Follow by Email

Thursday, March 22, 2012

1. Due Process - Lawlessness or substantiated Reasoning in New Hampshire ref post of 3/14/12

The Reason I have decided to post this type of information is so that others may benefit from unfortunate experiences as a pro se litigant in divorce and other proceedings. I was compelled to attend school as a paralegal solely to understand what had and continues to happen in cases involving Child Protection Services, and find out how fit mothers/parents could lose custody of their child(ren) based on false allegations. The evidence to prove this was and is in the possession of Child Services who as shown below in this case has refused to release it, until a court granted it in 2010.

Now that same court is denying access to evidence it ordered to be handed over; evidence that under NH RSA 169-C:25 I a. specifically gives a parent a right to. It appears to be because, I filed a Civil Suit against the State of New Hampshire Department of Children Youth and Families and Judge Bamberger and Marital Master Alice Love, the later who thankfully retired to one day a week, and others for falsifications in an official matter, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference in a parent/child relationship and a disregard towards allowing access to real evidence under Ross v. Gadwah, that a fact finder would rely in determining their child’s fate. It appears that the law says parents are entitled to due process, whether or not they get it, well that answer is behind closed doors and silenced by a Confidentiality clause - which opposes one's right to Free Speech; on this it appears the 2nd district agrees with me .

first amendment right to free speech, whether or not the information is contained in court records.   Stanfield v Florida Dep’t Children & Families, 680 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1997). 

I am continuing to attend school for legal studies to better understand the court system as I move forward in a Civil Suit against the State. I hope that with effective lobbying and case management that what happened in this case never happens to another family. I am hopeful that this journey will help others or at least bring attention to the injustices and lack of accountability that have occurred in closed door proceedings such as this one and many others. The more I work with the public and review materials in other cases, the more I am sickened by the Child Protective System and their blatant disrespectful attitudes towards ALL people as things to be controlled, rather than people to be helped.

Parents should not have to go to law school to find out years or even months later how severely their rights were abridged by any State Court System. In the matter below the mother requested discovery which Judge Bamberger ordered but when it was brought to his attention at a hearing in November 2007 by the Assigned Attorney, that they never paid, not only did he not enforce it, instead of a review hearing, it became a final hearing which Judge Bamberger dated to take effect a month later in December 2007, to give the father time to go to the Superior Court in order to block the mother from visitation with her child. Really, I was under the impression that:
                                                                                            click for further information

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).
Besides the above mentioned matters, there are several issues going on with this recent order denying the motion to produce:

1. As a pro se litigant "however inartfully pleaded" you are to be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83, 86 (CA7 1980); and French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994, 996 (CA7 1976). "The trial judge should inform a pro se litigant of the proper procedure for the action he or she is obviously attempting to accomplish." Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66, 75 (Alaska 1987). This Court order did not provide further instructions; and ignored probative and conclusive evidence supporting her Motion to Produce and have access to information under NH RSA 169-C 35 a. III indicates will be held until 2014 and for which NH RSA 169-C:25 allows a parent to access and obtain;

2. While Child Services did not produce the Discovery in 2007 after numerous attempts and only partially received in 2010 under Judge Leary, the request now and for further cataloged exhibits in the case is being denied by Judge Ryan who coincidentally works with Judge Bamberger. The reasoning on the law may be correct but may also be fundamentally flawed. Truth, justice and ethics of the law in NH RSA 169-C would leave one to believe that the evidence should be produced - especially since the State can still use it in a case against a parent for 7 years after it close in this case until 2014. However, they may still have to produce it for the Civil Suit.

3. The Court System in New Hampshire claims to be back logged and as such is closed two afternoons a week and yet this order was issued on March 18, 2012, Sunday. Interesting, that an order has come through on a date other then when the Courts are open; many Judges view handling family law cases as a punishment without all the triple G’s of a criminal trial grit, grim, glitz of a criminal trial; my goodness for over a $100,000 a year we would won’t them to bored; however, to be fair Family law has a lot of drama but court’s like Baltimore, MD for one, rotate judges so they do not become oppressive, just a thought.

4. While this motion may have been denied here, I am not yet convinced about the lower court’s reasoning; under 170-G:8-a Record Content I. (b.) Nothing in this section shall restrict or limit access to records filed pursuant to RSA 169-C:12-b. "Nothing" meaning nothing so no statute of limitations; one would then assume as long as its within the time period of records being held a parent should have access. Void Judgments based on Fraud etc. Furthermore, if you review the exhibits and motions, it appears as if the Attorney General is covering up for Child Protective Services, apparently just business as usual between NH government employees.

Basically, this latest series of motions and order makes clear that New Hampshire is a lawless state because essentially if you have orders that are directed at two parties, but it one of those parties is a government employee or state department who does not comply for the purposes of controlling how the proceedings are upheld; the whole event without sameness in the application of the law; then there is NO control on lawlessness and we are back to chaos.

I may be just one Mom, who wants her child to grow up knowing his mother did everything possible; I may not be a lawyer yet and I may not always be right, but I do know with a certain certainty the difference between right and wrong. And I do know that without doubt the Department of Child Services, or Children, Youth and Families in NH is wrong at least 66.7% of the time and so does the Federal Government.

The Federal Assessments of New Hampshire Rounds 1 and 2 reflect the consistent failures observed by the Federal Government since 2003; and contained in the State’s audit below:

N.H. Statewide Assessment 2nd Round CFSR sample of areas N.H. SDO has neglected policy that was the "moving force behind the constitutional violation in this civil case.":

1 comment:

  1. You are NOT the first mother screwed over by the Family Court's. There are many more out there and it's not just Mother's. It's Father's and grandparent's also.
    My husband and I were slandered in Family Court by DCYF Lawyer Kate McClure, who relayed a proven False report to Judge Leary. She told him the supposed abuse was taking place at my house. If it were, wouldn't the Police have become involved? The report was proven false the day it was called in and was NOT called in against my husband and I. Nor was it stated in the report where the supposed abuse took place, yet Kate McClure lied to Judge Leary and told him it happened at my house. It was called in against my estranged son-in-law who had not stepped foot in my home in several months, after leaving his wife and children in an apartment with no money to fend for themselves.
    We have been denied the court CD containing Kate McClures dirty little secret since 2005, by both Judge Bamberger and Judge Leary and also the NH Supreme Court. We were never given a reason for the denial, but we already knew the reason. Kate McClures perjury had to be kept hidden. We never got to face our accuser nor were we ever allowed in court, nor were we ever allowed custody of our grandchildren becuase of the lies of Kate McClure.
    And I'm sure DCYF is wrong MORE than 66.7% of the time and the AG's office DOES cover up for DCYF and the Judges!