Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Lawmakers Hear Personal Testimony and Rights Concerns as They Consider 'Parental Alienation' Bill
Loading...
Summary
Representatives and dozens of witnesses debated HB 13-23, a bill to define and address parental alienation in family court. Supporters described long-term harm to children and urged early intervention; opponents — including domestic-violence advocates — warned statutory language could be weaponized to counter abuse claims and urged careful drafting.
Representative Kim Rice opened the hearing for HB 13-23 by saying the bill is intended to prevent and correct parental alienation and to give courts clearer tools to intervene early. "A child should never be used as a weapon in adult conflict," Rice said, urging colleagues to prioritize the child's welfare.
Rice said the proposed law would clarify standards, strengthen remedies and prioritize timely intervention where children are being pressured to reject a loving parent. Rice described lasting harms — anxiety, depression and fractured relationships — and recounted a personal family case she said illustrated the bill's purpose.
Committee members pressed on definitions, evidence and constitutional questions. Representative Greg asked how a court would determine conduct that "would damage a relationship" before harm occurs. Rice responded that judges can and should educate themselves, interview children privately and order counseling where indicated. Representative Sher and others raised First Amendment concerns and warned against creating legal consequences for ordinary parental explanations.
A series of public witnesses provided strongly divergent first-hand accounts. Supporters such as Cody Belanger told the committee that courts "did not take" exculpatory evidence in his case and that his relationship with his son was severed despite evidence presented. Thomas McCarthy and others described decades-long family-court struggles and urged the committee to give courts clearer tools.
Opponents included Mary Krueger, an attorney with New Hampshire Legal Assistance, who told the committee she opposes the bill "as written" because making parental alienation a statutory standard could allow abusers to allege alienation to rebut legitimate abuse claims. Krueger said studies show statutory parental-alienation labels can be misused to minimize abuse allegations and that there is no validated protocol that reliably differentiates abuse-driven rejection from alienation.
Other witnesses and members asked for more precise criteria, clearer evidentiary rules, safeguards for self-represented parents, and protections for children in cases involving domestic violence. Representative discussion repeatedly returned to two practical points: the bill must distinguish single statements from patterns of alienating conduct, and it must preserve courts’ ability to evaluate evidence and order therapy where appropriate.
The chair closed testimony after dozens of public commenters and committee members signaled further drafting and study would be needed. The committee did not take a vote; members repeatedly encouraged written testimony and recommended using committee work sessions to refine definitions and protections.
The hearing record shows strong bipartisan interest but substantive disagreement about statutory language, evidentiary standards and safeguards for abuse victims. The committee left the bill open for revision and directed staff to collect written materials presented at the hearing.
