Follow by Email

Friday, April 27, 2012


This piece refers to case in the New Hampshire Ct. System where parents were charged for alleged services by the State and/or contacted by Child Protection Workers
We all have heard about the "Client List" where "Johns" who hired prostitutes made the list; justice yes, however, when a unfounded case or case against a parent gets expunged it makes the results of being on this list devastating and they get to pay for it in more ways than one:
       The Plaintiff, (herein Pl.) brings forward new information directly or indirectly related to this matter and disputes the reasoning in the Court’s (herein Ct.) Orders on a Writ of Certiorari to the extent that the pleadings, applicable law and ambiguity contained in the District Ct. Orders remains unresolved as follows:   (abbreviations are standard bluebook abbreviations used in law: Mot. is Motion)
 The questions manifest themselves as follows: 
a.       Are parents entitled to a fair and accurate account of what they are being billed for, including what was paid by each parent, federal grants and other TANF/ Federal Title IV funding that were reimbursed to the State at 75%; no matter how lack lustrous a States Service plan may be?
b.      Does the RECORD support the State pushing an Assented to Mot. for Reimbursement against the Pl. when no past Order clearly defined their right to do so?  
c.       Did the State attach the Pl. [’s] pay without a proper Ct. Order justifying his actions? And/or was the attachment by the State precluded at the time, because the Pl. appealed and an Order from the District Ct. clearly bars the 1/7/2011 by the State? 
d.      If the State had the ability to attach the Pl. [’s] pay in 2011, with the Order signed in 2009; why is it the Pl. [’s] fault and why is she being held in contempt of a Ct. Order when it was the State who failed to follow the Order to attach her pay in 2009; really, shouldn’t they be held in contempt?  
e.       Did the State apply the incorrect number of weeks for recovery in the Assented to Mot. and the resulting attachment of her pay? 
These are the Pl. [’s] unanswered questions on appeal/Writ of Certiorari and due an answer by virtue of the full review alleged to have been conducted of the District Ct. file; 

