House bill to update abuse-and-neglect definitions draws broad debate over substance-exposure, psychological harm

Representative Alicia Gregg, prime sponsor of the bill to update New Hampshire's child protection statute, told the Children and Family Law Committee the state's foundational abuse-and-neglect definitions had not been modernized in 45 years and said the change would let courts and the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) move earlier to keep families safe. "For 45 years, this has sat with not a good or, robust revision on what defines abuse and neglect in our state," Gregg said.

The bill would (1) expand the statutory definitions of abuse and neglect to explicitly include emotional and psychological harms and developmental risk, (2) create a set of rebuttable presumptions of harm (for example, unexplained serious injury to a non-ambulatory infant and parental substance exposure paired with demonstrable harm), and (3) add a definition for trauma-informed care.

Cassandra Sanchez, the state Child Advocate, said OCA and the stakeholders who worked on the earlier study recommended the changes after reviewing cases in which DCYF's legal authority and court standards left workers unable to intervene before children suffered further injury. "We did some work with the field administrators at DCYF, a little over a year ago, and they sent us over 30 case examples where they filed in court and the judge did not uphold their finding," Sanchez said. She and other supporters said the revisions are aimed at earlier, civil interventions and at directing cases to evidence-based, trauma-informed services rather than criminal prosecutions.

DCYF General Counsel Susan Larrabee and Deputy Director Jennifer Ross told the committee the division does not oppose the proposed changes and said the agency has worked with stakeholders to refine language. "We are not in opposition to this bill," Larrabee said, adding that the bill does not change parents' due-process rights and is intended to clarify definitions DCYF uses when deciding whether to open an investigation or petition the courts.

Sergeant Brian Fleming of the Manchester Police juvenile unit testified in support, saying the presumptions and the explicit inclusion of psychological harm would allow law enforcement and DCYF to get services in place earlier to try to prevent more serious criminal outcomes. "By shifting the burden to the responsible party to demonstrate the child's safety is not compromised, we can intervene earlier and potentially prevent any further harm to the child," Fleming said.

Health-care and maternal-health witnesses urged the committee to narrow specific language tying newborn substance exposure to neglect. Paige Beauchmann, a registered nurse with years of maternal-child experience, and several clinicians and hospitals warned that language which equates a positive newborn toxicology test with neglect could deter pregnant people from seeking prenatal care and addiction treatment. "Defining substance use in and of itself in any way as neglect or abuse is not how we would define it clinically," Beauchmann said. Providers and Dartmouth Health asked the committee to remove or rework the clause that treats a child "born alcohol or substance exposed" as a neglect indicator unless the exposure is under medical supervision and demonstrably harmful.

Opponents also raised constitutional and procedural objections that family-court proceedings already risk both under- and over-intervention; some former court insiders and parents urged stronger review and oversight of how petitions and ex parte removals are handled, and requested more rapid, independent review mechanisms for removal orders.

The committee did not take a final vote on the bill. Representative Gregg and OCA staff said the version the committee received included drafting artifacts that were not intended; the sponsor has circulated an agreed amendment (2025-0114h) to reflect the stakeholder-vetted language and the committee heard further technical questions about that amendment during the session. If advanced, the bill would proceed to executive session for a committee vote.

Ending: Supporters and skeptics framed the measure as a prevention-oriented clarification of 169-C, but several clinicians and maternal-health advocates urged the committee to remove or rewrite provisions about prenatal substance exposure to avoid deterring treatment and prenatal care.