If a person in New Hampshire can not be charged with killing a fetus because the fetus is NOT considered a human being, then how can a mother be charged with abuse and neglect for parental drug use while pregnant? If the fetus were born dead, she wouldn't be charged, so why should she be charged when the fetus is born alive?
This State makes NO sense!
State Statutes Results
New Hampshire
Child Abuse and Neglect
Parental Drug Use as Child Abuse
To better understand this issue and to view it across States, see the Parental Drug Use as Child Abuse: Summary of State Laws (PDF - 324 KB) publication.
Citation: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 639-A:3 (LexisNexis through 2009 Sess.)
Statute Text:
A person convicted of an offense under § 639-A:2 shall be guilty of a felony and, notwithstanding § 651:2, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
A prosecution or conviction under this chapter is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the defendant as part of the same conduct.
Citation: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 639-A:2 (LexixNexis through 2009 Sess.)
Statute Text:
No person shall knowingly engage in any of the following activities in the presence of a child or incapacitated adult; in the residence of a child or an incapacitated adult; in a building, structure, conveyance, or outdoor location where a child or incapacitated adult might reasonably be expected to be present; within any drug-free school zone; in a room offered to the public for overnight accommodations; or in any multiple unit residential building:
Manufacturing or attempting to manufacture methamphetamine
Storing any chemical substance
Storing or disposing of any methamphetamine waste products
Storing or disposing of any methamphetamine paraphernalia
No person shall knowingly cause or permit a child or incapacitated adult to inhale, be exposed to, have contact with, or ingest methamphetamine, a chemical substance, or methamphetamine paraphernalia.
No person shall, with the intent to engage in any prohibited conduct under the first paragraph above, knowingly cause or permit any child or incapacitated adult to buy or otherwise obtain methamphetamine paraphernalia.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/state/index.cfm?event=stateStatutes.processSearch
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Foster Parents; did you know? Selective Protection. Part 4 of 4
Foster Parents; did you know? Selective Protection. Part 4 of 4
August 2, 8:51 PMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
CPS; Selective protection
Part 4 of 4
In part three of our article, we were exploring our subject selective protection. We were asking a few very pointed questions like; what are our elected officials doing about this problem? We had just issued a challenge to any government official that we have elected to office; pull any ten cases from CPS, in each state, study/examine them and you will see for yourself the wake of destruction left behind by this corrupt organization, like a hurricane whirling through American families.
This quote; a direct quote as taken from the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”
One last thought; If your old enough to remember Dr. Spock, he had a theory on child discipline, he has now seen the error in this theory. According to him all those years ago there were other ways to discipline your child, he offered a do not spank children theory and published this for American parents to follow, which they believed. . http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87179
Why, has Dr. Spock changed his mind? Because he has now seen the result of this bad advice. You see, this theory is now being reinforced by CPS who is now calling any form of discipline, child abuse. Parents are now afraid to discipline their children at all. As a result of this combination we now have a generation of spoiled, catered to adults that show no respect for authority of any kind, therefore unemployable because they think the world owes them a living, even their parents.
We must take back parental authority. Without this authority to discipline our children we are in essence allowing the government to raise our children. Now add the equation of money as motivation, adoption bonuses, federal incentives enticing the wrong people to want to foster, you have a time bomb with our children stuck in the middle of it with no possible escape.
You too will see the result in maladjusted, emotionally unstable, unfit leaders in our future. Now add that to CPS rampage and systematically traumatizing of children all in "the best interests of the child", and you have an incredible web to untangle in which our future leaders are caught.
Investigate what CPS is doing to America, or we will in the next election.
Thank you for reading, support our efforts subscribe today.
http://www.examiner.com/x-46864-Foster-Families-Examiner~y2010m8d2-Foster-Parents-did-you-know-Selective-Protection-Part-4-of-4?cid=examiner-email
August 2, 8:51 PMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
CPS; Selective protection
Part 4 of 4
In part three of our article, we were exploring our subject selective protection. We were asking a few very pointed questions like; what are our elected officials doing about this problem? We had just issued a challenge to any government official that we have elected to office; pull any ten cases from CPS, in each state, study/examine them and you will see for yourself the wake of destruction left behind by this corrupt organization, like a hurricane whirling through American families.
This quote; a direct quote as taken from the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”
One last thought; If your old enough to remember Dr. Spock, he had a theory on child discipline, he has now seen the error in this theory. According to him all those years ago there were other ways to discipline your child, he offered a do not spank children theory and published this for American parents to follow, which they believed. . http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87179
Why, has Dr. Spock changed his mind? Because he has now seen the result of this bad advice. You see, this theory is now being reinforced by CPS who is now calling any form of discipline, child abuse. Parents are now afraid to discipline their children at all. As a result of this combination we now have a generation of spoiled, catered to adults that show no respect for authority of any kind, therefore unemployable because they think the world owes them a living, even their parents.
