HB1323

(Submitted this online as I came down with the flu and could not attend in person.) Hello. My name is Debra Childs, and I’m here speaking in strong support of HB 1323 to define and recognize Parental Alienation in NH statutes. I am here as a child of divorce. As a mother. As an alienated grandmother. And as someone who works every single day with families living through the devastation of parental alienation. I could share with you my experience as a child and how I still recall some of the hurtful words exchanged during my own parent’s contentious divorce. Explain how I went from a straight A student to a teenager with few goals who turned to drinking for comfort. Explain how I fell into one of the common statistics for children of divorce, and I became pregnant at the age of 16. I could share with you how I am still affected today or how my older brother, during the divorce and to this very day, has alienated himself from our whole family. I could tell you about my granddaughter being kept from her dad and paternal family for months. Or about watching her at just a year old scream for her daddy as he had to walk away because of a court order. I could tell you about sitting in the truck with my son as he cried. Helpless. A grieving, alienated father, who was both personally and academically educated on the impacts of alienation but couldn’t do anything to protect his little girl. That is what parental alienation looks like in real life. If you have not been personally impacted as a child or an adult, it is difficult to imagine. Difficult to imagine having your child taken from you or turned against you. Difficult to imagine a parent doing such a thing. But, what I can tell you is that whatever pain you can imagine from hearing our stories today, it is a million times worse than that. In 2014, I co-founded an organization called Time to Put Kids First helping families going through separation, divorce and child custody. Our organization is in every U.S. state and in over 67 countries. In only 4 years, we served nearly 80,000 families. The issue is common and widespread. I work with victims of parental alienation every day. Parental alienation is not rare. It is not fringe. It is not anecdotal. It is emotional and psychological maltreatment. It is the manipulation of a child resulting in their unwarranted hatred, fear or hostility. It takes advantage of the suggestibility, naivety, and the dependency of children, while depriving them of their right to freely love and be loved by both of their parents and both sides of their family. It generally occurs when one parent talks negatively about the other in front of the children, when a child is encouraged to disrespect a parent, made to fear or hate them, or when a parent withholds a child from the other parent. Those are just examples. And, there are, of course, varying degrees. Though, the impact is deep and long lasting. Imagine how this manipulation changes a child. From an early age, when they are developing their sense of trust, security and safety, they are being coached to not trust, not feel secure and not feel safe in the presence of someone they love. Now, I have to believe that the majority of cases are unintentional, and we can resolve this through research, awareness and education. But today, we have a serious problem: There is no consistent definition. There is no consistent recognition. And therefore, there is no consistent intervention. Though, with few experts in the field, and an unclear definition, diagnosis and treatment is extremely difficult. In fact, children who are manipulated by one parent often form a close, but unhealthy allegiance to the offending parent. It’s similar to how abducted children identify with their tormentors and want to maintain a relationship with them, however abusive that relationship may be. This manipulation may not be recognized by family court affiliates or even experienced child psychologists. Further, where most of us as citizens are comfortable reporting or intervening in cases of physical abuse, we’re not comfortable and do not intervene in cases of emotional and psychological abuse, even though the effects last a lifetime. This is why recognizing parental alienation is so critical. The impact is great. Child outcomes include low self-esteem, self-hatred, lack of trust, depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, to name a few. I can attest to this from my personal experience as a child of divorce, a single mother and from my academic and professional experience. I believe it goes without saying how this impacts our communities and our great state. Across the country, we have an increase in mental health issues, an increase in homelessness, a drug epidemic, and youth suicide is a surging crisis in the state of NH. For those who attended the law school for legislators last month, you likely noticed that the judges in attendance used the term parental alienation on a few occasions. But no definition exists. HB 1323 gives us something we desperately need: clarity. A clear definition. Clear judicial tools. And clear acknowledgment that parental alienation is harmful to children and must be taken seriously. This bill gives me hope. Hope that fewer children will grow up questioning their worth. Hope that fewer parents will grieve living children. Hope that New Hampshire will lead with courage, compassion, and common sense. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of HB 1323. (Note: there is one minor numbering suggestion I made under separate cover to the chair.)