The Order of this Ct. articulates how an individual may be responsible for payments to the state in a clear and coherent manner; albeit it fails to address the facts, the ambiguous Orders of the lower Ct., and the unanswered questions it left behind, identified above; 
1.      ¶ 1. a., a full accounting has not been disclosed; a handful of unsupported documents, that a professional accountant cannot decipher is not a disclosure; records submitted to the Ct. by the Child Support Division show the attachment as NOT paid to the State; but, to the Father for unknown reasons, relevant in this matter; a TANF payment was receive as some payment when neither party was illegible for it at the time; all amounting to a denial of due process and/or fraud; 
2.      ¶ 1. b.  The Assented to agreement was signed because the Pl. was advised by the State that an Order for reimbursement existed in the District Ct. RECORD, undisputed by the State; albeit a review shows no clear Order for reimbursement to the state exist in the RECORD, as a result, the Assented to Mot. is a product of Fraud in the procurement by the State; “The average parent would be at a loss when faced with problems of procedure, evidence, or cross- examination." Danforth v. State Dep 't of Health and Welfare, 303 A.2d 794, 799 (Me. 1973); whether or not it was appropriately pleaded by the pro se litigant, the Pl., clearly signed without knowledge of the illegalities’ contained within, or notification of her rights; Furthermore, State Employee Reimbursement Department as an Officer of the Ct. had no immunity, “…when violating a Constitutional right, … for they are deemed to know the law" Owens v. Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398, 455 US 622;  
3.      ¶ 1. c. Disregard, or over looked due to the ambiguous Orders of the District Ct. is the fact that the State filed an untimely Mot. to attach the Pl. [’s] pay and was denied the right to attached on12/20/10 by Judge Leary Ex. B; also, part of the District Ct. file under “review”; the District Ct. indirectly recognized the Pl. [’s] De Novo Appeal in Ex. B part 2; denied and recognized as a Writ of Certiorari here, highlighting the State failure to comply with Ct. Orders; 
4.      To the extent that any arrearages were/are or may be deemed payable as Ordered in the District Ct. record; the Pl. is indigent/ hardly able to pay current fee’s deducted from her weekly pay checks since 1/7/11; ¶ 5 indicates that alleged arrears should be considered satisfied since an attachment should only have occurred after appeal/review;   
5.      ¶ 1. d. It is inconceivable that the Pl. should be held in contempt for non-payment when the Assented to Order of 2009 was the ordered used by the State in 2011 to force an attachment of  her pay; hardly, the Pl. [’s] fault that the State’s lack of accountability and/or due to incompetence lead to their neglect in attaching her pay in 2009 as Order by the Ct.;  
6.      ¶ 1. e. If the Assented to Mot. is enforced as Ordered, by virtue of the Ct. [’s] definition of a Writ of Certiorari, a “full review of the record” would have to give weight to the District Ct. Order of 11/18/2010 Ex. A.  where the Judge indisputably recognized the Pl. [’s] objection and went so far as to state: “Ms. XYZ is correct that the State’s right to recovery is limited under NH RSA 169-C:27 I (c)”; recognizing the Pl. [’s] position  that the computed amount of weeks by the State of  “627” was erroneous and inconsistent with the law under NH RSA 169-C:27 I (c); “Courts are not bound by an officers interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act” Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla. 32, 227 F. 417; The failure of the District Ct. to cure the defect it recognized opposes the standard that “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)”;   
If the Pl. was advised of her rights at the start or any stage in this matter, by the State, presumed to know the laws under which they act; it is highly unlikely that the Pl. would have signed a document doubling what would be lawfully recoverable, without coercion through the State.   
      Due to the ambiguity of the law in of itself the timing for recovery is not specific; to allow for  the absolute maximum recovery period it is computed as follows at $6.50 a week; 5 months x 4.33 in 2005 = 21.65 weeks; 12 months in 2006 = 52. Weeks; 11 months in 2007  = 47.63 weeks; + 4 years per Statute = 208 weeks for a Total of 329.28 weeks as the maximum recovery period. 
      The Assented to Mot. was utterly false; the average person, would have confidence in the State’s ability to be factual and would NOT have agreed to pay double what was allowable by law; even if an appropriate Order existed for payment; a reasonable person may have agreed to the 329 week maximum with the existence of a Order supporting it; but, it is more than likely a person of limited means would have evoked their right to a hearing if they felt the assessment of the ability to pay was beyond their means; the standard of assessment, has never been disclosed;  “A prosecutor doesn't have absolute immunity if he fabricates evidence during a preliminary investigation, before he could properly claim to be acting as an advocate, see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 275 (1993), or makes false statements in a sworn affidavit in support of an application for an arrest warrant, see Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129-30 (1997). Furthermore, as prosecutors and others investigating criminal matters have no absolute immunity for their investigatory conduct, a fortiori, social workers conducting investigations have no such immunity. See id. at 126.”  
7.      If the State‘s Assented to Order is enforced; an Order from this Ct. needs to clearly state and correct that the $ a week is for a period not to exceed “329 weeks from the date of 1/7/11 as reasoned in ¶ 6. to settle the inappropriate attachment by the State with the Pl. [’s] employer; taking $ a week, including a weekly administrative surcharge of $ for a period of 627 weeks, commenced on 1/7/11;
8.      It should further be reiterated that the State’s incompetence and denial of due process, in informing the Pl. of her rights in this matter extends beyond the proceedings leading to financial liability; including but not limited to her name being added to the central registry under NH RSA 169-C:35 V.  And the possibility to expunge under NH RSA 169-C:35 IV as early as 2006; the proceeding to expunge the RECORD was done only when the Pl. [’s] pursued a legal education, to enabled her  to identify her rights and pursue a Pet. to Expunge granted on 1/15/10, Ex. C 
The Plaintiff in this matter was not advised of her rights as required her 5th 6th and 14th amendment rights. And NH RSA 169-C:34 Duties of the Department of Health and Human Services. – VI. At the first contact in person, any person investigating a report of abuse or neglect on behalf of the department shall verbally inform the parents of a child suspected of being a victim of abuse or neglect of the specific nature of the charges and that they are under no obligation to allow a social worker or state employee on their premises or surrender their children to interviews unless that social worker or state employee is in possession of a court order to that effect. Upon receiving such information, the parent shall sign a written acknowledgement indicating that the information required under this paragraph was provided by the person conducting the investigation. The parent and department shall each retain a copy of the acknowledgment.  
9.      As a result, this Ct. is put on Notice that the relevance of ¶ 8.  in this matter, is due to the fact that the State’s reckless incompetence and/or malicious intent affects the Pl. [’s] ability to pay; on or about 3/29/12, a source (ps.S. Thank You) disclosed that the State had obstructed her ability to gain employment in her field of 20 years, by keeping her name on the Central Registry after the Petition was granted on 1/15/10 Ex. C; The Pl. sought proof by mailing a Central Registry Name Search, on 3/29/12 Ex. D; as of the date of this Mot. it remains unanswered in “writing by DHHS”; Nonetheless, the Pl. pursued the matter further by calling the Central Registry @ 603-271-4455 on 4/19/12 @ 2:10 PM and was informed that the State had not removed her name from the Central Registry; precluding her from employment in field for the period of 2006 through 2012 and causing public embarrassment for positions that had been applied to, that required a Central Registry Release after the Expunge Pet. of 2010 and of course was denied; and will continue to be denied employment in her field until such a time as her name is removed in writing from the Central Registry; as such they are liable for defamation of character and the decrease in her salary due to being removed from the industry she was trained to work in without merit; solely due to the State’s malicious act of incompetence and/or willfully and knowingly failing to follow and/or implement standard procedures to remove her name from the Central registry after it had been expunged by a Ct. of competent jurisdiction;
Here it should be noted that the call showed that any parent merely looked into by the State may be on that Central Registry; call to be sure; it is only suppose to be for those found guilty of Abuse and/or Neglect and it can be expunged one year after your told you made the list, oh, oophs that’s only if your social worker is actually competent, and informed you in writing you made the list;

