Follow by Email

Monday, July 30, 2012

The Quest for Fairy Tales

              It’s a Quest for Fairy Tales ...

It's official, a local TV show that  unravels fairy tales happening all around you right now, rather than once upon a time! 

Our official winners on FaceBook  had some great ideas for names, but they had even better ideas for guests! 

Fairy Tale Access Rather than once upon a time, we are going to prove that Fairy Tales do exist in actual time, and unravel them by introducing our audience to all of those people who make great things happen and those who have experienced great things because of it, as well as interview our usual array of fairy tale characters...stay tuned...more details are developing who would you like to see?
The head fairy is going to introduce you to all the people, young and old and all the businesses and children that inspire "The Nashua, NH Fairy Tale Festival" to be as special as it is.

The Head Fairy's Quest is on, will we succeed? Of course, just believe ... in fairy tales it's never to late to start! 

ps. it's a green screen, so polka dots, stripes, busy patterns, red, green and white do not work well with that technology, just thought you should know ahead; in case you decide to be our guest.

See you soon; the Head Fairy

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Boston against ... Chick-fil-A ... Really

The Cows are coming ... or are they?

Having lived in Boston, Mass, grown up in Western Mass and now living in Nashua, NH; I am simply no longer surprised that a Boston Mayor is once again causing discord, because someone voiced their opinion. Mayor Menino is promoting discrimination; this time a Boston mayor is directing his personal discrimination at Christian Values, and the target for his own agenda is Chick-fil-A.

I have to wonder if Mayor Menino wrote the same letter to every registered voter, church and politician who did not vote for the same marriage bill in Massachusetts; should they all move out because they do not agree with those who voted for the Gay Marriage Bill.

Of course not, this is America, a unique place where we do not always agree on all the issues all of the time; and nationwide everyone does not support same sex marriage.  So what, each individual has a voice and a 1st amendment right to free speech.   

In America, if we are not inciting violence we have a right to free speech. However, in this case the manner that Mayor Menino is acting; borders on the behavior exhibited in Boston Ma. when it responded to the 1965 Racial Imbalance Act; by refusing to desegregate their school districts based on Race, Class and Ethnicity; it caused violence and that violence was directed at children based on race, ethnicity and religious bigotry.  The long History of Boston’s struggle with expanding freedom to anyone who is different, stretches back to before the Civil War when the rights of black Americans to full citizenship had been deferred up to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965; it also discriminated against Irish immigrants, who are now the main stream in a city filled with diverse backgrounds.

Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A did not disparage “Gays” he said he didn’t support same sex marriage based on the bible, something he believes in and which is value based.  As a company, that I personally had the distinct pleasure of working for, for several years; I personally know that whatever community Chick-fil-A is in, they support it in numerous ways that make it better for the youth found there.  In Nashua, NH          Chick-fil-A has supported the community through the Summerfun programs, schools, literacy, churches of many denominations, individuals, children’s accomplishments, visiting children that are sick and the HIV/AID’s task force.  Why? Because these organizations asked for Chick-fil-A’s help and/or the operators and/or unit marketing directors sought to be involved with their community.  The company’s owners believe that marriage is between a man and a woman; but they never discriminate and they do have a policy of treating everyone with respect and dignity and passing those values along to the youth and team members that work for them.   

Moral dilemmas face us every day; Chick-fil-A is not one of those dilemmas, what you will find in every Chick-fil-A is consistency and generosity.  A team striving to be “America's Best Quick-Service Restaurant” because through the chain of command they believe in each individual to reach their potential and reward their team members with college scholarships for exhibiting leadership qualities and to date has awarded over $30 million in scholarships. This is not something you see with every fast food chain or small business.

If you want quality food at a great value, polite service and speed in getting your order; you will find all of that and more at Chick-fil-A everyday except Sunday; because Sunday’s across the country they are closed to allow their employees time with their families.  

Now, I just can’t wait to go and get that original Chicken sandwich also healthier than the competition with a homespun milkshake;  oh and that cute cow ... you won't know what your missing until you try it!

Still a Fan!

Sunday, July 22, 2012

The List NH RSA 169:35 the DILEMMA - Child Protection Services

"A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for injury."
John Stuart Mill

169-C:35 Central Registry. –
I. There shall be established a state registry for the purpose of maintaining a record of founded reports of abuse and neglect. The registry shall be confidential and subject to rules on access established by the commissioner of the department under RSA 541-A.

