Committee votes ITL on bill to move family-division cases back to superior court

The New Hampshire House Children and Family Law Committee voted to recommend inexpedient to legislate (ITL) on HB652-FN, a bill that would have transferred jurisdiction over family matters from the family division of the circuit court back to the superior court.

Representative Pearson, chairman of the committee's subcommittee on the family division, argued that the family division was created and later extended because it addresses litigants' needs more effectively than superior court. "The family division operates in 32 locations across the state and handles over 18,000 cases annually," Pearson said, and he warned that moving those cases to superior court would overwhelm dockets and remove specialized expertise.

The bill drew sharp debate. Representative Law said he would vote against ITL and preferred an interim study to refine reforms, noting procedural and rule concerns in family court practice. "I'd rather see an interim study," Law said. Representative Gregg, who has worked on the special committee reviewing the family division, acknowledged mistakes can occur but said abolishing the division was not the right remedy and supported keeping specialized courts with targeted reforms.

Representative Corzine and others told the committee they had heard constituents' complaints about access, evidence rules and perceived bias; Corzine described public distrust of the courts and argued oversight and improvements were needed. Representative Pearson described ongoing reforms, including new forms and expanded mediation, and said that appeals and statistical review are the proper remedies for problematic rulings.

After discussion, the committee recorded a committee vote on the ITL motion. The clerk announced: "On the motion of ITL, the vote is 12 to 2. The motion passes." Members recorded as voting yes include Representative Pearson, Representative McMahon, Representative Nelson, Representative Bridal, Representative Markel, Representative Petrino, Representative Sher, Representative Levette, Representative Greg, Representative Raymond, Representative Georges and the chair; Representatives Love and Corson were recorded as no.

The committee's majority recommendation means the bill is not advancing in its current form. Several members urged continued work by the special committee and its subcommittee on targeted reforms such as increased mediation, improved forms for pro se litigants and statistical review of judicial performance.

Supporters of reform said more resources' notably more mediation and judicial capacity' would be needed to address systemic problems without dismantling the family division. Opponents of abolishing the family division said existing oversight channels and ongoing rule and practice changes are preferable to wholesale jurisdictional change.

The hearing record shows robust debate but no final legislative change on the floor at this hearing; proponents of change were encouraged to continue work through the committee process and interim study efforts.