(New Title) relative to parental alienation, limiting certain prior authorization requirements for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and similar rehabilitative services, relative to children's mental health services for persons 18 years of age and younger.
HB 1323, as amended by the Senate, creates a statutory definition of “parental alienation” in New Hampshire family law and directs courts to treat it as a relevant factor in a range of child-custody and parental-rights proceedings. The bill defines parental alienation as a pattern of behavior, conduct, or speech that damages a child’s relationship with a parent and leads to fear, rejection, hostility, or a negative perception of that parent. It specifically includes disparaging remarks, manipulation or coercion of a child, and unjustified interference with parenting time, while carving out good-faith protective actions involving abuse, neglect, restraining orders, or civil protection orders.
The bill also expands how courts may respond when parental alienation is alleged or found. It allows a parent to file a family access motion for enforcement when there is parental alienation or substantial noncompliance with a parenting plan, requires courts to issue remedies when parenting-time orders are substantially and materially violated, and directs courts to consider parental alienation when deciding joint decision-making responsibility, modifying parenting arrangements, and evaluating grandparents’ visitation requests. In modification cases, the bill lowers the threshold for changing parental rights and responsibilities by allowing a change upon proof of parental alienation or repeated, intentional, unwarranted interference, if the change is in the child’s best interests.
The bill’s impact extends beyond the parental rights chapter. It amends the purposes of the guardianship, child protection, and termination-of-parental-rights statutes to require courts to consider the best-interest factors in RSA 461-A:6, thereby tying those proceedings more closely to the custody-factor framework. It also adds parental-alienation-related attorney-fee provisions, requiring courts to award reasonable costs and fees to the prevailing party in certain enforcement or contempt proceedings. The effective date is January 1, 2027.
Overall sentiment appears generally favorable in the House, as reflected by the 197-156 OTP vote on February 12, 2026, indicating meaningful support but not unanimity. The bill’s sponsors and committee placement suggest it was advanced as a family-law reform measure focused on protecting parent-child relationships and improving enforcement of parenting orders. The fiscal note, however, signals that the Judicial Branch expects the bill to increase workload and costs, with estimated annual General Fund expenditures likely between $100,000 and $200,000 due to added case-management demands, staffing needs, and training.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the new legal definition of parental alienation and how courts will apply it in contested custody cases. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a tool to address interference with parenting time and protect children from manipulative conduct, while critics may worry that the concept is difficult to prove, could be overused in high-conflict custody disputes, or could be raised in ways that complicate legitimate abuse or neglect concerns. The bill attempts to address that concern by excluding good-faith protective actions, but the breadth of the new standard and its effect on custody, visitation, and fee awards remain the most notable issues.
HB 1323 would amend multiple provisions of New Hampshire law, primarily in RSA chapter 461-A governing parental rights and responsibilities, by adding a statutory definition of parental alienation and making it an express factor in custody, parenting-time enforcement, modification, visitation, and fee-shifting decisions. It also revises the purposes sections of the guardianship, child protection, and termination-of-parental-rights statutes to require courts to consider the best-interest factors in RSA 461-A:6. The bill would therefore broaden the legal relevance of parental alienation across family-court proceedings and could increase judicial enforcement actions and related litigation.
The bill appears to have received mixed but ultimately favorable committee-level and floor support, passing the House on an OTP vote of 197-156. The available record shows no committee transcript debate, but the vote margin suggests substantial support with significant opposition. The fiscal note from the Judicial Branch is cautionary, emphasizing added workload and staffing costs, which likely reflects institutional concern about implementation rather than policy opposition. Overall, the bill seems to have been viewed as a substantive family-law reform with enough support to advance, but not without controversy.
The central point of contention is whether “parental alienation” should be codified as a formal legal concept and how reliably courts can identify it. Supporters likely argue that the bill addresses interference with parenting time, manipulative conduct, and the need for stronger remedies when a parent undermines the child’s relationship with the other parent. Opponents are likely to worry that the concept can be subjective, difficult to prove, and potentially misused in custody disputes, especially where abuse or neglect allegations are involved. The bill tries to limit that concern by excluding good-faith protective actions related to abuse, neglect, restraining orders, and civil protection orders, but the scope of those exceptions and the lowered threshold for modifying custody remain likely flashpoints.