Sponsor seeks stronger parental involvement in bullying interventions; disability advocates and juvenile services warn of unintended consequences

Representative Peter Leishman introduced House Bill 384 as an additional tool to encourage parental involvement when schools respond to bullying. "There's extensive laws in place right now to deal with bullying but there's really nothing to prod the parents or the guardians in to discuss any remediation activities," Leishman told the committee.

Leishman's bill would require a bullying officer tied to the school and propose mandated parental attendance at education sessions after an incident. He said the proposal is intended to provide another nonpunitive option for schools to involve families.

Karen Rosenberg, policy director at the Disability Rights Center of New Hampshire, testified in opposition. Rosenberg said existing statute already requires schools to maintain anti-bullying policies, call both parents and investigate, and implement evidence-based interventions when appropriate. She warned the bill could have the opposite effect by creating a pathway into the juvenile justice system: "By creating a position of bullying officer ... [this] is going to now be in a position of sending more kids into our juvenile justice system," Rosenberg said, adding that parents of children with communication or developmental disabilities sometimes face investigations when behavioral differences are misinterpreted as bullying.

Representatives of the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) described how child-in-need-of-services (CHINS) petitions work and said adding a new CHINS trigger based on repeated bullying would likely increase referrals handled by juvenile probation and parole officers. Amy McCormack, juvenile justice administrator at DCYF, described voluntary services assessments and said families can decline voluntary participation; if they do, a district may then file a CHINS petition that can result in court involvement and assigned probation.

Testimony from school administrators and local parents stressed that many districts already have detailed policies (sample policy JICK was cited) and that school boards typically appoint investigators. School boards and the New Hampshire School Boards Association said districts must adopt local policies but opposed changes that would effectively route more students into court processes. Several parents and local officials who spoke said they favor parent engagement but questioned whether mandated classes or creation of a new statutory officer would improve outcomes.

Committee members asked technical questions about credentialing for any new officer, how the bill would interact with existing statutes (RSA 193-F), and whether the bill would increase CHINS filings. DCYF and Disability Rights Center asked the committee to consider alternate approaches that strengthen school-family engagement without creating mandatory court referrals.

Ending: The committee closed the public hearing and signaled the need for additional drafting and review to avoid unintended pathways into the juvenile justice system before considering a recommendation.