The Truth Bites "NH": Matt Barrington from the NH Department of Health and Human Services - the Reimbursment Unit (RU) - Falsification in Offical Matters or Simply Untrained in ethics?

The Truth Bites "NH": Matt Barrington from the NH Department of Health and Human Services - the Reimbursment Unit (RU) - Falsification in Offical Matters or Simply Untrained in ethics?

The following matter developed in Nashua District Court (11/09) when a defendant signed a consented to order to reimburse the state for services that their child allegedly received, and agreed to have their pay garnished, through pay roll deducted based on the statement of Matt Barrington that there was an existing past due order.

The Defendant was finally able to review their file in the District Court (2/10), it showed there were no existing orders. And upon review of the law under NH RSA 169-C:27 I (c), the right to recover was for 279 weeks NOT 627 that the defendant signed for. Moreover, that the federal government had paid 75% another party to the case had been paying on the account for several years and none of this was disclosed on the bill of $22,000 in fact evidence showed that both divorced parents were being charged for the exact same bill. And that one party's attorney was paid for for two years actually against the law, but signed by Judge Bamberger for the non-accused for parent.

Meanwhile DHHS through their reimbursement department, did not attach the defendants pay and then went to court to hold the defendant in contempt.

On 11/18/10 Judge Leary held the defendant in contempt but stated the defendant was correct about the reimbursements department right to a limited recovery time.

Here's the catch, the order of contempt does not state the $$$ dollar amount or indicate how long restitution is for. The defendant put in a motion to correct the defect and the answer was still uniforming - so the defendant moved to appeal to the Superior Court. The clerk of court never signed the order so instead of 30 days to appeal all the discrepancy's and being over charged not just in weeks but by 75% (due to TANF and other grant applications against it), and an additional undisclosed party's payments. The right to recovery is questionable because the case was sent over by a marital master. Under the rules for marital master 12-14 there was suppose to be a show cause hearing there was not and etc.

In any case the matter is part of the civil case in the post of 1/5/11.

THE REAL ISSUE: Matt Barrington sent a letter to the DEFENDANTS place of work on 12/7/11 and attached the order of 11/09., to attach their pay and Identified the collection as a child support regional procedure. To be paid after the defendants real child support was paid in the first instance.

Falsification in an Official Matter or ........ you tell us your thoughts feel free to do so anonymously.