Current Matter in Nashua, NH District Court involving a Mother and Child - Facts Confirmed

The Truth Bites-The writer requested me to share her writing.
Information on the laws and issues affecting families in NH. Principal players to be aware of on issues of corrruption and greed. Updates in progress. Disclosure: The Information contained within is based on research in NH., And is not to be conscrewed as legal advice.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Current Matter in Nashua, NH District Court involving a Mother and Child - Facts Confirmed
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

NASHUA DISTRICT COURT Case 05-JV- , et al
In re


MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON ORDER FOR CONTEMPT
And ORDER/ RULING ON MOTION FILED AT HEARING



NOW COMES, the Respondent, Denise M. McIntosh, pro se, who responds and states as follows:
1. The court erred in finding the Respondent in contempt.
2. The assented to order of 11/24/09, through this court “gave the Reimbursement Unit (RU) the right to garnish wages through automatic payroll deduction only.” Through no fault of the Respondent they did not.
3. The court’s manipulation of the facts in stating the Respondent as delaying meeting her statutory requirement is preposterous. The order that brought this matter forward is for the RU to start payroll deduction. All documentation has been provided to enable them to do that. The Cross Petition is for TRUTH IN BILLING.
4. The ability to enable a company to make payroll deductions rests solely with the Petitioner. The Process starts by mailing the following to the Respondents’ previously and repeatedly disclosed employer UPS:
I. The RU’s right to attach the Respondents pay by this court’s 11/24/09 order with a seal of authenticity
II. Requested attention on RU letter head to have pay attached
III. With instructions on where to wire/deposit money (account it goes in)

