HB1770

To the Members of the Children and Family Law Committee: I submit this testimony in strong support of HB1770, relative to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities and establishing a presumption of equal parenting time. As a non-resident of New Hampshire, I have spent the last four years guiding parents nationwide through severe, high-conflict divorce and custody cases. I have directly worked with and advised over 200 parents facing the family court system. This lived experience has repeatedly demonstrated how the current discretionary "best interests" standard often results in unnecessary early separation of children from one fit parent—typically via temporary orders at the outset of divorce—causing immediate instability, emotional harm to children, and long-term damage to parent-child bonds. A key issue is that the starting standard is not equal (50/50). Without beginning from a presumption of equal parenting time, the extended period while the case progresses cannot be accurately used for observation and assessment by professionals (e.g., guardians ad litem, evaluators, therapists, or courts). Instead of observing a child's balanced involvement with both fit parents in real time, assessments often rely on an imbalanced status quo created by initial unequal orders. This robs children of fair and equal access to both parents during a critical formative period, exacerbating conflict and depriving professionals of reliable data on true family dynamics. HB1770 corrects this by establishing a constitutional presumption of equal parenting time (50/50 overnight split) from the start, with only limited deviations allowed and strict scrutiny (clear and convincing evidence of specific harm under RSA 170-C:5 standards) required for reductions. This ensures the observation phase reflects equal involvement, promotes stability, reduces unnecessary separations, and better serves child well-being. This risk is exemplified by the recent tragic school shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia (February 10, 2026), where the 18-year-old perpetrator had a documented history of family estrangement, custody-related nomadic moves between provinces, and isolation—factors linked in reports to parental conflicts and limited equal involvement. Such extreme outcomes underscore how outdated discretionary rules in family law can contribute to youth struggles, mental health crises, and societal harm if not reformed. We have many opportunities now to update laws toward equal presumptions, or we risk serious future challenges for youth nationwide. Based on my extensive experience with over 200 parents in severe cases, HB1770 is essential to prevent avoidable harm from the outset of divorce. I urge the committee to report the bill favorably. Thank you for your consideration. I am available for follow-up. Sincerely, A Humanitarian Father Lincoln Brubaker

My name is Ashley Johnson. I am the mother of two children, and I share parenting time equally with their father on a week-on, week-off schedule. From lived experience, I can say clearly: children need both parents in their lives to thrive. When both parents are fit, willing, and able to perform parental duties, equal parenting time is in the best interests of the child. Shared parenting allows children to maintain strong, secure bonds with both sides of their family and provides stability, consistency, and emotional balance. For decades, our system has too often defaulted to assigning primary custody to one parent, even when the other parent is fully capable and deeply involved. In many cases, this results in a child unnecessarily losing meaningful time with a loving parent. That outcome is not child-centered—it is a systemic failure. Research spanning decades shows that the absence of a parent, when that parent is fit and safe, increases a child’s risk of negative outcomes, including behavioral issues, academic struggles, and long-term emotional harm. These findings are not new, and they should not be ignored when shaping family policy. Shared parenting is not about parental rights—it is about children’s needs. HB 1770 supports a balanced, evidence-based approach that prioritizes a child’s relationship with both parents while preserving safeguards for situations where a parent is unfit, unwilling, or unable to parent. If we are serious about protecting children, strengthening families, and building a healthier society, we must align our laws with what children actually need. I respectfully urge you to support HB 1770. Thank you for your time and consideration. Ashley Johnson

Testimony in Support of HB1770 Relative to the Allocation of Parental Rights and Responsibilities and Establishing a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time Chair and Members of the House, My name is Jason Smith, and I am submitting testimony in support of HB1770. This bill does not eliminate judicial discretion. It does not weaken protections for victims of domestic violence. Courts would still retain full authority to issue emergency protective orders and restrict parenting time when credible evidence demonstrates risk. What HB1770 addresses is what happens after an emergency allegation is made. In my experience, allegations alone were sufficient to significantly restrict parenting time at the outset of litigation. Although no finding of abuse was ultimately made, the temporary restrictions became the default framework. Over time, that temporary arrangement solidified into the “status quo.” Once a status quo is created — even if based on precaution rather than proof — courts are understandably reluctant to disrupt it. The concern becomes stability. However, stability built on untested allegations can allow real harm to continue unchecked, while the accused parent bears the burden of disproving claims that were never substantiated. In my case, documented concerns in the other household were overshadowed by initial allegations against me. Because the system had already acted, attention remained fixed on the alleged risk rather than reassessing actual evidence of child welfare. HB1770 would create a simple, fair starting point: a presumption that both parents are fit and that equal parenting time is in the child’s best interest — unless proven otherwise. If credible evidence of abuse exists, the presumption can and should be rebutted. Courts would retain the authority to restrict or supervise parenting time immediately when necessary. But deviation from equal parenting time would require evidence, not merely accusation. This protects: • Children — from long-term structural arrangements based solely on untested claims • True victims — because real evidence will meet the burden • Due process — ensuring that emergency measures do not become permanent without proof A system that treats allegation as equivalent to evidence risks undermining both fairness and safety. HB1770 restores balance by requiring proof for long-term restrictions while preserving emergency protections. I respectfully urge the Committee to support HB1770. Thank you for your consideration.

