New Hampshire’s HB 553, up for a House vote this week, promises to protect children from abuse and neglect. Instead, it’s a poorly crafted amendment to the state’s child protection law that risks branding innocent parents as abusers. By expanding vague definitions and lowering the bar for intervention, it hands a broken family court and Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) dangerous new tools to upend families—all under the guise of child welfare.
In the wake of the horrific case of Harmony Montgomery, lawmakers intend to change definitions of abuse to ensure children don’t fall through the cracks of New Hampshire’s child protection systems. An in-depth investigation and reform of DCYF and Family Court is needed to strike at the root issues of due process deprivation, perjury, lack of follow-up on child abuse cases, arbitrary consideration of evidence, lack of oversight, and documented instances of keeping and placing children with known child abusers. Instead, lawmakers bring HB553, which enables DCYF and Family Court the ability to label any parent an abuser at whim.
The bill stretches “abuse” and “neglect” to cover “emotional or psychological welfare,” undefined terms that invite overreach. Grounding a child could be twisted into “isolation,” a pattern of “restricting social interactions” deemed emotionally harmful. Saying “no” to extra screen time might become “neglecting emotional needs,” undermining a child’s “sense of well-being.” These aren’t hypotheticals—HB 553-FN’s language leaves such calls to the whims of family court referees and DCYF workers, who already wield unchecked power in a system notorious for arbitrary rulings.
Take “parentification,” where a child takes on “parental responsibilities” beyond what’s “reasonable.” What’s reasonable? The bill doesn’t say. A kid helping with chores or comforting a sibling could be mislabeled as abuse, especially by referees who aren’t even constitutional judges and face no real oversight. In a family court dubbed “liars court”—where witnesses skip oaths and testimony gets blocked—this vagueness is a loaded gun. Good parents could lose their kids over normal family dynamics, judged by subjective standards no law clearly defines.
Even more alarming is “serious impairment,” redefined as an “adverse impact” on a child’s well-being from “a single event” of “serious injury or illness.” A broken arm from a bike fall, a bout of flu, or an appendicitis scare could qualify. Is that neglect? Abuse? The bill offers no clarity, letting family court and DCYF decide case-by-case. A loving parent rushing their kid to the ER might still face a finding of harm, not because they failed, but because the system can’t distinguish acts of God from intentional acts. With DCYF’s history of sloppy investigations and family court’s habit of rubber-stamping agency claims, this loose definition risks punishing the innocent.
The bill’s reliance on a “preponderance of evidence” standard—already part of the law but now paired with these murky terms—makes it worse. It’s just a 51 percent chance of abuse or neglect, not “beyond a reasonable doubt,” despite the life-shattering stakes of losing a child. A raised voice or a timeout could be spun as “pervasive emotionally abusive behavior,” triggering intervention. DCYF social workers are not clinical psychologists or psychiatrists with the expertise to make these claims. The expanded definitions lower the bar for triggering a “rebuttable presumption of harm,” where parents are presumed guilty and must prove their innocence. An unexplained bruise or a child’s tantrum over discipline could tip the scales, no criminal conviction required. In a family court where referees waive evidence rules, this low bar becomes a trap for parents who can’t disprove vague accusations.
Yes, family court and DCYF are flawed—cases drag on, kids suffer, and accountability is scarce. But HB 553-FN doesn’t fix that; it compounds the mess. Its rebuttable presumption of harm now captures everyday parenting under expanded definitions, like “psychological maltreatment” from discipline or “neglect” from a single illness. In a system where DCYF mishandles evidence and referees rule without scrutiny, these changes turn a blunt instrument into a sledgehammer. Parents face an uphill battle to prove their innocence against subjective charges, all while kids get caught in the crossfire.
The House must reject HB 553. Kids deserve real safeguards, not a law that risks tearing apart loving homes with little proof and turns normal parenting into a legal minefield. The bill’s vague terms and low standards don’t protect children—they endanger families and empower a family court and DCYF already prone to overreach and known for getting it wrong. It deflects scrutiny from the agencies that have failed children in New Hampshire repeatedly and completely contradicts the spirit of the Parental Bill of Rights, enabling broad interference and punishment of parents for exercising their rights to direct the care, education, and upbringing of their children.
