What Recent Hearings on HB1717 Reveals About the Children and Family Law Committee (CFL)
Respectfully, the CFL committee has spent recent years boasting about their expertise, book deals, and their handling of family court matters. However, recent events reveal just how deficient that expertise truly appears to be.
During public testimony on HB 1717, the so-called ‘experts’ displayed a clear lack of understanding—despite their legislative experience, decades of complaints, and ties to legal and health fields. They seemed unsure if the current family court is a constitutional Article III court and is staffed by genuine Article III judicial officers. They appeared to easily confuse terminology, statutes, and constitutional principles, often asking nonsensical questions.
An exception was a senior member who correctly stated that family court judges act in a judicial capacity without the authority of constitutional judicial officers. This member is clearly aware that the family court is staffed by state actors who lack any constitutional authority to issue judicial orders. The NH Supreme Court confirmed this in 2007. Yet it is a stark contradiction; the same members have been vocal about the family court judges’ absolute authority.
This is very simple to understand; family court actors lack the authority of being Article III judges and their recommendations are not valid orders and are not judicially enforceable.
The CFL committee has failed to demonstrate meaningful purpose. They appeared to be confused by how NH RSA 490’s current language obscures the reality and responsibility of the family court system. Most questions from more vocal members reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of how family courts operate and why they are harming both families and the state. In stark contrast, they were quick to boast about their resumes, seemingly using them to validate their opinions.
Within minutes, it became clear they were trapped by NH RSA 490’s current wording—just as parents are trapped and forced to navigate the system that perpetuates family destruction for profit. Meanwhile, CFL members seem unaffected and indifferent to the devastation inflicted on families for years. The committee exhibits a desire to control narratives—limiting input, disrupting public testimony, and interrupting at the appearance of key information or names.
Firstly, the family court is not a constitutional Article III court. It functions as a statutory administrative tribunal created by the legislature. Staff—whether called marital masters, referees, or judges—lack full judicial authority while in family court, which has been confirmed by the NH Supreme Court on SB112 (2007). Recognizing this would help the CFL understand the limitations of the role and how it exposes systemic deficiencies that lead to harmful results.
Secondly, many CFL questions suggest they believe that if HB1717 (relative to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, family division) defines personnel roles and the family court’s actual function, it would threaten constitutional protections or create a new court. This misunderstanding ignores the fact that the bill simply acknowledges the family court’s administrative nature, which has been its operation for over twenty years. HB1717 offers transparency and accurate terminology, which is essential, especially given the lack of due process protections that leave parents and children vulnerable to injustice and harm.
Thirdly, some suggested that identifying the family court as an administrative court would conflict with the state constitution and undermine judicial authority. A total lack of insight. Since 2005, this has been the operating framework of the family court—performing the scope of work for agencies like BCSS, DCYF, and YDC under DHHS. Clarifying this status promotes transparency, accountability, and protection of fundamental rights.
Fourth, during an unguarded moment, it was implied that the committee felt offended by public criticism of their ineffective performance over the past several years. Apparently upset when their work is criticized, instead of hearing praise. Yet in many hearings, members speak negatively, insinuate, demean, or ask nonsensical questions. When the public highlights shortcomings, the committee’s response is a form of reprimand or a vague justification, “it’s not black and white.” Camaraderie seems valued instead of acknowledging failure the to serve and protect people—especially in addressing the pursuit of parents and children for profit and institutional incentives. Actions suggest a priority of financial interests over their sworn duties.
Finally, the CFL committee claim of expertise about their handling of the systemic issues affecting families seems consistent yet, parents and children suffer every day—denied fair hearings and are subjected to procedures that lack due process protections. This is not an abstract issue but a matter of safeguarding accountability, transparency, and rights.
The follow-up performance at the executive session was filled with tension and folly. The day was characterized by clear signs of intent, party conflicts, all offering the same diversions from the facts we’ve seen many, many times before. The committee’s actions seem predetermined, demonstrated by the lack of a meaningful executive discussion. If their goal is to truly understand the serious issues facing the state because of the family court, and despite having over 200 hours of sessions since 2022, this committee has fallen short of its obligations to the public.
It’s concerning that the CFL committee’s expertise doesn’t match what they claim. Their actions appear motivated by other interests, while comprehension is woefully inadequate. HB1717 is a bill that clarifies and defines the flawed language in NH RSA 490, thereby improving transparency. The committee’s actions appear to create complexities that do not exist and misunderstandings where there is clarity. It is now up to the full House to determine the value of HB1717.
This author has asked to remain anonymous.
Authors’ and Speakers’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Disagree, agree, Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
