By Megan Koerber
House Bill 1267 became law after the New Hampshire Legislature overwhelmingly voted to override a veto by Governor Kelly Ayotte. The measure requires school districts and charter schools to establish policies prohibiting the questioning of students by any individual who is not a school employee without prior written consent from a parent or guardian. Supporters say the bill promotes parental involvement and transparency, while opponents raise concerns about its effect on student-welfare investigations and about implementation and accountability.
The bill was introduced on January 7 and received favorable committee recommendations in both chambers before passing the House and Senate in voice votes. It was sent to Governor Ayotte on May 14 and vetoed on May 28.
In a press release explaining her veto, Ayotte said, “I appreciate the Legislature’s attention to protecting children and respecting parental rights. However, I also have concerns about the scope and unintended impacts of this legislation as drafted. After consulting with the Attorney General’s Office, this bill could both impede criminal investigations and negatively impact public safety.” The vote to override the veto was 311-6, and on August 20, HB 1267 was enacted without the Governor’s signature. It will take effect January 1, 2027.
Representative Vanessa Sheehan (R) was the lead sponsor of the bill. Her testimony detailed an incident that happened at Milford Middle School, in which students were to be questioned by school district attorneys. While the parents were notified of the intent to question the students and expressed a desire to be present for the questioning, the attorneys “needed to move forward” and conducted the questioning without the parents present.
“My constituent, who has children in the school, reached out to me and asked if there was anything I could do to prevent this from ever happening again,” Sheehan said in her testimony.
The law makes allowances for questioning in cases involving legitimate child welfare concerns, but it has also raised questions about how it will be implemented in practice. Michelle Wangerin, litigation director at New Hampshire Legal Assistance, raises a few of those concerns.
“New Hampshire Legal Assistance has long supported legislation giving children a right to parental guidance and/or counsel before questioning that could affect their basic rights,” she says. “Although this bill advances that important goal, placing it in RSA 189, which governs schools, rather than RSA 169-B, which governs delinquency proceedings, creates significant accountability and implementation concerns.”
Wangerin also notes that the law doesn’t define the term “questioning.”
“Does it mean ‘interrogation,’ as commonly used in law enforcement settings, or does it extend to ordinary conversation between a child and an outside enrichment presenter visiting the school?” she asks.
Wangerin says children should unquestionably have the right to seek parental guidance before being subjected to interrogation-like questioning by anyone in a position of authority, but adds that the law as written leaves more questions than answers.
As school districts begin implementing HB 1267, Children’s Law Center Executive Director Lisa Wolford cautions against creating what she describes as “a blanket prospective authorization” without providing parents or guardians with a meaningful opportunity to decide whether to participate in a particular matter.
“The statute gives parents and guardians not only a role in authorizing questioning,” she says, “but also a right to be present and to have their own attorney present.”
Wolford says attorneys also need to be aware of how districts implement the law, as there are students who are particularly vulnerable to school-based questioning.
Citing recent research, she says the presence of school resource officers has been associated with increased rates of suspension, expulsion, police referrals, and student arrests, with the effects disproportionately impacting some groups, including Black students and students with disabilities.
She also notes that students in state custody or otherwise involved in the child welfare system may not receive the same protections as students whose parents are readily available to receive notice, provide informed permission, attend questioning, and obtain counsel when appropriate.
“A protection that depends on an available and effective parent or guardian can operate very differently for children who lack that support,” Wolford says.
For children’s lawyers in particular, she says, the issue is whether those protections actually work in practice.
“The question is whether implementation of HB 1267 actually protects children’s rights and interests in practice, rather than simply whether a district has adopted a policy that appears to comply with the statute on paper,” Wolford says.
As the January 2027 effective date approaches, attention will shift from the bill’s passage to the law’s implementation, as school districts develop policies and procedures that will determine how HB 1267 operates.