Committee advances bill to expand felony options for severe child endangerment after debate over vagueness and intent standard

The House Children and Family Law Committee advanced Senate Bill 23 after a day of testimony that split law‑enforcement and child‑protection advocates from some parents and executive‑branch officials over how broadly to define endangering the welfare of a child.

Senator Pat Long, the bill’s prime sponsor, said the measure would “expand what constitutes endangering the welfare of a child by adding additional violative conduct,” arguing the change would give prosecutors and judges tools to address the most egregious cases that now may be treated only as misdemeanors.

Manchester Police witnesses and Nashua—identified in testimony as “Nashville” in the transcript—urged passage with graphic examples. Detective‑sergeant Ryan Runyon outlined cases his department had investigated, including an 11‑year‑old who ingested fentanyl and a six‑year‑old left outside for 36 minutes in cold weather; Runyon testified those matters resulted only in misdemeanor endangerment charges under the existing statute.

Nicholas Georgoulis, identified in testimony as a Manchester officer with juvenile and domestic units, said the bill “is designed to delineate between what we already deal with… and some of the most egregious cases,” and stressed the statute still requires a mens rea of knowingly in other subsections. He said the measure would allow prosecutors to pursue felony charges in severe cases such as prolonged squalor or sustained neglect.

Executive Counselor Dave Wheeler of the Governor’s council testified in opposition and warned the bill’s language is vague. He described a Manchester case in which a woman was arrested after police concluded that a gun in a glove compartment with children in the car amounted to endangerment; charges were later dropped, he said, and he warned the proposed language could lead to unintended consequences and “disaster” if not tightened.

Several witnesses, including the Office of the Child Advocate and the Children’s Law Center, supported SB 23 as narrowly tailored and said current statutory language can leave prosecutors and courts without appropriate felony options in the most serious cases. Lisa Macio of the Office of the Child Advocate told the committee that courts and prosecutors “are often finding their hands tied” and that felony options in other states are a model for New Hampshire.

Opponents, including Donald Gilbert and public commenters, urged retaining the term “purposely” and narrowing language to avoid penalizing parents for accidents or to avoid excess prosecutorial discretion. Several lawmakers questioned removing the higher intent word; sponsors and law‑enforcement witnesses said the statute already includes the mens rea of knowingly and that would remain in place.

After deliberation in executive session, the committee voted to recommend SB 23 “ought to pass.” The recorded committee motion was moved by Representative Greg and seconded by Representative DeSimone; the roll call recorded 15 yes, 0 no.

Committee discussion focused on: the difference between “knowingly” and “purposely,” the bill’s intended reach (egregious squalor, repeated conduct, and incidents producing or risking serious bodily injury), and the concern that broadly worded statutes could be applied in unintended ways without clarifying definitions or guardrails.

The bill’s supporters said the measure would give prosecutors a felony option used in other states for cases involving severe, prolonged neglect; opponents asked the committee to narrow or clarify the language, add examples, or require additional definitional precision before the bill moved to the full House.