride, groom, or spouse. They note that 'spouse' is not applicable until after the marriage ceremony.
SB269: Representative Nelson Information Only00:38:26.640 - 9:07:32 AM; Rep. Nelson further clarifies the terminology issue, suggesting that individuals remain a 'bride' until they say 'I do' and then become a 'spouse', addressing the timing of when such terms are applicable.
SB269: Representative Georgees Information Only00:39:34.920 - 9:08:40 AM; Rep. Georgees discusses the personal understanding of roles within same-sex marriages, suggesting that couples themselves know who identifies as the bride or groom, regardless of gender.
SB269: Representative Greg Support00:40:32.560 - 9:09:38 AM; Rep. Greg reiterates support for updating the language in the marriage statutes to reflect current laws, arguing that it does not change who can marry but simply updates terminology. They also mention the absence of senators due to other commitments but stress the simplicity and necessity of the bill.
SB269: Representative Schultz Information Only00:42:38.160 - 9:11:44 AM; Rep. Schultz suggests contacting the Secretary of State for further clarification on the bill, indicating a willingness to revisit the issue. They also mention a pending vote on another bill, suggesting a potential delay in voting on SB269.
SB269: Representative Love Information Only00:43:21.560 - 9:12:27 AM; Representative Love discussed the potential for new legislation to supersede old laws and the possibility of judicial interpretation. They raised concerns about judges potentially taking actions that might be considered unusual and suggested a theoretical vote on whether to delay the decision on the bill for further consideration. A thumb vote was conducted, which indicated a majority in favor of postponing the decision, leading to the postponement of the executive session on SB269.
Unclear: Representative Information Only00:47:12.000 - 9:16:18 AM; The representative announced the end of the voting session and the distribution of materials related to family court. They instructed members to form small groups to review the documents and discuss, suggesting bipartisan groups to facilitate diverse perspectives. The groups were to prepare notes on their discussions to inform future subcommittee work on family court matters.
Unclear: Representative Information Only01:31:39.120 - 10:00:45 AM; The representative concluded the breakout sessions, requesting summaries of the group discussions for the subcommittee's ongoing work on family court. They also mentioned the absence of the subcommittee clerk due to illness and expressed nervousness about taking over the role themselves.
Unclear: Judge Ellen Kristo Information Only01:32:47.600 - 10:01:53 AM; Judge Kristo, the administrative judge of the circuit court, and Elaine Lowe, the clerk for the third circuit court in Ossipee and North Conway, provided insights into the court process, particularly for self-represented litigants. Judge Kristo discussed the process before cases reach a judge and mentioned House Bill 652, which the subcommittee has retained.
Unclear: Elaine Lowe Information Only01:34:06.000 - 10:03:12 AM; Elaine Lowe, acting case manager in Conway, explained the role of case managers in assisting self-represented litigants in divorce and parenting cases. She described the process from the initial filing to first appearances, mediation, case manager conferences, and potential hearings, emphasizing the goal of helping parties reach agreements without needing a trial.
Unclear: Judge Ellen Kristo Information Only01:39:22.800 - 10:08:28 AM; Judge Kristo clarified the distinction between counseling and mediation in the context of family court. She stated that counseling, as therapy, is typically ordered by a judge based on specific circumstances, not by court staff prior to judicial review. She noted that counseling might be ordered for one or both parties depending on the situation, particularly if it impacts children.
Unclear: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:41:03.360 - 10:10:09 AM; The speaker asked for clarification on the child impact seminar, which is mandatory for litigants with minor children in divorce proceedings. This seminar is conducted online and educates parents on the psychological effects of divorce on children and strategies to minimize these impacts. Additionally, the speaker mentioned that mediation is mandatory when minor children are involved in divorce or parenting petitions, but voluntary otherwise.
Unclear: Representative Petrinho Information Only01:42:23.280 - 10:11:29 AM; Representative Petrinho inquired about the process for requesting court-ordered counseling or therapy for an unfit parent during divorce proceedings. The response indicated that such requests are typically addressed in temporary or final divorce hearings or through motions presented to a judge.
Unclear: Clerk Low Information Only01:43:18.920 - 10:12:24 AM; Clerk Low explained the process of cross-referencing cases within the court system when a new petition is filed. This includes checking for existing divorce, parenting, domestic violence, and criminal protective order cases to avoid duplication and ensure judges have all relevant information. The system does not automatically update if new related cases are filed after the initial check.
Unclear: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:45:59.199 - 10:15:05 AM; The speaker discussed the importance of training court staff to perform cross-reference checks effectively, noting past issues where a judge was unaware of related cases. They suggested that litigants or attorneys could bring such issues to the court's attention.
Unclear: Administrative Judge Information Only01:47:06.960 - 10:16:12 AM; The administrative judge confirmed that the court relies on information provided by litigants in the courtroom and outlined additional recourses for litigants if issues are missed, such as approaching the court clerk or filing a complaint with the administrative judge.
Unclear: Representative Greg Information Only01:48:05.199 - 10:17:11 AM; Representative Greg asked about the frequency and timing of cross-referencing other cases during divorce proceedings. It was clarified that cross-referencing occurs at the filing of a new case, not continuously throughout the case, and relies partly on litigants or attorneys to inform the court of new related cases.
Unclear: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:49:50.239 - 10:18:56 AM; The speaker noted the high number of pro se litigants in New Hampshire and inquired about whether court documents prompt litigants to disclose other open cases. It was explained that domestic violence petitions ask this question, but divorce petitions do not, though there may be a related question in cases involving children.