II. Upon receipt by the department of a written request and verified proof of identity, an individual shall be informed by the department whether that individual's name is listed in the founded reports maintained in the central registry. It shall be unlawful for any employer other than those specified in RSA 170-E and RSA 170-G:8-c to require as a condition of employment that the employee submit his or her name for review against the central registry of founded reports of abuse and neglect. Any violation of this provision shall be punishable as a violation.

III. Founded reports of abuse and neglect shall be retained for a period of 7 years subject to an individual's right to petition for the earlier removal of his or her name from the central registry as provided in this section.

IV. Any individual whose name is listed in the founded reports maintained on the central registry may petition the district court to have his or her name expunged from the registry. (a) A petition to expunge shall be filed in the district court where the abuse and neglect petition was heard. In cases where the department makes a finding but no petition is filed with the court, a petition to expunge shall be filed in the district court where the petition for the abuse and neglect could have been brought. (b) A petition to expunge shall be filed on forms promulgated by the district courts and may include any information the petitioner deems relevant. (c) When a petition to expunge is filed, the district court shall require the department to report to the court concerning any additional founded abuse and neglect reports on the petitioner and shall require that the department submit the petitioner's name, birth date, and address to the state police to obtain information about criminal convictions. The court may require the department to provide any additional information that the court believes may aid it in making a determination on the petition. (d) Upon the receipt of the department's report, the court may act on the petition without further hearing or may schedule the matter for hearing at the request of either party. If the court determines that the petitioner does not pose a present threat to the safety of children, the court shall grant the petition and order the department to remove the individual's name from the central registry. Otherwise, the petition shall be dismissed.

V. When an individual's name is added to the central registry, the department shall notify individuals of their right to petition to have their name expunged from the central registry. No petition to expunge shall be brought within one year from the date that the petitioner's name was initially entered on the central registry. If the petition to expunge is denied, no further petition shall be brought more frequently than every 3 years thereafter.

VI. Upon receipt of a written request from another state's child welfare agency or from a private adoption agency that is licensed or certified in another state to check the central registry established under this section for information on a prospective foster or adoptive parent or any other adult living in the home of such a prospective foster or adoptive parent, the department shall conduct the requested check and shall provide the requesting state or private adoption agency with the results of the check along with such additional information from the department's case records as the department deems necessary for the requesting state or private adoption agency to be able to evaluate the results.

Source. 1979, 361:2. 1983, 331:5. 1985, 367:1. 1993, 355:5. 1995, 310:173, 175, eff. Nov. 1, 1995. 2002, 111:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2003. 2007, 325:1, eff. July 16, 2007. 2010, 160:1, eff. June 17, 2010.

Section 169-C:35-a 169-C:35-a Records Management of Abuse and Neglect Reports. –

I. The department shall retain a screened-out report for one year from the date that the report was screened-out, after which time, the department shall delete or destroy all electronic and paper records of the report. In this section, a "screened-out report'' is one which the department has determined does not rise to the level of a credible report of abuse or neglect and is not referred for assessment.

II. The department shall retain an unfounded report for 3 years from the date that the department determined the case to be unfounded, after which time, the department shall delete or destroy all electronic and paper records of the report. [Paragraph III effective until July 1, 2011; see also paragraph III set out below.] III. The department shall retain a founded report for 7 years from the date that the petitionee has exhausted or failed to exercise his or her due process right to appeal the department's determination to found the report, after which time, the department shall delete or destroy all electronic and paper records of the report. [Paragraph III effective July 1, 2011; see also paragraph III set out above.]

III. The department shall retain a founded report for 7 years from the date that the department closes the case, after which time, the department shall delete or destroy all electronic and paper records of the report. [Paragraph IV effective until July 1, 2011; see also paragraph IV set out below.] IV. The provisions of paragraph III, which relate to the destruction of the records of founded reports, shall not apply to cases that remain open with the department in excess of 7 years or to adoption records. Upon the closure of a case which has remained open with the department in excess of 7 years, the department shall delete or destroy all electronic and paper records of the report. [Paragraph IV effective July 1, 2011; see also paragraph IV set out above.]

