Committee hears bill to shorten DCYF retention of unfounded abuse reports from 10 to 3 years

Chairman James Spillane opened a Feb. 11 hearing on House Bill 430, a proposal to shorten the retention period for DCYF records of unfounded abuse and neglect reports. The bill as presented would reduce the period for records labeled “unfounded” from 10 years to 3 years; screened-out reports would remain at the current 4-year retention period.

Supporters framed the change as relief for families that say an unfounded report can hang over them for years. Representative Greg told the committee a long retention period can feel like “a sword of Damocles” for families who were never found responsible for abuse. “Three years gives the chance that it can go away before another report is falsely made against a family,” he said.

The Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) and DCYF opposed the bill in testimony, saying access to prior calls or screened-out reports is important for spotting patterns that can lead to serious critical-incident reviews. Cassandra Sanchez, Child Advocate for the State of New Hampshire, told the committee that OCA uses the DCYF case-management history to identify trends and that many critical incidents reviewed had prior contacts that were initially screened out. “We always see that there has been prior history at the point of going to a critical incident,” Sanchez said. She added that the OCA accesses DCYF internal records under a confidentiality memorandum of understanding.

Susan Larrabee, general counsel for DCYF, explained statutory uses of unfounded reports in agency practice and court proceedings. She cited language added in 2017 to RSA 169–C that allows evidence of prior unfounded reports to be admitted “in order to establish a relevant pattern or course of conduct,” and noted agency statutes directing reviewers to determine whether family members were named in prior reports. Larrabee also flagged an internal inconsistency in the bill as written: a screened-out referral currently stays in the system for 4 years while an unfounded report that had been screened in would be shortened to 3 years under the proposal.

Committee members asked whether “unfounded” necessarily means a false report and whether records are publicly accessible. Witnesses repeatedly said the records are not public: Larrabee and Sanchez described the central registry and internal DCYF database protections and said access is narrowly limited, with parents able to see their own records but general public access barred.

No formal action was taken. The hearing record included data distributed by OCA showing that many families have prior referrals and that historical records can be important for both spotting malicious repeat reporting and for building the full picture of a child’s experience.

The bill drew a mix of sympathy for families and concern from child-safety professionals who use historical data for trend analysis and serious-incident review. The committee left the hearing open for amendments and further study.