WHAT THE U. S.GOVERNMENT, CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DOES AND CAN DUE TO PARENT/FAMILIES
AT ANYTIME
This piece refers to case in the New Hampshire Ct. System where parents were
charged for alleged services by the State and/or contacted by Child Protection
Workers
We all have heard about the "Client List" where "Johns" who hired prostitutes made the list; justice yes, however, when a unfounded case or case against a parent gets expunged it makes the results of being on this list devastating and they get to pay for it in more ways than one:
The
Plaintiff, (herein Pl.) brings forward new information directly or indirectly
related to this matter and disputes the reasoning in the Court’s (herein Ct.) Orders
on a Writ of Certiorari to the extent that the pleadings, applicable law and
ambiguity contained in the District Ct. Orders remains unresolved as follows: (abbreviations are standard bluebook abbreviations
used in law: Mot. is Motion)
The questions manifest themselves as follows:
a.
Are parents
entitled to a fair and accurate account of what they are being billed for,
including what was paid by each parent, federal grants and other TANF/ Federal Title
IV funding that were reimbursed to the State at 75%; no matter how lack lustrous
a States Service plan may be?
b.
Does the RECORD
support the State pushing an Assented to Mot. for Reimbursement against the Pl.
when no past Order clearly defined their right to do so?
c.
Did the
State attach the Pl. [’s] pay without a proper Ct. Order justifying
his actions? And/or was the attachment by the State precluded at the time,
because the Pl. appealed and an Order from the District Ct. clearly bars the
1/7/2011 by the State?
d.
If the State had
the ability to attach the Pl. [’s] pay in 2011, with the Order signed in 2009;
why is it the Pl. [’s] fault and why is she being held in contempt of a Ct. Order
when it was the State who failed to follow the Order to attach her pay in 2009;
really, shouldn’t they be held in contempt?
e.
Did the State
apply the incorrect number of weeks for recovery in the Assented to Mot.
and the resulting attachment of her pay?
These are the Pl. [’s] unanswered questions on appeal/Writ
of Certiorari and due an answer by virtue of the full review alleged to have
been conducted of the District Ct. file;
The Order of this Ct. articulates how an individual may
be responsible for payments to the state in a clear and coherent manner; albeit
it fails to address the facts, the ambiguous Orders of the lower Ct., and the
unanswered questions it left behind, identified above;
1. ¶ 1. a., a
full accounting has not been disclosed; a handful of unsupported documents,
that a professional accountant cannot decipher is not a disclosure; records
submitted to the Ct. by the Child Support Division show the attachment as NOT
paid to the State; but, to the Father for unknown reasons, relevant in this
matter; a TANF payment was receive as some payment when neither party was
illegible for it at the time; all amounting to a denial of due process and/or
fraud;
2. ¶ 1. b. The Assented to agreement was signed because
the Pl. was advised by the State that an Order for reimbursement existed
in the District Ct. RECORD, undisputed by the State; albeit a review shows no
clear Order for reimbursement to the state exist in the RECORD, as a result, the
Assented to Mot. is a product of Fraud in the procurement by the State; “The average parent would be at a
loss when faced with problems
of procedure, evidence,
or cross- examination." Danforth v. State Dep 't of Health
and Welfare, 303 A.2d 794, 799 (Me. 1973); whether or not it was appropriately pleaded by the pro
se litigant, the Pl., clearly signed without knowledge of the illegalities’
contained within, or notification of her rights; Furthermore, State Employee Reimbursement Department as an
Officer of the Ct. had no immunity,
“…when violating a Constitutional right, … for they are deemed to know the
law" Owens v. Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398, 455 US 622;
3. ¶ 1. c. Disregard,
or over looked due to the ambiguous Orders of the District Ct. is the fact that
the State filed an untimely Mot. to attach the Pl. [’s] pay and was denied the
right to attached on12/20/10 by Judge Leary Ex. B; also, part of the District Ct. file under “review”; the
District Ct. indirectly recognized the Pl. [’s] De Novo Appeal in Ex. B part 2; denied and recognized as a Writ of Certiorari here, highlighting
the State failure to comply with Ct. Orders;
4. To the extent that any arrearages were/are or may be
deemed payable as Ordered in the District Ct. record; the Pl. is indigent/ hardly
able to pay current fee’s deducted from her weekly pay checks since 1/7/11; ¶ 5 indicates that alleged arrears should
be considered satisfied since an attachment should only have occurred after
appeal/review;
5. ¶ 1. d. It is
inconceivable that the Pl. should be held in contempt for non-payment when the
Assented to Order of 2009 was the ordered used by the State in 2011 to force an
attachment of her pay; hardly, the Pl.