We must take back parental authority. Without this authority to discipline our children we are in essence allowing the government to raise our children. Now add the equation of money as motivation, adoption bonuses, federal incentives enticing the wrong people to want to foster, you have a time bomb with our children stuck in the middle of it with no possible escape.
You too will see the result in maladjusted, emotionally unstable, unfit leaders in our future. Now add that to CPS rampage and systematically traumatizing of children all in "the best interests of the child", and you have an incredible web to untangle in which our future leaders are caught.
Investigate what CPS is doing to America, or we will in the next election.
Thank you for reading, support our efforts subscribe today.
http://www.examiner.com/x-46864-Foster-Families-Examiner~y2010m8d2-Foster-Parents-did-you-know-Selective-Protection-Part-4-of-4?cid=examiner-email
New Hampshire Family Division
Wikipedia article:
New Hampshire Judicial Branch Family Division (simply Family Division) operates ten courts in three counties in the U.S. state of New Hampshire that deal with matters impacting families. The Family Division has courts in Grafton, Rockingham and SullivanCounties which have jurisdiction to hear cases involving cases divorce, parenting disputes, child support, domestic violence, guardianships, termination of parental rights, abuse and neglect cases, children in need of supervision, delinquencies, and some adoptions.
The Family Division is viewed with considerable public scrutiny and is often considered corrupt, gender biased again litigants and deemed to act to promote family breakup and excess litigation. Doing so is not considered by many to be in the "best interests" of children and believed to be done in order to maximize the inflow of federal Title IV-D incentive monetary funds into the state.
Many efforts are underway to reform the family courts which are referred to as "family eating machines". Unfortunately, however, recent efforts such as "The Citizens Commission on the Courts" and the 2004 Report from "The Commission on Child Support and Child Custody Related Issues" (available here: www.cbelow.org/Child Support Commission Final Report 12-1-04.pdf), along with its minority report have been ignored by the state and no action has been taken. For a thorough analysis on what's wrong with our family courts, see also "Taken Into Custody: The War against Fathers, Marriage and the Family,"by Stephen Baskerville. See also the reports of the NH Commission on the Status of men downloadable from www.nh.gov/csm.
During the operations of the Citizen's Commission on NH State Courts, "listening sessions" were held around the state. Since this was to be a "CITIZEN'S" commission, it could be assumed that public input would affect the bulk of the commissions' recommendations. This was not to be the case, in a court dominated commission. The issues MOST complained about were almost totally ignored. Issues mentioned by only one person were often the subject of recommendations.
PUBLIC INPUTTO THE SUPREME COURT’S CITIZEN’S COMMISSION ON NH STATE COURTSCompiled by Commission member Paul M. Clements and included as an addendum to the final report.
This Commission was created to gauge public perceptions of the courts in NH, and to receive and formulate recommendations to address their concerns. To that end, the commission held twenty-two “Listening Sessions” in eleven locations around the state. It also distributed surveys and invited contact by email and letter from interested persons. The following represents the criticisms and concerns of the people who responded.
In tabulating those responses, people testifying at more than one listening session, or submitting more than one survey, were only counted on the first instance, as far as possible.
71 persons spoke at listening sessions, not including multiple appearances.67 surveys were returned. (Duplicates eliminated)56 emails were received.TOTAL CONTACTS: 194
Complaints/concerns involving the Family Courts: 96Complaints/concerns involving all other courts: 33>Probate court: 5 > District court: 12 > Supreme court: 5 >Superior court: 10 > Part time courts: 1 >Persons expressing a negative perception of the courts: 103
NATURE OF CONCERNS:
Expense of going to court: 79 >Bias against fathers: 74 >Suspicion of corruption/criminal acts: 40 >Allegations of Denial of Rights/Denial of Due Process: 36 >Profiteering (to benefit courts, lawyers, & others): 23 >Problems with delays and scheduling: 23 >Problems with false complaints of domestic violence: 21>Ineffectiveness of the Committee on Judicial Conduct: 21 >(NOTE: None of the above issues were addressed by the final report)Filing delays/staff shortages: 7 >Judicial Activism (legislating from the bench): 6 >Lack of training for GAL’s: 6 >Lack of security: 5 >Need for technical updates: 5 >Need for assistance for pro-se litigants: 4 >Bias against women: 3 >Need for “Restorative Justice” programs: 2 >More use of Mediation: 2 >
One response for each of the following:Orientation for jurors;Lack of training for judges;
Bias favoring cities and towns;
Treatment programs for drug offenders;
Access/input to Grand Juries;
Concern about life tenure for judges;Treatment of mental illness programs in prison;Additional funding for indigent defense;
Sentencing of sex offenders;
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR);Alternatives for juvenile offenders;
Need for case managers;
MINORITY REPORTFAMILY LAW RESEARCH COMMITTEESupreme Court Citizens’ Commission on NH State CourtsPaul Clements(NOTE: The members of this commission were invited to submit "minority reports", and Paul M.Clements, member of the Family Law Research Sub-committee submitted the following. Upon doing so, a rule was created requiring ten co-signors for recognition of the report. Only two other members agreed to co-sign, and this report was not included in the commissions final report.)
