There is NOTE ENOUGH being done in this state for victims.
HB1740
House · 2026 sessionRepublicanKilled in HouseStrengthening domestic violence protections
AIRewrites the state's domestic violence protection law to require mandatory law enforcement response and arrest procedures, revise protective order standards, and create a domestic violence law enforcement training and support fund.
relative to the protection of persons from domestic violence.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 19, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
374 submissionsArgument digest · AI-generated
from 106 of 106 written submissionsHB1740 would repeal and rewrite New Hampshire's domestic violence protective-order statute (RSA 173-B), touching on criminal-charge requirements, funding for victim services, court venues, and privacy protections. The large majority of submitters oppose the bill, arguing it would make civil protection harder to obtain and less safe for survivors, while a small number of submitters view it as closing a gap in current law or responding to weak enforcement of existing protections.
- Bill addresses a gap in current protectionsSupport1 of 106 reviewed
A supporter argues the bill establishes additional protection by addressing a gap in existing state law, particularly relevant to child sexual assault survivors.
- Existing enforcement against abusers is already failingSupport1 of 106 reviewed
A supporter argues that the current system already fails to hold abusers accountable, describing cases where abusers do not show up to court and are repeatedly released on bail without arrest.
- Requiring criminal charges first would block many survivorsOppose25 of 106 reviewed
Submitters argue that conditioning civil protective orders on criminal charges or reports to law enforcement would shut out survivors who cannot or will not report to police due to fear, retaliation, bias, or other barriers.
“It is dangerous and nearly impossible to have an offender charged with a crime prior to receiving this protection from the court.”
— Mary Davidson, Portsmouth · #533163 — read full submission →
“Protective orders should not require a prior criminal history. Every week we hear about a woman killed or assaulted by her spouse (current or former) or by a man in a non-marital relationship.”
— Dianne Garibotto, New Hampton · #540088 — read full submission →
- Would cut funding for crisis centers and survivor servicesOppose15 of 106 reviewed
Submitters argue the bill reduces already-limited funding for domestic violence crisis centers and victim services that survivors depend on.
“This bill will cut funding which supports funding for crisis centers and support for victims. With all ready not enough funding, cutting of funds will put more Granite States in danger.”
— Denise Raisanen, Exeter · #528755 — read full submission →
“The resources are already extremely limited and the legislation needs to be more trauma-informed and survivor-focused which this bill is not.”
— Kendall Wilson, Pembroke · #538165 — read full submission →
- Rolls back decades of established domestic violence policyOppose12 of 106 reviewed
Submitters describe the bill as undoing years of hard-won, evidence-based progress in protecting domestic violence victims in New Hampshire.
“This bill undoes decades of progress in protecting victims of domestic violence. The proposed changes affect access to protections and contradict what we've learned and are proven pratices which protect victims.”
— Karen Burnett-Kurie, Wolfeboro · #539812 — read full submission →
“This legislation rolls back decades of fighting to protect victims of violence.”
— Kelly Marsh, Moultonborough · #536845 — read full submission →
- Personal survivor accounts of how the bill would endanger themOppose14 of 106 reviewed
Numerous submitters describe their own experiences as domestic violence survivors, arguing the changes would have made it harder or impossible for them to escape or get protection when they needed it most.
“If this bill wasn't placed in 2023 I would have not been able to get protection from my abuser to protect my children.”
— Lillian Brewer, Concord · #536413 — read full submission →
“If I didn’t have the support, protection and resources I did when I left, I would have went back again and I’m 99% sure myself and child would not be here.”
— Stephanie Narrow, North Woodstock · #538596 — read full submission →
- Weakens victim privacy and emergency protectionsOppose10 of 106 reviewed
Submitters argue the bill would erode confidentiality and emergency protective measures at the point when a victim's danger is greatest, such as when leaving an abuser.
- Adds court delays, costs, and fewer courts able to issue ordersOppose10 of 106 reviewed
Submitters point to added procedural barriers, including a reduction in the number of courts authorized to issue protective orders, as making the process slower and more costly for victims.
- Cites domestic violence prevalence and lethality statisticsOppose3 of 106 reviewed
Some submitters cite statistics on the prevalence of intimate partner violence and domestic violence homicides in New Hampshire to argue the stakes of weakening protections are high.
- Full rewrite of the statute lacks evidence current law is brokenOppose4 of 106 reviewed
A smaller number of submitters raise a more procedural objection: that the bill completely repeals and rewrites RSA 173-B, reducing judicial discretion and raising due-process concerns, without demonstrating that the existing statute is inadequate.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
I oppose this bill. Please protect victims of domestic violence.
