Legislators & One County Attorney Validate Complaints by Citizens in NH

Redress of Grievance Committee: Most complaints valid

The above article try's to convey that the Redress Committee is a waste of tax-payers dollars; really? Consider that these Representative make  a $100-$200 a year and put in time like this: "The Panel held hours-long hearings during the legislative session on the complaints - most involving the family court system. Committee members determined that 20 of the 27 complaints  were legitimate and pronounced seven unfounded."  

The Family & Court System in general and DCYF are out of control and out of touch.  Starting with the NH Family Court; parents are getting stuck with outrageous bills for Guadian Ad litem (GAL), even when the law states:

A GAL/Attorney in good standing with the NH Bar/GAL boards should be aware of the rules, laws and Admin. order of Judge Edwin Kelley (2005-03) clearly defining “the maximum fee (including costs) as not exceeding $1,000.00 for any case.  This is further ordered by the Courts with their standard appointment of said GAL, approximately 85% of litigants are pro se and finding the corresponding Administrative Orders to protect their rights is almost impossible since they do not link up with any of the laws. Moreover, this administrative order shows the fee for a GAL is suppose to be $60.00 per hour, yet many family's have been paying more. 

This order further states: “No GAL may be appointed  in any new or reopened marital matter in which one parent is indigent and the other is able to pay for the services of the GAL due to legislation that eliminated funding for GALs,” yet this happens all the time and indigent parents face bankruptcy because of it and/or lose their children, because of unwarranted harsh criticism by GAL's that can be paid up front and not because they are a bad parent.

Consequently, the Office of Cost Containment in NH RSA 461-A: 18, is no longer providing funds for GAL cases; confirmed by phone at 603-271-1416 on 7/5/12; contradicting NH RSA 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." Thus, creating confusion and hardship for an indigent pro se litigant;

Florida recognized that  “It is difficult to grasp how it is in the best interest of the child to deplete the resources of the family” Higgenbotham v. Higgenbotham 857 So. 2^nd 341,342 (Fla. App.2003); New Hampshire claims to have realized it, yet only on paper by legislators not in practice by the Judicial Branch. 

With DCYF the Department of Children Youth and Families - Social Workers are routinely conducting improper investigations, failing to obtain even doctors reports to support their disclosures and acting on hearsay because NH RSA 169:C states thats ok.   Judge Bamberger and Judge Leary sit on the mental health, criminal, and DCYF cases all which often present a conflict of interest when the defendants are in one court or another and the DCYF hearing is behind closed doors. Furthermore, they threaten people not to talk about their cases to legislators or anyone else, in fact denying them of their 1st amendment right to free speech whether or not it's in court records.  FYI, not one person that came before the Redress was arrested. 

Parents are not being informed of their rights at first contact by DCYF, initially because it was just a protocol, now apparently, because it is actually part of the law. They consistently refuse to give parents paperwork contact logs, 3rd party information etc in their case, it's a simple thing when requested by a parent, it's called due process and now they they DENY them a Lawyer, the only State to do so, and the Family is at risk of losing custody of their child.  A fate most would consider worst than death, and it's all done on hearsay evidence NH RSA 169-C:12 .  Furthermore this department failed both Federal And State Audits consistently for the last 2 rounds over 20 years. And Family's in NH experience the torture depicted in this video:

Family's in NH and across the United States are facing challenges that no one in America should face and at least these legislators, getting paid a mere $100 -$200 a year, are attempting to correct it, they do not get paid extra to sit on committees. The Judicial System, NH Bar Association and Attorney General's Office do not hold these Attorney's and/or Judges accountable; look at what Robert Walsh former county attorney got away with letting the attacker of 2 EMT's badly injured go. with no accountability for not involving the EMT victims in his plea bargain, even when their injuries amounted to a few Felony's. Yet Robert Walsh, simply let this attacker go to a mental health court, and her father who was at the scene merely stood back and let his daughter attack these EMT's, he also appears to have called in a false 911 call because he was afraid to drive her to the hospital, why should this concern us? Because the Father is a well known doctor/ psychologist  who you should click on to find out who it is and stay away from, he also one who the courts call on to access the mental capacity of individuals before the court; why should we or the Courts believe him when he lies about his own daughter, in fact telling the EMT's she wasn't on meds and/or the real reason for his 911 call. Ann Rice at the Attorney Generals office supposedly conducted an investigation and simply scolded Attorney Walsh;  a strongly worded letter at the conclusion of her investigation way to go Rice, it you click on that last piece it's because he apologized in the paper, but never to the victims, nor did he or anyone else help from the State help with their mounting medical bills or 40% reduction in pay because they are still out of work, and no one from the town of Amherst, NH so much as sent them a card.  Furthermore,  the EMT's were rebuffed by Judge Cocker and then denied a restraining order see The two EMT's in this video   who were  denied their rights and their attacker was allowed to walk free until County Attorney Hogan stepped in and had his office reopen the case. 