The Supreme Courts’ “Citizens Commission on NH State Courts” was created by Chief Justice John Broderick because of the escalating complaints about the NH court system. Far from being a “Citizen’s” commission, the one hundred and five member group was composed of one third judges and lawyers, and dozens more court hangers-on. There are retired judges, members of the committee on judicial conduct, the executive director of the Judicial Council, court clerks, members of the public defenders office, the Legal aid society, law school professors, the past and present Attorneys-General, law enforcement officers, and others closely connected to the courts. In sum, over 70% of the commission were closely connected to the courts. Members of the general public are in decidedly short supply. As might be expected, the 70% majority seemed more intent in growing the courts’ size, budget, and influence, than in creating real reforms in the way the courts operate, to better serve the public.
Nowhere was this judicial bias more evident than in the Family Law Research (sub) Committee. The Commission was charged with reviewing the reports of several committees which preceded it. One of those reports, issued by the Family Law Task Force, was issued at about the same time as the report of the Commission to Study Child Support and Custody Issues. However, THAT report was not on the list to be studied. Neither was the report by the Commission on the Status of Men. Is it just coincidental that both reports strongly recommended a rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody? The oversight was corrected, and both reports were eventually posted on the Citizen’s Commission web site for review, along with the report of the National Probate Judges College, which also recommended a rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody. It should be noted that the report of the Task Force on Family Law strongly reinforced the idea that shared custody was in the best interests of the children, although the task force stopped short of actually recommending such a presumption.
Individual members of the Family Law Research Committee were charged with condensing the recommendations of each of the reports suggested for study. The judge reporting back on the Child Support and Custody Commission failed to mention their recommendation regarding shared custody. That oversight was brought to his attention, and although he promised to submit a revised report, the shared custody recommendation was omitted once again.
The Citizen’s Commission held “Listening Sessions” at several locations around the state to obtain feedback from the general public. Complaints about the family courts outnumbered complaints about all other courts COMBINED by a ratio of 5:1. Chief among those complaints was the inequity in custody decisions, which were said to favor primary maternal custody in an overwhelming majority of cases. Indeed, statistics from the Department of Vital Statistics indicate that mothers are awarded primary custody in seventy five percent of all cases, while fathers are awarded custody in only 10 – 15% of cases. Complaints about the unfairness of child support orders closely followed the complaints about custody. The nature of those complaints notwithstanding, the family law research committee failed to recommend any of the suggestions from previous commissions regarding either custody or child support. Their actions beg the question, “If the objective of the commission was to make the courts more equitable, just, and user friendly, why not address the concerns most often voiced by the “consumers” of court services?” Instead of taking those complaints seriously, the commission was told that the nature and number of those complaints was due to the “superior organization” of the fathers’ groups, who “rallied the troops” to come out and testify. The obvious obverse observation, that those who are favored by the courts failed to complain because they had no reason to complain, was overlooked. Furthermore, the commission made no plan or attempt to tabulate the public input from the listening sessions and court surveys, until this writer recommended such action, and volunteered to do the work involved. Otherwise, no-one reading the commissions report would know if the commission had addressed any of the public’s concerns.
Instead of addressing “consumer” complaints, the family law research committee chose, instead to focus on recommendations which would increase the size of the court system, add multiple layers of bureaucracy, require the hiring of large numbers of new personnel, and dramatically increase the courts’ budget, without addressing the underlying reasons for re-litigation and conflict. Finding money for all the above was a prime concern. It was suggested that the courts already had a funding source available, in the form of payments from the child support collection agency, amounting to in excess of two million dollars per year. Committee members first tried to deny the existence of those payments, then, simply resorted to ignoring them. One must wonder what becomes of that two million dollars, if it’s not available to fund new court programs. When the legality of those payments, from an executive branch agency to the judicial branch, in violation of the Constitutional mandate for Separation of Powers, was questioned, the question was deferred to the legislature.
