Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Welfare Legally Liable Relative topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HB 132 to limit municipal enforcement against relatives for welfare aid
Summary
Rep. Rick Ladd introduced HB 132 to scale back a long‑standing law allowing towns to seek reimbursement from 'legally liable' relatives for local welfare aid; committee discussion highlighted a Piermont case that prompted the bill and differing views on whether to repeal the statute entirely.
Representative Rick Ladd told the House Children and Family Law Committee that House Bill 132 would revise New Hampshire’s law on municipal reimbursement for local welfare aid by limiting enforcement against legally liable relatives.
Ladd described a case in Piermont, a small town in his district (population about 700), where a resident received a letter from town officials demanding payment to support a distant relative who was receiving local welfare aid. Under current RSA language, a town may seek reimbursement from specified relatives — "father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, son, daughter, husband or wife" — and earlier versions of the statute included criminal-contempt language and potential jail time for nonpayment. Ladd said the provision dates back to the 1920s and that the bill removes language that allowed further court action leading to imprisonment; the judiciary committee’s recommended amendment narrows enforcement to seeking reimbursement without the threat of incarceration.
Todd Marsh, president of the New Hampshire Local Welfare Administrators Association, testified in support of the amendment. He said enforcement is rare, that sending a demand without reviewing ability to pay is inappropriate and that the change restores reasonableness while preserving local authorities’ ability to seek reimbursement when warranted.
Committee members raised concerns about unintended consequences. Senator Sullivan said families affected by addiction sometimes sever ties to protect themselves and that forcing contribution could re‑traumatize relatives. Representative Markel and others suggested the statute is a relic of older social policy and noted legal defenses and procedural limits on enforcement in practice.
No formal committee vote on HB 132 is recorded in the hearing transcript. Committee members asked staff and sponsors questions about the scope of change and whether the statute should be repealed entirely; Ladd said he would be "glad to see the whole darn chapter eliminated" but supported the judiciary committee amendment as a narrower fix.