Fairy Tale Access airing 10/5/12 for the full story, and then Speak Up the week after for the very gruesome details.  These are women in our community who provide a service for their community when YOU need them.  Yet they are still now out of work receiving 60% of their pay, for an incident that happened in May of 2010 and dealing with a corrupt Workman's comp policy that is not covering all of their injuries and who are not receiving victims assistance to get them back to where they were.  Really, that's justice? 

If Lafrance was willing to put her neck out as describe in a recent article in the Nashua Patch, for anything including protecting victims of crimes, ethically as assistant county attorney to Robert Walsh, she failed. 

The Federal Government and states like Wisconsin are actually allowing and/or using funding to help reunite families. Yet, NH goes out of its way to destroy them, with Judges who divorce and marry each others wives  2-3 times and/or have children with other women and fail to tell their current families, and then wonder why their children are upset with them when they do find out. These are the people deciding whats right in other family's matters... and who are also denying victims of crimes their rights and it goes right up to the Supreme Ct.. The Criminal in NH has more rights than you, if your not a criminal. Kentucky is investigating DCYF as seen in this video   adoption for $$$


Vote for the people trying to protect your rights, people like Dennis Hogan the new County prosecutor whom we voted for over Walsh.  Also consider that LaFrance, worked under Walsh as his assistant and did nothing for these victims and several others. Vote for O'Brien and others like Kevin Avard on the redress of grievance panel who went out of their way to listen to complaints and who are trying to enforce accountability. The next time a family or someone else is injured in anyway due to the Judicial System and/or NH Bar Association's failure to hold Attorney's and Judges accountable to the public they are suppose to serve, it could be just someone else you don't know or it could be YOU. 

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 http://www.nh.gov/gal/documents/gal-form06.pdf 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: http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/oos/ombudsman/index.htm

"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

Legal Knowledge is Empowering

Legal Knowledge is Power... recent interview on "Speak Up"
http://youtu.be/h-s2fhC322w





Indicative of a quote by Henry Miller "Chaos is the score upon which reality is written"

Anyone, involved in the legal system understands that it can be daunting and complex; learning & knowing your legal rights will help you gain the confidence to make order out of the chaos.

NH Legislative Subpoena Power - FLAWED

"Few things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion." Charles Colson
The Redress of Grievance Committee's right to subpoena sealed records comes with responsibility and should be viewed by a small committee to protect the child's privacy and one of those viewers better be a seasoned family law attorney!

http://www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/2012/6/19/nhdp-icymi-house-committee-trying-to-subpoena-confidential-c.html  reported:

"The vote to subpoena the records was 9-3, along party lines, ... a  Rep. ... said his understanding is the subpoena is intended to uncover "exculpatory evidence that basically proves that a complainant is a fit father" from the guardian ad litem assigned to the case."

Number 1. Exculpatory evidence is meant to prove innocence and occurs in criminal charges the case they reference is civil.

Number 2. Looking solely at one source in any case is hardly going to define someone as a fit parent - it would have to be collaborative to make a valid ruling as such it must be cross referenced on all the sources. Meaning:

1. - Read the sealed GAL report check for unbalanced reporting example stated fact versus whether or not they actually viewed what was reported as a fact, without a disclosure of who else might have relayed it?

2. - Confirm the GAL's sources therapist etc.;

3. - Confirm the GAL's investigative skills did they document conversations as they had them?

