Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Military Protective Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary hears bill to admit military protective orders in civilian courts; committee votes not to pass
Summary
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 62, which would allow military protective orders to be admitted as evidence in civilian domestic violence proceedings and authorize travel funds for victims; the committee voted in executive session not to pass the bill.
The New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday heard testimony on HB 62, a bill that would make military protective orders admissible as evidence in civilian domestic violence proceedings and authorize limited travel funds for victims to participate in related administrative proceedings. In executive session the committee voted a "not to pass" recommendation on the bill.
The bill’s sponsor in the House, Representative Terry Roy, said the change was requested by the U.S. Department of Defense and intended to bridge a jurisdictional gap: "a military commander can issue a a abuse protection order, but that order is only good on the base or other military US property," Roy told the committee. He and DoD and National Guard witnesses said that currently those orders lose enforceability when a service member or victim leaves military property.
Melissa Willette, New England region liaison for the Defense State Liaison Office, testified that admitting Military Protective Orders (MPOs) into state court would "ensure consistent safety across jurisdictions" for a population that relocates frequently, and argued the change would "enhance both resilience and readiness" for service members and families. Nicole Desilis Vixler, deputy adjutant general for the New Hampshire Department of Military Affairs and Veteran Services, explained the bill would also permit the Adjutant General to provide travel funds from the state general fund to assist victims participating in adverse administrative proceedings.
Pamela Kiley, public policy specialist at the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, told the committee the coalition supports HB 62 and summarized its two principal provisions: recognition/definition of a "military protective order" within RSA 173-B and access to financial assistance for National Guard members who must attend legal proceedings. Major Ryan Alles, associate general counsel for the New Hampshire National Guard, testified that while New Hampshire law arguably allows MPOs' admission when judges find them relevant, the bill would make admissibility clear to victims and courts.
Support also came from the State Veterans Advisory Committee. Kevin Grady, representing the committee, said in testimony the change would help make protection more seamless between military and civilian systems for families.
In executive session the committee moved and approved a "not to pass" recommendation on HB 62. Committee members did not read a roll-call vote on the record at the public portion of the hearing; committee chairs indicated the "not to pass" motion carried with five affirmative voices in executive session.
The hearing record contains technical and policy discussion about the bill’s scope, the source of travel funds (witnesses said travel costs would be charged to the state general fund), and whether judges already have discretion to admit MPOs under RSA 173-B. No additional formal directions to staff were recorded in the public hearing minutes.
