HB553

Vote No! The bill allows family court to proceed with parental fitness tests without a conviction, bypassing due process by not requiring a legal finding of guilt. The bill creates unmeasurable metrics of abuse to extend to "emotional" and "psychological" and while we understand these are real traumas, we do not believe that the burden of proof to have your child taken from you should include anything that cannot be measured.   Additionally they include this new term of "parentification" as abuse. Not only can this not be measured, it is a new "therapy" term, that could easily be misconstrued and is certainly not grounds for abuse. Finally, we are very upset that the bill lowers the standard of evidence by using the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt." The bill treats abuse and neglect more like civil than criminal matters, potentially leading to unjust loss of parental rights without sufficient proof of wrongdoing.

The due process of law should be fully required before doing something so drastic as terminating a parent/child relationship. Using 'emotional' and other nonquantifiable measures as a decision making factor without legally finding guilt would only serve to make this situation worse. I believe it is fully unconstitutional NOT to require a legal finding of parental guilt, and that NH is heading down a dangerous path with this legislation. Sadly, NH family courts are notorious for making arbitrary decisions that are not in the best interests of the child, and this law would compound this problem.

Nothing in the bill requires a conviction of domestic violence, endangering the welfare of a child, sexual assault or any other crime against the child by a court of law justifying the family court proceeding with parental fitness tests and rebuttable presumption of harm, thus it sidesteps due process as guaranteed in Part 1 Articles 14 and 15 of the NH Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution

Esteemed legislators The customary "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard must not be compromised by slanted judicial processes that jeopardize parent-child relationships, leading to profound and lifelong legal, personal, economic, and emotional consequences. Such judgments would be grounded in what? Terms concocted by the media? Unquantifiable concepts like “parentification”? As the adage goes, "If you cannot measure it, you cannot control it, manage it, or change it." This underscores the need for protecting parent-child relationships with clearly defined, measurable terms. Parenting is inherently challenging, and most parents strive wholeheartedly to love and support their children to the best of their abilities. While many parents second-guess their decisions, unfortunately, there are no clear instruction manuals for parenting. Introducing vague and poorly defined variables into legal guidelines only complicates an already difficult role. Thus, I urge you to maintain clarity and oppose HB 553. Let's ensure that the guidelines are as clear and specific as possible to support and protect the vital parent-child bond without unnecessary legal ambiguity. Sincerely, Thom Bloomquist, MSN

I believe life starts at conception

The wording of this bill allows the legal system to take children away from their parents without proper evidence. This bill is far too lax and gives the government too much power.

Dear members of the House Children and Family Law Committee: I want to strongly urge you to vote ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on HB553-FN for the following reasons: Part 1, Article 15 of the NH Constitution provides that no one shall be deprived of their rights until afforded due process of law. A rebuttable presumption of harm flips the due process principle of innocence until proven guilty on its head in the absence of a triggering criminal conviction, and makes it so a parent is presumed unfit and must meet a series of subjective and poorly defined standards to continue caring for their child. The bill allows family court to proceed with parental fitness tests without a conviction, bypassing due process guarantees under both the N.H. and U.S. Constitutions by not requiring a legal finding of guilt. "Physical, emotional, and psychological well-being" replaces both "safety" and life, health, and welfare, and is vague and not clearly defined allowing potential judicial overreach into parental rights, even without criminal charges. I urge you to Please vote ITL on HB 553-FN! Respectively, Donna Peterson

I write to urge you to oppose HB533. I and my civil awareness group do not believe family courts should be permitted to proceed with parental fitness tests without a legal finding of guilt. We see this bill creating unmeasurable metrics of abuse in the emotional/psychological realm and do not believe that the burden of proof for something as serious as having a child removed from the home should include such vague and imprecise criteria. We are also uncomfortable with the use of this new therapeutic term "parentification" as abuse, as it could easily be misconstrued. Moreover, we are upset that the bill lowers the standard of evidence by using the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Lastly, we think the bill treats abuse and neglect more like a civil rather than a criminal matter, potentially leading to unjust loss of parental rights without sufficient proof of wrongdoing. I therefore ask you to oppose HB533.

I oppose this bill that creates vague definitions of abuse and enables the state to take a child without a conviction, bypassing due process.

I find this bill to be confusing and unhelpful. I oppose the bill.

