Expanding requirements for reports to law enforcement by the department of health and human services.
Summary
HB 767 expands and clarifies the Department of Health and Human Services’ mandatory reporting duties when it receives information suggesting a child has been abused, neglected, or otherwise harmed. Under the bill, DHHS must verbally report qualifying complaints immediately to an on-duty local law enforcement officer, or to the state police if no officer is available, and must follow up with a written report within 24 hours, including weekends and holidays. The bill also updates the categories of incidents that trigger reporting, including sexual contact or penetration, sexual exploitation, serious bodily injury, certain non-accidental injuries by a parent or guardian, abandonment, neglect, and being a victim of a crime.
The bill also revises the authority of law enforcement personnel and trained DHHS caseworkers to enter public places such as schools and child care agencies to interview a child without parental consent or notification when there is reason to believe the child has been harmed in the ways listed in the statute. It further states that law enforcement should not rely on DHHS to gather information for its investigation unless required by the standardized investigation protocol. The effective date is January 1, 2026.
Impact
HB 767 would amend RSA 169-C:38, the state’s child protection reporting and investigation statute, by tightening the timeline for DHHS reports to law enforcement and broadening the circumstances that require immediate notification. It shortens the written-report deadline from 48 hours to 24 hours and makes weekends and holidays count toward that deadline. The bill also adds and refines statutory triggers for both reporting and child interviews in public places, affecting DHHS, local police, state police, county attorneys, schools, child care agencies, and trained caseworkers involved in child abuse and neglect investigations.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a child-safety and law-enforcement coordination bill, with an emphasis on faster reporting and clearer investigative authority. No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. The overall tone of the bill itself is protective and procedural rather than controversial, but its changes to reporting timelines and investigative access suggest it could draw interest from child welfare and civil liberties stakeholders.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the expanded and accelerated reporting obligations for DHHS and the broadened authority for law enforcement and trained caseworkers to interview children in public places without parental consent or notice. Supporters would likely argue that immediate verbal reporting and a shorter written-report deadline improve child protection and interagency response. Potential critics may focus on privacy, due process, and family autonomy concerns, especially where the bill allows interviews without parental notification and expands the categories of cases triggering those powers. No specific opposition or support was recorded in the provided committee or vote materials.