[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-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",[32,76,88,98],{"_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",6565021,"mediaKeyId","3233713-2123cfe28d02b82b028d48477f14f0b2","parentId",3233713,"title","Judiciary Committee: summary of committee actions and votes","audioSeconds",5468,"startMs",908000,"endMs",6376000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3233713-2123cfe28d02b82b028d48477f14f0b2&start=908&end=6376","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3233713-2123cfe28d02b82b028d48477f14f0b2/thumbnail_908000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6565021/New-Hampshire/Judiciary-Committee-summary-of-committee-actions-and-votes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565021-0f2a30f7f2f92cb1019ee237eae671a1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174495&Signature=QAgmzf1J-p1rNDNd89GlfCELaU5EejhvCP0uek1xthPKOvcbPtsboaIqIQdL6fuypaFkNp9Sbaz2j3RI1R6-yIMJGUr09DS1SLHjLPYCpJjmQ3EZo2IsMOBkzly7N4ANTo4Sb~jbsQ2NyjO1EJg~YnFpHB1B2G~K7-7v-Uy0dTh8G0ikVed~DspMUiJ31pgld1EX9RRhBpY6q-pTrLnPDbC8n--VRJlb-OFAPDbssvqASPk1eEvicOh00NlomW8kEoD3ez4-p6w6MfeoUHKr9iwVvTKMmVlzGGZY3OS36Or2X9AqTSx2SE7r3HGe~2gmxaPjX-5tjDp6OquFTGcPTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-05-08T19:47:01.523Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee took action on a series of bills during the session. Below are the items the committee formally moved on, with outcomes recorded in the committee hearing. Where a roll-call tally was not recorded in the hearing excerpt, the committee recorded a voice vote and noted the result.

Votes at a glance

- HB 132: Motion — Ought to pass as amended (committee amendment adopted). Outcome: Approved by committee. Committee recorded \"ayes have it.\" The amendment removed civil-action recovery language while retaining welfare staff authority to contact relatives through a specified line. (See article hb132-repeal-relatives-recovery.)

- HB 486: Motion — Re-refer. Outcome: Committee voted to re-refer the bill for further work; the motion was seconded and approved. (Grandparents visitation rights bill; committee to work on policy language.)

- HB 187-FN: Motion — Ought to pass (public hearing held; sponsor and public testimony). Outcome: Approved by committee (voice vote recorded as \"ayes have it\"). (See article hb187-parents-restraining-orders.)

- HB 273 (libraries): Motion — Ought to pass as amended. Outcome: Approved by committee; committee adopted a technical amendment clarifying parental/legal guardian verification on a child's library account and set effective date to Jan. 1, 2026. Committee placed bill on consent and a member offered to take it out for further follow-up.

- HB 243 (penalty for false reports of suspected abuse): Motion — Ought to pass as amended (committee amendment adopted). Outcome: Approved by committee (voice vote recorded as \"ayes have it\"). Amendment clarified mens rea standard and criminal classification (unclassified misdemeanor) and streamlined references to mandated reporters.

- HB 560 (parental access to minor medical records): Motion — Ought to pass. Outcome: Approved by committee; committee left the bill off the consent calendar for further drafting to align with HIPAA and court-order language. (See article hb560-medical-records-portal.)

Procedural notes: Some bills were placed on the consent calendar; committee members indicated they might remove items from consent for additional drafting or stakeholder review. Several committee-adopted amendments will require staff to circulate revised drafts to stakeholders before floor action.

If a roll-call tally or named mover/second is required, committee minutes should be consulted; the hearing excerpt records voice votes and committee dispositions but not full roll-call records in all instances.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Children and Family Law (05/08/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee considered multiple bills and committee amendments. This roundup lists each bill acted on and the committee outcome, based on the hearing record.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29511,"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},6565024,"Panel advances bill on parental access to minors' medical records; debate centers on patient portal and court orders",1577,4758000,6335000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3233713-2123cfe28d02b82b028d48477f14f0b2&start=4758&end=6335","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3233713-2123cfe28d02b82b028d48477f14f0b2/thumbnail_4758000.jpg","/articles/6565024/New-Hampshire/Panel-advances-bill-on-parental-access-to-minors-medical-records-debate-centers-on-patient-portal-and-court-orders","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565024-332d645ff619f60a0e35696769df3174/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174495&Signature=VbaQKKfh9eZ4PtvScnhkApiNVtREyeAVlcsx28arcsu9JFvBxRCF27bG~DQv9uyAWoNKpGo3T2pVmMq~cXrSjiOF47ZZhTK7zlSsMZpzg5vXvmaZDBcRp8T4EPrXIa4VRpP7j82swto4dAZB92McvGrMc0~p-wYO-lKGqJYV21Wn43UfrhgQrpfjkS1-x8xwJGZ9beE8uKCJUg1BXEZtfhr4irqV7CJkjnBjuOdW5FdWqmyanHouebi6xlZPyytc80YgYEjtabwNLSHGQ9onLVaQBKZj1WAAEmlpolUk398eT1P2zi9c7Xs39DaQEbM7-ANPWty~gGxewkvE6bHrCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend HB 560, a bill intended to clarify parental access to a minor's medical records, including records made available through online patient portals.

