Despite the need for changes to the New Hampshire domestic violence law the Republican dominated Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee tabled a bill (HB 1581) that would have required a warrant before an arrest could be made under the law. The committee voted 14-0 against the bill.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Dan Itse, spoke at the hearing and offered two amendments in the hope that the committee would consider the bill favorably. Neither were taken up.

Fatherhood Coalition Chair Joe Ureneck also addressed the committee saying the bill was needed to correct the seriously flawed law which allowed men and fathers to removed from their homes, lose custody of their children and be entangled in the judicial system without any justification. Under New Hampshire's 'domestic violence' law an order can issue even if a person only claims she is being 'annoyed' - no physical evidence is required and there is no right to a trial or evidentiary hearing. The law is set up to presume the guilt of the man charged and the annoyance claim can result in children being taken away from their father.

Opponents of the proposed law included a New Hampshire police officer who teaches 'domestic violence' protocols, the NH head of the ACLU and a NH corrections department representative.

The NH police officer took issue with the Joe Ureneck's statement that the law was sexist, saying that since men were indeed responsible for 90% of all domestic violence it was natural that they should be the object of the law and that DV orders are only given out for good reason, citing assault, sexual assault, destruction of property and the like but leaving out claims of 'harassment' which includes being 'annoying'. He also claimed that custody was not a problem because a father could ask for an emergency hearing within 3-5 days and he had never seen a request for an emergency hearing denied. He left unspoken the likelihood that fathers routinely did not regain custody at the hearings.

It was clear from the committee's response to Ureneck's testimony that they were unfamiliar with the underlying domestic law and that few people, if anyone, had testified in opposition to New Hampshire's 'domestic violence' protective order law. One member asked the NH police office whether it was true that 'annoyance' was indeed cause for a protective order, adding that he hoped it was not the case. The NH police officer, in charge of DV police training, stated he was unsure of the issue.

Reps. Itse and Lambert are to be congratulated for bringing the bill to the NH House.