4. - Did the GAL's investigative skills  demonstrate that he/she reviewed the therapist's actual record with the child to be sure their verbal disclosures mirror their written disclosures about what the child said had alleged to have said to them? NO?

5. - Then go back and cross reference the GAL's disclosures of what the therapist said is it what that the therapist disclosed? is it in their notes with the child? or her notes of a call with the GAL? If not than it may be shown that the therapist lied and you have a case to plead fitness;

6. - If they do not match then you have to find our who lied - check the GAL record did he/she simply record conversations and document them in a way a DCYF worker or as an investigator would; if not than it may be shown that the GAL lied you have a case to plead fitness;

7. If all sources and back up, check out = you have an unfit parent;

8. Please be aware the above is just a sample of the crossreferencing that would need to be done in this case to ascertain a compelte and accurate investigation.

Reviewing sources, distinguishing whether or not they are a primary source, secondary and/or that their records to support are in place; is a responsibility: all the source's should be subpoenaed to be appropriately reasoned; with out it, all you can hope to gain is your opponents opposition - and rightfully so, because you do not know what your doing or looking for to support and/or discredit either side.

"With great power comes great responsibility"  this appears to have originally been used by Voltair in French "Œuvres de Voltaire, Volume 48". Lefèvre, 1832); as well as Thomas C. Hansard, ed (1817) in Parliamentary Debates stated the phrase was already a cliché as a UK Member of Parliament in 1817 and the sentiment is also found in Luke 12:48: "from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked" (NIV).

If your going to take on something do it thoroughly, completely and the right way.

Legislators VS. Judicial VS. Common sense not so much ...

House, courts at odds | Concord Monitor: Rather common sense seems to be not so common as this debate lingers on; and the bull coming out from both sides egos now, really read between the lines...

"Last-minute legislation co-authored by House Speaker Bill O'Brien has court officials predicting that, if passed, the state's district, probate and family courts will revert to costly, inconsistent "fiefdoms." Really, well as a citizen who has tried to get contempt charges into a NH Court since filing in October 2011; under NH RSA 461:A it should have been heard in 30 days; and yet it has been "rescheduled" now for the 4th time due to the Judicial Branch to be heard on May 25th. I would have to say that the Court's are already inconsistent.

If the amendment returns control and management of the lower courts to the judges sitting in them and no longer leave it's to the central office in Concord which actually has been around for a while providing extra jobs; albeit not accountability across the board; that sounds worst than where we are now. Speaking without looking at the proposal because the Concord Monitor does not provide a link to it; typical; but they do bring out the horrendous logic contained in it. What legislator's should be doing is working to make that office accountable and make the Judicial Branch ACCOUNTABLE AND CONSISTENT across the board! 

"Court officials told an unsympathetic House Judiciary Committee last week that the move would reverse decades of improvements that have made the lower courts more uniform and efficient." Sorry, I am pretty sure they are not talking about New Hampshire.  If Chief Justice Linda Dalianis testified that there was $2.3 million in savings over the last 10 months due to greater central control; why are the courts not open a FULL WEEK; why are they not hearing cases in a consistent manner?

"Amherst Rep. Robert Rowe, is a retired Judge who chairs the committee and co-authored the amendment, and he more than most would be pretty aware of the Judicial Branch's inability to be a uniform and consistent operation; however, his reasoning as this article moves along shows can only be from days gone by when the courts were not as large as they are today.

 "A call center  that takes nearly 1,500 calls a day," is indicative of courts that are not processing cases in a timely manner even in light of being closed two or more at least half days a week; and that the inconsistency in the system requires users must ask a lot of questions.

