[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,76,87,99],{"_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",6323024,"mediaKeyId","2343419-aa8ed0e8c0b82035501064d5fcd179e6","parentId",2343419,"title","Committee rejects bill requiring all family division hearings be recorded and broadcast in pilot and full forms","audioSeconds",1085,"startMs",5435000,"endMs",6520000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343419-aa8ed0e8c0b82035501064d5fcd179e6&start=5435&end=6520","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343419-aa8ed0e8c0b82035501064d5fcd179e6/thumbnail_5435000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6323024/New-Hampshire/Committee-rejects-bill-requiring-all-family-division-hearings-be-recorded-and-broadcast-in-pilot-and-full-forms","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323024-02e02ab69379aa5f5a2f31561ad9f41a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775297841&Signature=W0I0-JmoNqLBUOJ~Jdj8D3T1hjVaWtmdctEsxb7MuyO3WkqxC~-N8sKui9~UTF8yGfrGiv9x3bwbIHmaBNReiA5kaCQuXD978YkTujXJHOV35j7p87vvEr~U6WpjN~Pm2qLer4jcV34U3zZnuRgbMJRPXPYXMDL2T5rXPm0x~QlYLplOQn2~FCKddECJrcvpPKFyQcJFp8OsFaKWxq2914J-D2cS4PT-VKS76wHQhS~1FQu6BylC9MjnWYsTyzyWl8jno8jgxyqx0oETsdp2d3UBnBWYdo8-OwzEEci2maaRhijt8beKMQNQHvDSrI4QbqB7f7rhR~WhesqQLr8pQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Children and Family Law Committee considered proposals to require video and audio recording — and live broadcasting — of family-division hearings (House Bill 350 and related amendments).

Supporters argued expanded recording would increase transparency and public trust in family-court processes. Representative Seidel introduced an amendment to establish a pilot program; Representative Bridal moved to advance a pilot amendment to study implementation before a system-wide mandate. Supporters said a pilot would allow the judiciary and legislature to test logistics, privacy safeguards and technical feasibility.

Opponents raised multiple objections. Representative Raymond and others warned that family-division dockets routinely contain sensitive information about domestic violence, child abuse, victims’ medical, therapeutic and school records, and that recorded material could be widely disseminated online if not tightly controlled. \"I just really worry that this is gonna end up in a situation where we have children whose information about domestic violence, child abuse, their medical, their therapeutic records, any of that could get out on the Internet forever,\" Raymond said.

Judicial capacity, circuit-court precedent and narrow legal authority were also raised. Several lawmakers noted that judges currently have discretion to order recordings in limited circumstances, and urged that a future step should be consultation with the Administrative Office of the Courts and the federal judiciary before imposing a broad statutory duty.

Committee debate produced close votes on amendments. A proposed amendment to create a pilot program failed after a split roll call. The committee later returned the underlying bill to an ITL recommendation. On the final roll call the committee voted to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on the bill — effectively ending pursuit of an immediate statutory requirement to record and broadcast all family-division hearings.

Representative Bridal, who had pushed for a study route, said a pilot could have yielded usable data for future lawmaking; opponents said the bill as written lacked sufficient privacy and procedural safeguards for vulnerable parties and children. The committee's ITL recommendation will be transmitted to the full House.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Children and Family Law (02/18/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The Children and Family Law Committee considered proposals to require video and audio recording — and live broadcasting — of family-division hearings, including a pilot amendment and a full statutory mandate.","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":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6323029,"Long hearing on 'parental bill of rights' lays out deep partisan and policy divisions",0,11402000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343419-aa8ed0e8c0b82035501064d5fcd179e6&start=11402&end=11402","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343419-aa8ed0e8c0b82035501064d5fcd179e6/thumbnail_11402000.jpg","/articles/6323029/New-Hampshire/Long-hearing-on-parental-bill-of-rights-lays-out-deep-partisan-and-policy-divisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323029-b4b34c0b237c58e992695475dbaa814f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775297841&Signature=BaGvXwp1Eh7P~sZdjaYQ8Blorr79jxvDrROy-f-Pmd182ob8O6oTMyzAzmHj6SYP6lZ8MgoyZoLiPAIkVaIpPXDcJOs4GPTVcuX9812YFI4n-za3ZFVzlygmq6KWIJmgTYxu0ElFKWJ7yY3fHLCb-K6A1a03~8AUp0egWHZemO~XbUlRiKpHdf72H8nQBEuuPgljrzeOCLfmMVc8U6qyIgXtJYXIycorQF6wO-kJzoDoB8cTNWdYSkhBn1TI7dw4qo7~GR0G52fNkxmVzrSKbYUmaLERlfYzK9zhMwLfX9xQbJ3pC3xZL5zdq4gm3b7CVEuu6D9ZDdGSKURZcSaYaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Packard and Representative DeSimone presented an amended version of House Bill 10 — a proposed parental “bill of rights” — and asked the Children and Family Law Committee to advance a replacement amendment clarifying parents’ rights regarding education, health care and school information.