Chairman, Members of the Committee, My name is Robert Garza. I am the author of the Time Taken Time Back law and the Three Strikes custody interference law. I have spent more than fifteen years inside family courts across this country. I have had joint custody the entire time. I have always been a fit, willing, and able parent. And yet, it has still been a fifteen year battle and over seven hundred thousand dollars just to remain fully present in my children’s lives. It should not be this hard to be a parent. I am here in strong support of HB1770. This bill does something very simple. It begins with the presumption that fit parents should have equal parenting time unless there is clear and convincing evidence of actual harm to a child. And let me be very clear. This bill does not take away judicial discretion. It does not remove a judge’s authority. It simply provides a fair and neutral starting point. Judges still review evidence. Judges still protect children. Judges still tailor decisions to the facts of each case. The only change is where we begin. Right now, many custody cases start from a position that limits parenting time by default. That imbalance fuels conflict, encourages litigation, and too often allows one parent to slowly erase the other. Parenting is a fundamental right. If the government is going to reduce a fit parent’s time with their child, there should be proof of real harm, not assumptions, not speculation, not conflict between adults. HB1770 protects children’s relationships with both fit parents whenever it is safe. It promotes stability. It reduces unnecessary litigation. It restores fairness to the starting line without tying the hands of the court. Children deserve both parents when both parents are fit. I respectfully ask you to support HB1770. Thank you. Robert Garza

Relative to the Allocation of Parental Rights and Responsibilities and Establishing a Presumption of Equal Parenting Time Chair and Members of the Committee, I respectfully submit this testimony in strong support of HB1770. On October 9, 2023, a father last saw his daughter. As of today, that is 860 days without meaningful contact — 860 days without shared holidays, school events, daily routines, or ordinary parent-child bonding. There has been no judicial finding of abuse or neglect. A child protective services investigation that occurred shortly after October 9, 2023 was closed as unfounded within a few months. There has been no full evidentiary adjudication establishing that equal parenting time would cause specific harm. Yet the relationship between father and child has been effectively suspended. A judge assumed his position in December 2024. The parties did not appear before this judge until January 2026, when a status conference was finally held — more than two years after the last in-person contact between father and child. At that January 2026 status conference, which lasted approximately fifteen minutes, the parties appeared before this newly appointed judge for the first time. During that brief conference, the judge explicitly acknowledged the importance of due process and stated that a full evidentiary hearing was necessary. In fifteen minutes, the need for formal evidentiary safeguards was recognized. But by then, 860 days had already passed. For 860 days, the child continued to grow older without meaningful involvement from her father — not because a court had made a clear and convincing finding of specific harm, but because the current statutory framework allows parenting-time reductions to persist without a defined constitutional starting point. This is not a criticism of any individual judge. It reflects a structural gap in the law. Under RSA 461-A:2, courts apply a discretionary “best interest of the child” standard without beginning from a presumption of equal parenting time. Without that presumption, reductions can occur early in litigation and then solidify through delay. Temporary arrangements become long-term realities before evidentiary safeguards are meaningfully applied. If HB1770 had been in effect prior to October 9, 2023, the trajectory of this case likely would have been fundamentally different. The court would have begun with a defined presumption of equal parenting time. Any deviation would have required clear and convincing evidence of specific harm. The burden would have been placed on the party seeking to limit a parent’s time to demonstrate why equal parenting would endanger the child. Instead of a father attempting to re-enter his child’s life after prolonged separation, the starting point would have been stability and continuity with both parents unless proven otherwise. That shift in burden matters. Eight hundred sixty days is not procedural time. It is developmental time. It represents birthdays, milestones, school events, holidays, and ordinary daily moments that cannot be recovered once lost. HB1770 does not eliminate judicial discretion. Courts would retain full authority to deviate from equal parenting time where specific harm is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. But this bill establishes a constitutional floor — ensuring that prolonged separation from a parent cannot occur or persist without meaningful evidentiary justification. When 860 days can pass without a finding of abuse, without a finding of neglect, and without a full evidentiary hearing, it becomes clear that the system needs a defined constitutional starting point. Fundamental parental rights do not dissolve through time or procedural delay. If the State is going to diminish a child’s relationship with a parent, it must do so under strict evidentiary standards. HB1770 does not guarantee outcomes — it guarantees process. It restores balance by placing the burden where it belongs: on the party seeking to limit a parent’s time, and only upon clear and convincing proof of specific harm. That safeguard is not radical. It is fundamental. For these reasons, I respectfully urge this Committee to recommend HB1770 as Ought to Pass. Thank you for your time and consideration. 619-2018-DM-00431

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.