Abolishing the family division, creating the office of family mediation, and reassigning the jurisdiction of the family division.
HB 652 would eliminate the judicial branch family division and replace it with a new Office of Family Mediation within the judicial branch. The bill shifts most family-related matters—such as divorce, custody, support, alimony, paternity, and related name-change petitions—into the superior court, while allowing parties to voluntarily elect mediation through the new office before litigation proceeds. It also reorganizes juvenile and child-protection matters by moving references from the family division to the superior court and, in some probate-related matters, to the probate division.
The bill also revises the structure and oversight of family mediation in state law. It expands and redefines the duties of the mediation and arbitration system, creates a separate family mediation administration structure, updates mediator certification standards, and establishes confidentiality and immunity provisions for mediators and related neutrals. The effective date is January 1, 2026, and the bill repeals the existing law establishing the family division.
If enacted, HB 652 would substantially rewrite multiple chapters of New Hampshire law by repealing RSA 490-D and removing the family division from the circuit court structure. Jurisdiction over divorce, custody, domestic violence, juvenile delinquency, child protection, children in need of services, and related proceedings would be reassigned primarily to the superior court, with some adoption, guardianship, and termination-of-parental-rights matters routed to probate court. The bill also amends numerous cross-references, court administration provisions, judicial salary statutes, diversion program rules, and mediation statutes to conform to the new court structure and the new Office of Family Mediation.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be reform-oriented and procedural rather than overtly partisan. The sponsors’ approach suggests support for replacing the family division with a mediation-centered model and consolidating family cases in the superior court. Because no committee transcript or vote history is included, there is no documented public opposition or endorsement to gauge beyond the bill’s structural changes.
The main points of contention likely concern whether abolishing the family division would improve or disrupt access to family justice, especially for divorce, custody, domestic violence, and juvenile cases. Potential supporters may favor the bill’s emphasis on voluntary mediation, streamlined court structure, and revised mediator standards, while critics may worry about losing a specialized family court, the impact on vulnerable parties, and whether the superior court and probate court would be equipped to absorb the caseload. The bill also raises possible concerns about the governance of the new family mediation office, certification standards tied to outside professional bodies, and the transition of juvenile and protection cases into new court venues.