Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Termination Of Parental Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves bill to clarify out-of-state convictions as grounds for parental-rights termination
Summary
The Senate Children and Family Law Committee voted to pass SB 278 to amend RSA 170-C:5 to make clear that equivalent convictions in other states may be used as grounds for petitions to terminate parental rights, a technical fix prompted by a recent New Hampshire Supreme Court opinion.
The Senate Children and Family Law Committee voted to pass Senate Bill 278, which would amend RSA 170-C:5 to make explicit that qualifying criminal convictions in other states may be treated as the equivalent convictions in New Hampshire when petitioning to terminate parental rights.
The bill was introduced at the request of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Tommy O'Neil, minority caucus director, introduced the measure on behalf of Senator Suzanne Prentice, the bill's prime sponsor, saying the change was made "at the request of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services." The department's General Counsel, Susan Larrabee, told the committee the amendment is intended to clarify statutory language after a recent Supreme Court case left uncertainty about whether the list of enumerated crimes in RSA 170-C:5 applied only to convictions in New Hampshire.
"This section of the RSA was enacted in 1999," Larrabee said, describing the enumerated offenses that can form the basis for a termination petition, including murder, manslaughter and certain assaults. She told the committee the statute "references New Hampshire criminal RSAs, but doesn't expressly state or the equivalent of another state," and the bill would explicitly add that language.
Larrabee also summarized the court history prompting the change. The New Hampshire Supreme Court considered the issue in a case decided Nov. 14, 2023 (docket 20220257). She said the high court affirmed the termination in that case but that Chief Justice McDonald wrote a dissent noting other statutes explicitly reference equivalent convictions in other states. Larrabee said the department is proposing the bill as a housekeeping correction so non‑attorneys and petitioners can understand the statute's plain meaning.
After departmental testimony and public comment, the committee moved the bill and voted in favor. The committee chair said he had read the dissenting opinion but supported the statutory clarification as a sensible housekeeping measure. The committee approved the measure by voice vote and moved it out of committee.
