Committee hears split testimony on bill letting judges consider known health conditions in custody reviews

Open the hearing on House Bill 285 on parental rights and responsibilities. An additional section is were asked for by the, prime sponsor who is not here.

Representative Joyce Ball, the bill's sponsor, told the House Children and Family Law Committee that HB 285 "just adds words to remind judges to make sure that they're looking at a full environment for children," and would permit judges to consider "any known mental health conditions that could interfere with parenting." She repeatedly emphasized the change would be a prompt to judges, not a call for disclosure of medical records.

Proponents said the change would let judges ask a focused question about current health-related barriers to parenting and then, if needed, order evaluations. Opponents—including witnesses from NAMI New Hampshire, disability advocates and mental-health clinicians—argued the wording would stigmatize people with mental health diagnoses, chill care-seeking, and duplicate existing law.

Why it matters

Backers described the bill as a limited addition to the statutory list of factors family courts already consider and said it would help judges identify risks in high-conflict or recurring cases where different judges hear the same family repeatedly. Opponents said the draft would single out mental illness and could be used against parents even when their conditions were being managed by treatment.

What witnesses said

Sponsor: Representative Joyce Ball opened by saying the proposal "is on the surface... it just adds words to remind judges to make sure that they're looking at a full environment for children," and that judges should be able to ask whether "there is anything I should be aware of that might interfere with your ability to parent."

Supporters who testified included clergy and a former magistrate who said judges sometimes do not receive a full picture of the home and that a single question could surface relevant facts.

Opposition: Sarah Horn, identified as a NAMI New Hampshire board member and a parent, described her own history of severe mental illness and recovery, telling the committee: "I am proof that recovery is possible and that my history of mental illness has no bearing on my ability to parent." Horn urged the committee to focus on "active and current behaviors of the parents, not a health history."

Kevin Blanchett, a licensed clinical mental health counselor, said adding mental health to the statute "stigmatizes mental health and presumes somebody having a mental health condition makes them lesser of a parent," and warned the change could deter people from seeking treatment.

Holly Stevens, director of public policy for NAMI New Hampshire, told the committee that current law already allows courts to consider parent behaviors and parenting ability, and that singling out mental health is "discriminatory." Karen Rosenberg of the Disability Rights Center testified in opposition for similar reasons.

Committee questions and sponsor responses

Committee members pressed the sponsor on how judges would get information when parents had not sought diagnosis or treatment, how the measure would avoid weaponization in contested hearings and whether it was necessary given existing statutes (members referenced the statutory factors listed in RSA 461-A:6, a–m during questions). Representative Ball said judges can already order psychological evaluations; the bill, she said, would simply remind judges to consider "what's underneath the surface." She also offered to work with the committee on targeted amendments.

No vote recorded at hearing

The hearing closed with the chair scheduling executive action two weeks later; the transcript does not record a committee vote on HB 285 during the hearing.

Ending

Committee testimony showed clear divisions: sponsors and some legal observers urged a targeted reminder to judges, while mental-health advocates and disability advocates said the draft risked discrimination and chilling treatment-seeking. Several witnesses and legislators asked for language changes or education for judges instead of expanding statutory lists; the sponsor agreed to work with the committee on amendments.