[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"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","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,75,87,99,111],{"_32":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":73},"mediaId",6340044,"mediaKeyId","2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3","parentId",2260290,"title","Committee hears bill to shorten DCYF retention of unfounded abuse reports from 10 to 3 years","audioSeconds",1544,"startMs",352000,"endMs",1896000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3&start=352&end=1896","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3/thumbnail_352000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6340044/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-bill-to-shorten-DCYF-retention-of-unfounded-abuse-reports-from-10-to-3-years","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340044-2700c60efcd6b7fbc8dfbcec811ef0ee/orig.mp4?Expires=1769741731&Signature=GFUswd7ajvPTuBQTepUxqaecoyNbfD8Htkvc~-Sp627jRSMoN7imQzi6XNorHUigc6ag7YQFSV1lzBxHA2pE9IjA9FHbgAiOcyP1IF3jgTfQZwDB5ZspZzimdn3SWwoSBxzg4y-JmNVSmizwcDy-WIHcj0auEzk3H2XeHKJEUELo3Oggf3aEKn-uovn1aPOnV4m8Gnewy0nUlVV7prS0K-q6sHJVcCIY9ijAvTynCG-uDZNODeI8tdpBMnKpl3CQSY1jstqg2gr8N4m2YgIO16256nYQd7vtNIR06ktqI2JN2TxL3vBZM1qBBBDq9-paYq-Dkc5TsF1ckGHzYZkk3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Chairman James Spillane opened a Feb. 11 hearing on House Bill 430, a proposal to shorten the retention period for DCYF records of unfounded abuse and neglect reports. The bill as presented would reduce the period for records labeled “unfounded” from 10 years to 3 years; screened-out reports would remain at the current 4-year retention period.

Supporters framed the change as relief for families that say an unfounded report can hang over them for years. Representative Greg told the committee a long retention period can feel like “a sword of Damocles” for families who were never found responsible for abuse. “Three years gives the chance that it can go away before another report is falsely made against a family,” he said.

The Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) and DCYF opposed the bill in testimony, saying access to prior calls or screened-out reports is important for spotting patterns that can lead to serious critical-incident reviews. Cassandra Sanchez, Child Advocate for the State of New Hampshire, told the committee that OCA uses the DCYF case-management history to identify trends and that many critical incidents reviewed had prior contacts that were initially screened out. “We always see that there has been prior history at the point of going to a critical incident,” Sanchez said. She added that the OCA accesses DCYF internal records under a confidentiality memorandum of understanding.

Susan Larrabee, general counsel for DCYF, explained statutory uses of unfounded reports in agency practice and court proceedings. She cited language added in 2017 to RSA 169–C that allows evidence of prior unfounded reports to be admitted “in order to establish a relevant pattern or course of conduct,” and noted agency statutes directing reviewers to determine whether family members were named in prior reports. Larrabee also flagged an internal inconsistency in the bill as written: a screened-out referral currently stays in the system for 4 years while an unfounded report that had been screened in would be shortened to 3 years under the proposal.

Committee members asked whether “unfounded” necessarily means a false report and whether records are publicly accessible. Witnesses repeatedly said the records are not public: Larrabee and Sanchez described the central registry and internal DCYF database protections and said access is narrowly limited, with parents able to see their own records but general public access barred.

No formal action was taken. The hearing record included data distributed by OCA showing that many families have prior referrals and that historical records can be important for both spotting malicious repeat reporting and for building the full picture of a child’s experience.

The bill drew a mix of sympathy for families and concern from child-safety professionals who use historical data for trend analysis and serious-incident review. The committee left the hearing open for amendments and further study.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Children and Family Law (02/11/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Chairman James Spillane opened a Feb. 11 hearing on House Bill 430, which would cut from 10 to 3 years the time the Department of Health and Human Services keeps records of reports it deems “unfounded.”","taxTitle","Children and Family Law, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17742,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":76,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":77,"_40":78,"_42":79,"_44":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6340034,"Committee hears competing views on bill to ensure parents electronic access to minors' medical records",2795,2539000,5334000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3&start=2539&end=5334","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3/thumbnail_2539000.jpg","/articles/6340034/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-competing-views-on-bill-to-ensure-parents-electronic-access-to-minors-medical-records","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340034-fc64a4e3daae0ca88e2d637cb0571782/orig.mp4?Expires=1769741731&Signature=Cs80Ovmm~t9yw1G1QByNRS5Mx6no-m~Ve0y103OfLjWM0BnzbTV0fB8bpx4pK-NszUYVDmWKT5lSHzmm66KAkYrGqJ4Nq7bJ3PUGO-fkbrah~Y0BYnHLLtpTY8WNeU~juT~0jPHN0UN-hAPgwK67XEwTuUx4XVl4plb2HmuD6cWcpgbwmHLIrHflP5POHTO3FPEmhCP2hcuTvbSfmzZbx6~bHn5K2GStB5m94V8Cc75fARwVvpjSkvsAPJWLWiaOFJns2e2Q3GkBdJDrJI5IPLxxAl9sCNp32oMjLkJUxG6AtTTlnD2SfN3C4404XHaAnZ9161ew57k~0Kpbd5aPKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Melissa Litchfield and Melissa Blasek (Rebuild NH) introduced House Bill 560 on Feb. 11, a proposal to strengthen parental access to minor children’s medical records, particularly patient-portal electronic records, while carving out statutory exceptions for services that federal or state law already protects (for example, certain reproductive-health and substance-use services).

Sponsors said the problem is widespread: parents report losing portal access to children’s records when children reach an age (commonly about 12) and that practices sometimes require minors to create independent accounts or otherwise block parents from portal access. Supporters framed the bill as a patient‑safety and parental‑rights fix that would help parents coordinate care, avoid drug interactions and ensure continuity of treatment.

Opponents urged caution and described technical and legal obstacles. Ben Bradley of the New Hampshire Hospital Association said hospitals share the goal of parent engagement but warned that many patient-portal platforms cannot reliably redact records (for example, entries for reproductive or substance-use services) and that the bill’s language could create an untenable compliance burden. Bradley also raised operational questions about how providers would treat preliminary protective orders, bail or probation conditions, or other court directives that might transiently affect parental access.

The New Hampshire Medical Society and practicing clinicians testified that confidentiality is essential to allow minors to seek behavioral-health, sexual-health and substance‑use services; they argued that mandated disclosure could deter minors from seeking care. The state Child Advocate, Cassandra Sanchez, opposed the bill and highlighted the inclusion of therapeutic records in the medical record definition; she described cases in which parental access to medical portals had been used to manipulate or endanger children who were in state care.

Several legislators and parent advocates pressed for practical fixes — including specifying the standard clinicians should use before withholding records (several witnesses objected to “clear and convincing” language in earlier drafts), and allowing providers to deliver redacted paper records or alternate electronic methods when portals cannot segregate protected information.

Officials from Dartmouth Health and other hospital systems offered to work with the committee on statutory language and technical solutions. The committee did not take a vote. Several witnesses urged drafting amendments to align the bill with HIPAA and existing state confidentiality law and to allow operational exceptions when portals cannot safely or technically meet the statute’s redaction requirements.","Lawmakers heard Feb. 11 on House Bill 560, which would require providers to make minor children’s medical records — including patient-portal records — available to parents, subject to state and federal confidentiality exceptions.",{"_32":88,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":89,"_40":90,"_42":91,"_44":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6340039,"Committee advances bill to let parents seek restraining orders for minors abused by nonhousehold members; passes unanimously",4608,1873000,6481000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3&start=1873&end=6481","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3/thumbnail_1873000.jpg","/articles/6340039/New-Hampshire/Committee-advances-bill-to-let-parents-seek-restraining-orders-for-minors-abused-by-nonhousehold-members-passes-unanimously","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340039-776b742867087cdac4537355201bf0ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1769741731&Signature=TMEufvZPDQl6d68zwxY6CWN~UPZybnFERcsegmIdn3gcGRPpo3PwUfCFzN4emY2KQsMSgxP7qpkMKCW8WstKZFbPUACekb1w2ihVbhfX0pq0I8-eHgMI3r8aCK3dhLY-re85U7pWSwb0dtms4bEJnCH343uKnQ4uzCC2oYB6sIcbXc4XOLbG9ZDGvqQkiaAfA6iZjKSSLGJdfEVYheDydOKFZtPYMTw4UngM3peTdSrHVXj3xUZVz1E1X2nriSUNACGerpcR0XwAFffGWZha2TNjrBMs6krWYGpo-mlyAMdxp7XihTdsrEY3oe1OB-RW2OxGkImPKqQGMDSTq7rjWg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Mike Belcher, the prime sponsor, told the Children and Family Law Committee on Feb. 11 that House Bill 187 would fix an unintended gap in New Hampshire law that currently prevents parents from obtaining restraining orders on behalf of minors against people who are not members of the child’s household or family. He described the bill as a “housekeeping” change that restores parity between adults and children in access to certain protective remedies.

Multiple witnesses, including Alanda (Alanda) Peterson — author of “Jade’s Law” — and Tracy Searls, who described an instance where a judge denied a parent’s request to obtain a restraining order on behalf of a child abused by a nonhousehold individual, urged passage. Searls said the clerk told her the child would have to file for protection personally, even though the child was a young minor and lacked capacity to navigate the process.

Supporters argued the bill closes an unintended exclusion that leaves minors without the same protections available to adults. Several committee members urged that the change belong in the civil restraining-order statutes but accepted the sponsor’s pragmatic explanation that the fix fits the existing statutory structure and can be refined later.

The committee moved the bill into executive session and then voted on a motion of “ought to pass” (OTP), moved by Representative Levesque and seconded by Representative Rice. Committee clerk roll call recorded 14 yes votes and no no votes; the measure passed 14–0 and was reported out of committee to the next stage.

Representative Love suggested an amendment to change the effective date to “immediately upon signing”; the committee discussed technical edits and placement of the language in statute for future cleanup.

The bill drew personal testimony from multiple people who said the law’s current text prevented them from obtaining protective relief for minors abused by nonhousehold members and from advocates who recalled the law’s original intent. The committee’s vote moves the proposal to the next legislative step with unanimous committee support.","Lawmakers voted 14–0 to send House Bill 187 to the next stage after testimony from parents, advocates and bill sponsors urging a statutory fix so parents can obtain protective orders on behalf of minors abused by people who are not family or household members.",{"_32":100,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":101,"_40":102,"_42":103,"_44":104,"_46":105,"_48":106,"_50":107,"_52":108,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":109,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":110,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6340024,"Heated testimony on bill to abolish the Family Division and shift cases to superior court and certified mediators",7766,13905000,21671000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3&start=13905&end=21671","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3/thumbnail_13905000.jpg","/articles/6340024/New-Hampshire/Heated-testimony-on-bill-to-abolish-the-Family-Division-and-shift-cases-to-superior-court-and-certified-mediators","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340024-197a4f7a71b854783d1660fee2293f26/orig.mp4?Expires=1769741731&Signature=fVhuyIBIxG9i3dbDn8jlJx17fsWt8Nx0nAFM7SWMkQ6yisCTiGiXeB9Gc6jzHGWXmT2F-AMBHh28re6S9EpKGfL-qG3NsuHKtwIYrtxFKEpm~G26vEHvd6qFDLxwS8i9qDfhe1C-i-OH9Rcg8~eizhVpuHm4d9y4vK4tuHuh569n6do6jZ5XAy2Uv1f0wsjXeTBHxqS6nRPRxhUMv5SmOQsODNoVeKK3CqyFPsLLKgCHRVi2hojPNgjfagYaQlrYOTI3AasioduaIDop8hZJJPc2Qk8dYs7yEnVX-ctYe8zkuaivRn01~rFEkvKxVz46zLB7jksQ5zHT9au9GBwShw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Timothy Bernardi opened a Feb. 11 hearing on House Bill 652, a sweeping proposal to abolish the Family Division of the circuit court and to move many family-law matters back to the superior court, while creating a state‑run family‑mediation office with certified mediators and an accreditation standard. Bernardi argued that the Family Division — as configured — lacks judicial accountability in some proceedings, allows nonconstitutional officers (such as marital masters or referees) to make factually consequential findings in informal settings, and has procedural rules that, in his view, permit the exclusion of evidence and limit normal equity protections.

The hearing featured extended, often emotional testimony from dozens of parents, advocates and practitioners describing cases of alleged judicial misconduct, protracted litigation, perceived denials of due process, and situations in which parents said they or their children were harmed. Several witnesses urged abolition of the Family Division or major statutory reform; among their claims were examples where testimony was not sworn, discovery was limited at the court’s discretion and appeals to the Supreme Court offered limited factual review.

A number of attorneys and retired judges who appeared urged caution. The court system’s general counsel, Erin Cregan, told the committee that the circuit court is a properly constituted court and observed that the state has tried several reforms over time. She emphasized that the legislature can change court structure by statute and that the judiciary has supported training, mediation services and other reforms. Judges and court officials described institutional steps already under way — including training and increased staffing — designed to improve uniformity and oversight.

Witnesses on both sides urged improvements to transparency, oversight and training. Representative DeRoy (cosponsor) and others recounted cases where parents said the Family Division had assigned visitation or decision‑making in ways they considered unsafe; cosponsors framed the bill as a remedy to systemic problems not solved by prior fixes. A number of practicing attorneys noted that discovery rights and motions already exist in the rules but that inconsistent application and short, multi‑issue hearing calendars can leave litigants feeling unheard.

The bill would phase changes in across two years, create standards for certified family mediators (drawing on the Academy of Family Mediation Professionals), and return abuse/neglect adjudications and other high‑stakes matters to superior court while leaving mediation and other lower‑conflict services in a formal mediation office. Committee members heard both calls for wholesale abolition and proposals for narrower reforms, and the committee did not vote. Several members said they would create a working subcommittee to pursue specific reforms and to study options including oversight, training, mediation standards and possible statutory changes.","Representative Bernardi proposed an overhaul that would return many family‑law matters to superior court and create a state-funded family‑mediation office. Dozens of parents, advocates, a retired practitioner and judges gave emotionally charged testimony both for and against; no committee vote was taken.",{"_32":112,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":113,"_40":114,"_42":115,"_44":116,"_46":117,"_48":118,"_50":119,"_52":120,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":121,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":122,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6340029,"Advocates urge preserving Social Security and veterans benefits for foster children; committee hears implementation report",1219,7211000,8430000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3&start=7211&end=8430","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260290-e4074b2486b151419dbed9a443316be3/thumbnail_7211000.jpg","/articles/6340029/New-Hampshire/Advocates-urge-preserving-Social-Security-and-veterans-benefits-for-foster-children-committee-hears-implementation-report","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340029-f299462b5c1f795b34e7fc3e049479c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1769741731&Signature=eUsu3bveBEnCRJkkn8vTOfrAbP-76xPqio52STd~I7xT50VGkAcC7wPiq1J7eW9cMTQ4mhHFgsRcQD8AMbWDi~sCol-aCixdI6-nYp0kC5NgC-7pTQRay6qAYR~yr2L0v0UL2UNTz9cGKFSB1KXP1i00NPTQLJSWvyQ-VE3~WvdR6Q~eb2OTA7fVyV98qK1EIGnZdtmQWBdJFqz1ygOGK2jfBNYDEUpykJxrs4v-XWXSNweG9JI4ZwUo0hcQOwaQwyR1ALI8ZDsk2R7fRFEs0xRVW50cuKf1PF56-ANNSykWoh6QcOeTpE8yneF9MKEy8xgA~JZQrRpRod4jXHLhkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Mary Jane Wallner opened a Feb. 11 hearing on House Bill 661, which would require Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) practice to preserve Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and veterans benefits that belong to children in foster care, and to conserve those funds for the child’s current needs and future use rather than using them to reimburse the state for foster‑care costs.

Wallner noted a recent consultant report, the Child‑Centered Benefits Management Assessment, commissioned by DHHS with legislative funds in the previous session; she distributed the report’s findings to the committee and urged lawmakers to advance the bill so the House Finance Committee could consider the financing and implementation roadmap.

Witnesses speaking in support described practical impacts. Karen Rosenberg of Disability Rights New Hampshire said conserved benefits could fund supports that improve reunification and reduce homelessness for youth leaving care; she suggested ABLE accounts as an administrative vehicle to preserve funds without jeopardizing federal program eligibility. Stacy Phillips, a longtime foster and adoptive parent, testified that children with significant developmental or behavioral needs often require costly equipment and services not covered by regular foster stipends; she described cases where a child’s benefits were used by the state while the child later aged out with no financial resources.

Megan Dillon of New Hampshire Legal Assistance explained Social Security Administration program rules and said federal guidance (SSA POMS) already discourages automatically assigning the state as a representative payee without first exploring suitable family or kin payees. She recommended stronger state screening and use of preferred family payees where appropriate.

DCYF officials (division director Marie Noonan and general counsel Susan Larrabee) praised the consultant’s report as a detailed roadmap but said implementation would require funding. Noonan noted the agency does not currently have the appropriations to absorb the systems and administrative changes the report recommends and that billing/reimbursement practices would need to be adjusted if the state stopped retaining children’s federal benefits for reimbursement.

Former foster youth Dawson Hayes described having roughly $16,000 of his Social Security payments retained by the state while he was in care; he said the funds would have provided a meaningful start when he left care. Waypoint and other service providers described frequent encounters with youth who experience housing instability after aging out of the system; witnesses argued that conserved benefits would provide critical transition supports.

The committee did not take a vote. Several witnesses urged the committee to move the bill to House Finance (as last year) to consider appropriation language and detailed implementation steps from the consultant report.","Witnesses told the Children and Family Law Committee that preserving federal benefits for children in state custody — and conserving them for the child’s future — can reduce homelessness and improve post‑care outcomes. DCYF said a consultant report lays out implementation steps and funding needs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bill to shorten DCYF retention of unfounded abuse reports from 10 to 3 years

Committee hears competing views on bill to ensure parents electronic access to minors' medical records

Committee advances bill to let parents seek restraining orders for minors abused by nonhousehold members; passes unanimously

Heated testimony on bill to abolish the Family Division and shift cases to superior court and certified mediators

Advocates urge preserving Social Security and veterans benefits for foster children; committee hears implementation report