Overall Case Overview Case: In the Matter of Anthony Grillo and Malinda Nicolosi (Docket No. 622-2018-DM-0053), 10th Circuit Family Division-Derry (later Dover District noted in stamps). Child: Anthony Nicolosi Grillo (age 8 in 2025), residing in Manchester (232 Eastern Ave., Apt. 303) for 5+ years per mother. Parties: Petitioner/Father: Anthony Grillo (Manchester, represented by Jason M. Sullivan). Respondent/Mother: Malinda Nicolosi (Cambridge, MA, pro se, defaulted since May 2020). Core Issues: Severe restriction/termination of mother's parenting rights since May 2022 (all contact ended except child support + quarterly emails/photos of father's choosing); mother's efforts to reinstate time, transfer venue to Manchester (9th Circuit), and challenge rulings on due process, bias, and best interests. Father opposes, emphasizing mother's lack of insight and child's protection. Chronological Key Filings & Documents Early Case History (2018 Docket Summary Excerpts) Case opened February 22, 2018 (Individual Parenting Petition). Initial orders: Mediation (May 2018), temporary parenting/support (July 18, 2018 hearing; Judge Cross). Hide quoted text Disputes: DNA test (mother, deferred/denied), contempt (father), disestablishment of paternity (mother, denied), attorney fees (mother, denied). Child address listed as Londonderry (outdated; mother later claimed clerk refused her correction, said father's responsibility). Mediation failed; temporary plan adopted/modified. Hide quoted text Expedited Petition for Change of Venue (November 6, 2024) Mother seeks transfer to Manchester to refile August 2024 Motion to Re-establish Parenting Time (returned as case closed). Arguments: Child/father in Manchester 5+ / ~8 years; mother in Cambridge, MA (~3 years); no Rockingham ties; child's school/activities/records in Manchester; easier access/proximity; bias concerns (validated by Judicial Conduct Committee caution JC-21-047-C); fresh venue for impartiality/co-parenting. Requests: Expedited grant; allow modification in Manchester. Served on Sullivan and Manchester Court. Petitioner's Motion to Strike (December 16, 2024) Father moves to strike mother's modification/venue motions due to default; requests cancel January 3, 2025 hearing. Mother's Motion to Dismiss Strikes (January 18, 2025) Seeks dismissal; reiterates venue (Manchester residence, UCCJEA, bias); default irrelevant for procedural motions. January 3, 2025 Hearing Order (Clerk Notice January 21, 2025) Grants venue change (child's Manchester residence, no Rockingham ties, bias concerns) but denies modification (failed RSA 461-A:6/11). Manchester declines internally; case remains Derry. Mother's Motion to Reconsider January 21, 2025 Order (Excluding Venue Grant) (January 31, 2025; received February 6) Challenges order on overlooked facts/law: First: Termination scope understated—all contact/participation ended since May 13, 2022 (father's unilateral email suspension, 17-day withholding without repercussions, RSA 633:4 interference). Only child support + quarterly emails remain (no videos, records, health info). Second: Unlawful under RSA 170-C:5, 461-A:6, abuse/neglect protocols (no proven harm from brief Facebook post/text; suspension due to sister's protective order, not mother's actions). Third: Due process denial (default bars evidence/exhibits at January 3 hearing; cites In re Guardianship of H. (2002), U.S./NH Constitutions). Fourth: Ignores best interests (RSA 461-A:6; child's asks/hug/distress, withheld medical info). Fifth: Improperly ruled on modification (should defer to Manchester); venue process bypassed (party should file directly with receiving court). Requests: Retract modification ruling, transfer if needed, other relief. Supplement/Correction (February 12, 2025) Clarifies exhibits shared evening before January 3 hearing. Court Letter Returning Motion (February 5, 2025) Returned for non-original signature; refile instructed. Petitioner's Objection to Mother's Motion to Reconsider (February 4, 2025; stamped February 11/12, 2025) Fails Family Division Rule 1.26(F) (no overlooked points). Mother "still has learned nothing over the last seven years" and blames everyone else; her lack of insight confirms court's decisions protect child's best interests. Requests: Deny motion; other just relief. Signed by Sullivan (handwritten date 2/4/2025); served on mother pro se. Hide quoted text Case Context & Themes Alienation Claims: Mother alleges father severed bond (unilateral suspension, withheld info, limited updates); court enabled by upholding termination without full hearing or best-interests inquiry (RSA 461-A:6, 170-C:5, due process via In re Guardianship of H.). Procedural Issues: Default limits filings; venue bypass (internal Manchester decline vs. direct filing per Rule 1.8); bias (JCC caution). Status (as of January 13, 2026): Case remains in Derry; no reinstatement; escalating acrimony over rights restoration and fairness. Hide quoted text Details on the January 3, 2025 Order and Manchester's Decline The core order in question is the January 3, 2025 ruling by Judge Kerry P. Steckowych in the 10th Circuit Family Division-Derry (issued via Clerk's Notice on January 21, 2025). This order stemmed from a hearing on the same date addressing Malinda Nicolosi's Motion to Transfer Venue to the 9th Circuit Family Division-Manchester. In the order: The court granted the venue change, noting it as appropriate due to the child's residence in Manchester (Hillsborough County) for over five years, lack of ties to Rockingham County, and potential bias concerns raised by Nicolosi (though not explicitly endorsing them). However, the order simultaneously denied her related Motion to Modify/Change Court Order (seeking parenting time reinstatement), stating she failed to meet statutory requirements under RSA 461-A:6 (best interests) and RSA 461-A:11 (modification grounds), despite her explicit request to defer that issue to Manchester for impartial review. No detailed "supplemental statement" from the judge accompanies the order regarding the decline. Instead, the January 21, 2025 Clerk's Notice simply states: "The 9th Circuit Family Division-Manchester has declined to accept the change of venue. This case will remain with the 10th Circuit Family Division-Derry." This indicates an internal consultation between the courts, without a formal hearing or public reasoning from Manchester. The decline effectively voided the grant, keeping the case in Derry. Nicolosi's Motion to Reconsider (January 31, 2025) highlights this as problematic, arguing the Derry court bypassed standard procedure by ruling on modification prematurely and handling the transfer inquiry itself, rather than letting her petition Manchester directly. She claims this denied her a fair opportunity to present evidence (e.g., certificates for required courses, bias allegations) to the receiving court. Legal Basis for Mother's Right to Present Case Directly to Manchester Under New Hampshire law, venue changes in Family Division cases (intra-state transfers between circuit locations) are governed by Circuit Court Family Division Rule 1.8 (Case Transfer). This rule emphasizes mutual agreement between locations but specifies a party-driven process: Procedure per Rule 1.8(A): For transfers within Family Division locations (e.g., Derry to Manchester), "A party wishing to transfer such a case shall file a motion to transfer with the proposed family division location [Manchester], with a copy to the original family division location [Derry]." Transfer occurs "only upon mutual agreement of both family division locations." This requires the requesting party (Nicolosi) to initiate by filing directly with the receiving court (Manchester), allowing her to present arguments, evidence, and pleadings there for their review and agreement. The rule does not authorize the transferring court (Derry) to unilaterally inquire or decide without the party's direct filing in the receiving court. Internal handling by the judge (e.g., Derry contacting Manchester) bypasses this, potentially violating due process by denying the party a forum to advocate. Why This Supports Direct Presentation: Filing with Manchester would have enabled Nicolosi to submit a formal petition, attach evidence (e.g., child's residency docs, course certificates, bias claims validated by Judicial Conduct Committee caution JC-21-047-C), and request a hearing if needed. Manchester's decline without this step lacks transparency and her input, raising abuse of discretion concerns. NH courts prioritize child welfare (RSA 461-A:6) and fairness, outweighing procedural defaults (as in her status since 2020). Defaulted parties retain rights to raise jurisdictional issues like venue, per general principles (e.g., UCCJEA, RSA 461-A:2 for custody jurisdiction). Comparison to Analogous Rules: Probate Division Rule 115 (similar structure) explicitly requires a "Petition to accept the transfer" filed in the receiving court after the transferring court grants the motion. This reinforces that the party, not the judge, handles the acceptance petition, ensuring due process (U.S. Const. 14th Amend.; NH Const. Pt. I, Art. 15). Cases like In re Guardianship of H. (NH Sup. Ct. 2002) affirm rights to present evidence in family matters, even for defaulted parties, to ensure fair hearings. By Judge Steckowych handling the inquiry internally (as inferred from the clerk's notice), Nicolosi was deprived of this step, potentially constituting reversible error if appealed. She could refile per Rule 1.8(A) directly in Manchester, emphasizing the child's best interests and jurisdiction.

