Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to define 'parental alienation' draws passionate testimony from survivors and sharp warnings from advocates
Summary
Rep. Jim Kofal’s bill would define parental alienation in statute, add it to family‑access motions, and direct judges to consider it in custody decisions; advocates for survivors urged passage while domestic‑violence counselors and legal‑aid attorneys warned the law could be weaponized to undermine abuse claims.
Representative Jim Kofal introduced HB 1323 as a bid to give family courts a statutory definition and tools to address what he calls a repetitive pattern of conduct that damages a child's relationship with a parent. "Parental alienation occurs when one parent engages in a pattern of behavior... aimed at alienating a child from the other parent," Kofal said, and he told the committee the bill would direct courts to act within a set timeframe and provide remedies including custody modifications and potential attorney's fees.
Testimony split sharply. Supporters—including advocates, several survivors, and family‑support nonprofits—described long‑running cases in which children lost relationships with a loving parent and urged the committee to provide courts clearer standards and faster relief. "This bill is long overdue," said Deborah Childs, executive director of Time to Put Kids First, who described research linking parental‑alienation behaviors to lasting harm.
Opponents, including Mary Krueger of New Hampshire Legal Assistance and the New Hampshire Association for Justice, warned the bill could be misused. Krueger cited research finding that in some states parental‑alienation statutes were used to counter alleged domestic‑violence and abuse claims; she said studies showed victims lost custody in a substantial share of contested matters when an alienation claim was asserted. "This bill really could be harmful to children and to domestic violence survivors," Krueger testified.
Committee members pressed sponsors on procedural details: where the definition would live in statute, whether the bill preserves exceptions for good‑faith protective actions, and whether the family‑access motion timing (often discussed as 60 days) is explicit in draft language. Several witnesses called for clarifying amendments—especially to avoid giving DCYF unilateral authority to label cases as abuse or neglect based on parental‑alienation language.
Survivors gave emotional, first‑person accounts of parental alienation’s effects on family relationships and mental health; other witnesses urged narrowly tailored language and clear carve‑outs for verified domestic violence or ongoing protective investigations.
The chair closed public testimony on HB 1323 with committee members signaling interest in further drafting work and possible amendments to address concerns about weaponization, evidentiary standards, and DCYF authority.
