HB1263

As promised during today's hearing, I have submitted my full testimony (below) as well as a list of states that have implemented similar legislation... in particular: Puerto Rico which has a very similar law as proposed in HB 1263. Also, please note - after the hearing, we discussed an amendment to the current HB 1263 which would keep military retirement as gross income but remove it as marital property; we believe this will resolve some of the concerns addressed in committee today. Thank you for your consideration. Testimony: NH HB1263 (2026) Thank you, Madame Chair and Honorable Committee members, My name is Debra Childs, and I live in Dover, NH in Strafford County, and I am here in strong support of HB 1263. I am the Executive Director of a nonprofit called Time to Put Kids First, where we help families who are navigating separation, divorce, and child-custody disputes. Through that work, I’ve heard from countless veterans and military families about how confusing and, in some cases, deeply unfair the treatment of military retirement pay can be in family court. From my work with families, I can tell you this issue is not theoretical. I’ve heard from parents who served their country for decades and now find themselves unable to meet basic living expenses because of how their retirement pay was classified and used in court orders that were never designed for the military system. Just this past weekend, I spoke with a 22-year Army vet—his retirement got cut 40% because a judge counted ‘waived disability pay’ as ‘available.’ This man, who served his country with honor, can’t afford to keep a roof over his head. Military retirement is governed by federal law, and federal law already draws clear distinctions between what portion of retired pay is considered disposable and what portion is legally protected—such as amounts waived to receive disability benefits and amounts deducted for survivor benefit premiums. New Hampshire law, however, does not clearly reflect those distinctions. As a result, military retirement is often treated the same as a civilian pension, even though the structure, the legal limits, and the federal rules that control military retired pay are fundamentally different. When state law ignores those federal realities, our courts are left trying to apply civilian pension rules to a military system that simply does not operate the same way. The result is confusion, inconsistent rulings, and, too often, support orders based on income that is not actually available to be paid. HB 1263 fixes that. It aligns NH law with the way military retirement pay actually works under federal law. It clearly defines what “disposable military retirement pay” means, confirms that it is not marital property, and establishes predictable, workable rules for how alimony sourced from that pay is handled when a service member reaches retirement, and it applies the same rules to everyone. Judges will still retain authority to order and modify alimony. Courts will still be able to respond to real financial need. This bill does not favor veterans over former spouses. It simply ensures support decisions are based on income that actually exists and can more realistically be paid. We often say we support our veterans. We thank them for their service. We applaud their sacrifice. Gratitude should be more than words. JFK once said, “As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.” How do we truly thank someone who missed birthdays, holidays, and sacrificed precious time with their children—who accepted danger, deployments, and permanent disruption to their families—so that the rest of us could live in safety? I can say what we shouldn’t do. We shouldn’t take away their retirement they rightfully earned. We shouldn’t tolerate inconsistency in our legal system that singles out our military with unfair garnishments. We shouldn’t turn our backs on those who gave so much of themselves to preserve our safety and freedom. We shouldn’t allow our service members to live paycheck to paycheck, or worse, destitute because of a loophole that legally requires them to pay money they do not have. We thank them by ensuring they are protected as they protected us, and that our legal system treats their retirement and them with fairness, respect, and dignity. HB 1263 is a small but meaningful step in doing exactly that. Vote yes on HB 1263—let’s protect those who protected us. Thank you. States w/ similar laws: Puerto Rico Alabama Indiana Arkansas Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico has essentially what we are proposing in NH. This works because Military retirement pay is not automatically divisible - retirees keep their pensions as separate property and former spouses still receive support. This shows a real-life example of a jurisdiction where military retirement pay isn't treated like a civilian pension and yet people still have fair outcomes through spousal / child support systems.

I strongly support HB 1263, which clarifies the treatment of disposable military retirement pay in divorce proceedings. For many service members who sacrificed years of family stability through deployments and relocations, this change prevents undue financial hardship in retirement, ensuring earned benefits support the veteran rather than perpetuating indefinite obligations that do not reflect the unique nature of military service and retirement. I urge the committee to pass this important legislation.

Good Day Committee Members I stand before you today as a constituent of the Granite State. My purpose is to request your consideration to listen and share to an ongoing mission to right a wrong. I am a retired military veteran of 21 years and one of over 300,000 retirees affected by a Federal law, 10 U.S. Code § 1408 – Payment of retired or retainer pay in compliance with court orders. The egregious result is that for over 40 years the law is literally picking the pockets of veterans and will do for life. I have been paying my former spouse longer than we were actually married. She had since remarried and divorced another military veteran retiree after 6 years and was denied by the court any portion of the retirees retired pay due to a pre-nup. and is currently in another long term relationship. With all briefness, the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA) was intended to ‘protect’ a former spouse by allowing a state to award a portion, up to 50%, of a retiree’s Military Retainer Pay for life when a military couple divorced. The law does not mandate a division of MRP, it only allows a state to apply a division of MRP. The legislation was able to do this by defying the 5th Amendment and mis-lableing Retainer Pay as property that does not even remotely fit the definition of property. It also defies the 10th Amendment in that divorce is not addressed in the Constitution and those powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved for the state or the people. Finally, the Federal law violates the 14th Amendment. It discriminates against the divorced retired veterans in that they are singled out because the USFSPA is applied only to the seven Uniformed Services of the United States. As a caveat,other Federal Retirement, Social Security plans terminate payments when a former spouse remarries . In support of my request, I will present you with a presentation of facts and arguments that cannot be refuted as good reason to seek an amendment to the New Hampshire Domestic Relations code to bring justice to all retired military veterans by nullifying the USFSPA. The horrifying result is the military service member is now subject to a far greater division upon divorce than their civilian counterpart. New Hampshire alimony ends on co-habitation, remarriage, monthly maintenance is capped and there is a time limit. Current New Hampshire alimony law will allow for all and any maintenance support as stated in the Domestic Relations Code. NH Rev Stat § 458:19-aa (2021) Our Veterans’ Solution: Amend the New Hampshire Family Laws to disallow any division of Military Retirement Pay, a non-contributory retirement plan or any disability pay. Reset the true course with the correct definition of Retainer/Retired Pay as stated NH Baker vs Baker. Negating the USFSPA as property would result in military retirees being treated like everybody else in a divorce and allow judges to be able to reach an equitable solution unique yet relevant for each case instead of a cookie cutter,one size fits all approach. State alimony and child support laws provide all the necessary legal authority to consider the military retirement/retention pay as income and to be used to ensure a former spouse and minor children have the sufficient means to live. https://www.valorindivorce.com/ Respectfully Frank J Kurland Jr USN retired

I support this bill.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.