IV. The provisions of paragraph III, which relate to the destruction of the records of founded reports, shall not apply to foster placement records or to adoption records.

V. Nothing in this section shall prevent the department from retaining generic, non-identifying information which is required for state and federal reporting and management purposes.

Source. 2002, 162:1, eff. Nov. 11, 2002. 2010, 164:1, eff. July 1, 2011.

Parent's double check records to make sure your name is removed or not on this list when the court's make no finding against you. Fill our this form and/or follow up with a phone call when they do not get back to you within a week to Central Registry 603-271-5192

Any questions call the office of the Ombudsman and demand answers for a review of what they do go here:

"People think responsibility is hard to bear. It’s not. I think that sometimes it is the absence of responsibility that is harder to bear. You have a great feeling of impotence."   — Henry Kissinger

Friday, July 20, 2012

Harassment or honest mistake by NH Gov. - AG - Child Support

Attorney General Michael Delaney and Commissioner Nicolas Toumpas;
"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else." Benjamin Franklin

On 6/26/12 The Mother Spoke on Speak up with State Rep. Kevin Avard about problems in the New Hampshire Court system and Delaney's department, Child protection services and the fraud embedded in almost every action there.

A Letter dated 7/10/12 mailed from an office 3 miles from the mother's house didn't make it to her until 7/14/12 threatening all the usual things if she did not pay what they "alleged" is past due child- support under a separate case number. 

From all documentation in the case, and the attached audit the mother had done to show she had overpaid; which took them a year to refund as attached in small amounts and the fact that she is currently over paid on her child support; is shown on these supporting documents:

On 7/16/12 at or about 9 am the mother walked in her request for an administrative review with the Department of Child Support and put them on notice that they could be at the upcoming child support hearing in Merrimack District Court on 7/20/12 at 9:00am because she prefers that the review take place in front of a Judge, also found in the above link to the documents. After arguing to simply get a date stamp that they received the letter, the Child Support specialist let it slip they already knew about that hearing as this posts taking place now until 12 noon.

This department is long overdue in issuing apologies to people whose accounts they negligently screwed up; furthermore the amount in question is the amount they overpaid to the other party and for which was actually suppose to be paid to the State for which the Child Support Specialist - said oh we didn't send this; it DCYF's ("DCYF"; meaning Department of Children, Youth and Families, ) the Reimbursement unit  and further stated it is not a child support issue it is a Child protection reimbursement.

1) Why is it going through Child Support and being funded by federal and state dollars in the child support division when it is not child support?

2) They paid the funds collected that are not child support and suppose to be reimbursed to the state to a father who is being sued along with DCYF and a doctor vonderheide for fraud upon the courts. Why?

3) Coincidentally, they sent the threatening message to the mother the week before a child support hearing between the parents. Coincidence or Honest mistake? Reality bites it is another example of the mismanagement under Delaney and Toupmas.

As of 7/23/12; the newest issue is #4.  a refund check for overpayment from the Department of Child Support; so here we go again; it helps to stand up for your rights. No apology, no explanation, no accountability. That came under seperate covereage and they blamed my employor who was following the divisions or DCYF letter from 12/2010.

Really, the turmoil the U.S. Government can cause to families at any time is disturbing and as shown in this article no one else is trusting our Government either...Thanks to Hillary; Egypt has the same view of our government's oppression as shown in this article quote of Mr. Gad “America only cares about its foreign policy in the region,” he added. “It does not care about human rights, freedom or equality in Egyptian society.”

Mr. Gad, you are correct how could America care about human rights, freedom and equality when they deny those same rights and freedoms to their own citizens; we've come a long way from 1776 however, the government is moving further and further from the moral values our founding father's had...

"And I am saying, how about the other two branches? And putting the pressure on our representatives in the Senate and the Congress, and the court system. They should be counter-acting this corruption, but they are sitting there silent." Sibel Edmonds 

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Fairy Tales - Around the World - 180 minutes - Fighting Dragons where...? click here for sneak preview

Seriously, it's all at the Fairy Tale Festival on 7/21/12 a Saturday, from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM, at Greeley Park, 100 Concord St., Nashua, NH 03064

Nothing is more exciting than your own Fairy Tale! And, I am so excited to share the newest news with you outlining this years event!

This year our adventure will begin on Concord Street, Nashua, NH, of course we always do! But this year we are off to great "places".......

