NH House family-court subcommittee assigns study groups to examine mediation, pro se materials, recordings and structure of family court

Subcommittee Chairman Mark Pearson called the meeting to order and opened the Family Court Subcommittee of the New Hampshire House Children and Family Law Committee to organize study work on family court practice and to comment on House Bill 652. "For the record, I am subcommittee chairman Mark Pearson," he said, adding that the group would draw on testimony collected by a prior special committee and on attorney research available to the panel.

The subcommittee agreed to retain House Bill 652 as a working document while also pursuing additional changes to the family court system. The chair described two broad study areas: pretrial work (how to help litigants reach agreement and who provides that help) and trial practice (court structure, evidence rules and judge training). He said the subcommittee would split topics into small, two-person working groups that may meet over the summer and report back in September.

Why it matters: family-court procedure affects litigants’ access to justice and how quickly cases move through the system. The panel emphasized changes aimed at reducing unnecessary trials and improving outcomes for parties who appear without lawyers.

Discussion highlights and assigned work

Mark Pearson described the subcommittee’s approach as collaborative and noted the prior special committee’s work that produced 12 hours of public testimony. He said the seven-member subcommittee is drawn from the larger 16-member Children and Family Law Committee and will both comment on HB 652 and pursue related reforms. Pearson summarized pretrial topics to study: alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and mediation; qualifications, training and supervision for mediators; counseling and therapy options for litigants (including treatment for PTSD where applicable); and improved materials and forms for pro se litigants developed with the New Hampshire Bar Association.

Representative Raymond and Representative Gregg were assigned to study ADR and mediation training/supervision. Representatives Markell and DeSimone were paired to examine counseling and therapy options. Representative Gregg and Representative Nelson will review materials and the ongoing improvements to court forms and pro se guidance, with Pearson listed as an informal participant. On trial issues, Representative Gregg and Representative Rice were asked to study the intersection of domestic violence and marital issues heard in separate courts; Representative Markell and Chairman Pearson were assigned rules-of-evidence questions. Representatives Nelson and DeSimone were paired to examine the cost and accessibility of trial transcripts and the reliability of courtroom recordings.

The group deferred a final decision on whether to keep a dedicated family-division court or return family matters to superior courts until subcommittees report their findings; Pearson said that should be a full-subcommittee discussion after the investigative work is complete.

Recording technology, transcript costs and budget context

Erin Cregan, general counsel for the court system, described current recording practices and staffing differences between superior court and circuit court. "We haven't had a change to the recording technology that we use in circuit," Cregan said, explaining that superior courts have court monitors assigned to preserve the record while circuit courts rely on court security officers to start and stop recordings and that the system lacks dedicated transcribing staff. She said private companies currently provide transcription services and that paying for those services is a fee-for-service model rather than a government-provided product.

Committee members raised concerns that transcripts can be costly for pro se litigants. Cregan outlined two broad ways to address that cost: the state could absorb some transcription costs or the courts could hire staff to provide transcription, each of which would have budgetary implications. During discussion someone noted the current draft budget at the time included about a 7% operating reduction for the courts and that courts complete cases at a reported average cost of roughly $900 per case, which frames the fiscal choices the judiciary faces.

Open-meeting rules and logistics

Members discussed logistics for two-person working groups and whether such meetings would run afoul of RSA 91‑A (the state’s right-to-know law). The Clerk of the House (Mister Clark) advised that a subcommittee of seven requires four members for a quorum; meetings of fewer than that do not constitute a legal meeting under RSA 91‑A. The chair said the intent was to have small working pairs do fact-finding and bring findings back to the larger subcommittee so public-meeting requirements and transparency would be respected.

Timeline and next steps

Chairman Pearson asked subcommittees to work over the summer and report back in September. Attorney Grant, the committee researcher, will provide testimony and prior documents from the special committee and will assist subgroups seeking materials from other states or court systems. The chair encouraged members to observe local court proceedings and to consult judges, prosecutors and other stakeholders as part of their fact-finding.

No formal motions or recorded roll-call votes took place during the meeting. Assignments and the retention of House Bill 652 for comment were made by consensus and through the chair’s direction. The subcommittees are to reconvene and present interim reports in September.