Supporters said the bill would ensure parents or guardians can obtain records from health care providers and patient portals for minors until a statutory or court-based exception applies. Hospital representatives urged the committee to align statutory language with federal HIPAA standards, noting the federal statute uses professional-judgment language when a provider determines disclosure would be inconsistent with patient safety or confidentiality.

Committee members debated several provisions of an offered amendment. Concerns included whether the amendment's language inadvertently removed patient-portal access, how to treat records when a court has ordered treatment for the minor, and the appropriate standard for a provider to withhold records (\"professional judgment\" versus an evidentiary standard). A hospital representative told the committee: \"Lines 14 through 17 reflect the current determinations as outlined in HIPAA. So we wanted to make sure that the language mirrored how federal law affords that exception when a healthcare provider reasonably believes in his or her professional judgment.\" The representative also said the amendment's court-language was intended to cover determinations by courts \"of competent jurisdiction,\" including out-of-state protective orders under existing full-faith-and-credit provisions.

Some members expressed concern the amendment could be too broad in places (for example, where it references any court-directed treatment), while other members said the original bill language made clear the intent to include records available via patient portals. Members agreed to continue refining language; the committee ultimately voted to advance the bill and leave it off consent for further consideration.

The committee recorded an \"aye\" majority on the motion to pass and noted it would consider floor amendments to refine statutory cross-references and the standard for withholding records.","The Judiciary Committee advanced HB 560, a bill addressing parental access to minors' medical records and patient portals. Committee members and hospital representatives debated how the measure interacts with federal HIPAA standards and court-ordered treatment or protective orders.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":44,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":50,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6565028,"Committee backs amendment to limit welfare's civil-recovery leverage over relatives, approves HB 132 as amended",1340,2248000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3233713-2123cfe28d02b82b028d48477f14f0b2&start=908&end=2248","/articles/6565028/New-Hampshire/Committee-backs-amendment-to-limit-welfares-civil-recovery-leverage-over-relatives-approves-HB-132-as-amended","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565028-9bda14e7012a26995ccadd8c47415196/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174495&Signature=CKZvyv5VtzMH8iqhlV-u~zcZpAqt5b2b~xLwezjXZvdVBG6Siex-M13RDfvMgzOaalq5rVoMK5X8Q2dBq~ugMoq7Uf9f96SAKM6noBoRHlsd4qlXcnfZkKGnOBI8~WBkJWT5siYmYheleQbhrH2HBdz9yAPuIKcVzRmtZytbZbyUtT4a~dnWxYYuh9NomttSSV4l-k2Onf5yg~6CwCEwH7xUSD-z02AEhCriS8SdNzwey160qjn7Lw3RFPzOoO~VXPTsIdcYmOLUos7sOvlM42xBhoOAnA4FfVkRCA3mbWT-Fcpw8WaCsmv4U-CdVbJSR7KoF9DzwJIX9lDstJSGew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee debated HB 132, a bill that would remove or narrow provisions in RSA chapter 165 that allow municipalities to seek reimbursement or civil recovery from relatives for public assistance, including burial expenses.

Several committee members and a witness, identified in the hearing as Mr. Sandoval, discussed how RSA 165:20 historically gave welfare offices leverage to contact relatives to assist an applicant. Sandoval said he had spoken with welfare directors who used the authority to call relatives but did not report abusive practices. \"165:20 gives them that ability to call family members, and if that was repealed, they wouldn't have the ability to call,\" he said. Other members recounted testimony from community groups who urged repeal, saying the law was anachronistic and could force people with tenuous or severed relationships to provide aid.