I started sharing our story, mine and yours and exploring where our tour was off to!  And then a couple of friends joined in and we gave some pretty good insights, to our newest friends at Access Nashua, at Gate City Chronicles on 6/19/12; when we discussed our grand adventures to be and the sights we are off to see ... with what has to be the Coolest State Representative in NH (we have 400 so that's actually saying something) and of course it was our Host Kevin Avard and you check it out here: # 27

And then today, with only with only 9 days and 11 and 1/2  hours left until we are about to leave Nashua, NH to go around the world in exactly 180 minutes... What? I heard that!  Can we do it? Of course we can, we're leaving by ... magic of course! Is there any other way to travel???

Ok, so back to, well today, "we" met our old friend and avid fan of the Fairy Tale Festival, Nashua's Alderman at large, Mark Cookson, on the Nashua Hour and his just adorable daughter almost 4, is getting ready to start performing in our show soon...

Today with EMMARIE and Natalie Sanford

This is what happen our 4th year volunteer the sweet and versatile Natalie Sandford came out and sang 1000 miles; you may remember her from past events as Bat Girl, Joan of Arc and/or Tiger Lily this year she will be volunteering with 7 Generations who has some huge surprises in store. Like I said; "she is versatile and a very good singer", I might add.

And the vivacious EMMARIE, joined us with some exciting news; this is her 2nd appearance is the Fairy Tale Festival, when you meet her again - you may remember her from performing in the past with Drama Kids and those crazy cows with Chick-fil-A, you know the ones with some spelling issues, but they are very clear they want you to eat more chicken! Let's just say the inside scoop there is - they are try to save their own hides and they are really good at it. Ok, so I'm rambling and I got a bit side track those cows are so cute. I get it. You want the biggest scoop in the prelude to the Fairy Tale Festival and here it is...

The New Single from EMMARIE is officially for your ears only...come to the Fairy Tale Festival to see her perform "Fighting Dragons" live, as her first stop, on her first tour, to promote her first single! It's Official, it's a first and we will be the first stop on her tour and you could be the first winner of an Official Copy, first, before it goes on sale

So come out, join in the quest - listen, read, ask questions the discovery's are endless!

And you can listen to the whole show live here sometime in the meantime with the Nashua Hour

Do you see the recurring theme, here? You want to be in Nashua, NH 03064 on July 21, 2012 at 10 AM Greeley to share in EMMARIE's release of her first single "Fighting Dragons" and enter the raffle to win copies of her new single before it goes live.  The Actor's, Singer's and Dancer's you'll meet are second to well...absolutely no one and they are all the most amazing people and they will spur your imagination and make you sing and dance ...

This remarkable and outstanding show could not be accomplished without all of the help from our sponsors who can be found here:  ps. this is your passport to adventure 2012

Making Dreams into Reality ...the Head Fairy aka Denise-Marie McIntosh

Monday, July 9, 2012

Judicial Misconduct - How to report it

The Mission Statement of the New Hampshire Court System
page 2

To preserve the rule of law and protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions, the courts will provide accessible, prompt, and efficient forums for the fair and independent administration of justice, with respect for the dignity of all we serve.

With the resurrection of the NH Redress of Grievance of Committee, due to the number of people complaining to legislators that the NH court's do not provided accessible, prompt, and efficient forums in the following areas:

  1. being closed several days a week; alledgedly due to budget constraints;
  2. by not hearing family contempt cases within 30 days as required by law under
      NH RSA 461-A:4-a Judicial Enforcement of Parenting Plan;
  3. by not providing aid to indigent parents for GAL fees and/or for requiring
      indigent parents further into debt with excessive unsupported GAL fees;
  4. continuously pushing cases out and not holding parties to the orders that they
      make; thereby teaching it's society that the courts do not administer justice,
      they simply get paid to wear a black robe;

These forums do not preserve the rule of law and protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions; as such they respect the dignity of those they are suppose to serve.  When the administration of justice is prolonged and held with indifference to one party over another who is not following court orders they lose our respect and the chaos increases because of their inability to create order.

