Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Custody Interference topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor says ‘three‑strikes’ penalties would deter repeated custody interference
Summary
Representative JD Bernardi told the Senate Children and Family Law Committee the bill would impose civil penalties for first and second custody‑interference violations and make a third violation a class B felony; witnesses including family‑justice advocates and an affected parent urged passage.
Representative JD Bernardi, standing in for the prime sponsor, opened the committee’s public hearing on HB 194 by urging passage of what he called a firm but fair structure to deter repeated violations of custody orders. "The third offense is a classB felony," Bernardi said, framing the measure as protection for children and accountability for adults who repeatedly violate orders.
Bernardi told the committee the bill amends RSA chapter 633 to add penalty provisions and stressed it does not alter the intent requirement in current law, noting routine outings or vacation travel covered by a custody order would not be criminalized. "Taking Missy and Jr. to grandma's house in Maine for Thanksgiving during your legitimate custody period is not going to be considered felonious," he said.
Donald Gilbert, executive director of New Hampshire Family Justice, told the committee the organization supports HB 194 because interference with custody has been a recurring problem in the state. He also reminded lobbyists in the room of RSA 155 restrictions on paid public officials supporting or opposing bills.
Matthew Bler, a parent who described dozens of hearings in long-running custody litigation, gave personal testimony about limited parenting time and a string of unsuccessful contempt filings. "This bill would help deter these actions," he said, urging lawmakers to provide courts and families stronger deterrence.
Senator Long and other committee members clarified how the bill inserts new penalty language (Roman 5) while preserving the statutory requirement that a mental‑state element be met. Committee members did not take a vote on HB 194 during the hearing; the chair closed the public hearing after public comment ended.
The bill’s next step is committee deliberation; sponsors and committee members signaled they would consider statutory placement and whether drafting adjustments are needed to ensure the law targets deliberate, repeated interference rather than isolated parenting disputes.