5. This is not something the Respondent can help them with – it’s standard procedure everywhere and they never gave the Respondent information on where to have her employer wire transfer the money. A Procedure routinely done with Child Support, by Family courts and possibly unfamiliar to this court.
6. The RU also failed to disclose the mother is indigent close to $60,000 in debt directly related to these hearings in district court. The Respondent cannot afford to pay any now alleged arrearages due to their neglect any more than she could before.
7. The cross petition has been accepted by the court and should stand on its own merit because it would have come in as a Motion/Petition for FRAUD due to new findings in this courts file on or about 2/27/10. Items resubmitted to the court illustrate that the non-accused father’s attorney was paid through the RU, an order clearly signed by Judge Bamberger and contrary to NH RSA 169 C:27 (f).
8. This Court failed to address why this was initially included in the mother’s bill and then redacted. Furthermore, the fact that it is a mis-use of public funds given to a non-indigent, non-accused Father seems to be a bias of Judge Bamberger who signed the order for his attorney to be paid but not for the accused mother’s attorney to be paid.
9. The RU since 2006 and now this court have suppressed evidence and given orders that do NOT support public confidence.
10. Whether or not the RU filed, the Respondent’s cross-petition for misappropriated billing. Under Title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act – the Respondent has a right to truth in billing including payments made by other parties on the same bill not to mention the actions under mail fraud.
11. Attorney Dennis J. Thiverge, assistant director of the Hillsborough County Department of Human Services, Goffstown, NH confirmed that William P. McIntosh and Lori Ayotte-Wilson were in fact paying on the bill and the amounts have yet to be disclosed, in November 2009 the RU affirmed and did not disclose amounts but attempted to take off charges without providing a new bill. In fact, Attorney Thiverge affirmed that William McIntosh has the exact same bill – but he stated “who cares because no one ever pays it back in full.”
12. In the first instance, the court failed to distinguish that a real order for reimbursement was established prior to the assented to motion. The reliance of which was used by the RU to coerce and induce the Respondent to sign the assented to motion.
13. In the second instance, despite the fact that the Respondent may have agreed to the bill post haste the reality is the LAW specifically NH RSA 169 C:27 I (a.) … the court and/or the Petitioner have to established that the reimbursement was for voluntary services. They have not.
14. If the contract for services was valid – it was originally signed when reunification had been the established goal of the case between mother and child and set by this court under Judge Bamberger, on 11/09/05, when he issued an order for reunification to “commence immediately.”
15. Additionally, Judge Bamberger found the mother guilty of “dispositional neglect” for by ALL ACCOUNTS WAS due to a one time conversation. One that did not have the support of a single witness. This finding - is not a defined action that would entail a right to recovery under NH RSA 169 C or for that matter the involvement of DCYF or this court.
16. On 4/4/06 this court through Judge Bamberger breeched any contrived contract that would have been established with the order of 11/09/05. The breech occurred when Judge Bamberger issued another order on 4/4/06 “that reunification was not the goal of this case.” Behind closed doors Judge Bamberger obviously does not need to clarify, justify or have cause to present the reasoning.
17. Assistant Attorney General Glenn Perlow under Kelly Ayotte as Attorney General stated in other court documents and upheld by the Supreme Court and NH RSA 169 C:28 that the only opportunity to appeal a NH RSA 169 C case is at the adjudicatory hearing - which occurred prior to the change. Actually giving criminals more rights than families.
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FACTORS CONTAIN IN THE CASE FILE – NOT HEARD DUE TO THE COURTS NEED TO MEET AN 11AM APPOINTMENT:
18. Disclosures by Social Worker Kris Geno to provoke the courts order of 4/4/06 entailed that the mother was argumentative - actually - demanding that all weekly visits take place between her and her child and that only nine (9) visits since January of 2006 were cancelled as of the date of the hearing. Visits that were in fact court ordered – apparently charged for and never happened because the father and/or DCYF chose to cancel them.
19. Furthermore, Social Worker Kris Geno now of RTT associates in Manchester NH complained because the mother in this matter called her bosses Tracy Gubbins, Lorraine Bartlett and then Maggie Bishop of DCYF/DHHS to get her to follow the court order. The result that followed that hearing - included but not limited to an additional 18 cancelled visits by the division and father in this matter - aka William P. McIntosh, a Nashua School District teacher.
20. Of additional concern, a confirmation by email between Denise-Marie McIntosh and Tracy Gubbin for a visit on one day. Only to receive a call from Ms Gubbin’s the day before saying she had the child at DCYF why wasn’t she (the mother) there. The mother made it there, for being in the area, to find her then 7 year old child in tears because Gubbin’s had told him his mother forgot him. The child was held hostage and/or used a pawn – the real documentation proving the incident was given to Maggie Bishop who promoted Gubbin’s actions.
21. On 11/07/06 the Mother in this matter met with then Commissioner of DHHS John Stephen to discuss the missed visits and demoralizing infractions in this case as well as the bills. Stephen responded by asking the mother “if she wanted custody of her child or to talk about the bills” and gave his card and had his assistant Greg Moore show her out of his office.
22. This was followed up by a telephone conversation with DHHS employee Bob Boisvert who told the mother that if she talked about the bills or asked anymore questions he would be sure she went to jail. When the complaint went to Maggie Bishop – the follow-up was that he didn’t mean it as a threat.
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FACTORS preserved in the hearing of October 01, 2010
23. The court neglected to apply the standard set “Under NH RSA 169 C:27 I (c.) Which restricts the Department’s right to recovery to … per month or per week basis and shall continue from the time the services begin until 4 years beyond the time such services end …”based on their ability to pay showing that the time-period to collect is 279 weeks maximum. Services on this case started 8/15/05 through 12/06 there were no services provided during 2007. The calculation would be as follows:
> 4.33 x 16.5 months = 71 weeks for years of service provided
> plus the four years per statue = 4 x 52 weeks = 208 weeks
> 208 weeks + 71 weeks = 279 weeks that the Respondent can be billed.
279 weeks NOT the 627 weeks that the RU induced the Respondent to sign for and fraudulently represent that the Respondent was ordered to pay. This is in fact another form of double billing and validates the Respondent’s cross petition for production of evidence.
24. Detailed accounting has not been provided to the Respondent as asserted by this court, and proven through records submitted by the RU. Requests by the Respondent since 2006-2007 and subsequent years and specifically requested of the RU for this hearing for an accounting of federal reimbursements that the division of DCYF receives under Medicaid and the Social Security Act Title IV b subpart 1 & 2 and payments by the father William P. McIntosh and Lori Ayotte-McIntosh are not included. Child & Family and Southern NH Services are known to fall under these reimbursement areas. The chain of events would be:
I. Service Providers bill the State
II. The State pays the Service Providers, allegedly only when they follow up consistently
III. The State then submits for reimbursement from the federal government.
IV. The Federal grants and not loans - pay these bills within 90 to 180 days
V. The Reimbursement rate is 75% of the total
VI. HOWEVER, the RU is charging parents/in particular the Respondent 100%