Writing and coordinating a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Committee is a tricky task; they rarely oust a Judge or reprimand one, unless their actions involve money outside the court room like Judge Coffey - known for falling a sleep on the bench, when the legislators attempted to impeach her and start their investigation she simply quit; she and her husband also an attorney were finally disbarred by the NH Bar Association which comes under the NH Supreme Ct. conflict of interest? The only reason they were finally disbarred is because of public scrutiny. So scrutinize away...

The case below reasoned by the NH Supreme Court gives some insight into how the "Judical Conduct Committee" works and reasons its decision; be sure to fix everything they say is wrong in this case in your complaint and site their own examples. IN RE: Erica Tapply and Benjamin Zukatis is a case that outlines a mother and her attorney's effort to protect her son; this case decided by the NH Supreme Court gives you the formula for reporting Judical misconduct by outlining their perception of what was not expressed or stated correctly to be viewed as a complaint.

This is a good case based on the logic of the Supreme Court to write a complete complaint, titled and organized in all the ways that they stated it was not done in this case. This case did not work out well for the Plaintiff although it could be used by others who have found bias in the Judicial system, by following the flow of the Supreme Ct. reasoning and by fully articulating their complaints about the Judicial Branch.  

Saturday, July 7, 2012

Law victimizes families; remedy to avert fraud not on the table, yet. Will NH Legislators Speak Up?

"A little more persistence, a little more effort, and what seemed hopeless failure may turn to glorious success."  Elbert Hubbard

New Hampshire needs a mandated change in the law under NH RSA 169-C; specifically that at least the now anonymous caller's numbers are maintained in the DCYF database for retrieval and to follow-up on when "false allegations are made" not when there is simply no finding but when it is proven that the information provide was insightful with the intent to do harm; which would be an abrogation of the privilege of immunity under:

169-C:31 Immunity From Liability. – Anyone participating in good faith in the making of a report pursuant to this chapter is immune from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed. Any such participant has the same immunity with respect to participation in any investigation by the department or judicial proceeding resulting from such report.

Source. 1979, 361:2. 1994, 411:17. 1995, 310:175, eff. Nov. 1, 1995.

This change to the law would allow the victim relief from fraudulent and malicious attacks and allow the prosecutor to retrieve wasted tax dollars from the perpetrator. It would also decrease unnecessary calls and the use of already extended and over extended CPSW's (child protection workers) working on a large case load when (google: average cps caseload per state) compared to other states.  Saving the division and State tax-payer thousands on unnecessary visits annually. See below for past stats:

Moreover, in NH parents are further victimized at first contact, when they ask parents to sign this form: this form indicates an agreement to a level of guilt - ensuring the CPSW will go after services and a determination rather than a simple investigation and/or clearly define the coverage under Title IV-A (defined here when this form is not filled out to the fullest extent parents are injeopardy.

The State collects more Federal Money and is doing it the same way it did in the Medicaid Fraud problems existing here in NH; receiving more than is actually spent. Moreover, when reviewing bills to families this resource is not deducted from the bill and parents are being charged 100% when Title IV-A covers up to 75% of these costs on page 2 of the attached. Furthermore, this document shows that funds are also taken from TANF for indigent families and those results found here shows that NH ranks #3 out of 50 states on the last assessment for case load increases at 42%.

This is of major concern because Since FY 2000, title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Reviews being conducted in each of the 50 States, and Washington DC, and Puerto Rico; have already identified over $21.8 million in Federal payments to States targeted for recovery of improperly claimed payments for foster care maintenance payments and related administrative costs. See 
Other grants to the State not deducted from parents bills and resulting services can be found here:;

If attention is not paid to this area the resulting repayment to the Federal Government once NH is reviewed could be staggering; an outside audit by one of the top 4 accounting firms could greatly reduce the impact if acted upon prior to the Federal Governments audit of NH, which has not yet occurred, but it will.

At a time when as legislators, you, are having to make such difficult decisions about how, what and where to cut back without damaging the things that matter the most; instead, perhaps you should be looking into cutting the strain by cutting the error, waste and fraud.