Packard told the committee the measure is intended to “establish a framework of parental rights regarding the upbringing, education, and care of their minor unemancipated children” and to require schools to notify parents and preserve their access to records. Representative DeSimone, who described herself as a long-serving advocate on the topic, said the amendment narrows the original language and aims for clearer yearly consent forms, access to school and medical records for parents, and opt-out rights for instruction parents find objectionable.

Supporters argued the bill responds to real concerns about schools, third-party educational technology and parental access to information. Anne Marie Banfield, a parental-rights advocate, said student data collected by vendors can be sold and repurposed, and cited public reports alleging data misuse by education-technology firms. James Marcus, a longtime fathers'-rights and grandparents'-rights advocate, said the measure helps parents who otherwise feel shut out of school decisions.

Opponents said the amended bill still contains vague and potentially harmful provisions. Sam Hawkins of NAMI New Hampshire told the committee, “I wanna be clear from the outset that NAMI, New Hampshire is not taking a position on this bill,” but urged careful drafting to avoid impeding clinicians’ ability to withhold records when disclosure would place a child at risk. The New Hampshire Medical Society warned that the measure’s health-consent clauses would require written parental consent for many services and could “create delays in treatment and potentially dissuade minors from seeking care.” The American Federation of Teachers–New Hampshire and the NEA New Hampshire warned the bill could chill classroom instruction, increase burdens on understaffed districts, and open educators to disciplinary action under vaguely defined standards.

Several parents and students told the committee they oppose provisions that would obligate school staff to disclose or to require parental consent before a child can access services or speak privately to a trusted adult. Student and community speakers said outed youth risk homelessness, abuse, or removal from supportive environments; one student speaker urged the committee to vote ITL on the bill for the sake of children's mental health. Representatives who serve on school boards and who have worked in education warned the committee that local curriculum and school-board authority are the standard mechanisms for resolving disputes over materials and instruction.

Cornerstone Legal — which works on religious- and family-law issues — cautioned the committee that a prior Senate parents-bill draft (Senate Bill 272, 2023) had been carefully negotiated and that passing a different parents’ bill without attention to consequences could close off legal avenues to challenge district policies the group opposes.

Committee members asked many detailed questions about interactions with federal and state confidentiality statutes, how the amendment would treat medical consent for 14- to 17-year-olds, whether the measure would apply to private and charter schools, and whether “the parent” language could be weaponized by outsiders. Several lawmakers said the text needs more work; the chair scheduled the bill for executive-session consideration later in March.","House Bill 10 and an amendment drew hours of testimony for and against a proposed parental bill of rights; supporters said parents need clearer statutory protections and data controls, opponents — including educators, medical groups and mental-health advocates — warned it could impede care, chill school staff and create vague, enforceable duties.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6323034,"Committee hears competing views on adding parental mental or medical conditions as custody factor",14321,302000,14623000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343419-aa8ed0e8c0b82035501064d5fcd179e6&start=302&end=14623","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343419-aa8ed0e8c0b82035501064d5fcd179e6/thumbnail_302000.jpg","/articles/6323034/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-competing-views-on-adding-parental-mental-or-medical-conditions-as-custody-factor","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323034-05835065854568f230feb3e10f2dde50/orig.mp4?Expires=1775297841&Signature=JArZWD3Rj9J0cpEPZ-h~1shRZAQs4zFuoTSqGeUvz397zcQXKetoOmTW0thlyqLzXU5loP~lAQTECWvR4olzZJ69KMHmx6qNK6mvsfDLwwye6fAcgU0d0wI2i3r8ewVJTJJzmQ5HAIwuL67kIyPkoqi5Qgl3vBT6YOjk0y0FPnyljtHJRYSmk96dV8jwXNKP7AmPFsgfNH6cnG2yuMtkVqPMLzTEeRbhcix8P~aEC04tkL3q3JI7PwB6VdnlUgCQHlOrj45haqks0XYXRteRITq-ZUev6k8nAypJsGrvy6xnHiIByC1wJGuQ975fPdvOjLGEbQy0SHRde0Dp0cWHlw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Ball opened the Children and Family Law Committee hearing on House Bill 285 by telling members the bill would “add words to remind judges to make sure that they're looking at a full environment for children, and it asks judges to look at, as another factor, any known mental health, conditions that could interfere with parenting.”

The bill would insert health conditions — including mental health conditions — among factors a court may consider in determining parental rights and responsibilities. Ball and several supporters urged the panel to adopt language giving judges a prompt to ask whether anything in a parent's current health might affect their ability to parent, and to allow judges to order evaluations when indicated.

Those who opposed the bill argued it would single out people with mental illness and encourage stigma. Sarah Horn, a NAMI New Hampshire board member and parent, told the committee, “I am proof that recovery is possible and that my history of mental illness has no bearing on my ability to parent.” Holly Stevens, NAMI New Hampshire's director of public policy, said the group opposes language that would let courts consider a parent’s mental-health diagnosis “regardless of that condition's impact on the person's ability to parent,” calling the proposal discriminatory.

