HB 1552 revises New Hampshire law governing protective orders, domestic violence petitions, stalking petitions, and related family court restraining orders to require an explicit perjury warning and acknowledgment from the person seeking protection. The bill directs courts and clerks to include language on petition forms stating that the information is sworn under penalty of perjury and that false statements may lead to criminal prosecution under RSA 641:1. It applies this requirement to petitions under the domestic violence statute, petitions filed on behalf of a minor, stalking petitions, and restraining orders issued in domestic relations and parental rights and responsibilities cases.
The measure also defines the term “non-adverse party” for the restraining-order provisions as the party protected by the order. The bill is intended to standardize and strengthen the warning given to petitioners across multiple protective-order contexts, while preserving existing procedures, burdens of proof, and enforcement rules. It takes effect January 1, 2027.
Impact
HB 1552 would amend several sections of New Hampshire law, including RSA 173-B, RSA 169-C:7-a, RSA 458:16, RSA 461-A:10, and RSA 633:3-a, by adding mandatory perjury acknowledgments to protective-order and related petition processes. The bill does not create a new civil remedy or change the substantive standards for obtaining protection, but it does add a procedural requirement that petitioners be informed of criminal exposure for materially false statements. Because the bill ties false statements to existing perjury law, it could increase the likelihood of criminal enforcement in cases involving knowingly false allegations, and the fiscal note anticipates possible but indeterminable impacts on judicial and correctional systems.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest the bill is framed as a procedural integrity measure rather than a major policy change, with the apparent goal of discouraging false statements in protective-order proceedings. No committee transcript or recorded vote information is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears neutral-to-supportive of court process integrity and due process concerns, while also signaling caution about misuse of protective-order petitions.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is whether adding a perjury acknowledgment to protective-order petitions could deter false filings or instead discourage legitimate petitioners, especially in domestic violence, stalking, and child-related cases where victims may already be reluctant to come forward. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability and the need to protect the integrity of sworn allegations; opponents may argue that the added warning could chill access to relief for vulnerable people or create an additional procedural hurdle. The fiscal note also flags possible judicial and correctional costs because the bill links false statements to criminal penalties, though those costs are not quantifiable.
Relative to restrictions on acquisition of ownership, controlling, and occupancy interests in real property by certain foreign principals on or around certain military installations, and criminal penalties and civil forfeiture procedures for illegal acquisition.