As tax-payers we need to push our Elected Officials across the board to demand accountability and cut the error, waste and fraud.  For information on how to contact your Elected Officials see

"The majority of men meet with failure because of their lack of persistence in creating new plans to take the place of those which fail." Napoleon Hill

Past NH Stats

Thursday, July 5, 2012

NH Homeowners direct relief - State Settlement 43.6 million - Mortgage's

The proposed agreement provides an estimated $43.6 million in direct relief to New Hampshire homeowners and addresses future mortgage loan servicing practices.
Toll Free Mortgage Hotline: (866) 522-4450

For more information on this matter and answers to whether or not you may be entitled to relief - go to the full page at

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Pro Se Organization - Family Law - It Matters

"The law should be a shield for the weak and powerless, not a club for the powerful."  
                                                             -Gov. Roy Barnes, 2004 Equal Justice Conference


Whether you are coordinating a pro se case for an upcoming hearing or for issues to bring to the NH Redress of Grievance Committee/Legislators and/or a new Attorney you need to coordinate your paperwork. The following is an example of a frequent complaint in the NH system and a suggestion for coordination of paperwork to bring issues with supporting documentation to a fact finders attention the initial layout which is standard for most coordinating most cases; this is not intended as or to be construed as legal advice but may add in organizational and research technique's.

Start by making the following piles with the most recent date on top:

1. All Motions starting with the initiating motion
    and then the Response

2. ALL Orders

3. Correspondence/Assessments to a court by a GAL Guardian Ad 
    Litem NH RSA 461 -A

4. Correspondence between DCYF NH RSA 169-C for division 
    protocols whether for abuse and neglect and/or domestic 
    violence see the Attorney Generals website
    Obtain all contact logs and 3rd party documentation

5. Evidence what was accepted and what was not accepted

6. Correspondence between you and your attorney

7. Outline the facts, orders and how it effected and/or affected your 

These piles especially the first 5 allow a fact finder to easily cross reference the information in your file.  And for you to pull and copy information to explain where in your case you feel your rights were abridged; with supporting rules, and/or protocol's which are part of the law under NH RSA 169-C:34 &/or 169-C:38- a. which can only  be changed before a legislative committee and/or laws that were not applied.

Review your information and determine how you think your rights may have been abridged.  Now set out to prove the how, when, why, where or what caused the injury, how your rights have been abridged by DCYF or someone else and/or what is a fair conclusion to an abnormal situation.

For example a noted complaint to legislators is about GAL's (Guardian Ad Litem's) -the GAL in NH exceeded the $1000.00 standing order without a motion prior to exceeding to exceed.  Where would a standing order be:
then click on the GAL this shows that the cap is $1000.00 based on the Parties ability to pay and court order split of payments.

For any other administrative court orders that may pertain to your case it would be which clearly states if one party is indigent a court can not appoint an GAL due to some of the following: 

1st. what does the law say? Check the statute on the GAL in your state in NH it is cross reference with the OCC "office of cost containment" see

If you are unable to pay the court ordered amount you could have contacted the OCC at of Cost Containment; in the past or call them at 603-271-1416 as of 7/5/12 a Chris at that office has confirmed that are no funds available due to the changes in the law.  Unconfirmed; however, it appears that because the Judicial Branch received a cut in their funding they decided to retaliate by cutting funding to the publics most vulnerable - those who are indigent.

After receiving an order to pay for a GAL because one has been arbitrarily appointed; you may also need to file a motion indicating that you have an inability to pay and/or reiterating it as describe in the NH RSA 461-A:18 at this link check  461-A:17 Guardians Ad Litem and Mediators; Liability for Expenses. "The judicial council shall have no responsibility for the payment of the costs of a mediator or guardian ad litem for any party under this chapter."


For full text of the Law your researching go to
1. type in the RSA main number like 461-A
2. a series of RSA's will appear
3. click on your title and read the law as it pertains to your case

Document the complaint for an attorney or yourself (Pro Se) where the law was not applied or considered not relevant in your case show where in the motions and/or orders it was brought up. The order against and the Law and Rules that are suppose to apply.  As you will find here, the Law controls, Rules and orders are second (case law), your federal constitutional rights are the controlling factor found here amendments are in the upper right hand corner a click away see notes at the bottom of the page to see if a later amendment may have affected your rights, in the amendment that most closely resembles your case. States can only enhance your federal rights they can not take away from them so then you need to check your state constitution in NH it can be found at:

However, under 461-A:18 Repayment. – it connects to the OCC office ... the fees and expenses paid on the party's behalf as the court may order consistent with the party's ability to pay, such ability to be determined by the unit of cost containment.