[’s] fault that the State’s lack of accountability and/or due to incompetence
lead to their neglect in attaching her pay in 2009 as Order by the Ct.;
6. ¶ 1. e. If the
Assented to Mot. is enforced as Ordered, by virtue of the Ct. [’s] definition
of a Writ of Certiorari, a “full review
of the record” would have to give weight to the District Ct. Order of 11/18/2010 Ex. A. where the Judge indisputably recognized the Pl.
[’s] objection and went so far as to state: “Ms.
XYZ is correct that the State’s right to recovery is limited under NH RSA
169-C:27 I (c)”; recognizing the Pl. [’s] position that the computed amount of weeks by the State
of “627” was erroneous and inconsistent with
the law under NH RSA 169-C:27 I (c); “Courts
are not bound by an officers
interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act” Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla. 32, 227 F. 417; The failure
of the District Ct. to cure the defect it recognized opposes the standard that
“Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular
emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and
impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct
2411; US Ct App MN, (1972)”;
If
the Pl. was advised of her rights at the start or any stage in this matter, by the
State, presumed to know the laws under which they act; it is highly unlikely
that the Pl. would have signed a document doubling what would be lawfully
recoverable, without coercion through the State.
Due to the
ambiguity of the law in of itself the timing for recovery is not specific; to
allow for the absolute maximum recovery
period it is computed as follows at $6.50 a week; 5 months x 4.33 in 2005 =
21.65 weeks; 12 months in 2006 = 52. Weeks; 11 months in 2007 = 47.63 weeks; + 4 years per Statute = 208 weeks
for a Total of 329.28 weeks as the maximum recovery period.
The
Assented to Mot. was utterly false; the average person, would have confidence
in the State’s ability to be factual and would NOT have agreed to pay double
what was allowable by law; even if an appropriate Order existed for payment; a
reasonable person may have agreed to the 329 week maximum with the existence of
a Order supporting it; but, it is more than likely a person of limited means
would have evoked their right to a hearing if they felt the assessment of the
ability to pay was beyond their means; the standard of assessment, has never
been disclosed; “A prosecutor doesn't
have absolute immunity if he fabricates evidence during a preliminary
investigation, before he could properly claim to be acting as an advocate, see Buckley
v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 275 (1993), or makes false
statements in a sworn affidavit in support of an application for an arrest
warrant, see Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129-30
(1997). Furthermore, as prosecutors and others investigating criminal matters
have no absolute immunity for their investigatory conduct, a fortiori, social
workers conducting investigations have no such immunity. See id. at 126.”
7. If the State‘s Assented to Order is enforced; an Order
from this Ct. needs to clearly state and correct that the $ a week is for a period not to exceed “329” weeks from the
date of 1/7/11 as reasoned in ¶ 6. to settle the inappropriate attachment by the State with the Pl.