Even when it’s in criminal court the abusers don’t show up, and if they’re on PR bail they just get PR bail again, and they still don’t show up. And when victims call the prosecutor to tell them where the perpetrator is so the arrest can happen they don’t arrest them. See case # 447-2018-CR-01348 out of Hooksett.
This puts woman and children no manager, and would undo years of progress.
Protect the victims
Protect the victims
Protect the victims more not less
As a survivor who reported to police and had my case mishandled leading to years of stalking after being assaulted, support from advocacy centers and mental health funds are the reason I am still here today. The barriers to seeking and getting the help I needed to heal and be safe were already so great. I urge you to oppose this bill which will put survivors like myself facing even more barriers and lack of safety. Granite staters deserve to be safe and heal - when survivors are in danger, it costs our state far more than when we support them and help them escape danger.
It's a waste of significant money and harms women's safety. Why would you even put this forward?
I oppose this bill. Sexual assault is an extremely life changing crime. Assault victims are hurt deeply by a victimizer’s actions. It is necessary and just to protect those who have been sexually abused for as long as it takes them to recover from such criminal violations to their bodies.
I oppose this bill as it is already too difficult for a victim of domestic violence to seek protection through the Court System and legal State organizations. I was denied a Protective Order against a Tier 3 Registered Sex Offender after he entered my house using a key he would not return, refusing to leave, and following that incident continued to come onto my residence consistently over a 24 hour period begging me to lie to DCYF regarding multiple reports against him with a specific minor. I have sought help from Domestic Violence groups and local Police since this, for stalking, harassment, DCYF reports and interviews against him involving multiple minors (including my own children). Most recently, this individual put his hands on me in front of my children on School property, an unwanted physical and aggressive contact. Even through filing a police report, no action was taken or deemed warranted. I have continued to appear in Court, creating a financial burden and restricting my time, in his attempts through motions to have the Court System hold me responsible for each DCYF report that comes from multiple sources, and his attempts to remove my children from my care. Our society knows through documented research that the dangers and risks of violence from the abusive partner increases against DV victims when they seek help and seek to leave, yet this Bill creates restrictions on when we can seek a PO. In this Bill, there is an unclear definition regarding false reporting and punishment, without clarifying how a report is determined to be false. I am in favor of more police training and responding to DV calls/reports. As a society we have so much knowledge about Domestic Violence, trauma bonds, and the cycle of abuse. What we are lacking is implementing that into law and real help for victims trying to leave.
As a spouse of a Direct Services Advocate for victims of domestic violence I hear plenty of stories for domestic violence that does not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime but have devasting impacts on victims and the younger members of their families. Many perpetrators are experts at skirting the law to continue their abuse of their victims - physically and mentally. Many law enforcement when brought into the mix, only control the immediate situation and help to keep everyone involved safe in the moment and do nothing else. Once a victim files a request to restrain a perpetrator access to the victim, the perpetrator can request an expedited hearing and the situation can be review by a judge in a little as 3 days. I am in opposition to this bill.
I am against death penalty
As a domestic abuse survivor more needs to be done to protect the victims that have already suffered unimaginable abuse.
Protective orders should not require a prior criminal history. Every week we hear about a woman killed or assaulted by her spouse (current or former) or by a man in a non-marital relationship. If the threat of violence is credible, the protective order should be granted.
Hidden from public view victims of dv suffer. They need our care and support. Their numbers are larger than we know. This bill destroys the admirable progress NH has made in assisting and protect the victims of domestic violence.
The numbers vary year to year, but typically range from about 5-10 women killed by domestic partners annually in New Hampshire, representing a significant portion of all homicides in the state.???????????????? This bill lowers protections for the victim and pulls back years of progress relating to domestic abuse and violence.
Strongly opposed to going back in civilized life. OPPOSED to H B 1740.
We need to protect and support victims.
Let’s not forget how many years it takes to get to a point where we support families in domestic violence and abuse. Detriment to lives to roll back protections we now have.
Please protect crisis center and survivors support
I oppose this bill! This is very dangerous for women in domestic violence situations. Frankly, how dare you.
As a survivor of domestic abuse, I oppose this bill. Reducing protections for victims, predominantly women, forces them to stay in unsafe marriages. Women and children deserve to live safely- without abuse, physical or mental. Statistics show that women are more likely to be killed by their spouse/ partner. This has not changed since the protection laws were developed and sometimes, the only thing that keeps a violent man in check is the law.
Rape kits provide essential evidence, which must be properly handled and preserved in order for victims to have access to to everything which brings them the best chance for justice, and healing.
As a resident of NH, I strongly oppose this bill and urge you to vote “no”.