Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects committee's 'ought to pass' recommendation on child‑endangerment bill, then votes to deem it inexpedient
Summary
After extensive floor debate, the House failed to adopt the committee's 'ought to pass' recommendation for Senate Bill 23 (an expansion of the crime of endangering the welfare of a child). A subsequent motion to declare the bill 'inexpedient to legislate' passed on a later roll call, effectively killing the bill for this session.
The New Hampshire House considered Senate Bill 23, which would revise the state's law on endangering the welfare of a child, but ultimately rejected the committee's recommendation to pass and later voted to make the bill inexpedient to legislate.
Supporters of the bill, including Representative Greg (committee proponent), told colleagues the measure was requested by law enforcement to provide clearer criminal standards when reckless actions cause "serious injury or result in death," and said the bill "does not criminalize reasonable parenting decisions." He told members the bill would add language to classify actions that place a child at risk of serious injury or death as felonies and would allow prosecutors to see patterns of harmful behavior over time.
Opponents warned the bill was too broad. Representative Flanagan said if the bill were enforced, "my parents would be in jail" for activities such as motocross or contact sports. Representative Love said the measure "criminalizes parenting" and could produce felony consequences — including prison terms and fines — for common childhood activities. Love asked members to oppose the committee recommendation and requested a roll call.
The first roll call on the committee report resulted in "154 in the affirmative, 188 in the negative," and the motion to adopt the majority committee recommendation failed. Representative Love then moved a motion "inexpedient to legislate" (ITL) on SB 23; after another roll call the clerk announced "190 in the affirmative, 152 in the negative" and the ITL motion was adopted, which leaves the bill effectively defeated for this session.
Why it matters: supporters argued the change would give prosecutors clearer tools to address severe or repeated parental misconduct that causes serious harm to children. Opponents said the bill's language was overly broad and risked criminalizing ordinary parenting or exposing families to overzealous prosecutions.
No statutory changes were enacted; the House's ITL vote halts the bill's progress for the current legislative cycle.
