Sponsors seek to clarify religious‑exemption paperwork after county and school confusion; DHHS urges standardized form for outbreak response

Representative Jim Kofalt, sponsor of HB 358, told the committee the bill responds to an unintended consequence of 2022 legislation that removed the notarization requirement for religious exemptions. The 2022 change used the word "form," which Kofalt said led DHHS and some school districts to treat a DHHS‑produced template as the exclusive way to claim a religious exemption.

"The passage of a bill with the word form in it prompted the Department of Health and Human Services to create a form," Kofalt told the committee. "That was not the original intent. The purpose of this bill is to clarify unequivocally that the statute should reflect the original intent … to remove the requirement that a parent's request for religious exemption to immunizations required for school attendance be notarized."

Representative Erica Leon, who served on the committee that drafted the 2022 change and participated in the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JELCAR) review of the DHHS template, said the committee never intended the DHHS document to be exclusive. "When we approve the form offered by the Department of Health and Human Services and JELCAR, it was under the idea that it was 1 potential form that as a convenience a parent could sign, but never under the expectation that it was the only way to, actually show that you are using a religious exemption," Leon said.

DHHS witnesses asked the committee to reject HB 358. Colleen Smith and Dr. Benjamin Chan said the agency’s optional form helps schools and child‑care centers consistently collect information — including an optional line where a parent may list which vaccines are being exempted — so school administrators can identify and exclude unvaccinated children quickly during an outbreak. Smith also noted the agency observed a rise in reported religious exemptions after the notary requirement was removed.

"We have concerns that that this would take away a standardized way for schools to collect this information," Smith said. "This benefits them in having a defined process with clear information collected so they can clearly identify which child is seeking this exemption." Dr. Chan added that schools keep these records locally and report aggregate exemption counts to the department.

School nurses told the committee the DHHS form is a practical tool for school medical records and recordkeeping even when parents do not complete the optional vaccine details. Pam DiNapoli, a Manchester school nurse, said schools commonly receive the student paperwork in packets at the start of the year and store signed exemption forms in medical files; school nurses rely on the form to find exemption status when students move between districts and to implement exclusion procedures during outbreaks.

Parents and advocacy witnesses spoke in favor of the bill. Laura Condon, a volunteer advocacy director for the National Vaccine Information Center, said the law change should make clear that a signed statement is sufficient and that parents should not be forced to use a single agency template.

Representative Kofalt said he drafted HB 358 to restore the intent of the earlier law and to head off inconsistent local enforcement that has caused confusion for parents and school administrators. The committee closed the public hearing; no vote was taken that day.

Why it matters: The practical issue is narrow—whether schools may require the DHHS template — but it implicates larger questions about parental rights, administrative processes, and how schools and public‑health authorities track and respond to infectious‑disease exposures.