[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6681722,"mediaKeyId","2649531-f46269069855a69be3ca0cd9d322f1a3","parentId",2649531,"title","Committee hears split testimony on bill letting judges consider known health conditions in custody reviews","audioSeconds",3355,"startMs",260000,"endMs",3615000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2649531-f46269069855a69be3ca0cd9d322f1a3&start=260&end=3615","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2649531-f46269069855a69be3ca0cd9d322f1a3/thumbnail_260000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6681722/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-split-testimony-on-bill-letting-judges-consider-known-health-conditions-in-custody-reviews","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6681722-d8e5e7530d135785b58c3705fd7ec607/orig.mp4?Expires=1770924898&Signature=h6cB-B0QvDX4t5t9RRKrmnxYTt7MOucKc~Bfv8Im72JdOTv7qB3sXdFPoco0yuCZX8wesdP83Mly8Dvq3FsI7HP~P4YIIuOHGKG81y7PoNpoo8t-yA3VnsDKRwfJtbNilcvJIkBGacLdqKx1RDvaPNFLbKuBmbVgXTFGnG-YCQVq29dNFtir945HgqyK0iYgXyZmlzHSV0U4jeidSCnMrvTlc88whAqYdUqgCdrwT7rTLvv0RrLXrprR6GAYSg8w4-82LQsPwqOtbC4W4WR~zte~U0pIaKfFrOyXsvORDDPO-EVr7PfqLgsqrLd8x59jqw0L6qIeXiXm~JudbMpI5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-02-22T17:18:17.41Z","article","Open the hearing on House Bill 285 on parental rights and responsibilities. An additional section is were asked for by the, prime sponsor who is not here.

Representative Joyce Ball, the bill's sponsor, told the House Children and Family Law Committee that HB 285 \"just adds words to remind judges to make sure that they're looking at a full environment for children,\" and would permit judges to consider \"any known mental health conditions that could interfere with parenting.\" She repeatedly emphasized the change would be a prompt to judges, not a call for disclosure of medical records.

Proponents said the change would let judges ask a focused question about current health-related barriers to parenting and then, if needed, order evaluations. Opponents—including witnesses from NAMI New Hampshire, disability advocates and mental-health clinicians—argued the wording would stigmatize people with mental health diagnoses, chill care-seeking, and duplicate existing law.

Why it matters

Backers described the bill as a limited addition to the statutory list of factors family courts already consider and said it would help judges identify risks in high-conflict or recurring cases where different judges hear the same family repeatedly. Opponents said the draft would single out mental illness and could be used against parents even when their conditions were being managed by treatment.

What witnesses said

Sponsor: Representative Joyce Ball opened by saying the proposal \"is on the surface... it just adds words to remind judges to make sure that they're looking at a full environment for children,\" and that judges should be able to ask whether \"there is anything I should be aware of that might interfere with your ability to parent.\"

Supporters who testified included clergy and a former magistrate who said judges sometimes do not receive a full picture of the home and that a single question could surface relevant facts.

Opposition: Sarah Horn, identified as a NAMI New Hampshire board member and a parent, described her own history of severe mental illness and recovery, telling the committee: \"I am proof that recovery is possible and that my history of mental illness has no bearing on my ability to parent.\" Horn urged the committee to focus on \"active and current behaviors of the parents, not a health history.\"

Kevin Blanchett, a licensed clinical mental health counselor, said adding mental health to the statute \"stigmatizes mental health and presumes somebody having a mental health condition makes them lesser of a parent,\" and warned the change could deter people from seeking treatment.

Holly Stevens, director of public policy for NAMI New Hampshire, told the committee that current law already allows courts to consider parent behaviors and parenting ability, and that singling out mental health is \"discriminatory.\" Karen Rosenberg of the Disability Rights Center testified in opposition for similar reasons.

Committee questions and sponsor responses

Committee members pressed the sponsor on how judges would get information when parents had not sought diagnosis or treatment, how the measure would avoid weaponization in contested hearings and whether it was necessary given existing statutes (members referenced the statutory factors listed in RSA 461-A:6, a–m during questions). Representative Ball said judges can already order psychological evaluations; the bill, she said, would simply remind judges to consider \"what's underneath the surface.\" She also offered to work with the committee on targeted amendments.

No vote recorded at hearing

The hearing closed with the chair scheduling executive action two weeks later; the transcript does not record a committee vote on HB 285 during the hearing.