[’s] employer; taking $ a week, including a weekly administrative surcharge of
$ for a period of 627 weeks, commenced on 1/7/11;
8. It should further be reiterated that the State’s
incompetence and denial of due process, in informing the Pl. of her rights in
this matter extends beyond the proceedings leading to financial liability; including
but not limited to her name being added to the central registry under NH RSA
169-C:35 V. And the possibility to
expunge under NH RSA 169-C:35 IV as early as 2006; the proceeding to expunge
the RECORD was done only when the Pl. [’s] pursued a legal education, to enabled
her to identify her rights and pursue a
Pet. to Expunge granted on 1/15/10, Ex.
C;
The Plaintiff in this matter was not advised of her
rights as required her 5th 6th and 14th
amendment rights. And NH RSA 169-C:34 Duties of the Department of Health and
Human Services. – VI. At the first
contact in person, any person investigating a report of abuse or neglect on
behalf of the department shall verbally inform the parents of a child suspected
of being a victim of abuse or neglect of the specific nature of the charges and
that they are under no obligation to allow a social worker or state employee on
their premises or surrender their children to interviews unless that social
worker or state employee is in possession of a court order to that effect. Upon
receiving such information, the parent shall sign a written acknowledgement
indicating that the information required under this paragraph was provided by
the person conducting the investigation. The parent and department shall each
retain a copy of the acknowledgment.
9. As a result, this Ct. is put on Notice that the
relevance of ¶ 8. in this matter, is due to the fact that the
State’s reckless incompetence and/or malicious intent affects the Pl. [’s]
ability to pay; on or about 3/29/12, a source (ps.S. Thank You) disclosed that the State had obstructed her
ability to gain employment in her field of 20 years, by keeping her name on the
Central Registry after the Petition was granted on 1/15/10 Ex. C; The Pl. sought proof by mailing a Central Registry Name Search,
on 3/29/12 Ex. D; as of the date of
this Mot. it remains unanswered in “writing by DHHS”; Nonetheless, the Pl.
pursued the matter further by calling the Central Registry @ 603-271-4455 on
4/19/12 @ 2:10 PM and was informed that the State had not removed her name from the Central Registry; precluding her
from employment in field for the period of 2006 through 2012 and causing public
embarrassment for positions that had been applied to, that required a Central Registry
Release after the Expunge Pet. of 2010 and of course was denied; and will
continue to be denied employment in her field until such a time as her name is
removed in writing from the Central Registry; as such they are liable for
defamation of character and the decrease in her salary due to being removed
from the industry she was trained to work in without merit; solely due to the
State’s malicious act of incompetence and/or willfully and knowingly failing to
follow and/or implement standard procedures to remove her name from the Central
registry after it had been expunged by a Ct. of competent jurisdiction;
Here it should be noted that the call showed that any
parent merely looked into by the State may be on that Central Registry; call to
be sure; it is only suppose to be for those found guilty of Abuse and/or
Neglect and it can be expunged one year after your told you made the list, oh, oophs that’s only if your social worker
is actually competent, and informed you in writing you made the list;
Th The Phone
Call:
Moreover, the incompetence of this office is seen in
the call itself; Pl. hello, I am calling to see if you received my name search
request? Name, yes, was it mailed? Pl. Yes. Yes, but No, oh hold on, I only send out the ones that
are not on the list this is on my supervisor’s desk can I transfer for you? Pl.
