Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contentious hearing on HB1770, which would make 50/50 the default parenting-time presumption
Summary
HB1770 would establish a presumption of equal parenting time (50/50 overnight split) rebuttable only by clear-and-convincing evidence of unfitness or statutory harms; advocates and legal-aid groups clashed over removing the 'best interest of the child' standard and the bill’s practical effects on domestic-violence survivors, infants and special-needs children.
Representative Shaborn Dwan introduced HB1770 to create a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting time (defined as a 50/50 annual overnight split) and to raise the evidentiary bar for deviations from that presumption. Supporters argued the change protects parental rights and benefits children by preserving meaningful relationships with both parents; they cited research and national advocacy groups backing shared parenting.
Opponents — including New Hampshire Legal Assistance, Waypoint and other child-welfare and domestic-violence advocates — argued the bill would effectively remove or subordinate the existing statutory 'best interest of the child' factors in RSA 461-A. They warned that a presumption of 50/50 with a 'clear and convincing' rebuttal standard would make it harder to protect children in domestic-violence or coercive-control situations, could chill victims from leaving abusive relationships, and would be impractical for infants, special-needs children and families whose work or geographic constraints render a strict 50/50 split unworkable.
Judicial and legislative questions centered on constitutional phrasing, whether the bill would create a new constitutional right by statute, how courts would apply exceptions (for child-abuse findings, for example), and whether the bill would be retroactive or allow mass re-litigation of existing arrangements. Supporters pointed to U.S. Supreme Court precedents that recognize parenting as a fundamental right and characterized the bill as restoring parental fitness presumptions; critics said the measure would narrow judicial flexibility in service of a one-size-fits-all approach.
What's next: The committee received voluminous public testimony and significant technical questions about drafting, and expressed interest in sending the bill to interim study or in making major amendments to preserve protections for victims, infants, and special-needs children before any statutory shift.