Ending

Committee testimony showed clear divisions: sponsors and some legal observers urged a targeted reminder to judges, while mental-health advocates and disability advocates said the draft risked discrimination and chilling treatment-seeking. Several witnesses and legislators asked for language changes or education for judges instead of expanding statutory lists; the sponsor agreed to work with the committee on amendments.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Children and Family Law (02/18/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Joyce Ball asked the House Children and Family Law Committee to consider House Bill 285, which would add \"any known mental health conditions that could interfere with parenting\" to the list of factors judges may consider when deciding parental rights and responsibilities.","taxTitle","Children and Family Law, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17742,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6681714,"Committee roundup: executive actions and votes on family-law and education bills",1025,3993000,5018000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2649531-f46269069855a69be3ca0cd9d322f1a3&start=3993&end=5018","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2649531-f46269069855a69be3ca0cd9d322f1a3/thumbnail_3993000.jpg","/articles/6681714/New-Hampshire/Committee-roundup-executive-actions-and-votes-on-family-law-and-education-bills","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6681714-74ae0c423ed6f4a0d9b75223615a8f5f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770924898&Signature=IGaQYMrzXUgmwEqHE~ScrxyNa9xaDNCgEXCqh0akfQwDA4aomf7PA5F-GxXVwp-10gJfdzz8lSLzsWmMOQEegxJLln6rrKgQ43Bp~F8OGT-EnVVGRThlpltcp59W6FcLOJ3hEMDG5m5LQo53p7yuZsHMqpvf5bFj2jLI1Sp4TWgqjYWsWnlddAlIalu0W1LNmmb1BNgwxOo68KCBDCbnlbjHGdgedEOtCV4MSdCTz2~YfdE-pUD7GIG6X~geZ~KnlXhPNAgLt2Vih4G5GxJSykU1SJZKRx3msP2T-iJMXRDFkpiAhohvtu9B7aATcyw0r0D5fIm52rSpm6N~l2pq3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Children and Family Law Committee conducted executive action on several bills after hearings earlier in the session. Highlights:

House Bill 177 (special-education statutory cleanup)

- Motion: \"Ought to pass\" raised by sponsor (Representative Nancy Murphy); seconded by committee members. Roll call recorded a 13–0 vote in favor.
- Committee note: Sponsor described HB 177 as a \"housekeeping\" bill to restore a reference to RSA 193:27 that was removed inadvertently when two bills amended the same paragraph. Department of Health and Human Services told the committee that the department would review placement language and fiscal impacts.

House Bill 320 (enforcement of marital property settlements)

- Motion: Representative Markell moved the committee report of \"ought to pass,\" seconded by Representative Georges. The committee voted 14–0 to advance the bill.
- Summary: The measure would establish measurable standards for enforcement and remedies when property-settlement terms are alleged to be unenforceable due to duress, fraud, nondisclosure or impossibility.

House Bill 335 (court-ordered psychological evaluations in contested parenting cases)

- Motion: Representative Markell moved that the bill be deemed Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL); the motion was seconded by Representative Raymond. The committee recorded a 14–0 vote for ITL.
- Rationale given on the floor: Members raised concerns about the availability of licensed psychologists to meet the bill's timing requirements, whether insurance could cover the mandated assessments, potential constitutional issues, and the burden on courts to order risk assessments quickly.

House Bill 350 (audio/video recording and broadcast of family-division hearings)

- The committee considered amendments that would pilot recording in a limited set of courts. A full proposal to require audio and video recording and live broadcast was discussed and then the committee ultimately adopted a motion to vote ITL. Final recorded vote: 14–0 in favor of ITL.

House Bill 433 (marriage age carve-out for active-duty military)

- First roll call produced a 7–7 tie on the committee motion to advance the bill, resulting in no committee recommendation and the requirement that the House receive two reports (one for and one against) as permitted under House rules. Members later moved to ITL; the transcript records additional procedural votes leading to two committee reports (IP/no recommendation) rather than a single committee endorsement.

House Bill 486 (grandparents' visitation)

- Motion: Representative Nelson moved \"ought to pass,\" seconded by Representative Greg. The committee voted 14–0 to advance the bill.
- Summary: The bill clarifies grandparents' rights to seek visitation when in the child's best interest and aims to provide clearer statutory guidance for courts when parents' rights and constitutional considerations are implicated.

What the votes mean

- The committee moved multiple bills forward with unanimous or near-unanimous votes where sponsors provided technical fixes or the committee found the proposals balanced (HB 177, HB 320, HB 486).
- The committee rejected (ITL) bills judged to have impractical implementation timelines, constitutional risk, or substantial operational burdens (HB 335, HB 350). One high-profile bill (HB 433) produced a 7–7 tie and will appear with two committee reports.

Actions, tallies and provenance

(See structured actions below for motions, movers, seconders and recorded tallies from the transcript.)

