Chief Superior Judge Urges Flexibility, Flags Court Impact of H 98 Confirmatory‑Adoption Bill

At an April 2 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chief Superior Judge Tom Zoney testified about H 98, a bill creating a confirmatory‑adoption process for children born through assisted reproduction. Zoney said the measure is a policy decision intended to provide a streamlined procedure separate from existing adoption law and that the courts “have no objections to this bill as far as impacts on the court, and we can make it work.”

Zoney told the committee the bill—whose House language the judiciary testified on and which the sponsors intend to attach to F 95—was designed because assisted‑reproduction circumstances “don't fit as well into the existing structure.” He said the new procedure could lessen court workload in some cases but cautioned that the legislation contains provisions that may create operational problems for probate courts.

The judge identified several specific concerns. He noted a 45‑day requirement in the introduced version (page 11, lines 9–14) for the court to act after filing and said the timeframe could be unrealistic if many petitions arrive: “we don't know if we will have 20 applications, 20 petitions, or 200.” Zoney recommended either allowing the court to act “for good cause shown” or changing the language to require the court to act “promptly” rather than imposing a strict 45‑day deadline.

Zoney also questioned a provision that would require the court to email custodial parents at their last known address (page 14, line 10). He said, under court rules, materials ordinarily are sent to counsel and counsel has responsibility to notify clients, and that requiring the court itself to email represented parents would add burden. On termination rules (page 15, lines 1–4), he said the bill’s language allowing filings that do not meet format and signing requirements could undermine the court’s ability to ensure accurate, informed terminations and suggested giving judges discretion to accept nonstandard filings only for good cause.

On the question of filings timing, Zoney said his reading of the bill is that consensual paperwork would be completed by attorneys in advance but not filed with the court until an adverse immigration consequence has occurred for a parent or guardian. He warned that if petitions were filed preemptively and many did not result in actual guardianships, courts could expend substantial resources on matters that never ripen. “If you're having 100 of these petitions filed and they're never needed, well, the court has spent a lot of time and resources on something that didn't occur,” he said.

Zoney suggested clarifying language to make clear when filings should be submitted and to give courts discretion to accept filings from parents who cannot sign because of, for example, immigration‑related constraints. He offered alternative phrasing: instead of requiring the court to accept filings that do not meet formal requirements, “the court may accept, for good cause shown,” which would preserve judicial discretion.

Committee discussion included confirmation that the version under review was the introduced version. No formal vote or committee action on H 98 was recorded at the hearing.

The committee indicated the sponsors plan to attach F 95 to H 98; no additional details about F 95 were provided in testimony. Tom Zoney concluded his remarks by saying that if the bill significantly increases filings, the judiciary would notify the Legislature of any additional resource needs.

The committee recessed after the testimony; no deadline or next committee date was announced during the transcripted remarks.