The above areas that cover the payment and assignment of GAL's appear to contradict themselves and it is best to get the advice of an attorney.  If you can not afford one you should attempt by "Motion for Clarification" to a Court to the full picture.  Ask and/or bring to its attention that you have an inability to pay, do not understand your rights because of conflicting and overlapping laws and administrate court orders and/or bring to the attention of the legislators with all of the documentation to support your claim in as brief and direct a matter as possible.

For instance the past redress of grievance/legislators have reported receiving numerous complaints that mimic the following:

I was assigned a GAL with out the court determining the parties ability to pay based on submitted financial affidavits;
I was assigned a GAL that exceeded the $1000 cap per case;
The GAL prior to submitting a Motion to Exceed - Exceeded and when I objected the Court ordered it anyway and/or did not assess my ability to pay.  DCYF did not advise me of my rights. DCYF went out of their jurisdictional area to get a Judge to sign an order to grant them emergency custody of my child.  DCYF fabricated evidence and/or did not look at all evidence. Players to be aware of.

These complaints/Motions can be answered by what should have happened based on the law, court rules and or standing court administrative orders.  Administrative orders in the Family Division are put out by the Administrative Judge of each court; in Family Matters in New Hampshire that is Judge Kelley and these orders are directed at the Judges who work under him to protect your rights because of changes in funding, administration and/or changes in the law.

461-A:6 Determination of Parental Rights and Responsibilities; Best Interest. –
III. In determining parental rights and responsibilities under this section, including residential responsibility, the court shall not apply a preference for one parent over the other because of the sex of the child, the sex of a parent, or the financial resources of a parent.

If you feel your rights were abridged due to any of the above bring it to the attention of the court your in and read your Motion to the Judge and answer clarifying questions and then bring it to your legislators to get the laws strengthen, the Court's can only interpret the law as well as the law is written. It is a bit of work but you can't correct a problem unless you make people aware there is one.

The inconsistency's between the courts and how they operate in New Hampshire is the main complaint.  Coordinating evidence, protocols and your rights is necessary to protecting and asserting your rights. 

If there is any way I can make this article better and/or easier to follow please do not hesitate to leave a comment or email me at  I often seek to update, modify and or simplify my work so that others may benefit from my experiences in the legal field.

"It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life that no man can sincerely try to help another without helping himself."     
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Sunday, July 1, 2012

New Hampshire ONLY STATE to Abolish a parent's right to an Attorney update on lapse of logic...

The NH Supreme Court held parent's right to attorney's only sometimes - which will mean never:

"Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government." Edmund Burke 

In all of these cases the Law hinders these parent's because it was done in the middle or end of their cases; any case in progress prior to 7/1/11 should have remained with a court appointed attorney simply because the law was "Ex Post Facto" done after the fact and while afforded in criminal trials to protect constitutional rights, in this matter the constitutionally protected right to one’s children and family is the protection needed.  Anyone prior to 7/1/11 was denied due process because the US Constitution Article I, Section 10 does not make a distinction between civil and criminal proceedings it states "no State shall pass any ex post facto Law.'' ; and the NH Constitution Part I Article 23 specifically forbids ex post facto law in both civil and criminal matters.  Ex post facto means with retroactive effect or force.

The court used the Matthew's test " In determining whether the State Constitution requires the appointment of counsel in a given proceeding, we employ the three-prong test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). In re Kotey M., 158 N.H. at 361; State v. Hall, 154 N.H. 180, 182 (2006). This test balances: (1) the private interest affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail. In re Brittany S., 147 N.H. 489, 491 (2002); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335." In the context of the issue before us, we examine whether the absence of counsel impermissibly increases the risk of an erroneous result in a child abuse or neglect proceeding under RSA chapter 169-C, thereby depriving the parents of the right to the care and custody of their children."