","At its January session the House Children and Family Law Committee moved several bills through executive action: auditors and staff recommended technical fixes on special-education language, the committee advanced a marital-property enforcement bill and voted ITL on proposals requiring broad psychological evaluations and public broadcasting of",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6681719,"Long hearing on proposed Parental Bill of Rights highlights deep divisions on student privacy and medical consent",6578,11402000,17980000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2649531-f46269069855a69be3ca0cd9d322f1a3&start=11402&end=17980","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2649531-f46269069855a69be3ca0cd9d322f1a3/thumbnail_11402000.jpg","/articles/6681719/New-Hampshire/Long-hearing-on-proposed-Parental-Bill-of-Rights-highlights-deep-divisions-on-student-privacy-and-medical-consent","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6681719-ad5cd061dccea579c71b8423b0a0e873/orig.mp4?Expires=1770924898&Signature=XSxIFrsLbDjebwWeQvQuqAhA1PryxV91FHy8RJErG0t2xXUWQBeJuEjayId0jkAkmUwVOHi0pfdadIyzb7oh4FfKZV6MO-u5jF2CpaFz2-IpnhIGb60ZHL1WdOq0y8OtZIqH51PN8s88ZeB3-dL2yOM39nS3~NUgcmpxe5D86PLOuK3rZBKEocfr~oGygJyju20mkh2-xbcJHBZl7s3poE72ownSKvrf0X5fMWv8s74PoDRG9lEPkLQBKrW~s1xzJ7TGYX6oUDswHw5k4EGiCaBaGfPLEixq4MMfoVkbV8BLxSn2ksMVUwT6KIKilC04O7-i6trJEoKGxsmrQ7PGzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative John Packard and Representative Deborah DeSimone presented an amended version of House Bill 10, a proposed \"parliamentary\" parental bill of rights that would consolidate a parents' ability to direct education, medical care, and access to school materials for their minor children.

Packard said the measure \"establishes the parental bill of rights\" and described it as a response to parents who told him \"they are the ones that are responsible for the upbringing of their children. The schools are there to teach them. The parents are the ones that are responsible for their health, their upbringing, putting a roof over their head, feeding them.\" DeSimone, who helped draft the substitute language, told the committee the amendment \"tightened up the language\" and was intended to produce a usable statutory framework.

Opposition and major themes

The hearing drew a long line of witnesses who urged the committee to vote it inexpedient to legislate (ITL) or to substantially redraft the measure. The comments fell into three main themes:

1) Medical access and confidentiality: Health-care groups, including the New Hampshire Medical Society, warned the bill's written-consent provisions would create barriers to care for minors in sensitive situations. Kathy Stratton, the society's CEO, told the committee the proposed requirement that providers obtain written parental consent before scheduling or providing care could \"create delays in treatment and potentially dissuade minors from seeking care, particularly those who may fear for their safety or well-being.\" She urged an ITL vote.

2) Student safety and privacy: Mental-health and LGBTQ advocates warned the bill could force schools or staff to disclose student-identifying information before a child was ready. David Trumbull and other witnesses cited the New Hampshire Supreme Court's August 2024 decision in Doe v. Manchester School District, which the court used to limit a parent's constitutional claim over student privacy, and argued the bill's use of a strict-scrutiny test and broad \"including but not limited to\" language would chill teachers' ability to be a confidential resource.

3) Practical consequences for educators and school districts: Teachers' unions and school administrators told the committee the bill's opt-out and review requirements would be administratively burdensome and could discourage teachers from using diverse materials. The American Federation of Teachers, New Hampshire, and the NEA-New Hampshire said the amended language removed criminal penalties but left vague provisions that could still lead to disciplinary exposure for educators.

Notable testimony

\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000Sam Hawkins of NAMI New Hampshire said the organization does not take a position on the bill but urged the committee to add a mechanism for providers to withhold records when disclosure \"will result in abuse or neglect,\" and said the bill's \"attempts to encourage or coerce\" language could chill helpful adult-child conversations.

\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000Kathy Stratton (New Hampshire Medical Society): \"This provision would require parental consent before a physician could even schedule an appointment for a minor. Such a law would create delays in treatment and potentially dissuade minors from seeking care, particularly those who may fear for their safety or well-being.\"

\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000Attorney Ian Hewitt of Cornerstone told the committee his group opposes a parents' bill of rights that would leave special protections for \"secret transitioning\" policies unaddressed; he circulated 2023 senate language that he said had passed the Senate and warned that a new statute could make future legal remedies harder to pursue.

Committee reaction and next steps

Multiple legislators suggested the committee could refine the text before executive session; Representative DeSimone and sponsor Packard acknowledged the amendment was a revision of the original and invited further edits. Several committee members asked for legal review on conflicts with federal and state statutes referenced during testimony (for example, statutes governing minors' consent for some health services and the state court precedent discussed in testimony.)

Ending

The committee took extensive testimony and announced the executive session date; no committee vote on HB 10 is recorded in the hearing transcript. Testimony split along lines of parental-control advocates on one side and medical, mental-health, educational and civil-rights groups on the other, with many witnesses urging the committee to either substantially rewrite the bill or vote ITL.

","Supporters of House Bill 10 told the Children and Family Law Committee the measure would consolidate parental protections over schooling and health care; critics—from mental-health groups, teachers' unions, medical associations and LGBTQ advocates—warned the draft is vague, could create barriers to care, chill school staff and endanger vulnerable","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears split testimony on bill letting judges consider known health conditions in custody reviews

Committee roundup: executive actions and votes on family-law and education bills

Long hearing on proposed Parental Bill of Rights highlights deep divisions on student privacy and medical consent