Long hearing on parental‑rights bill: sponsors say it restores trust; opponents say it risks outing vulnerable students

The House Children and Family Law Committee heard extensive testimony on Senate Bill 72, a proposed parental‑rights statute that would require public schools to notify parents annually of enumerated rights and impose a process schools must follow before withholding information from parents.

Senator Tim Lang, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure is intended to restore trust between parents and schools: “the primary, the beginning of all of this starts with the parent trusting the school system,” he told the committee. The bill lists specific parental rights and creates a procedure for school officials who believe a “compelling state interest” justifies withholding information from a parent; the bill would require clear‑and‑convincing justification before records or information could be withheld.

Opponents said the bill could force schools to disclose sensitive information that could place students at risk. David Trummell of Ware told the committee the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Doe v. Manchester (Aug. 30, 2024) found parental rights in school settings are not unqualified and said schools can, in some circumstances, withhold information in the child’s interest. "This bill is going too far," Trummell said, adding that mandatory disclosure “is gonna make a school a place where children won't want to have those conversations with trusted adults because they're afraid they will have to tell their parents everything they hear.”

Multiple committee members and witnesses debated competing concerns: whether the statutory standard for withholding (clear and convincing evidence of a compelling state interest) was appropriate, how the measure would interact with mandated‑reporting obligations for suspected abuse or neglect, and whether the statute would remove discretion schools need when students seek guidance.

Sponsor Lang and supporters argued the bill does not displace mandatory reporters or criminal investigations and that it simply requires a written, documented process and higher evidentiary threshold before a school withholds information from a parent. Several lawmakers and witnesses raised scenarios — including a student telling a teacher the student is gay and asking the teacher not to tell a parent — and debated whether the bill would expose children to harm in those scenarios.

Opponents urged the committee to preserve the ability of schools to exercise professional judgment and to avoid a one‑size‑fits‑all mandate that could produce forced disclosures leading to children being homeless or at risk. Multiple witnesses urged caution and recommended narrower language or additional guardrails; committee members asked staff to draft clarifying edits.

The committee debated an amendment during the hearing and agreed to continue work on technical language; transcript shows the committee intended further review and possible amendment before final action.