Mark Twain once said "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." In NH the facts more often than not, don't even have a chance to come out in the Judicial System.
Yes, NH has once again proven it is gender bias this article covers a recent case where the man who wasn't involved at the start of a child's life was able to receive a court order to have the child's last name changed to his. The NH Supreme Ct. again relied on and based it solely on their undefined best interests of the child, to which the lawyer representing the woman stated to the press:
"In affirming the best interest standard without outlining any factors, “my concern is the court just left every family court judge with absolutely unfettered discretion to do whatever that judge thinks best,” Gordon said. “That’s really no standard.”
Part of the problem in NH stems from the Judicial Branch's "unfettered discretion" Rule 1.2 which allows the courts to waive all rules. "This rule has been used in the family courts to waive the rules of evidence and allow hearsay evidence to be used against parents," And Rule 1.9 gives the court discretion to deny appeals to the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the N.H. Constitution protects that right. When the same government body that interprets the N.H. Constitution is allowed to waive the constitution by passing a rule, it makes the body untouchable" State Representative Avard said.
To understand how untouchable and that there really is no standard being followed consistently in the NH Court system you have to look at this recent Supreme Court Case In Re. Simon M. 2012-250 a request by a parent to review records was simply denied. However, the order of the supreme court shows the legislative intent behind NH RSA 169-C:25 I. (a.) and NH RSA 170-G:8 accessed 3/21/12 @ 1:29am (which appears to have been changed here without legislative intent, after the above order was issued) is completely disregarded without substantiating their reasoning for doing so.
The court’s assertion that this appeal does not rise under NH RSA 170:8-a is lacking authority and/or legal analysis when the law in NH directly states for a parent to acquire records it could only be done under NH RSA 169-C:25 III. which states “All case records, as defined in RSA 170-G:8-a, relative to abuse and neglect, shall be confidential, and access shall be provided pursuant to RSA 170-G:8-a.” in fact giving the parents access to the records, the discovery ruled on in 2007 in this case, should be part of that case file and it is not, indicating that this Ct. [’s] order of 9/13/12 means if the State ignores orders long enough they are not accountable to the public they serve nor are they bound by the same rules this Ct. [’s] imposes on pro se litigants. Henry David Thoreau, once said "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." the same is true today.
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government and or Judicial System in NH only when it deserves it." Mark Twain
Yes, NH has once again proven it is gender bias this article covers a recent case where the man who wasn't involved at the start of a child's life was able to receive a court order to have the child's last name changed to his. The NH Supreme Ct. again relied on and based it solely on their undefined best interests of the child, to which the lawyer representing the woman stated to the press:
"In affirming the best interest standard without outlining any factors, “my concern is the court just left every family court judge with absolutely unfettered discretion to do whatever that judge thinks best,” Gordon said. “That’s really no standard.”
Part of the problem in NH stems from the Judicial Branch's "unfettered discretion" Rule 1.2 which allows the courts to waive all rules. "This rule has been used in the family courts to waive the rules of evidence and allow hearsay evidence to be used against parents," And Rule 1.9 gives the court discretion to deny appeals to the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the N.H. Constitution protects that right. When the same government body that interprets the N.H. Constitution is allowed to waive the constitution by passing a rule, it makes the body untouchable" State Representative Avard said.
To understand how untouchable and that there really is no standard being followed consistently in the NH Court system you have to look at this recent Supreme Court Case In Re. Simon M. 2012-250 a request by a parent to review records was simply denied. However, the order of the supreme court shows the legislative intent behind NH RSA 169-C:25 I. (a.) and NH RSA 170-G:8 accessed 3/21/12 @ 1:29am (which appears to have been changed here without legislative intent, after the above order was issued) is completely disregarded without substantiating their reasoning for doing so.
The court’s assertion that this appeal does not rise under NH RSA 170:8-a is lacking authority and/or legal analysis when the law in NH directly states for a parent to acquire records it could only be done under NH RSA 169-C:25 III. which states “All case records, as defined in RSA 170-G:8-a, relative to abuse and neglect, shall be confidential, and access shall be provided pursuant to RSA 170-G:8-a.” in fact giving the parents access to the records, the discovery ruled on in 2007 in this case, should be part of that case file and it is not, indicating that this Ct. [’s] order of 9/13/12 means if the State ignores orders long enough they are not accountable to the public they serve nor are they bound by the same rules this Ct. [’s] imposes on pro se litigants. Henry David Thoreau, once said "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." the same is true today.
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government and or Judicial System in NH only when it deserves it." Mark Twain
No comments:
Post a Comment