abolishing the family division, creating the office of family mediation, and reassigning the jurisdiction of the family division.
HB 652 would abolish the judicial branch family division and transfer its subject-matter jurisdiction into other courts, primarily the superior court and probate/circuit court structures. It creates a new Office of Family Mediation within the judicial branch to handle voluntary mediation in family matters, including divorce, custody, support, paternity, parental time, and related disputes. If all parties elect mediation and reach agreement, the matter can be resolved there; if not, unresolved issues would proceed to superior court for adjudication.
The bill also revises numerous statutes to replace references to the family division with the superior court, circuit court, or probate division as appropriate, and it updates juvenile, domestic violence, guardianship, adoption, and seminar-related provisions to reflect the new court structure. It establishes a separate mediation and arbitration fund that would support both the existing Office of Mediation and Arbitration and the new Office of Family Mediation, and it makes the new office’s records and quality-assurance materials confidential. The bill’s effective date is January 1, 2026.
HB 652 would significantly reorganize New Hampshire’s family-law court system by repealing RSA 490-D and removing the family division from the circuit court. Family-law cases currently handled in that division would be reassigned to the superior court, while certain probate-related matters, juvenile matters, domestic violence proceedings, and guardianships would be redirected through revised jurisdictional provisions. The bill also changes administrative authority over mediation, certification standards for family mediators, and court-approved diversion and seminar references throughout the RSA. The fiscal note says the bill does not authorize new positions or provide funding, but the Judicial Branch expects implementation costs could be substantial and difficult to estimate.
The bill appears to be framed as a structural reform and alternative-dispute-resolution measure, with an emphasis on expanding mediation options for families while consolidating court jurisdiction. Because there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure directly. The fiscal note suggests the Judicial Branch views the proposal as a major operational change with uncertain costs, but not one that clearly reduces workload enough to offset the new administrative demands.
The main points of contention are likely to be the elimination of the family division itself, the transfer of family cases to superior court, and whether creating a separate Office of Family Mediation would improve access and efficiency or instead add another layer of administration. The Judicial Branch notes uncertainty about costs and staffing, including the possibility that additional superior court judges may be needed at an estimated annual cost of nearly $350,000 each. Another likely issue is the bill’s broad statutory rewrite, which affects juvenile, domestic violence, adoption, guardianship, and divorce-related procedures, as well as the confidentiality and governance structure of the new mediation office and certification board.