OUCH, HERE Delanis may be right.....Rowe said the lower court "judges especially fear retaliation from supervisors if identified. Their gripe, Rowe said, is that they no longer have any authority in their courthouses beyond adjudicating cases. That is of course their only role. "(A judge) can't supervise or discipline court personnel that are not performing his or her job,"  Nor should they be able to, that is not their job; it is the Clerk of Court's job and Judges should be forwarding their complaints to them; for example the inconsistencies in the Nashua, NH Superior Court; comes under the Clerk of Court and Judges should be especially concerned over their new "court coordinators" that are holding back divorce cases; a recent example shows a couple who filed a joint petition for divorce with no outstanding issues to be decided by a Judge; it just needs to be signed. However, now before the Judge even sees the case; a court coordinator halted the progress by demanding financials in a case that didn't call for them; all assets and child support had been divided agreed upon and neither party wanted to share their financials. Judges should be reporting to the Clerks of Court that the unauthorized practice of law will not be tolerated and together should be putting a stop to overzealous "clerks" who have no authority to make such decisions; the idea was to help streamline cases not entertain busybody "clerks" whose only agenda is to be nosey.

Furthermore, Judges should not be playing a micromanagement role; they are there to hear cases decide on them and keep the flow of traffic moving; Clerks of Courts (Whether it is a Judge or Lawyer) need to fire lazy meddlesome employees and run their offices with efficiency, something covered in their business management classes; and if they haven't had a background in business and law we should be very concerned.
Procedures and Administration should be consistently controlled from Concord in conjunction with and under the leadership of the Chief Justice and the legislative committee to be sure they are actually understandable since the National Center on State Courts reports that in 85% of civil cases in New Hampshire one party is a pro se litigant.

Dealing with individuals bad behavior should be handled by the "Clerk of the Court" as heard about by the Judge, other Attorneys and the public's complaints.  The Judge is there to hear cases period; no where does it say he/she is the end all; of how the courts operate and that would be bad. Rowe is wrong. If Rowe said "Judge Ed Kelly, who heads the court, and Judge David King, who serves as his deputy, would strictly hear cases." Well, it should be an either or thing they are administrators or they are Judge's obviously Kelly is failing or there wouldn't be this much controversy surrounding the issue.  

The Court's need accountability and consistency; Judge Kelly has failed because he does not know how to provide that or how to keep his Clerk's of Court and/or Judges accountable with appropriate sanctions and discipline standards across the board, or any type of consistency; the Judicial Conduct Committee made up of mostly Judges, Lawyers and appointed linked professionals has no stats, no public sensor and provides no leadership in controlling the professionals under their watch; they do consistently hide their misdeeds under the rug though. Rowe actually told a group of students in the last couple of years that the Court System is very much the "the old boys network". Hopefully, Delanis can break through the barriers by actually demanding consistency in administration and following the laws set out by legislators; and reining her employees in across the board with meaningful reprimands.

Now the article states that "The administration would be left to the chief justice, who would be allowed to appoint a non-judge administrator. But the courthouses would be managed by a presiding judge assigned there"  Hello, Legislators that is exactly the problem, Judges need to adjudicate cases not micro manage.

"Rowe said there is no way Kelly or King, sitting centrally, can know what sorts of problems the circuit court in Colebrook or Nashua are facing. He said judges have told him that when clerks in the courthouse fail to do their work or are rude to the public, they can do nothing about it."  The problem is with the Clerks of those courts the Judges have enough to do and they are more often than not part of the same complaints; if Kelly actually acted on any of the complaints coming across his desk and got off his derrière to see what is happening in the state and have training's for consistency across the board he would be an affective manager.  Perhaps what Dalanis should be doing is looking for someone new.

"Rowe said. "It won't cost any money. All it does is give the local judge a little more say in managing the staff. That is all it does."  Really, what does the Clerk of Court do then? Judges should only be managing their direct staff and when an issue arises forwarding it to the clerk to take care of.  And the Clerks should be consistent in their demerit system and get rid of employees who do not act in a manner that serves the Judge or the Public. Its called Human Resources.

Central management can provide consistency when it is issued from a strong central manager - obviously not found in Judge Kelly. A presiding Judge is there to make sure the Judges and Marital Masters that are not suppose to be there but are under him/her are doing their jobs consistently and in line with ethics and wow the law not a wholly new concept.

The administration is rightly left with the Clerk of Court under Central Management to provided fluid uninterrupted consistency across the State and they should set up a line of discplinary action with their employees unions to get rid of the ones who think they are in someway owed a job. 