Unclear: Judge Information Only01:50:58.239 - 10:20:04 AM; The judge discussed the potential impact of HB 652, which would eliminate the family division and move its jurisdiction to superior court. The judge outlined the practical implications, including reduced access to justice due to fewer court locations, the strain on superior court judges and resources, and the lack of family law training among superior court judges. The judge also highlighted the significant caseload that would double the superior court's current workload.
Unclear: Judge Information Only01:57:45.480 - 10:26:51 AM; The speaker discussed the logistics and challenges of potentially moving resources from the circuit court to the superior court. They then elaborated on the mediation services provided by the ADR office, mentioning that over 3,350 divorce and parenting cases were mediated in 2023. They also touched on the mediation process for termination of parental rights (TPRs) and the use of neutral case evaluation, which is increasingly popular and effective, with about 50% of cases not proceeding to trial after such evaluations. The speaker proposed training current circuit court judges to conduct neutral case evaluations in different jurisdictions to increase the availability of this service.
Unclear: Representative Corin from Berlin Information Only02:03:50.840 - 10:32:56 AM; Representative Corin expressed concerns about the family court system and DCYF based on feedback from constituents in Berlin. They highlighted the issue of inconsistent rulings and the alarming statistic of 12 children dying despite being known to DCYF between 2023 and 2024. They questioned the confidence in judges receiving full information before deciding on cases involving sending children back to potentially abusive or neglectful homes and sought solutions to improve the system.
Unclear: Judge Information Only02:05:03.360 - 10:34:09 AM; The judge responded to Representative Corin, acknowledging the challenges in ensuring that judges receive all necessary information, particularly in abuse and neglect cases where they rely heavily on DCYF. They mentioned the ethical constraints preventing judges from conducting independent research and emphasized the need for more well-trained DCYF workers and the importance of CASA representatives in gathering accurate information for court decisions. The judge expressed confidence in DCYF's efforts but noted the limitations in receiving information from the Office of the Child Advocate during ongoing cases.
Unclear: Representative Georgees Information Only02:07:43.360 - 10:36:49 AM; Representative Georgees inquired about the process for handling children during divorce proceedings, specifically in cases involving mediation and parenting plans. They expressed concern about the impact of parental issues on children and the potential neglect or abuse that might occur during such times. They sought clarification on whether counseling is automatically provided for children in these situations.
Unclear: Judge Information Only02:08:59.920 - 10:38:05 AM; The judge explained that while counseling for children during divorce cases is not automatic, it is commonly ordered when requested by one of the litigants, especially if the children are struggling. They highlighted the complexities of handling children's needs in both typical divorce cases and abuse and neglect situations, where DCYF involvement brings strict procedural rules and additional resources for the family.
HB652: Representative Love Information Only02:12:26.880 - 10:41:32 AM; Representative Love raised concerns about the judicial process in cases of domestic violence, particularly about the handling of perjury and the potential violation of constitutional rights. They questioned why perjury charges are not brought more often and discussed the involvement of judges in referring cases to the county attorney's office. They also expressed concerns about the role of DCYF in investigating abuse, suggesting that law enforcement should handle criminal investigations rather than a social service agency.
HB652: Judge Information Only02:13:32.639 - 10:42:38 AM; The judge explained that perjury cases are referred to the county attorney's office for further action, and judges are not involved beyond that referral. Regarding DCYF and law enforcement, the judge clarified that while DCYF handles civil matters like abuse and neglect, criminal charges can run parallel, and both entities can be involved. The judge emphasized that the civil and criminal tracks are not mutually exclusive.
HB652: Representative Raymond Information Only02:17:30.160 - 10:46:36 AM; Representative Raymond discussed the distinction between DCYF's civil actions and criminal actions, focusing on the timelines and purposes of each. They asked about the role of the court system in protecting children's best interests versus criminal proceedings. The judge responded by explaining the statutory processes and national standards adopted for abuse and neglect cases, emphasizing the focus on the child's best interest.
HB652: Representative Bernardi Information Only02:24:00.399 - 10:53:06 AM; Representative Bernardi discussed the rationale for transferring jurisdiction of certain cases like delinquency, abuse, and domestic violence to superior or criminal courts. They expressed concerns about the qualifications of referees in handling serious issues, suggesting that such cases should be heard by constitutional judges. The judge clarified that referees in the circuit court are typically retired judges and that most abuse and neglect cases are heard by active judges.
HB652: Representative Coren from the North Country Information Only02:27:30.800 - 10:56:36 AM; Representative Coren discussed the use of mediation in family court, referencing successful models in Ohio and California where domestic violence cases are separated and other cases are sent to mediation. They asked if a similar approach could help in New Hampshire. The judge supported the idea of more mediation but noted the financial resources required and clarified that family court judges are trained in family law.
HB652: Representative Georgees Information Only02:30:58.319 - 11:00:04 AM; Representative Georgees inquired about the procedure for domestic violence cases involving immigrants, particularly the arrest of men and the process for reunification. The judge explained that the procedure is the same for everyone, with language assistance provided, and that domestic violence petitions can be filed for a year with potential extensions. They mentioned that reunification help would likely come from community resources rather than the court system.
HB652: Representative Love Information Only02:34:39.359 - 11:03:45 AM; Representative Love raised concerns about the impact of divorce on children and questioned why all judges are not trained in family law, especially if HB 652 passes. The judge clarified that all circuit court judges are trained in family law, but superior court judges do not handle family law cases.

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)