Please oppose this bill

Please oppose this bill

Representatives: I am speaking up against HB553 for multiple reasons. 1) New Hampshire has failed multiple audits from US DHHS as regards to the DCYF, vetting of foster and other caregivers for children. There has been no effort to rectify these issues despite the fact that they have been recorded and documented for decades. It is therefore unconstitutional for the State to determine what is appropriate care for any child until the State, its agencies, its non-profits, investigators, social workers, affiliated non-profits and so called “Child Advocacy Centers” investigate and prosecute their own failures which have led to extreme child abuse, neglect. Child trafficking, denial of children’s rights. Child Trafficking exists within the State’s agencies and non-profits - any person who is coerced into saying or not saying something for the benefit of the adult agency and who is coerced through deceit, is a victim of trafficking as defined by the UN and others. There are clearly documented cases of child trafficking in New Hampshire by State agencies and the State has failed to address these cases. Additionally, Children’s Advocacy Centers are single investigator models requiring adult caregivers or guardians or parents to leave their child alone with state investigators who may be police officers with qualified immunity to manipulate, lie to the child. The Children’s Advocacy Centers have received extremely mixed reviews across the nation and should be shut down until the State holds dishonest investigators accountable for traumatizing the children under the guise of so-called “trauma informed” practices. These practices have been widely criticized and in many cases trauma is implanted by the investigators where no trauma existed. NH PD have been documented telling children lies, telling them they can’t talk to their own mother for “the integrity of the investigation”. This is rubbish and dishonest and leads to life long trauma for children who are force-fed tales in order for investigators to get the result they want instead of what is honest and right and in the objective interests of the child. In 2020, Governor Sununu invited members of the public to write to the LEACT commission. I wrote a letter about my concerns regarding the coercion of minors in sexual assault investigations. I cited three criminal cases. To my horror, my letter was intercepted by the NHCADSV who then proceeded to cyberstalk me and share my letter to third parties who doxxed me and accused me of being a rape apologist. It has become crystal clear that children in New Hampshire are a lucrative business for the State’s agencies, non-profits, police , courts and attorneys with zero regard given to the welfare of the children, their families, siblings and homes. This bill should be scrapped and a fulll investigation carried out into the state’s business of child abuse, trafficking and neglect. There are plenty of receipts and to fail to address this is an overt demonstration of negligence towards children.

Having a felony charge on your record makes it hard to get into apartments, difficult to get a good job and can seriously stunt your growth if you are trying to become a productive member of society. Giving mothers struggling with addiction a felony charge rather than the help they need is only going to stunt any hope for growth outside of addiction. Any one who hasn't struggled with addiction and frankly doesn't understand what it does to the brain shouldn't get to tell a struggling mother that just because she has struggled, she is additionally going to be getting a charge which will make it MORE difficult than it already is to bounce back from addiction.

Hi there, I oppose this bill based on the work I have done as a Registered Nurse with birthing people who have substance use disorder (SUD) and their newborns in labor and delivery. ACOG and ASAM, as stated below, provide clear, evidence-based guidance for caring for pregnant and postpartum people with SUD. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) opposes drug testing of individuals or infants without consent and discourages “the separation of parents from their children solely based on substance use disorder, either suspected or confirmed.” The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) clearly states that a positive toxicology test should not be equated with child abuse or neglect. ASAM also recommends that institutes should remove policies that mandate reporting birthing people to child welfare on the sole basis of substance use or substance use disorder. Thank you for listening to your constituents and my opposition of this bill. Emily Brayton, RN

Opposed. It contains vague language that could imply that responsible parents are guilty of wrongdoing based on a highly subjective assessment.

This bill will harm women with a disease that is substance use disorder. A felony makes the things a woman in recovery from SUD might do to make a better life for her and her child - all the more difficult.

The language of this bill is a too vague, expansive, and subjective and will create an excessive number of new cases. It presumes that parents are guilty until proven innocent. This is extending additional powers to agencies of the government, taking away rights of parents. Although I believe 100% in protecting children, I do not believe that you have achieved the goal in this bill. This issue requires far more research and a more refined purpose within this bill. It seems to cast a VERY wide net for who can be investigated. I read the language and hear every teenagers daily complaints, and every nosy neighbor's opinions, becoming families under investigation. The bill needs more work!

I feel trying to put this law into place would be unjust.

A rebuttable presumption of harm flips the due process principle of innocence until proven guilty on its head in the absence of a triggering criminal conviction, and makes it so a parent or guardian is presumed unfit and must meet a series of subjective and poorly defined standards to continue caring for their child. This is absolutely unacceptable in the USA. "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" is the law of this fair (ie, just) land.

This bill creates ambiguity and broadens the role of the state while decreasing the required burden of evidence required before separating children from their parents. I believe the bar must be kept extremely high before separating mother and child or father and child. In seeking to protect children from trauma, the proponents of this bill would cause more families to be traumatized by separation.

Wow, can you say "slippery meet slope?" This bill takes away inalienable rights from parents and increases rights of the family court. The language in this bill is vague and unmeasurable. Changing standards from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of the evidence" is a HUGE red flag. This bill creates a pathway for government over reach and abuse. Please vote, "no." Thank you.