Expert testifies for statutory definition of 'parental alienation'; committee splits but votes to advance HB 1323

An executive session of the House Children and Family Law Committee on HB 1323 heard extended testimony from Deborah Childs, executive director of the nonprofit Time to Put Kids First, who urged legislators to adopt a statutory definition of "parental alienation" to help judges and families identify harmful patterns.

"This bill simply defines parental alienation," Childs said, adding that the nonprofit she co-founded has "served over 81,000 families since 2014." She described parental alienation as a pattern in which one parent "pits a child against another," including repeated disparaging remarks and coercive behaviors that she said correlate with harms such as depression and anxiety in children.

Childs, who said she is a former deputy chief of staff and holds a doctorate focused on "ambiguous grief," told the committee the proposal intentionally frames parental alienation as an observable set of behaviors for judicial factfinding rather than a medical diagnosis. "We are not claiming this is a medical diagnosis," she said, arguing a statutory definition would produce more consistent judicial outcomes than the current, largely ad hoc use of the concept.

Opponents pressed on multiple fronts, citing research and professional guidance that have criticized the theory's scientific basis and warned it can be used to undermine abuse allegations. "I personally find it difficult to put into statute something which all of the major medical, psychiatric, and psychological associations have termed as junk science," Representative Greg told the committee, calling the bill "too vague" and risking wide judicial discretion.

Lawmakers asked whether absence from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) undermines the concept. Childs replied the DSM is not a legal prerequisite for statute and said other legally actionable concepts (for example, child abuse) are not DSM diagnoses.

The committee moved to executive deliberations and Vice Chair Rice offered a motion that HB 1323 is "ought to pass." The clerk called the roll; members recorded a divided vote and the clerk announced the motion "ought to pass." The committee then proceeded to consider other bills.

The debate centered on two recurring concerns: proponents said a definition would create clarity for judges and provide a basis for education and earlier interventions; critics said the bill's terms ("pattern," "manipulation," "disparaging remarks") remain undefined in the draft and could be weaponized in custody disputes, potentially disadvantaging parties who raise factual allegations of abuse.

The committee did not vote on final statutory text during the session; it voted to recommend the measure advance in the process. The bill's next procedural step is placement according to the House rules; no floor vote was recorded at the committee meeting.

Authorities and context: witnesses and members cited existing New Hampshire references to "alienating behaviors" in RSA 461A and discussed appellate and Supreme Court mentions of parental alienation. Committee members also referenced national briefs and position statements from legal and child-advocacy organizations questioning the concept's admissibility and effect on best-interest analyses.

The committee gave further direction to staff and moved on to other agenda items. The meeting was recessed briefly for caucus and then reconvened to complete roll-call votes on multiple bills.