Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed 'Marriage Liberty Act' draws supporters who have private contracts and opponents citing domestic‑violence and child‑welfare risks
Summary
HB 16 15 would create an alternative contract‑based marriage enforceable under contract law; proponents said it adds predictability and reduces costly family court litigation, while legal‑aid and domestic‑violence groups warned it could lock survivors into agreements and shift child‑welfare disputes into civil court.
CONCORD, N.H. — The House Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony on HB 16 15, which would allow consenting adults to create a legally enforceable contract‑based marriage as an alternative to state‑licensed marriage.
Author Colin Mitchell and backers described the measure as a voluntary option that lets couples set binding financial and household terms, file an optional certificate for public recognition, and resolve breaches in civil court under contract law. Supporters and several witnesses described successfully operating private contract marriages that specify asset allocation, household duties, review periods and dispute‑resolution mechanisms.
Proponents said contract marriage could reduce costly litigation in the family division, increase predictability and preserve people’s property and business interests. Testifying couple David Smith and others described detailed agreements they use to avoid protracted divorce litigation.
Opponents, including New Hampshire Legal Assistance and domestic‑violence advocates, cautioned the bill could harm survivors of coercive control or domestic abuse. They pointed to provisions that make it hard to challenge a contract and argued some contract terms regarding parenting or financial matters could be enforced in civil courts in ways that undermine child‑welfare protections. Legal Aid said the requirement to prove coercion or fraud by clear and convincing evidence would place a heavy burden on victims seeking to escape an unfair agreement.
The committee recessed and later voted in executive session to send the bill to interim study. Members asked for precise drafting, child‑welfare clarifications and analysis of the fiscal and administrative implications before further action.
