I hear that there are a number of changes effective in 2025 to the laws governing the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act in NH. What are those, and how might they affect me?
The New Hampshire legislature made sweeping changes to RSA 461-A, or the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act that went into effect on January 1, 2025. The following represents a summary of some key changes that may affect you if you are thinking of filing for divorce or if you are divorced and seeking to modify either your parenting plan or your support order.
Gone is the language about each parenting having frequent and continuing contact with the child(ren). In its place is much more instructive language that it is the policy of the state, unless not in the best interests of the child, to encourage approximately equal parenting time. RSA 461:A-2 (I) and (I)(a). Parents are courts are granted the widest discretion in developing these plans, which supports individually tailored provisions in parenting plans. RSA 461:A-2(I)(d).
Section A:4-a provides for the filing of a new type of motion to address substantial and material non-compliance with an existing parenting plan by way of a Family Access Motion. Simply put, [i]n the event of substantial and material non-compliance with a court approved parenting plan under this chapter, relative to denying or interfering with parenting time without good cause, the aggrieved parent may file a family access motion for enforcement of the parenting plan. The motion shall state the specific facts which constitute a violation of parenting time from the parenting plan.
The relief is equally as straightforward. [P]ursuant to a motion for a family access order or a motion for contempt that its order for parenting time has been substantially and materially violated, without good cause, the court shall order a remedy, which may include, but not be limited to:
(a) A compensatory period of parenting time at a time convenient for the aggrieved party, of not less than the period of time denied;
(b) Participation by the violator in counseling to educate the violator about the importance of providing the child with a continuing and meaningful relationship with both parents;
(c) Assessment of a fine of up to $500 against the violator payable to the aggrieved party;
(d) Requiring the violator to post bond or security to ensure future compliance with the court's access orders; and
(e) Ordering the violator to pay the cost of counseling to reestablish the parent-child relationship between the aggrieved party and the child.
Additional provisions exist in this section to request reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred and attorney's fees and contain very strong language that the court may utilize any and all powers relating to contempt conferred on it by law or rule of the court. The intent of the legislature is clear that parenting plans are to be honored, developed for the individual families they apply to, and upheld to promote equality in parent-child relationships whenever possible. This is the strongest stance that the legislature has taken on this issue to date, and it comes with a tight timeline. Final disposition of a Family Access Motion must occur within 60 days of service of the motion on the other party.
There are also significant changes to the application of child support guidelines which are taking place. Rather than a blanket (albeit rebuttable) presumption that the guidelines apply (the State's calculation of what party A should pay to party B, taking into account income, mandatory retirement, state taxes, medical insurance for the children, and child care expenses paid by either party), the new law takes various categories of parents and creates new presumptions. By way of example, the new law allows for a deviation from the guidelines based on parenting. Schedule as follows:
In cases where the parties will each be financially responsible for 50 percent of all eligible childcare costs, 50 percent of all uninsured medical expenses for the children, and 50 percent of any agreed-upon extracurricular activities in which the children may participate and the parties:
- Have substantially similar incomes and an approximately equal parenting schedule, there is a rebuttable presumption that a $0 child support obligation is appropriate.
- Have substantially similar incomes and a substantially shared parenting schedule, there is a rebuttable presumption that a deviation from the child support guidelines is appropriate.
- Do not have substantially similar incomes and do not have an approximately equal or substantially shared parenting schedule, there is a rebuttable presumption that the child support guidelines calculation provides the appropriate child support obligation.
- Do not have substantially similar incomes but do have an approximately equal or substantially shared parenting schedule, the child support guidelines calculation may or may not provide the appropriate child support obligation. This determination shall be made in the best interest of the children, with the paramount consideration being whether, with any proposed adjustment to the guidelines, the income of the lower earning parent enables that parent to meet the costs of child rearing in a similar or approximately equal style to that of the other parent.
- Have a substantially shared or approximately equal parenting schedule and no extraordinary circumstances, a child support order should not result in the obligee parent having higher adjusted monthly income than the obligor parent after adjusting for Federal Income Taxes and Social Security and Medicare expenses for each parent, as provided under the current child support guidelines table.
The statute goes on to note that[s]ubparagraph (1) may not apply in cases where extraordinary circumstances are present, such as the care of a child with significant health issues, long distances between the parents' residences, or the parent's unusual or unpredictable work schedules, or in cases where there is evidence of abuse, as defined in RSA 173-B:1, I.Subparagraph (1) shall not apply when the application of the presumption is deemed not to be in the best interest of the children.
Substantially similar income is defined as within 10%, and an approximately equal parenting schedule is also defined as within 10% (So a 60-40 split still counts as approximately equal). In other words, if Parent A makes $150,000 per year, and Parent B makes $135,000 per year, and they have an equal or substantially equal schedule, neither party may be paying support to the other. A substantially shared parenting schedule is defined under the statute as parents having greater than 35% parenting time.
If you have an order that is several years old, either as to parenting or support, it may not be serving you under these new laws, and it may be time for a comprehensive review. If you're looking to enforce a parenting plan or modify that or a support order, Gleason Legal may be able to help. Feel free to reach out to us at 603.782.5044.