Long hearing on 'parental bill of rights' lays out deep partisan and policy divisions

Representative Packard and Representative DeSimone presented an amended version of House Bill 10 — a proposed parental “bill of rights” — and asked the Children and Family Law Committee to advance a replacement amendment clarifying parents’ rights regarding education, health care and school information.

Packard told the committee the measure is intended to “establish a framework of parental rights regarding the upbringing, education, and care of their minor unemancipated children” and to require schools to notify parents and preserve their access to records. Representative DeSimone, who described herself as a long-serving advocate on the topic, said the amendment narrows the original language and aims for clearer yearly consent forms, access to school and medical records for parents, and opt-out rights for instruction parents find objectionable.

Supporters argued the bill responds to real concerns about schools, third-party educational technology and parental access to information. Anne Marie Banfield, a parental-rights advocate, said student data collected by vendors can be sold and repurposed, and cited public reports alleging data misuse by education-technology firms. James Marcus, a longtime fathers'-rights and grandparents'-rights advocate, said the measure helps parents who otherwise feel shut out of school decisions.

Opponents said the amended bill still contains vague and potentially harmful provisions. Sam Hawkins of NAMI New Hampshire told the committee, “I wanna be clear from the outset that NAMI, New Hampshire is not taking a position on this bill,” but urged careful drafting to avoid impeding clinicians’ ability to withhold records when disclosure would place a child at risk. The New Hampshire Medical Society warned that the measure’s health-consent clauses would require written parental consent for many services and could “create delays in treatment and potentially dissuade minors from seeking care.” The American Federation of Teachers–New Hampshire and the NEA New Hampshire warned the bill could chill classroom instruction, increase burdens on understaffed districts, and open educators to disciplinary action under vaguely defined standards.

Several parents and students told the committee they oppose provisions that would obligate school staff to disclose or to require parental consent before a child can access services or speak privately to a trusted adult. Student and community speakers said outed youth risk homelessness, abuse, or removal from supportive environments; one student speaker urged the committee to vote ITL on the bill for the sake of children's mental health. Representatives who serve on school boards and who have worked in education warned the committee that local curriculum and school-board authority are the standard mechanisms for resolving disputes over materials and instruction.

Cornerstone Legal — which works on religious- and family-law issues — cautioned the committee that a prior Senate parents-bill draft (Senate Bill 272, 2023) had been carefully negotiated and that passing a different parents’ bill without attention to consequences could close off legal avenues to challenge district policies the group opposes.

Committee members asked many detailed questions about interactions with federal and state confidentiality statutes, how the amendment would treat medical consent for 14- to 17-year-olds, whether the measure would apply to private and charter schools, and whether “the parent” language could be weaponized by outsiders. Several lawmakers said the text needs more work; the chair scheduled the bill for executive-session consideration later in March.