25. Moreover the RU maintained during said hearing that the federal reimbursement was only for parenting classes – something the bill of $22,000 + does not even disclose.
26. The motion submitted at the end of the hearing on – October 01, 2010 to continue for the production of evidence is proper and in line with standard administrative practices of this court. Due to the RU’s suppression of evidence during said hearing, a motion to continue to produce/ for failure to prove, is not late but the only opportunity during the hearing since a good faith request to produce was not heeded.
27. Without the disclosure of funds paid by these grants and the father and step-mother payments. The court is imposing a much greater interest rate, than just the federal issue of a 75% increase in what is owed. Furthermore, it denies the Respondent’s entitlement under Federal Truth and Lending Law statute sec 164 to an accounting of prompt crediting of payments by all parties responsible for the bill. Equal to the right of truth in billing. The RU’s and courts reliance indicates that contentiously divorced parents would never question the bill, has been squashed.
28. This court’s order and the actions of all the named actors in this matter is one of collusion and conspiracy in its failure to have the RU justify and produce their real billing and it is a denial of the Respondent’s 14th amendment right to procedural due process, which has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.
29. The questionable actions of these “closed” proceeding’s can be seen when the misappropriation of funds surrounding the payment of the non-accused parent’s attorney paid by the RU and contrary to the 169 C was retrieved from this courts file on 2/27/10 only to be followed up with these results:
> Reported to the Attorney General’s Office on 3/4/10 by State Representative Alfred Baldasaro when presented by the mother in this matter.
> Followed by an unprovoked order by this Court specifically Judge Bamberger to the Respondent - again denying access to her court records on 3/22/10.
> All coincidentally in contradiction to NH RSA 170-G:8-2 II (3) the parent of the child named in the case record, as defined in RSA 169-C:3, XXI is entitled to review the records.
These actions are not coincidental but malicious in and of themselves then combined with the current order for contempt against the mother is a deprivation of rights under the color of law Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242., by supervising Justice Leary.
30. Under the Federal Freedom of Information Act and the NH Right to know law, the respondent is entitled to an accounting of Federal Funds received, payments by other parties and all accounting previously requested. The court’s offer to view in camera after showing it does not comprehend the process is arbitrary and a denial of due process.
31. Discovery is essential to this case, to satisfy the burden of proof that the billing is NOT erroneous. Documentation that the court refers to- is in fact requests by the Respondent to produce documentation since 2006.
32. Of notable mention is this courts scheduling of this past hearing – On October 01, 2010, at least 3 possibly 4 cases were scheduled at 8am, not indicative of a justice system serving community needs when the Respondent was forced to take a day off of work to attend and could have avoided it when the court did not hear her case until almost10am.
33. The courts declaration at the commencement of this matter, was that the bills in fact the entire matter ALL and the billing combined are confidential – this would impede the Respondents first amendment right to free speech, whether or not the information is contained in court records. Stanfield v Florida Dep’t Children & Families, 680 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1997).
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FACTORS CONTAIN IN THE CASE FILE ON 2/27/10 –
34. The end result of this matter prior to the billing was an order - that the mother not have unfettered access to her child on 11/27/2007. Well past the statues provision of one year and without the intent of reunification apparently ever. Mother and Child were solely separated due to the fact that others viewed the mother as argumentative and demeaning to the adults in the matter. The condition that alleged to have coveted the division of DCYF involvement was never sited as to have repeated. Custody and support of the children, is not a question to be determined upon the basis of the rights of the parties or used as a penalty or reward for their conduct. See Norman v. Norman 27 Wn. (2d) 25, 176 P. (2d) 349; Sweeny v. Sweeny, 43 Wn. (2d) 542, 262 P. (2d) 207; Olson v. Olson, 46 Wn. (2d) 246, 280 P. (2d) 249. Unwise trial tactics by a party cannot be permitted to adversely affect the welfare of children. Custody is not awarded as a reward to, or punishment of, either parent. Ketron v. Ketron, 15 Ark. App. 325 (1985).
35. The actions of this court and recent developments in access to the court records shows that besides the above the following inappropriate activities also existed in this case:
a) Dr SusanVonderheide, private practitioner in Nashua, NH, hired by the father in this matter was another principal actor - who contributed to falsifying disclosures of what the child was to have said to her. The initial report in this matter to the court by Tracy Rooke discloses that Vonderheide stated: “patient of two years … has always complained about his mother’s behavior during visits ….” On 7/26/05 Rooke reported she spoke to Vonderheide by phone who stated “she had a session with the Child named in this case the previous day … she stated the child would like to see his mother at supervised visitation center…felt it was child’s attempt of telling us he doesn’t feel safe with his mother.”
b) Dr. Susan Vonderheide patient notes found and copied on 2/27/10 apparently received by this court on 2/7/07 fail to mirror her disclosures to DHHS – one blatant example is the log for 7/25/05 the day before her above disclosure - her notes state “… child did not want to talk about his visits today, so I did not push him to do so.” All of her notes mirror that the child talked about sibling rivalry in his father’s family without substantiated documentation that the child said anything to her about the mother that she reported to the division and apparently overlooked or deemed irrelevant by the social workers involved.
33. This matter is of broad public interest, due in whole or in part to the closed door sessions. The entirety of the case brought forward on October 01, 2010 and herein warrants a FULL review. The heinous results of permanently separating a mother and child, when the Mother had no police record, proved beyond a reasonable that she had no mental illness that would impair her ability to parent, no drug/alcoholic addiction condition and supporters commended her involvement in the community. The results of this case leaving the if and when mother and child can see each other - to a father who admitted to dragging the mother down a flight of stairs and trying to strangle her, for which Judge Bamberger the same principal Judge in this case had awarded a restraining order approximately two (2) years earlier to the mother only to have it taken away by a Marital Master Alice Love in superior court when the order was transferred – under the guise it was not warranted because the mother fought back when she couldn’t breathe and kneed him – evidence suppressed by DCYF.
34. In conclusion, the RU failure to disclose re-opened this case and in order to proceed, all the facts of the matter – the compelling reason for DCYF’s initial involvement and why when the alleged action never repeated itself., Mother and a child of 6 at the start of this case and now 12 have been restricted to unfettered access. This entire matter demands a case re-evaluation by a Judge unattached to the matter.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court order:
A. Order that the Respondent is not in contempt and have the Reimbursement Unit simply do their job and attach the pay as previously ordered but at the statutory requirement of 279 weeks at $6.50 per week ref. NH RSA 169 C:I (c).
B. This matter is of broad public interest Order that the DHHS Reimbursement Unit provide the Respondent with the entire requested discovery, obtainable under the Federal Right to know laws and the NH Right to know laws and/or under current transparency laws.
C. When discovery shows the anticipated erroneous billing - that the court re-hears the matter upon a motion for reintroduction by the Respondent based on specific findings in discovery requests.
D. Due to the heinous and unspeakable actions of actors named in this motion to knowingly and with malicious intent seek the destruction of a mother/child relationship for unknown motivates, that the court rehears and/or reviews the REAL evidence and amends to grant custody/visitation back to the mother and hold ALL the actors responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
E. Grant such other relief as the court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,
Denise-Marie McIntosh

Dated: November 01, 2010 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that a copy of the above Motion has been mailed to Matt Barrington, Reimbursement Specialist, DHHS Reimbursement Unit, on this day by USPS with a confirmation of mailing.

http://thetruthbitesnh.blogspot.com/