Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateNew HampshireIntroduced
HB 1710: relative to procedures relating to child abduction.
Jay Markell
HB 1710 status: Introduced — Executive Session: 10/23/2026 10:00 am GP 230 (updated Sep 18, 2026).
Source
LegiScan
Confidence
High
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
61OUT OF 100
Score:61/100 civic fit
Risk:Moderate Risk
Impact:Moderate Impact 50/100
Constitutionality75%
Bipartisan50%
Public opinion85%
Bill summary
What changes
The bill adopts the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act, providing courts with specific statutory authority to order abduction prevention measures, restrict travel, and issue ex parte warrants for physical custody of children.
Who is affected
Parents and children involved in custody or visitation proceedings, state law enforcement, and the Judicial Branch.
Requirements and enforcement
Petitioners must demonstrate a 'credible risk' of abduction; courts must verify petitions and document the rationale for prevention measures.
Costs and funding
The Judicial Branch anticipates an annual cost of $173,000+ to hire specialized staff to manage these new complex filings.
When it takes effect
Takes effect 60 days after passage.
Potential benefits
Provides a comprehensive legal framework to prevent child abduction, standardizes criteria for risk, and empowers courts to act quickly in emergencies.
Risks and tradeoffs
Potential for abuse of the legal process, due process concerns regarding ex parte actions, and recurring fiscal costs.
What is still unknown
The exact volume of filings and whether the allocated $173,000 will be sufficient to handle the specialized workload.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
Critical outlook
40%
Benefits
- Provides clear legal standards for custody disputes
- Reduces litigation uncertainty regarding international custody
- Standardizes prevention measures across state lines
Risks
- Adds $173,000 in annual recurring costs to the state budget
- Increases legal costs for parents navigating complex proceedings
- Potential for costly, prolonged custody litigation
Society
Mixed / Neutral
60%
Benefits
- Enhanced legal protections for children at risk of abduction
- Improved judicial tools to prevent child removal
- Clear criteria for identifying credible risks of abduction
Risks
- Risk of parents using the law as a weapon in custody disputes
- Potential disruption to families due to ex parte custody warrants
- Stress and trauma to children during police-enforced custody actions
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
65%
Benefits
- Requires verification of all abduction prevention petitions
- Forces formal court documentation of risk factors
- Provides explicit legislative standards for judicial review
Risks
- Ex parte procedures reduce initial adversarial transparency
- Dependent on individual judge's expertise in specialized law
- Reliance on potential 'bad faith' filings for legal fees recourse
Public Health & Safety
Positive outlook
80%
Benefits
- Direct intervention to prevent wrongful removal or retention
- Authorizes law enforcement to secure children at risk
- Provides for emergency placement during abduction attempts
Risks
- Potential for errors in assessing 'imminent risk'
- Use of physical force by law enforcement during warrants
- Psychological impact of being subject to custody warrants
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
LegiScan
Official bill text or data from LegiScan.
Confidence
High
Information is complete and verified.
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
The use of ex parte warrants creates a potential for due process concerns if evidence is contested.
Analysis scope
Fiscal note relies on workload estimates which may fluctuate.
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedCurrent
- CommitteeUpcoming
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.