This amendment by Rowe WILL result in adverse changes in the circuit court, "Rowe said. "It won't cost any money. All it does is give the local judge a little more say in managing the staff. That is all it does." What it really does is feeds some already over inflated ego's; times have changed and while I do respect and have deep appreciation and respect for Rowe this time, I respectfully disagree and welcome him to discover a new age.

Dalianis appears to have a better picture and the ability to realize that Rowe's proposal will result in the same old "individual judges causing the processing of cases to fall behind; not recognizing standardized forms, procedures, court rules and the law; not working to make court records available online; a hole in the records due to their private biases.

Dalianis actions and ability to listen and attempt to compromise with the Legislators reminds me of this ...“The key is to just get on the bike, and the key to getting on the bike… is to stop thinking about ‘there are a bunch of reasons I might fall off’ and just hop on and peddle the damned thing. You can pick up a map, a tire pump, and better footwear along the way.”  -Dick Costolo, founder of Feedburner.com

To the Legislators and Judicial Branch - Winston Churchill once said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last"; he should know Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler and look where that left us. It's time both sides look at the big picture you can't place missile's in Turkey directed at the Soviet Union and not expect a tit for tat when they place missiles in Cuba. 

Demand accountability and make the changes necessary to achieve it; learn from the past and listen to both sides; right now your both reacting without accepting responsibility and making meaningful changes to a Judicial System is that is quickly sinking its not that hard to root out the real problem's and fix them.

The amendment will go to the full House on Tuesday. Contact your legislators before Tuesday and tell them to work it out.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wml.aspx

 

Sean's Story - A Father's Love

This is a story that would befit Plato's teachings "Let parents bequeath to their children not riches, but the spirit of reverence."

A parent divided from their Child, by another parent is intentional interference the parent child relationship and bond - parental alienation and its wrong; this father and son story shows that a parent's love for their child is finally fulfilled after 5 years of numerous trials and tribulations and it covers the Child's adjustments dealing with separation anxiety, and overcoming attachment disorders through therapy and love.  All understandably not an easy road, it is a road that a child and parent continue to build on in their lives together, always looking over their shoulder but, through it all helping other families bring their children home http://bringseanhome.org/.

A child who doesn't know why his father is not in his life, taken to another country and told someone else was his father. Whenever, he asked questions about his real Dad he was denied the real answers, and suppressed his longing to know so he wouldn't be disappointed never knowing his real father was doing everything possible to be in his life. 

This Dateline Story is filled with international suspense, adjustment, a parents determination to never stop fighting for their child and the child's view that it should have never taken as long as it did. Hear the full story by Dateline here
Check out this great MSN video: Preview: 'Sean's Story'

Happiness is in the simple act of children and parent's sharing time together.

In America, parental alienation is an ongoing epidemic directed at both mother's and father's and the courts do not always know what to do or instead hope the situation will correct itself; however, by not enforcing their own orders for visitation or responsibility with sanctions; the courts are hardly making a difference in the best of the child.  This case is a perfect example of what should be done to help children reunite with the estrange parent and work towards keeping a relationship with the alienating parent, it in facts chastises and corrects lower court decisions not promoting the influence of both parents in their children's lives.

Another Child's story is about how a Child should not be lead to feel that unsupervised visits with his mother will fail before they have even started, without a period to adjust McIntosh and McIntosh 226-2000-DM-00927. The father’s behaviors as contained in the court record and in GAL’s report are contrary to the findings in Miller v. Todd (March 31, 2011) where the NH Supreme Court raised the question of and sited the following:

