COMMITTEE for REDRESS of GRIEVANCES REPORTS

COMMITTEE for REDRESS of GRIEVANCES REPORTS | Kevin Avard for State Rep:

COMMITTEE for REDRESS of GRIEVANCES REPORTS

Published August 26, 2012 | By kevin

 COMMITTEE for REDRESS of GRIEVANCES REPORTS

The following reports are the result of committee hearings and deliberations on the petitions presented to it.  They are printed here for informational purposes.

PETITION # 2 grievance of Elena Katz, Arnold Grodman, and Their Daughter.  (Report filed 8/21/12)

MAJORITY

Grievance Founded with Recommendations.

Committee Majority Findings:

The Redress of Grievances Committee after listening to testimony and seeing supporting documentation finds that in the course of a long and protracted confrontation with the Timberlane Regional School District that began when the Petitioners sued the district in federal court for taking federal funds for a child being home schooled. First were unfounded allegations of child abuse by the school district which led the Petitioners to move to Massachusetts.  In the ensuing years, the Committee finds that the Petitioners suffered from a remarkable series of unacceptable actions from the office of the Rockingham County Attorney and the courts:  1. Prosecution under Interference with Custody (RSA 633:4) regarding a guardianship that arose out of the Child Protection Act (RSA 169-C) when RSA 633:4 was created specifically to enforce parenting plans under Parental Rights and Responsibilities (RSA 461-A) in the area of Annulment, Divorce and Separation (RSA 458);  2. Revisiting by county attorney of the same essential charges multiple times against Petitioners using only slight changes in the wording; 3. The use of an unfiled criminal complaint as evidence of an actual judgment in New Hampshire; 4. Use by the court of a nonexistent “felony judgment” claim to extradite family from Massachusetts; 5. Follow up arrest using a document whose numbers fail to correspond with New Hampshire’s numbering systems; 6. Contempt charges filed without specifying the nature of the contempt; 7. Dismissal by judge of the lawyers of Petitioners; 8. Knowing denial of counsel for Petitioners on false grounds:  that counsel had been refused when, in fact, they recused themselves; and 9. Disallowing of exculpatory evidence because “it did not prove his innocence.”  The Committee also found the wrongful filing of a criminal complaint by a police chief who subsequently admitted under oath that he had no direct knowledge of the facts of the “crime.”  Furthermore, the Committee finds that in placing the Petitioners’ daughter in the Crotched Mountain facility that their daughter was physically injured with broken bones and a torn earlobe, and that for the purpose of behavior management, the department in cooperation with Crotched Mountain increased their daughter’s dosage of the psychotropic drug, Abilify, from 5 mg/d to 30 mg/d when it is clearly contraindicated for her gender, age and medical condition (diabetes).  To effect this change, the department claimed medical decision-making authority by guardianship pursuant to a 170-C termination of parental rights in a sworn document committing sworn falsification (RSA 641:2).  Finally, as a consequence of the dosage of Abilify, their daughter suffered permanent kidney failure.

Recommendations

The Committee recommends introduction of legislation to:  1. Investigate what went wrong in this case leading to home schooling parents being so insistently and curiously hounded by a prosecutor on the flimsiest of grounds; 2. Clarify in any related RSAs the original intent that “parents” in RSA 461-A apply to divorce only and shall not include the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) issues; and 3. Request that the Attorney General investigate the involved police chief for false swearing.  The Committee also recommends that the State provide Petitioners’ daughter with health insurance under the State Group plan in compensation for injuries suffered while in State custody and as a consequence of the actions of employees of the State.  The Committee further recommends that the Attorney General be directed to investigate sworn falsification by employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, and wrongful filing of a criminal complaint by a police officer.  Vote 7-3.

Rep. Alfred P. Baldasaro for the Majority of the Committee

MINORITY

Unfounded

Committee Minority Findings:

The Petitioners, Elena Katz and Arnold Grodman, have a fragile and medically disabled daughter who is now a young woman in her early 20s. The Petitioners have been together as a couple throughout their daughter’s life.  Throughout her  life, the Petitioners have been involved in a variety of legal battles over their daughter’s medical care and education, in both state and federal court.

This Petition deals primarily with events which occurred between 2006 and 2011, following a dispute with the DCYF and the Timberlane Regional School District.  It is the opinion of the Minority that the Petitioners may have engaged in some unwise conduct during that time. For example, in 2007 they suddenly moved with their severely disabled daughter to Massachusetts just after, according to the State, she had been placed under DCYF guardianship.  This move kept the Petitioners’ daughter out of a court-ordered placement in a residential program at the Crotched Mountain School.  The Petitioners were eventually arrested in Massachusetts and extradited to New Hampshire, where they were charged with Interference with Custody and Contempt of Court. (The daughter was unharmed.)

Ms. Katz accepted a plea bargain in May 2010 and plead guilty to Contempt of Court. Mr. Grodman’s similar case is still pending.  The Interference with Custody charge against him was dismissed, after the Rockingham Superior Court ruled that RSA 633:4 did not apply to this case where the DCYF (which is not a person) had guardianship. He still faces charges of Contempt of Court.

The Minority failed to see any pattern of official malfeasance by the DCYF, the Rockingham County District Attorney’s Office, or the various law-enforcement agencies who worked on this case.  Also, the Minority does not believe that it was improper to bring the Interference with Custody charge: the judge’s ruling was based on a technical issue which was not necessarily obvious to the various officials involved in this case.  Indeed, the Minority recommends that a future legislature consider amending the Interference with Custody statute (RSA 633:4) to address cases of this sort.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan for the Minority of the Committee

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2012/houcal2012_56.html