Licensed clinical mental-health counselor Kevin Blanchett told lawmakers he was concerned the amendment would “presume somebody having a mental health condition makes them lesser of a parent,” and that people might avoid treatment for fear the information could later be used against them. Karen Rosenberg, policy director at the Disability Rights Center of New Hampshire, said singling out mental health — or any health condition — was unnecessary because current New Hampshire law already lets courts consider a range of parenting-related factors.

Representative Ball and other backers said their goal is narrow: to make sure judges remember to ask whether a parent’s current health needs, if any, should be considered when fashioning parenting plans and protective guardrails. Ball repeatedly emphasized the sponsor did not intend judges to seek private medical records, saying the amendment “would just provide the opportunity for a judge to ask a question. No more than that.”

Committee members pressed on practical limits. Representative Raymond and others questioned how judges would reliably learn about untreated conditions; Ball replied judges can order psychological evaluations when warranted, and that the change is meant to give judges permission and an explicit reminder to look beyond immediate surface behavior. Several members suggested education of judges, rather than a statutory rewrite, might address perceived gaps in practice.

The hearing included multiple accounts from family-court observers who said unrepresented parties often lack the tools to get background information before the court, and some witnesses urged stronger language to require inquiry rather than merely allowing it. Opponents warned that broadly phrased language could be weaponized in high-conflict custody cases.

No vote on HB 285 was recorded at the hearing. Committee members said they would consider amendments and return to the bill in executive session.","A subcommittee hearing on House Bill 285 drew testimony both for and against adding language that would allow judges to consider known mental or medical conditions when deciding parental rights, with supporters saying it helps judges see the full home ecology and opponents warning of stigma and chilling effects on treatment-seeking.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6323019,"Votes at a glance: Committee actions on several family-law measures",1050,3993000,5043000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343419-aa8ed0e8c0b82035501064d5fcd179e6&start=3993&end=5043","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343419-aa8ed0e8c0b82035501064d5fcd179e6/thumbnail_3993000.jpg","/articles/6323019/New-Hampshire/Votes-at-a-glance-Committee-actions-on-several-family-law-measures","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323019-1fdf17ae5faefd21ddefea005728c639/orig.mp4?Expires=1775297841&Signature=D62RwAQL0lbXoq0h0lZGwXSFeRxIjFFN6B7RDqJTOZkSMvweMD4tMYRiTVllhVzJBaQi6AeKpeU58PjNQUvrJMvrsFjLAT6B4BtsbMV~pqbhHO4tb5~BkXq7xiZfDuNQbOvFaAIt2k189Tp8iAVPQ7ac6Qy9v6aMczq3BiHda8uwvxOmsz~9cIdibyM4sOMVW0tUQzqE7GCUuo4kmYBBbuJdEpPosbGZwxl8VZzwNvz8glyjf8OvLN2aoFcOhEuTTUHQPUMRRcLkmJdXkm9DfF5YdaA6GHUhnXbLjCHgPsUgYqHpXa78eAu3OzDJQ60UuSBsdI8HzsOcbp1dChJ9kw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its March 4 executive session the House Children and Family Law Committee recorded votes or roll-call results on multiple bills. The committee formally reported the items below to the full House or recorded no recommendation where the roll call resulted in a tie.

- House Bill 177 (technical correction to special education statute): Motion that bill \"ought to pass\" carried by roll call (13–0). The committee recorded an \"ought to pass\" recommendation and the item moves to the House calendar.

- House Bill 320 (enforcement of marital property settlements): Committee motion \"ought to pass\" carried on a roll call (14–0). The committee reported OTP (ought to pass).

- House Bill 335 (requirement for psychological evaluations when parental rights contested): Committee made a motion to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate); roll-call recorded (14–0). The committee recommended ITL.

- House Bill 350 (require courts to record and broadcast family-division hearings): After amendment votes and debate the committee recommended ITL (inexpedient to legislate); final roll call recorded 14–0 (committee will not advance the measure in its present form).

- House Bill 486 (grandparents' visitation rights): Motion \"ought to pass\" carried unanimously by roll call (14–0); the committee will forward the bill with an OTP recommendation.

- House Bill 433 (making 17 the marriage age for active-duty military parties): The committee recorded an initial roll call on an \"ought to pass\" motion that resulted in a 7–7 tie; the motion did not carry and the committee recorded no recommendation at that vote. Committee members later debated and moved further procedural motions; the committee recorded two reports (no single committee recommendation) for the House files.

These committee-level recommendations will be included in the House calendar materials and reported to the full House for floor action or further committee consideration.","The Children and Family Law Committee took final committee-level votes on multiple bills during the session; this roundup lists the motion, outcome and vote tallies recorded in the transcript.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee rejects bill requiring all family division hearings be recorded and broadcast in pilot and full forms

Long hearing on 'parental bill of rights' lays out deep partisan and policy divisions

Committee hears competing views on adding parental mental or medical conditions as custody factor

Votes at a glance: Committee actions on several family-law measures