yes, please and her name XYZ, ok. Again repeat of above and previous party said
you had it, when will it be mailed out indicating the name is still on the
registry? They said really, well we are busy we get over 150 calls a day, I had someone out a couple of weeks ago, next call there
are only two people part time; Pl. how long does it typically take for a
response? A week really, Pl. well it was sent to you 3 weeks ago. Well, I was out, you get the picture two
calls involved over a 5 day period resulting in the same person relaying the
above and following contradictions: I have been here for 12 years, I have been here only
2 or 3 years,;we had problems with the computer system, we have all new people; they hardly ever have
someone that gets the decision turn over, the district court offices don’t
follow procedures to have people removed, they add people who shouldn’t be
added, people added should get notice; we destroy files once they are entered,
we probably have it in the file; Pl. can you send in your orders to prove you
shouldn’t be on the list? No. the district office and court have to file the
standard procedure and do it; Pl. what?! really ??? Are you kidding me? Can you send me what they should have done so I can get it corrected? I guess but I can't locate it right now we're busy.Ah, ok so the Pl. should just continue to have their life on hold, I guess. and then Well
you could send me a copy of the order and I can locate it in the file; last week the file was destroyed after entry into the computer systems now it exists and remove you, if its in the file. The file she didn't keep?? But
could you send me the release again we don’t have it. Pl. What? Last Thursday
you said you had it. Well, it could be in the file to go out. Pl. what do you have to do to get it corrected
a Civil Suit? Well you could let the district office know. Pl. In case they are
obviously not on board with the rules; are the procedures on line? Oh no it’s
interoffice; and I was out last week; Pl. can you email them to me so I can go to the court to get
it corrected? Well I’ll try they must be around here somewhere …. Can you send your release again, I don't think we got it. Sure how about by email the first one was wrong so the Pl. had her stay on the phone until both parties were sure it went through, even though they clearly had it the week before. And then she said oh, I can't tell you on the phone if your on the list. Pl. What?You already did! Send me it all in writing by email. Oh we can't send privileged information by email. Pl. Send it USPS, but I want it.
The Kicker
Well you'll be off in 7 years; Pl. hmm you didn't know who I was last week. The Problem with this will be covered seperately look for The List NH RSA 169:C:35...
Results after each call;
with a
Government Department under the branch of Health
and Human Services because it’s all
Yup, Confidential - Top Secret…
10. The
financial issues before the Ct. are of broad public interest due to the interests
in the funding of Federal and State monies involved; the State cannot hide
behind the confidentiality act for these issues, due to that little thing we
have called the Freedom of Information Act; we pay taxes and so on so knowing
how are taxes are spent both in state and federal, how the funds are dispersed and
spent, the Pl. acknowledges the Confidentiality of the Central Registry piece; but
it doesn’t really appear that the rest is confidential………unless of course you
say so ,which you will, because that’s what your told to do not necessarily law
but whatever……there are ways around that too; it's called Freedom of expression Free Speech whether or not its in the Court records I suspect I have kept the pieces like which court, which Judge is sitting on this, the DHHS workers and such names out but the facts as stated as they are, are what they are.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests a Honorable
Court Order something reasonable and uncomplicated because this isn’t really
isn't that complicated:
A. Order the State to distribute to every Judge and DHHS
Attorney the proper procedures to follow when removal from the Central Registry
is a result of an appropriate ruling; further consider the need of an audit to
ensure there are no other victims and correct people wrongly included;
B. Dismiss the Civil Contempt due to the numerous errors
acted out by the State;
C. Make a clear cut Order that indicates the Pl. is
responsible for $ a week for a period not to exceed 329 weeks, from the original
date of attachment;
D. Dismiss the Order to reimburse the DHHS Reimbursement
Unit;
E. Order a hearing on the merits;
F. Grant such other relief as the court deems just and
equitable.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that a copy of the above Mot.
has been mailed to an assistant Attorney General for the State Reimbursement
Unit, et al., on this th day of April. This of course is not meant as legal advice in
any way just commenting on the obvious; be forewarned the snarky → meaning the not quite as snide
as I would like remarks are my own and were not included in the pleading that this may or may
not refer to or that may or may not really exist. The Information and Facts are real unfortunately.
For
Parents who have ever had contact with DCYF check here:
NHDCYF Central
Registry
129 Pleasant
Street http://nfpcar.org/eBook/Off.htm getting off the
Concord, NH 03301 registry for parents – National Foster
Parent Coalition for Phone: (603) 271-4455 Allegation Reform
NH Central
Registry Name Check form to sign get notarized and send certified to be sure they can't say they don't
have it http://www.dhhs.nh.gov/hr/documents/registry.pdf
which they will because they probably won't and/or they lost it.