Committee members worked through the scope of repeal across several RSA sections. Members agreed to keep language allowing welfare staff to contact relatives about assistance while removing civil-action language that authorizes courts to impose repayment and criminal contempt consequences. The committee adopted a committee amendment that keeps section RSA 165:20 up to a specified line but strikes the civil-action recovery language in subsequent sections.

The committee then moved and adopted a motion of \"ought to pass as amended.\" The committee recorded the motion as passed; the record shows the committee adopted the amendment and then voted in favor of passage.

Members asked staff to circulate the revised draft to interested parties to ensure related collateral statutory references are updated.","Lawmakers debated and amended HB 132, which would repeal or narrow statutory language that lets municipalities seek reimbursement from relatives for public assistance; the committee voted 'ought to pass' with the amendment.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6565033,"Judiciary panel advances bill letting parents seek restraining orders for minors abused outside the home",2879,114000,2993000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3233713-2123cfe28d02b82b028d48477f14f0b2&start=114&end=2993","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3233713-2123cfe28d02b82b028d48477f14f0b2/thumbnail_114000.jpg","/articles/6565033/New-Hampshire/Judiciary-panel-advances-bill-letting-parents-seek-restraining-orders-for-minors-abused-outside-the-home","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565033-7eaa70b6d454e415887271d240c4a6c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771174495&Signature=Mgwx3F6HEJ7wnh1Bl5Zr-XD1hDTHowFvJ9KNtH07LLTUECuhyRRSKuE7hFlhwvspxlD75VEvk5Xd6Srqw34SEEggwiMJqqPGJsh8ARRwwLY1t5e7pcZKwtXjwkuKyuTl7825cc8N7C~aGPiA2woVZxXOZ98VVzL17GZ2XseXUVWBcruFRfY8pCD-EHtTEFOsi-T7EluJYsO~xhyEv2l7C4OO1RxE19~e-X0-acBGH-e7kzqfbwEamvwKDyVxxfqBcb-KSfWAariZUger-l4SiUD7LmXVPRtjVadUva42ry4fFE6r4vYPQBCAp88381miYjVyIxo1Scg90z6LBNTkRw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend passage of HB 187-FN, a bill that would allow parents or guardians to file restraining or protective orders on behalf of their minor children against alleged abusers who are not members of the child's family or household.

Representative Robert Belcher, who introduced the bill, told the committee he brought the legislation after a constituent described being unable to obtain a restraining order to protect a child. \"Presently ... the courts have interpreted a prohibition on parents filing for restraining orders on behalf of their children in most cases, in all cases outside of the household,\" Belcher said, arguing the change \"deletes a little language so the courts can take a look at it and say, well, we are not going to prohibit parents from filing restraining orders on behalf of their own children.\" He added, \"Children should never be more vulnerable than adults by law.\"

At the public hearing, Tracy Searls of East Wakefield testified that her attempt to file a protection order on behalf of a child in her care was rejected at the clerk's office because the alleged abuser was not a household or family member. \"The way the law currently stands, a minor must file for a restraining order for themselves no matter their age or their intellectual abilities,\" Searls said, describing the courthouse direction she received after state police advised her to seek a protection order.

Committee members discussed the law's current language and court interpretation. Several members noted that under the present reading, a parent may file when the abuser is a household or family member but not for third parties outside the household, which forces many minors to pursue protection on their own. A committee member and a witness explained the bill's intent is to remove that limitation so adults can use the same set of restraining-order statutes to protect children.

The committee put the bill to a motion of \"ought to pass,\" which was seconded; members voted in favor and recorded the bill as recommended to pass. No roll-call tally was recorded in committee minutes provided at the hearing.

If enacted, the bill would amend the Child Protection Act language (RSA 169-C:7-a) as it applies to parental petitions for protective orders, and staff and members said they may refine definitions or related statutory cross-references before floor consideration.

Proponents asked the committee to consider tightening definitions of abuse in later amendments; committee members said they would continue to review definitions and consult stakeholders before floor action.","After a public hearing that included a parent's testimony, the House Judiciary Committee recommended passage of HB 187-FN to let parents or guardians file restraining orders on behalf of minors against people who are not family or household members.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judiciary Committee: summary of committee actions and votes

Panel advances bill on parental access to minors' medical records; debate centers on patient portal and court orders

Committee backs amendment to limit welfare's civil-recovery leverage over relatives, approves HB 132 as amended

Judiciary panel advances bill letting parents seek restraining orders for minors abused outside the home