Committee hears competing views on adding parental mental or medical conditions as custody factor

Representative Ball opened the Children and Family Law Committee hearing on House Bill 285 by telling members the bill would “add words to remind judges to make sure that they're looking at a full environment for children, and it asks judges to look at, as another factor, any known mental health, conditions that could interfere with parenting.”

The bill would insert health conditions — including mental health conditions — among factors a court may consider in determining parental rights and responsibilities. Ball and several supporters urged the panel to adopt language giving judges a prompt to ask whether anything in a parent's current health might affect their ability to parent, and to allow judges to order evaluations when indicated.

Those who opposed the bill argued it would single out people with mental illness and encourage stigma. Sarah Horn, a NAMI New Hampshire board member and parent, told the committee, “I am proof that recovery is possible and that my history of mental illness has no bearing on my ability to parent.” Holly Stevens, NAMI New Hampshire's director of public policy, said the group opposes language that would let courts consider a parent’s mental-health diagnosis “regardless of that condition's impact on the person's ability to parent,” calling the proposal discriminatory.

Licensed clinical mental-health counselor Kevin Blanchett told lawmakers he was concerned the amendment would “presume somebody having a mental health condition makes them lesser of a parent,” and that people might avoid treatment for fear the information could later be used against them. Karen Rosenberg, policy director at the Disability Rights Center of New Hampshire, said singling out mental health — or any health condition — was unnecessary because current New Hampshire law already lets courts consider a range of parenting-related factors.

Representative Ball and other backers said their goal is narrow: to make sure judges remember to ask whether a parent’s current health needs, if any, should be considered when fashioning parenting plans and protective guardrails. Ball repeatedly emphasized the sponsor did not intend judges to seek private medical records, saying the amendment “would just provide the opportunity for a judge to ask a question. No more than that.”

Committee members pressed on practical limits. Representative Raymond and others questioned how judges would reliably learn about untreated conditions; Ball replied judges can order psychological evaluations when warranted, and that the change is meant to give judges permission and an explicit reminder to look beyond immediate surface behavior. Several members suggested education of judges, rather than a statutory rewrite, might address perceived gaps in practice.

The hearing included multiple accounts from family-court observers who said unrepresented parties often lack the tools to get background information before the court, and some witnesses urged stronger language to require inquiry rather than merely allowing it. Opponents warned that broadly phrased language could be weaponized in high-conflict custody cases.

No vote on HB 285 was recorded at the hearing. Committee members said they would consider amendments and return to the bill in executive session.