"... whether Todd (like the Father, in the above Matter) has benefited from (his) misbehavior. In Begins v. Begins, 721 A.2d 469, 470-71 (Vt. 1998), the Children’s relationship with their Mother deteriorated following the parents’ separation due to the fact that the Father unfairly blamed her for … problems and made disparaging remarks about her … The trial court concluded that the boys’ hostility toward their Mother, encouraged and fueled by their Father, precluded an award of custody to Mother. Id. at 471. Although the court found that Father did not “deserve to win custody,” it concluded that it had no choice but to award custody to him. Id. (quotations omitted). The Vermont Supreme Court rejected such reasoning. Id. at 472. As the court stated: Although obviously well intended, the court’s decision effectively condoned a parent’s willful alienation of a Child from the other parent. Its ruling sends the unacceptable message that others might, with impunity, engage in similar misconduct. Left undisturbed, the court’s decision would nullify the principle that the best interests of the Child are furthered through a healthy and loving relationship with both parents. Id.; see Mack-Manley, 138 P.3d at 528 (trial court found Children’s best interests not served by ignoring … unsubstantiated Child abuse and neglect allegations); Young, 628 N.Y.S.2d at 963 (trial court’s decision noticeably silent as to … false allegations and it was clear the court failed to consider evidence that …. willfully interfered with a parent’s relationship with the Children)… Vacated and remanded. DALIANIS, C.J., and DUGGAN and CONBOY, JJ., concurred. "

Miller Vs. Todd Full Text here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByTPLCn0VjpSSUZRa3lwRVFOeUU

Without preserving the parent/child relationship wherever possible the threat to the child's best interests is best highlighted as assessed by Oscar Wilde "Children begin by loving their parents: after a time they judge them; rarely, if ever, do they forgive them."

Verdicts Sweeping the U.S. oppossing Oppression momentum opens Court Rooms

"At a time when we're having to take such difficult decisions about how to cut back without damaging the things that matter the most, we should strain every sinew to cut error, waste and fraud." (David Cameron)

Notable Lawsuits against the Department of Health and Human Services Departments and that of Child Protection Workers range from 1.2 million to 30 million per case; yet the government in each State is still not getting the message to correct their error, waste and fraud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protective_Services  Notable lawsuits http://newsok.com/okfuskee-county-jury-returns-4.55-million-verdict-after-counselor-failed-to-report-admitted-abuse-by-mother/article/3657723#ixzz1rPvy7nHm  Future Cases on what a Jury will give a Fit Mother deprived of Custody because the Child's Counselor and Father Lied and other cases where CPS workers said they thought there would be harm in the future; or misled Courts to deny grandparents rights and get a personal bonus or feed their over inflated deprived egos; will hopefully ensure open Court Rooms in New Hampshire in the Future.

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=G039045&s=CA&d=45035 Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange this case went for appeal by State and was denied; 4.9 million dollar verdict stands - These and other cases are leading to some but not ALL States Opening their Court Rooms to ensure accountability:

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/01/12/2026293/judges-say-kentucky-juvenile-courts.html
http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/198/242/
Pennsylvania
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/11/stop_child_abuse_secret_courts.php California
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/greenhut/greenhut-judge-right-to-promote-court-openness/article_59f47952-b8f3-5b80-98c7-9a51ee8fc407.html#ixzz1mDm5LIRI  A Judges input on the corruption and mismanagement of the Child Protective Services as A government Agency. 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011FogartyHardwick/04CertDenied/prweb5261414.htm http://freethechildrencoalition.webs.com/precedentcases.htm http://www.ctkidslink.org/publications/welf04confstatute11.pdf-12  12 other States

Sadly, the  RULES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE -- FAMILY DIVISION SECTION 4 -- ABUSE AND NEGLECT 4.1 Scope:

The family division has jurisdiction in RSA 169-C Child Protection Act cases.

4.2 Attendance of Non-Parties: Any party wishing to bring other persons to hearings held in RSA 169-C cases shall first obtain permission of the Court, either by written motion in advance of the hearing, or upon oral motion at the beginning of the hearing. Such other persons will not be allowed into the hearing until the Court approves the request. Such persons shall not be entitled to participate but may do so with the permission of the Court. See RSA 169-C:14.

4.3 Open Hearings Pilot Project: Other than in those counties in which the legislature has adopted a presumption of open hearings, hearings under RSA 169-C are closed to the public. In those counties in which hearings under this chapter are presumed open, parties to the action must inform the court in writing before any hearing, or orally and on the record at the beginning of any hearing, if they believe the hearing should be closed to the public, in full or in part. See Chapter Law 134 (2006) pertaining to open hearings in Grafton, Rockingham and Sullivan Counties.