Th The Phone Call:
Moreover, the incompetence of this office is seen in the call itself; Pl. hello, I am calling to see if you received my name search request? Name, yes, was it mailed? Pl. Yes.  Yes, but No, oh hold on, I only send out the ones that are not on the list this is on my supervisor’s desk can I transfer for you? Pl. yes, please and her name XYZ, ok. Again repeat of above and previous party said you had it, when will it be mailed out indicating the name is still on the registry? They said really, well we are busy we get over 150 calls a day, I had someone out a couple of weeks ago, next call there are only two people part time; Pl. how long does it typically take for a response? A week really, Pl. well it was sent to you 3 weeks ago.  Well, I was out, you get the picture  two calls involved over a 5 day period resulting in the same person relaying the above and following contradictions: I have been here for 12 years, I have been here only 2 or 3 years,;we had problems with the computer system, we have all new people; they hardly ever have someone that gets the decision turn over, the district court offices don’t follow procedures to have people removed, they add people who shouldn’t be added, people added should get notice; we destroy files once they are entered, we probably have it in the file; Pl. can you send in your orders to prove you shouldn’t be on the list? No. the district office and court have to file the standard procedure and do it; Pl. what?! really ??? Are you kidding me? Can you send me what they should have done so I can get it corrected? I guess but I can't locate it right now we're busy.Ah, ok so the Pl. should just continue to have their life on hold, I guess. and then Well you could send me a copy of the order and I can locate it in the file; last week the file was destroyed after entry into the computer systems now it exists and remove you, if its in the file. The file she didn't keep?? But could you send me the release again we don’t have it. Pl. What? Last Thursday you said you had it. Well, it could be in the file to go out.  Pl. what do you have to do to get it corrected a Civil Suit? Well you could let the district office know. Pl. In case they are obviously not on board with the rules; are the procedures on line? Oh no it’s interoffice; and I was out last week; Pl. can you email them to me so I can go to the court to get it corrected? Well I’ll try they must be around here somewhere …. Can you send your release again, I don't think we got it. Sure how about by email the first one was wrong so the Pl. had her stay on the phone until both parties were sure it went through, even though they clearly had it the week before. And then she said oh, I can't tell you on the phone if your on the list. Pl. What?You already did!  Send me it all in writing by email. Oh we can't send privileged information by email. Pl. Send it USPS, but I want it.
The Kicker
Well you'll be off in 7 years; Pl. hmm you didn't know who I was last week.  The Problem with this will be covered seperately look for The List NH RSA 169:C:35...
Results after each call;

  with a Government Department under the branch of Health

and Human Services because it’s all 
                              Yup, Confidential - Top Secret…

10.      The financial issues before the Ct. are of broad public interest due to the interests in the funding of Federal and State monies involved; the State cannot hide behind the confidentiality act for these issues, due to that little thing we have called the Freedom of Information Act; we pay taxes and so on so knowing how are taxes are spent both in state and federal, how the funds are dispersed and spent, the Pl. acknowledges the Confidentiality of the Central Registry piece; but it doesn’t really appear that the rest is confidential………unless of course you say so ,which you will, because that’s what your told to do not necessarily law but whatever……there are ways around that too; it's called Freedom of expression Free Speech whether or not its in the Court records I suspect I have kept the pieces like which court, which Judge is sitting on this, the DHHS workers and such names out but the facts as stated as they are, are what they are.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests a Honorable Court Order something reasonable and uncomplicated because this isn’t really isn't that complicated:  
A.    Order the State to distribute to every Judge and DHHS Attorney the proper procedures to follow when removal from the Central Registry is a result of an appropriate ruling; further consider the need of an audit to ensure there are no other victims and correct people wrongly included;
B.     Dismiss the Civil Contempt due to the numerous errors acted out by the State;
C.     Make a clear cut Order that indicates the Pl. is responsible for $ a week for a period not to exceed 329 weeks, from the original date of attachment;
D.    Dismiss the Order to reimburse the DHHS Reimbursement Unit;
E.     Order a hearing on the merits;
F.      Grant such other relief as the court deems just and equitable.         

CERTIFICATION:  I hereby certify that a copy of the above Mot. has been mailed to an assistant Attorney General for the State Reimbursement Unit, et al., on this   th day of April.  This of course is not meant as legal advice in any way just commenting on the obvious; be forewarned the snarky → meaning the not quite as snide as I would like remarks are my own and were not included in the pleading that this may or may not refer to or that may or may not really exist. The Information and Facts are real unfortunately.

For Parents who have ever had contact with DCYF check here:

NHDCYF Central Registry
129 Pleasant Street                 getting off the
Concord, NH 03301                             registry for parents – National Foster Parent Coalition for   Phone: (603) 271-4455                        Allegation Reform

NH Central Registry Name Check form to sign get notarized and send certified to be sure they can't say they don't have it which they will because they probably won't and/or they lost it.

No comments:

Post a Comment