Senate adopts parental bill of rights after compromise amendment

Concord — The New Hampshire Senate moved House Bill 10 forward on an amended second reading Thursday, adopting a compromise floor amendment and ordering the parental bill of rights to third reading.

Senator Sullivan, reporting for the Senate Education Committee, told colleagues the bill “enacts a comprehensive parental bill of rights in New Hampshire law” and lists parental abilities such as accessing school and medical records, opting children out of certain instruction and data collection, and requiring districts to adopt written policies. After committee adoption of its amendment, Senator Birdsell introduced leadership floor amendment 2646 as a replace‑all aimed at addressing concerns about the bill’s health‑care provisions; he called it “a compromise between both bodies.” The Senate adopted the floor amendment.

Why it matters: The measure consolidates parental access and notification rules in statute and drew floor debate over how the law should balance parental access with situations involving child safety and medical privacy.

Contentious point on evidentiary standard

Senator Perkins Cuoco rose in opposition to the amended bill, urging senators to protect children by adopting a broader definition of “compelling state interest” and by using a lower civil‑law standard. “So as opposed to clear and convincing evidence … we would support preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard used by DCYF in looking into possible situations of harm to children,” she said on the floor.

Formal action

The committee amendment and the leadership floor amendment were adopted on voice votes and the Senate ordered House Bill 10 to third reading. The clerk recorded adoption of the committee amendment and later the motion to read the bill a third time and order it passed at the present time in the early session.

Ending

With the floor amendment adopted and ongoing debate recorded about evidentiary standards for health‑care exceptions, the bill moves to third reading. Proponents said it affirms parents as “informed partners” in their children’s education and health care; opponents flagged concerns about thresholds for state intervention.