Judiciary panel advances bill letting parents seek restraining orders for minors abused outside the home

The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend passage of HB 187-FN, a bill that would allow parents or guardians to file restraining or protective orders on behalf of their minor children against alleged abusers who are not members of the child—s family or household.

Representative Robert Belcher, who introduced the bill, told the committee he brought the legislation after a constituent described being unable to obtain a restraining order to protect a child. "Presently ... the courts have interpreted a prohibition on parents filing for restraining orders on behalf of their children in most cases, in all cases outside of the household," Belcher said, arguing the change "deletes a little language so the courts can take a look at it and say, well, we are not going to prohibit parents from filing restraining orders on behalf of their own children." He added, "Children should never be more vulnerable than adults by law."

At the public hearing, Tracy Searls of East Wakefield testified that her attempt to file a protection order on behalf of a child in her care was rejected at the clerk—s office because the alleged abuser was not a household or family member. "The way the law currently stands, a minor must file for a restraining order for themselves no matter their age or their intellectual abilities," Searls said, describing the courthouse direction she received after state police advised her to seek a protection order.

Committee members discussed the law—s current language and court interpretation. Several members noted that under the present reading, a parent may file when the abuser is a household or family member but not for third parties outside the household, which forces many minors to pursue protection on their own. A committee member and a witness explained the bill—s intent is to remove that limitation so adults can use the same set of restraining-order statutes to protect children.

The committee put the bill to a motion of "ought to pass," which was seconded; members voted in favor and recorded the bill as recommended to pass. No roll-call tally was recorded in committee minutes provided at the hearing.

If enacted, the bill would amend the Child Protection Act language (RSA 169-C:7-a) as it applies to parental petitions for protective orders, and staff and members said they may refine definitions or related statutory cross-references before floor consideration.

Proponents asked the committee to consider tightening definitions of abuse in later amendments; committee members said they would continue to review definitions and consult stakeholders before floor action.