Legislative subcommittee launches review of family court structure, schedules meetings and requests judicial records

Representative Pearson, chair of the Children and Family Law Committee subcommittee on family court, opened an organizational meeting to begin a legislative review of the state's family court and related practices and scheduled follow-up meetings for April 1 and April 8.

The subcommittee will examine three initial topics: whether family-court judges should be specialized or assigned to a single courtroom; whether mediation before trial should be mandatory or remain voluntary and what training mediators should have; and how to address cases that appear in both criminal or superior court (for domestic violence) and family court (for custody and support). "This subcommittee's work will build upon the good work done over the past 2 years by the special committee on the family division of circuit court," Pearson said as he opened the session.

The judicial branch provided background and offered to supply materials and expert witnesses. Erin Kriegen, general counsel for the judicial branch, said the branch will provide documents from in-house researchers and outside groups, including work by the National Conference of State Legislators. "I'm the general counsel for the judicial branch," Kriegen told the subcommittee, and offered to bring additional staff and judges to future meetings as the group requested.

Judge Michael Mace, a circuit court judge who appeared with Kriegen, gave a detailed history of the family division and the later circuit court structure, citing constitutional provisions and statutes that underpin the courts in New Hampshire. "I sit before you as a statutory creature. I am your creation," Judge Mace said when explaining the judiciary's constitutional and statutory foundation. He reviewed the origins of the family-division experiment in the 1990s, the statutory provisions in RSA 490-d that shaped the family division, and the later consolidation under RSA 490-f that created the circuit court combining family, district and probate functions.

Judicial-branch updates and program status included:

- Guardian ad Litem fund: the branch secured a federal grant to subsidize guardian ad litem services in four locations; individual litigants in those sites may receive up to $2,000 in services in eligible cases.

- Form simplification: redesigned court forms are in field testing; the branch expects to gather feedback around April 1 and may expand testing afterward.

- Judicial training: shadowing of experienced judges and monthly trainings focused on family-law topics have been expanded; the branch has also changed court rules to clarify notice requirements for minor-guardianship matters.

- Family access motion: the branch reported positive feedback on the statutory family access motion and noted statutory timeframes intended to expedite certain access disputes.

Judge Mace told the subcommittee that the circuit court now has 32 locations statewide and that the branch recently reached full judicial staffing. "We were just fully staffed according to our own case study in November of last year," he said, adding that about 60% of the sitting circuit-court judges were appointed after 2020. He also cautioned that geographic coverage and the circuit court's wide map make single-judge continuity for every family difficult in practice.

On public participation, the chair and several members said the special committee that preceded this subcommittee took many hours of testimony and that this committee intends to focus on solutions rather than reopening broad public testimony. Representative Rice said she preferred broad committee participation and encouraged emailed submissions from constituents with recent, specific concerns.

Members asked for archival and working documents. Judge Mace and Kriegen agreed to help identify and provide historical reports, study materials, and indexes from prior committees (including material compiled by former Judge David King) and to supply copies or PDFs through the subcommittee's researcher. Representative DeSimone asked that the materials be entered into the committee record.

The meeting also included questions about accountability and complaint processes. When asked how the public should raise concerns about a judge's conduct, Judge Mace explained two primary avenues: appeal of an adverse decision for alleged legal error and referral to the Judicial Conduct Committee for misconduct complaints. "If someone's doing something that's out of line, the appropriate course of action would be to refer that judge to the Judicial Conduct Committee," he said.

No formal legislative votes or bills were taken at the organizational meeting. The subcommittee set an initial meeting date (April 1) and the full Children and Family Law Committee date (April 8) and directed staff to assemble documents and potential expert witnesses for the next sessions. The subcommittee also discussed the possibility of staying with full-committee deliberations rather than splitting into smaller working groups, at least initially.

Next steps: the subcommittee will meet on April 1 to begin substantive work; the full committee is scheduled to convene on April 8 when bills cross over and related materials are expected to arrive.

The session closed after arrangements were made for the judicial branch to provide materials and for members to receive the historical reports and current updates on training, mediation, and the guardian ad litem grant.