Subcommittee narrows focus on definitions in House Bill 553 amid concerns about emotional abuse language and substance‑exposed newborns

A legislative subcommittee reviewing House Bill 553 — legislation to revise definitions of child abuse and neglect — spent its meeting debating how to define psychological or emotional maltreatment and whether new language about substance‑exposed newborns could discourage pregnant people from seeking prenatal care.

The discussion brought testimony from Division for Children, Youth & Families officials, the Office of the Child Advocate, health‑system representatives and nonprofit advocates. Jen Ross, deputy director of the Division for Children, Youth & Families, told the panel that "psychological abuse is defined as reports where a child suffers or is likely to suffer psychological, emotional harm as a result of parental behaviors." Ross said screeners consider both the caregiver's actions or inactions and the impact on the child, pointing to examples such as "persistent and severe ridiculing, terrorizing, bullying, isolating."

The bill’s advocates said the change is meant to clarify and modernize statutory definitions adopted piecemeal over decades, not to expand the agency’s authority to remove children. "The purpose section ... focuses on the fact that preserving the unity of the family is the primary purpose," Lisa Maschio, associate child advocate, told the committee, summarizing the Office of the Child Advocate's view that the amendments are intended to help keep families intact by identifying when services are needed.

But health‑care providers and recovery advocates warned that some draft language that treats a newborn’s substance exposure as a trigger for referrals is ambiguous and may have unintended consequences. Michelle Merritt, president of New Futures, said advocates worry the wording could "subject OB‑GYNs as well as social workers and others to report women who have children at home who are also pregnant for abuse and neglect," and that fear of reporting can deter prenatal care. A Dartmouth Health government‑relations official raised a similar point, saying institutional general counsel may interpret the statute conservatively and order referrals in borderline cases.

Legal and agency staff told the committee the bill is primarily definitional. Susan Larrabee, general counsel for DCYF, said the legislature added a statutory definition for psychological maltreatment in 2021 and the division has corresponding policies. "Serious impairment means a substantial weakening or diminishment of a child's emotional, physical, or mental health or of a child's safety and well‑being," Larrabee said, noting the current effort aims to make the statute more understandable to parents, courts and reporters.

Committee members pressed agency staff on how routine parenting actions would be screened. Representative Greg asked whether grounding a child or taking away privileges could be treated as abuse; Ross answered that such acts are typically "prudent parenting" and would not be screened in unless they rose to extreme, persistent or harmful behavior, such as locking a child in a room for days. On gender‑affirming care, Ross said the division would examine the whole context — the parent’s conduct and the child’s emotional outcome — and that withholding consent for gender‑affirming care alone would generally not meet the statutory standard for neglect.

On substance‑exposed newborns, committee members and providers discussed a provision that applies when a newborn shows exposure at birth unless the exposure is the result of prescribed, monitored medication. Committee members asked the health‑system representative and advocates to provide suggested wording to narrow ambiguity about when referrals should be required. Ross and other witnesses described the relevant practice as "exposure plus" — exposure at birth combined with additional indicators of risk — and said the intent is to catch infants at acute risk while not penalizing pregnant people who are in treatment.

The committee discussed process and next steps rather than taking formal action. Members agreed not to send draft language to the Office of Legislative Services until they consolidate amendments into a single package. The panel scheduled another subcommittee meeting for the first Monday in March and asked Dartmouth Health and New Futures to provide tightened language and any state‑comparison research within roughly two weeks so staff can circulate it before the next meeting.

The meeting highlighted three practical tensions: the desire to clarify statutory language so agencies, courts and families can apply it consistently; the need to preserve parental‑decision‑making where routine discipline or disagreement is not abuse; and the risk that ambiguous wording about substance exposure could deter prenatal care. Agency witnesses urged the committee to allow the division’s updated policies, training and attorney review to inform how definitions are applied once a change becomes law.

Next steps: the committee requested revised, narrower drafting on the substance‑exposed newborn language, distributed materials on trauma‑informed definitions, and scheduled a follow‑up subcommittee meeting for the first Monday in March. No votes or final committee recommendations were recorded at the session.