Here the court failed to recognize that these closed door proceedings have an inherent and fully documented risk of error; not to mention that the State Justice Department and Department of Children Youth and Families has failed every federal and state audit (contained here  in these cases for over 20 years; furthermore, the court failed to recognize and/or the attorney's failed to point out that the procedural safe guards are not adhered to in at least 66% or more of the cases in these matters; as such the supreme court misguidedly stated: "The State argues that because the rules of evidence do not apply, the parents are not burdened by difficult questions of evidentiary law, and because the proceedings are held in a closed courtroom without a jury, the parents can present their case “free from the distraction created by members of the public and the complications of a jury trial.” However, complaints to the redress of grievance committee in the house and disclosures on State Rep. Kevin Avards show "Speak Out" indicate that in reality parents are NOT FREE to present their case, they are denied entry of evidence in their favor, they are denied witnesses, they are denied access to records that a fact finder would rely on in determining the fate of their child even when a court orders access and they are denied the right to face their accusers; the only distractions being avoided are accountability on behalf of the department of children youth and families and the judicial systems involved.  When this law was made legislators much like our founding father's had no idea of the abuses that would occur behind closed doors.  Moreover, nothing in our federal Constitution supports that closed door hearings are what they had in mind in 1787 when our constitution was ratified. "The due process clause of the Constitution was partly based on common law and on Magna Carta (1215) which had become a foundation of English liberty against arbitrary power wielded by a tyrant." Here in this decision that tyrant is the NH Supreme Court as an extension of the Department of Children Youth and Families.
A Supreme Court Who stated:
"As set forth above, however, the procedural protections embodied in the statute prevent the risk that an uncounseled parent will be erroneously deprived of the care and custody of his or her child." In conjunction with the above abuses in this system, A reasonable person does not understand the procedural safeguards that are suppose to be followed behind closed doors, because no one tells them what those right are. Doors closed to oversight and failure ratings of an F across the board for all of its services including the judicial branches acts; procedural protections merely written are not being followed and the Supreme Court's decision shows that they in fact favor the errors of the lower courts and acts contrary to the law that their state employees are acting under!

Thank goodness for: CONBOY, J., dissenting. "After recognizing for over thirty years a statutory right to counsel for indigent parents in abuse or neglect proceedings, New Hampshire apparently has become the only state in the country to abolish this right. Because I conclude that the due process protections afforded under the New Hampshire Constitution require the appointment of counsel for indigent parents in State-initiated proceedings brought pursuant to RSA chapter 169-C, I respectfully dissent." Read more in the proceeding link provided above.

This means that as the judicial branch pointed out in their own reasoning, that because their order was not a unanimous decision it is not controlling and it can be overturned. Because there is not a unanimous decision "We are the final arbiter of our constitution’s due process requirements." they sited In re Father 2006-360, 155 N.H. 93, 95 (2007); this is also an interlocutory transfer without ruling
from the Superior Court (Tucker, J.). See Sup. Ct. R. 9. filed at approximately the same time. The trial court transferred the SAME question: “Does the Due Process Clause of the New Hampshire Constitution (Part I, Articles 2 and 15) or the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution require the appointment of counsel for an indigent parent from whom the State seeks to take custody of a minor child based on allegations of neglect or abuse?" Obviously, not a ruling authority when it is in fact and not theory the exact same question of law being decided. Hopefully, the Attorney's who worked on this will push it to our more Liberal U.S. Supreme Court and/or at least the first district court for a more logical order. The Court's decision shows they have no understanding of the failures they contribute to and it was added to a bill because Supreme Court Justice Delanis had a money issue; one she claims to have saved over a million in 9 months with her changes, if so if they saved so much money why aren't all the courts in New Hampshire open a full 5 days a week yet?    

The word "may" is not included in the case that gives an indigent pro se step-parent a court appointed attorney, so does that mean the court changed its earlier opinion as it stated here: "As the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged, “[i]nformed opinion has clearly come to hold that an indigent parent is entitled to the assistance of appointed counsel not only in parental termination proceedings, but in dependency and neglect proceedings as well.” Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 33-34. I note that this court has previously determined that, at the very least, appointment of counsel may be required to adequately protect a stepparent’s right to due process in an abuse or neglect proceeding. See In re Shelby R., 148 N.H. 237 (2002) (the plurality, however, called for a per se rule, entitling an indigent stepparent to appointment of counsel)."

Oddly, step parents in NH now have more rights than a natural parent.

A quicker way to fix this problem is for legislators to make it LAW that indigent parents are entitled to a court appointed attorney in all of these cases and/or more so that we come back from the old oppressive British ways that we fought so hard to get away from and make ALL the courts open and accessible to the communities they are suppose to serve.  We are not here to secure their lifetime appointments without equal access and equal opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner!

"The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised."  John C. Calhoun