Why one state’s move to dismantle family court is resonating with mothers and fathers far beyond New England
By Michael Phillips | Father & Co.
For parents who have been through family court, the reaction to New Hampshire’s HB 652 has been visceral. Relief. Hope. Skepticism. Fear. And for many, a quiet recognition: “Someone finally said it out loud.”
HB 652 is a Republican-backed bill that would abolish New Hampshire’s specialized Family Division courts and replace them with a mediation-first model under general jurisdiction courts. Earlier this month, the bill was nearly dead—until the full House revived it by rejecting a committee recommendation to kill it.
For families who have felt erased, sidelined, or financially and emotionally destroyed by family court processes, that vote mattered.
Not because HB 652 is perfect.
But because it acknowledges something many systems refuse to: family court itself may be causing harm.
Why Parents Are Paying Attention
Family court is supposed to protect children and resolve disputes. But for many parents—especially those in high-conflict or contested custody cases—it has become something else entirely:
- A system where allegations carry more weight than evidence
- Where guardians ad litem operate with little oversight
- Where proceedings stretch for years, draining families financially and emotionally
- Where parents lose meaningful relationships with their children, sometimes without ever being found unfit
These experiences are not rare. They are recurring. And they cut across income levels, genders, and political lines.
HB 652 doesn’t pretend those harms don’t exist. Instead, it asks a radical question:
What if the structure of family court is the problem?
What the Bill Actually Does (and Doesn’t)
Despite heated rhetoric online, HB 652 is not about “ending family law” or abandoning children. It proposes structural changes:
- Eliminates New Hampshire’s Family Division, created in 2005
- Moves cases to regular courts, where rules of evidence and due process are more consistently applied
- Creates an Office of Family Mediation, encouraging early, non-adversarial resolution
- Does not create new courts or judges
- Does not eliminate protections for abuse or neglect cases
The idea is not less accountability—but more neutrality.
Supporters argue that mediation resolves most custody disputes anyway, and that adversarial court structures often escalate conflict rather than protect children from it.
Why Critics Are Nervous—and Why Parents Are Divided
Opponents warn that abolishing family courts could:
- Overwhelm general courts
- Remove specialized training around trauma and domestic violence
- Fail families who genuinely need judicial intervention
Those concerns are not frivolous.
But for parents who have already lived through a system that felt stacked against them, the counterargument is simple:
Specialization hasn’t protected us. It’s protected itself.
This is why HB 652 split the New Hampshire House almost down the middle—and why it’s being watched nationally.
The Deeper Issue No One Wants to Touch
One reason this bill resonates with parents is that it surfaces a long-suppressed issue: institutional incentives.
Family courts don’t operate in a vacuum. Federal funding mechanisms—especially around child support enforcement—can unintentionally reward prolonged litigation and adversarial outcomes.
When families feel that the system benefits from conflict, trust collapses.
HB 652 doesn’t solve that problem outright—but it disrupts the structure that enables it.
That alone makes it threatening to entrenched interests.
Advocacy, Pressure, and the Parent Voice
The bill’s revival did not happen quietly. Parent advocates, reform groups, and voices like Carey Ann George amplified the issue publicly, pushing lawmakers to reconsider a committee recommendation that many families felt ignored their lived reality.
Whether you agree with HB 652 or not, this matters:
Parents were heard.
That almost never happens in family court policy.
What Father & Co. Thinks
Father & Co. is not endorsing HB 652 as flawless legislation.
But we are saying this clearly:
- Parents are right to question systems that repeatedly fail children
- Due process matters in family court too
- Mediation should be the norm, not the exception
- Structural reform is not “anti-child”—unchecked systems are
New Hampshire may ultimately amend, stall, or even kill this bill.
But the message has already landed.
Parents are no longer willing to accept “this is just how family court works.”
What Parents Should Know
- This bill is still pending—it has not passed
- A recommit vote is not final passage, but it is a major procedural win
- Similar conversations are emerging in other states, even if no bills exist yet
- Your testimony, emails, and calls matter more than you think
Family court reform will not come from the top down.
It will come from parents who refuse to be silent.
Father & Co. will continue tracking HB 652—and what it means for families nationwide.
Keep Father & Co. Free
Father & Co. exists to support parents navigating separation, custody, and systems that are often confusing, isolating, or overwhelming. This work is grounded in lived experience, careful research, and respect for the real stakes families face.
If this article helped you feel less alone, better informed, or more grounded, reader support helps keep these resources free and available to others who need them.
Need help reviewing or organizing court or formal documents?
Father & Co. offers non-legal document review and organization for people representing themselves. This includes clarity, structure, neutral tone, and timeline organization — not legal advice or representation.
Have a story, experience, or resource to share?
Submissions are reviewed with care and discretion. We respect privacy and handle sensitive information responsibly.
Discover more from Fatherand.Co
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
