This page is an unofficial LFoD record and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.

SB365: requiring courts to use gender neutral terms in documents used in divorce and custody proceedings.

Bill details

Version history, amendments, and roll-call votes were not present in the imported local bill data.

Sponsors

Topics

Criminal justice and courts Children and family law

Official links

SB 365-FN - AS INTRODUCED

2004 SESSION

04-3070

09/01

SENATE BILL 365-FN

AN ACT requiring courts to use gender neutral terms in documents used in divorce and custody proceedings.

ANALYSIS

This bill requires the courts to use gender neutral terms and strike references to gender in documents used in divorce and custody proceedings.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

04-3070

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Four

AN ACT requiring courts to use gender neutral terms in documents used in divorce and custody proceedings.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Purpose. The general court finds that in divorce and custody proceedings, it is vital that courts make their determinations in the best interests of the parties, without regard to gender or gender bias. Therefore, this act requires the courts to use gender neutral terms and strike gender specific references in all documents, including forms, transcripts, and opinions, used in divorce and child custody proceedings.

2 New Section; Documents in Divorce and Child Custody Proceedings; Gender Neutral Terms Required. Amend RSA 458 by inserting after section 52 the following new section:

458:53 Documents to Contain General Neutral Terms. Judges, marital masters, court clerks, and judicial branch employees shall use gender neutral terms and strike gender specific references in all documents, including forms, transcripts, and opinions, used by the courts in divorce and child custody proceedings.

3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2005.

LBAO

04-3070

Revised 1/8/04

SB 365 FISCAL NOTE

AN ACT requiring courts to use gender neutral terms in documents used in divorce and custody proceedings.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Judicial Branch has determined this bill may increase state expenditures by $22,500 in FY 2005 and $45,000 each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on county and local expenditures or state, county and local revenues.

METHODOLOGY:

The Judicial Branch stated this bill adds RSA 458:53 to require "judges, marital masters, court clerks, and judicial branch employees shall use gender neutral terms and strike gender specific references in all documents....used by the courts in divorce and child custody proceedings." Whether this bill will have a fiscal impact on the Judicial Branch depends on the intent of the legislature. If the intent is to state an aspiration, there would be no fiscal impact. Judges, marital masters, court clerks, and Judicial Branch employees would be made aware of the state and would do their best to comply. The fact that the statute has no enforcement mechanism lends credence to this interpretation. At the other extreme would be a legislative intent that the Judicial Branch hire a "divorce and child custody gender neutral specialist" whose job it would be to review all documents used by the courts in divorce and child custody proceedings looking for and correcting violations of this section. With a salary and the 37% benefit allowance, the estimated cost of that position would range from $40,000 to $50,000 per year. An additional method of implementation would be a directive that all court forms, opinions, and orders in divorce and child custody proceeding be reviewed by the author for compliance with the statute. This would result in no cost to the Judicial Branch, but the additional time it would take would mean increased delays in the processing of other cases.