Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grandparent Visitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grandparents and advocates urge changes to visitation law after testimony of alienation cases
Summary
House Bill 486 would expand circumstances for grandparent visitation to protect relationships when families separate but are not yet divorced; witnesses described prolonged alienation and urged courts be able to preserve meaningful bonds for children.
The Children and Family Law Committee heard extensive testimony on House Bill 486, which would amend New Hampshire's grandparent-visitation statute to clarify the circumstances that can support visitation and to recognize separate living arrangements as a basis for custody or continued access when parents are separated but not divorced.
Representative Joey Nelson, who introduced the bill, said he drafted the changes after receiving constituent accounts of long, costly proceedings and situations where grandparents were cut out of children's lives while divorce or reunification proceedings were ongoing. He said the bill adds "separate living arrangements" to the statute and clarifies the nature-of-relationship criteria to reflect modern custody and kinship-care realities, including grandparents who temporarily care for children while parents address substance-use disorders or other challenges.
Numerous grandparents and kinship caregivers testified in favor. Deborah Smarr and several other witnesses described active caregiving roles that ended after parental separation and said current law leaves them without meaningful recourse until a final divorce decree. "Outside of their parents, my husband and I have been the most consistent and supportive presence in our grandchildren's lives," Smarr said, adding that current timing rules can delay or deny access for years.
Several witnesses described litigation problems they said the bill would address. Stacy Tarosian described a case in which she said a new judge, assigned at a later hearing, dismissed her case on grounds that access had been restricted before a divorce was finalized. She said she had been granted visitation in prior hearings and that the late-stage dismissal left her with no path to regain court-ordered access. Her testimony urged the committee to revise the statute so judges do not use the timing of a restriction to bar grandparents outright.
Some members of the committee and witnesses suggested clarifying language to avoid unintended reopening of very old decrees; Representative Timothy Horrigan recalled the Supreme Court case Miller v. Todd while urging careful drafting.
No committee vote occurred on HB 486 during the session. Supporters urged the committee to refine statutory wording so courts could order enforcement (including contempt remedies) and to remove language that would allow a judge to bar visitation purely because access had been restricted prior to divorce. Several witnesses recommended adding explicit enforcement language to ensure court-ordered visitations were followed.
The committee took testimony from a large group of grandparents and kinship caregivers; members asked for drafting tweaks and for language that would preserve parental rights while protecting ongoing grandparent-child bonds when separation, temporary guardianship or kinship care are involved.
