New Hampshire ONLY STATE to Abolish a parent's right to an Attorney update on lapse of logic...

DMVC Productions = Results: New Hampshire ONLY STATE to Abolish a parent's right to an Attorney update on lapse of logic...:

The NH Supreme Court held parent's right to attorney's only sometimes - which will mean never: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2012/2012068CM.pdf 

"Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government." Edmund Burke  

In all of these cases the Law hinders these parent's because it was done in the middle or end of their cases; any case in progress prior to 7/1/11 should have remained with a court appointed attorney simply because the law was "Ex Post Facto" done after the fact and while afforded in criminal trials to protect constitutional rights in this matter the constitutionally protected right to one’s children and family is the protection needed.  Anyone prior to 7/1/11 was denied due process because the US Constitution does not make a distinction between civil and criminal proceedings; and the NH Constitution specifically states it is applied to both civil and criminal see pages 87-88 and 272. 

The court used the Matthew's test " In determining whether the State Constitution requires the appointment of counsel in a given proceeding, we employ the three-prong test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). In re Kotey M., 158 N.H. at 361; State v. Hall, 154 N.H. 180, 182 (2006). This test balances: (1) the private interest affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail. In re Brittany S., 147 N.H. 489, 491 (2002); Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335." In the context of the issue before us, we examine whether the absence of counsel impermissibly increases the risk of an erroneous result in a child abuse or neglect proceeding under RSA chapter 169-C, thereby depriving the parents of the right to the care and custody of their children." 

Here the court failed to recognize that these closed door proceedings have an inherent and fully documented risk of error; not to mention that the State Justice Department and Department of Children Youth and Families has failed every federal and state audit (contained here http://dmvc-results.blogspot.com/2012/05/dcyf-bishop-toumpas-commit-fraud.html)  in these cases for over 20 years; furthermore, the court failed to recognize and/or the attorney's failed to point out that the procedural safe guards are not adhered to in at least 66% or more of the cases in these matters; as such the supreme court misguidedly stated: "The State argues that because the rules of evidence do not apply, the parents are not burdened by difficult questions of evidentiary law, and because the proceedings are held in a closed courtroom without a jury, the parents can present their case “free from the distraction created by members of the public and the complications of a jury trial.” However, complaints to the redress of grievance committee in the house and disclosures on State Rep. Kevin Avards show "Speak Out"http://kevinavard.com/category/video/ indicate that in reality parents are NOT FREE to present their case, they are denied entry of evidence in their favor, they are denied witnesses, they are denied access to records that a fact finder would rely on in determining the fate of their child even when a court orders access and they are denied the right to face their accusers; the only distractions being avoided are accountability on behalf of the department of children youth and families and the judicial systems involved.  When this law was made legislators much like our founding father's had no idea of the abuses that would occur behind closed doors.  Moreover, nothing in our federal Constitution supports that closed door hearings are what they had in mind in 1787 when our constitution was ratified. "The due process clause of the Constitution was partly based on common law and on Magna Carta(1215) which had become a foundation of English liberty against arbitrary power wielded by a tyrant." Here in this decision that tyrant is the NH Supreme Court as an extension of the Department of Children Youth and Families. 

Read More: