NH House approves bill imposing punishments for false reports of child abuse or neglect
House Bill 243 will forbid people in New Hampshire from making false reports 'maliciously or with the intent of harm' and allow them to face criminal charges or civil lawsuits for doing so. (Getty Images)
The New Hampshire House of Representatives approved a proposal through a voice vote on Thursday to punish people who file false reports of child abuse or neglect.
If also approved by the Senate and governor, House Bill 243 will forbid people in New Hampshire from making false reports 'maliciously or with the intent of harm' and allow them to face criminal charges or civil lawsuits for doing so. It also specifies that reports 'may' include the name, address, or phone number of whoever was making the report.
Thursday's vote goes against the wishes of the majority in the House Children and Family Law Committee. That committee previously voted, 10-6, to recommend the full House reject the bill over concerns it would be ineffective and have a chilling effect.
Lawmakers opposed to the bill pointed out that by simply allowing the name and information of the reporter to be included and not requiring it, this bill still allows people intentionally filing false reports to remain anonymous, making it ineffective. They also said a provision in the bill that informs reporters they may be subject to criminal or civil penalties for malicious reports would have a chilling effect, possibly discouraging good-faith reporters and preventing real abuse from being addressed.
'If one child is put at risk, that is one child too many,' Rep. Peter Petrigno, a Milford Democrat, said Thursday on the House floor in opposition to the bill. 'While the bill has good intentions, it's impractical and potentially harmful.'
Deerfield Republican Rep. James Spillane, who sponsored the bill, previously told the Bulletin, 'we've got a problem with people weaponizing the system.'
He said he'd heard from constituents stories of aggrieved ex-spouses or squabbling grandparents making false reports vindictively.
Another bill related to false reports of abuse and neglect, also sponsored by Spillane, is still being considered by the House. House Bill 430, if passed, would shorten the length of time the Department of Health and Human Services holds onto records regarding 'unfounded' reports of child abuse or neglect. The department currently maintains records of unfounded abuse or neglect for 10 years from when it was deemed unfounded, unless it determines there is 'reasonable concern' about the case, at which point the records are kept indefinitely. This legislation would shorten that period from 10 to three years. After that, the department destroys all electronic or paper records in the case. The Children and Family Law Committee will discuss that bill in closed session on March 4.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
22 minutes ago
- Black America Web
President Donald Trump Orders Bombing Of 3 Iran Nuclear Sites, Democrats Frozen Out From Intel
Source: HAYI / Getty After initially stating to mull the decision for a time, President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran on Saturday (June 21), which has escalated the conflict to unprecedented levels. Top Democratic Party officials say that they were not briefed on President Trump's actions, and a national address from the former business mogul claimed a total annihilation of Iran's nuclear weapons production capabilities. As seen in an NBC News report, President Trump boasted of the bombing of three sites in Iran, Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, which the administration framed as the epicenter of Iran's nuclear weapons production. This comes as the two countries are locked in a long-distance skirmish that has left over 400 dead in Iran and over 24 dead in Israel. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly after the attack. The move garnered praise from several GOP officials, including Speaker Mike Johnson, who stated that Congress would have taken too long to give its approval to Trump. Democratic Party Sen. John Fetterman praised Trump's actions, writing on X, 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Fetterman's stance differs from those of his party, many of whom said that they were left out of briefing talks ahead of the strikes. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman out of Kentucky, called Trump's actions 'unconstitutional' via social media. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia wrote on X of the bombing, 'The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran. And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least 2 or 3 years'. So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment. I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York shared in a statement, 'President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres also took to X to give a statement regarding the strikes: I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security. There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world. I call on Member States to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the @UN Charter and other rules of international law. At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. Source: Pool / Getty Late Saturday night, Trump was flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Jim Hegseth, and State Secretary Marco Rubio, praising the efforts of the military strike. 'I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they've done, and most importantly, I want to congratulate the great American patriots who flew those magnificent machines tonight and all of the United States military on an operation the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades,' President Trump said. On X, the reaction to the Iran bombing and the fear of retaliation cast gloom across the social media network. We've got reactions below. — Photo: Getty President Donald Trump Orders Bombing Of 3 Iran Nuclear Sites, Democrats Frozen Out From Intel was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Hamilton Spectator
41 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
House Democrat: Strike on Iran ‘not necessarily the death blow' to nuclear program
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, suggested the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities are 'not necessarily the death blow' that President Trump claimed when he announced the military action Saturday evening. In an interview on MSNBC, Smith questioned Trump's assessment that the three Iranian nuclear sites were 'totally obliterated' by the strikes and raised the possibility that the U.S. is unaware of more sites. 'President Trump, in his typical fashion, you know, claims facts not in evidence, saying we totally obliterated their whole program,' Smith said. 'Nobody knows that right now. Maybe. Maybe not. We do not know how many of these centrifuges were destroyed.' He also said the U.S. 'can't be 100 percent sure that we knew about all of Iran's centrifuges,' noting the U.S. didn't know about Iran's Fordow nuclear site — one of the three that the U.S. bombed on Saturday — for a decade before it was discovered. And Smith questioned 'how quickly' Iran could reconstitute its nuclear program, adding, 'It sadly does not take that long to build centrifuges once you know how.' 'So it's not necessarily the death blow to Iran's nuclear program. We're still going to have to negotiate with them at some point,' he said. 'So, you know, this assumption that their nuclear program is gone and they'll never be able to build it is simply wrong at this point.' The announcement of U.S. action against Iran came two days after the White House said Trump would decide whether to get involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel 'in the next two weeks' to give a window for negotiations. White House sources indicated the U.S. had given Israel a heads up before it struck the Iranian sites and that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke after the strikes. The strikes marked a significant entrance by the U.S. into a conflict between Israel and Iran that had been underway for more than a week. They also indicated a shift by Trump, who said he was seeking a diplomatic solution with Iran and sent U.S. officials to make a deal with Tehran on its nuclear program. Smith released a statement on Saturday condemning 'in the strongest terms' Trump's decision to order U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, criticizing the president for acting without congressional approval and without specifying 'clear objectives for these actions.' 'There are no guarantees that it will eliminate the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon or how long it might set their program back,' Smith said in the statement. He said negotiating a nuclear deal is 'the way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and to protect American service members.' 'The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous and that threatens the safety and security of the United States, Israel, and ultimately the world,' Smith added in the statement.