Chairwoman DeSimone and Members of the Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of HB 1323. I am a father who has experienced firsthand how a child’s relationship with a loving, involved parent can be gradually dismantled through repeated interference and negative influence, even while court proceedings are ongoing. HB 1323 addresses a real and harmful problem that too often goes unnamed and uncorrected in family court: parental alienation. For many years, I had a close and consistent relationship with my daughter, Addelin. That relationship did not end because of abuse, neglect, or danger to her. Instead, it eroded over time due to repeated obstruction of parenting time, negative messaging, and conduct that placed my child in the middle of adult conflict. What made this especially difficult is that, without a clear statutory framework, these behaviors were often treated as ordinary “parent conflict,” rather than recognized as conduct harmful to the child. As a result, intervention came late, if at all, and the damage to the parent-child relationship deepened. HB 1323 is important because it: • Provides a clear definition of parental alienation • Allows courts to recognize patterns of behavior, not just isolated incidents • Affirms that intentionally undermining a child’s relationship with a parent is harmful to the child The bill also appropriately protects parents who act in good faith to protect a child from abuse or neglect. That distinction matters. HB 1323 does not punish protective parenting—it addresses intentional conduct that is not rooted in safety and that harms a child’s emotional well-being. Children deserve the opportunity to maintain healthy relationships with both parents when safe and appropriate. HB 1323 gives courts the clarity they need to protect that principle. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to vote Ought to Pass on HB 1323. Respectfully submitted, Dylan Goodwin Sodus NY Father

Relative to Parental Alienation Children and Family Law Committee January 13, 2026 Chairwoman DeSimone and Members of the Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in strong support of HB 1323. I am writing as a parent and step-parent who has been directly involved in a prolonged New Hampshire family court matter involving a child I deeply care about. Over time, I have witnessed firsthand how parental alienation—when left undefined and unaddressed—can quietly but profoundly harm a child, even while court proceedings continue. Our Experience In our family’s case, a child named (“Addie”) had a close, loving, and consistent relationship with her father, Dylan, for years. That relationship changed dramatically—not because of abuse, neglect, or danger—but due to repeated interference, negative messaging, and obstruction of parenting time by the other parent, The Mother. Over time, Addelin: • Was exposed to adult conflict she should never have been responsible for carrying • Was placed in the middle of loyalty conflicts • Gradually lost contact with her father despite his consistent efforts to remain involved What made this especially painful is that the behavior causing this harm was difficult to address in court precisely because parental alienation is not clearly defined in statute. Concerns were minimized, inconsistently evaluated, or treated as ordinary “parent conflict,” even as the child’s relationship with a loving parent deteriorated. Why HB 1323 Matters HB 1323 would have mattered enormously in our case. This bill does not create automatic punishments or remove judicial discretion. Instead, it provides: • A clear definition of parental alienation • A framework for courts to identify patterns of behavior, not isolated incidents • Recognition that intentionally undermining a child’s relationship with a parent is harmful to the child, not just the other parent Without this clarity, alienation often goes unaddressed until the damage is severe or irreversible. Protecting Children While Preserving Safety I want to be very clear: HB 1323 does not punish parents for acting in good faith to protect a child from abuse or neglect. That distinction is essential, and it is included in the bill. What the bill does address is conduct that: • Is not rooted in safety • Is not supported by evidence • Is intended to interfere with or destroy a child’s bond with a parent Children like Addelin deserve courts that can recognize the difference. The Cost of Inaction When parental alienation is ignored or mislabeled as “high conflict,” children lose: • Access to loving parents • Stability and identity • Trust in adults and institutions HB 1323 helps ensure courts have the tools to intervene before that loss becomes permanent. Conclusion HB 1323 brings clarity, consistency, and child-centered accountability to New Hampshire family law. Based on our lived experience, I firmly believe this bill would help protect children from a form of harm that is real, devastating, and too often invisible. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to vote Ought to Pass on HB 1323. Thank you for your time and for considering the voices of families who have lived this reality. Respectfully submitted, Cassandra Knapp Sodus, New York Parent / Stepparent / Advocate

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.