This N.H. Rule above, is in conflict with the Law under NH RSA 169-C:14 Hearings Not Open to the Public. Shows that the Court's remain closed because the division of Child Protection is the one who informs the Court in writing and/or orally they believe the hearing should be closed to the public and the Judicial System so orders that is, which means the law is frivolous and without merit.

If Legislators simply changed the above referenced law to replace "NOT" WITH "ARE" open, it would reasonably cure the issue. This recent article http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120417/NEWS06/704179937/-1/news06  sums up Attorney General Delaney of New Hampshire's attitude toward Families and was best stated by House Speaker O'Brien in reference to Delaney he is “more interested in playing politics than administering justice.”

"For the most part fraud in the end secures for its companions repentance and shame." (Charles Simmons) However, it never adequately compensates the victims in these cases; how do you possibly compensate a parent who due to fraud has lost countless moments in their child lives? Including but not limited to their first day in a new school, the first point in a game, their every day discovery's and growth, being first on the scene to soothe a bruised knee or mean comment, to share in their everyday moments of growth and discovery's working to ensure their happiness as a child. "This" is not replaceable, any parent who doesn't realize all of these moments in their child's life good and bad is a deprived fool.

"A clear and innocent conscience fears nothing." Elizabeth I

6. Due Process - Record Requests - Parents

Whenever, your motion is denied for something that appears so obvious that the court should be giving it to you as shown in Due Process blogs 1-5. File a Supreme Court Appeal; it can be expensive however, you can apply to have the fees waived by filling out an affidavit of assets found on their site; this is a format for NH and do not be discourage if they tell you it is suppose to be the opposite of whatever you submit; it is to deter you from filing; simply hand it in early and hand it back as they request.  To save time, since they are basically similar forms, you'd think they'd just rule on it accordingly. However, the would be time management and/or effective organization something the Court's in New Hampshire have not yet accomplished:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByTPLCn0VjpSeEtFdlBqdUhkeWc

America's Almost Invisible Problem

The stories contained throughout my blog are not new or confined to one State they are problems that are across the Country and they denied families the Civil Rights that are purported to be given to citizens of this Nation:

Amy Charron, Houston, Texas Mom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58T1WGjMOFk&feature=relmfu
Agrees, with me that it is more than unlikely that Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband took their lives, Senator Schaefer was in the center of uncovering and exposing not only Georgia's indiscretion but that of an entire Nation.

This has more links to other families stories more than 630 from across the country will be providing their updates and cases.
http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=811:lawless-americathe-movie-will-include-diane-booth-learn-how-the-us-government-kidnaps-children-and-puts-mothers-in-jail&catid=124:articles&Itemid=219

I will be providing more insight into the Department of Health and Human Services and other Government departments that have used these children for experiment's since the days of FDR. As the evidence unfolds, you, like myself will find it morally reprehensible and conscience shocking that these events are occurring in America, because they are increasing similar to those that have occurred under the Hitler regime and countless others in our world history.  The United Nations should be very concerned.

In the words of one of our Presidents Woodrow Wilson; "An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. ~"

3. Due Process - Parent's Rights to records

In reference to my recent filing see post 3/22/12; It appears that the Rules of the Court of New Hampshire add further weight to the argument of obtaining records.


specifically:
VIII. Denial of Access. The clerk, after consultation with the presiding justice and Administrative Justice, may, for good cause shown, deny access to court records to any individual. Good cause shall include, but not be limited to, previous theft, destruction, defacement or tampering of records and refusal to comply with administrative regulations established in accordance with these guidelines.


IX. Access by Litigants. Subject to paragraph II, and unless otherwise ordered by the Presiding Justice for good cause shown, parties to any litigation and their attorneys shall have complete access to their case records at all reasonable times and under the conditions set forth in these guidelines.

It will be interesting to see how the motion for reconsideration is ruled on; mostly likely it will have to pushed through the NH Supreme Ct. and 1st District Ct.  an expense that deters most litigants, not to mention the rules for filing.  Well bring it on, the worst that can happen is that I will obtain more experience and be a better advocate in the future without practicing on anyone other than myself; with that said, I do believe I am right in this matter parents should have the same rights as murderers and be entitled to their records.