Several of the newly sought programs are well intentioned, and could prove beneficial. However, there was exhibited some reluctance to do away with the status quo. Although complaints of gender bias were foremost in the “listening sessions”, precautions against continuing the bias were dismissed out of hand. Mediation, as a method of forestalling conflict and court appearances is a good idea. But the committee balked at the idea of making it mandatory for all parties. They want, instead, to allow one party to opt out of bargaining in good faith by playing the domestic violence card. An unsupported accusation against the other party, a tactic currently in common practice, would throw the case back to the court for decision by a judge or marital master.
The same criticism holds true for the parties’ cooperative development of “parenting plans”. When the court is known to be biased, to a statistically provable degree, why bargain away entitlements, monetary advantages, property, and custody? In response to a discerned need to provide for unrepresented “pro-se” litigants, the employment of “case managers” was recommended by the committee. The case manager would provide legal information and guidance to the pro-se litigant. But in each case, mediation, parenting plans, and case management, the committee is recommending that ONLY current court employees with a minimum of five years experience be employed. That’s like drawing water from a contaminated well. The courts have demonstrated gender bias at all levels; to require that new positions are filled by “old” employees would only continue the biases.
Another common complaint heard at the “listening sessions” concerned illegal and discriminatory actions by the presiding judges and marital masters, in support of an obviously gender biased agenda. Speakers told of decisions made on the basis of hearsay evidence, proven perjury being allowed, legitimate motions being denied a hearing, testimony and witnesses not being allowed, false reports submitted by lawyers and GAL’s being accepted without challenge, alteration of transcripts, and decisions which were in violation of state and federal law. It was suggested that the Committee on Judicial Conduct was not performing the function intended, discipline of members of the court. Indeed, it was suggested that the committee sees its function as protecting the judges from complaints, rather than protecting the litigants. However, suggestions for changes as to how the committee operates were ridiculed. Once again, the concerns of the “consumers” were ignored.
In sum, we have a commission, appointed by the courts, composed largely of members and friends of the courts, reviewing the reports from previous court appointed commissions, acting to protect the image of the courts without making any substantial changes to the status quo. Rather than address the legitimate concerns of the public, they propose expansion of a corrupt and biased system. They propose window dressing and band-aid measures to re-assure the public that the court system is functioning in its best interests, while maintaining and increasing their own profitability. They ignore obvious flaws in the court system, institutionalized violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct, in order to protect the political agendas of special interest groups.
Had there been any REAL interest in reforming the courts to make them more responsive to the ideals of justice and service to the public, they would have focused more closely on the complaints of litigants. It was a cruel joke to call this a “Citizen’s Commission”. The suggestions below would have addressed some of the citizens’ concerns, but, unfortunately, they will not be found in the commission’s final report. The citizen’s voices were not heard, their concerns will not be addressed.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MINORITY
1: There should be a rebuttable presumption, operative from the first appearance, that shared custody is in the best interests of the children following a divorce, and that both parents deserve equal consideration from the courts. The court should actively promote shared custody in keeping with that presumption. In any case where shared custody is NOT ordered, the decision must be defended by written findings of fact.
2: The courts should support a change in the child support guidelines, from an “income shares” method of calculation, to a “cost shares” method, including a calculation of actual parenting time spent with the children.
3: The court should renounce the “Cooperative Agreement” which provides for payments to the court from the child support collection agency, and promotes the abuse of support orders to enhance state and court revenues.
4: The court should support and promote a Constitutional amendment to remove the Committee on Judicial Conduct from the authority of the courts.
5: Programs providing for mediation, cooperative formulation of parenting plans, and child impact seminars should be required to provide information that is balanced and unbiased. Such programs should be made mandatory, allowing for exceptions only in cases where substantive evidence can show that an exception is warranted. Every exception must be noted in written findings of fact.
6: Training of court personnel on the issue of domestic violence should present a balanced perspective, free of gender bias, and based on verifiable facts.
http://maps.thefullwiki.org/New_Hampshire_Family_Division
New Hampshire Judicial Branch Family Division (simply Family Division) operates ten courts in three counties in the U.S. state of New Hampshire that deal with matters impacting families. The Family Division has courts in Grafton, Rockingham and SullivanCounties which have jurisdiction to hear cases involving cases divorce, parenting disputes, child support, domestic violence, guardianships, termination of parental rights, abuse and neglect cases, children in need of supervision, delinquencies, and some adoptions.
The Family Division is viewed with considerable public scrutiny and is often considered corrupt, gender biased again litigants and deemed to act to promote family breakup and excess litigation. Doing so is not considered by many to be in the "best interests" of children and believed to be done in order to maximize the inflow of federal Title IV-D incentive monetary funds into the state.
Many efforts are underway to reform the family courts which are referred to as "family eating machines". Unfortunately, however, recent efforts such as "The Citizens Commission on the Courts" and the 2004 Report from "The Commission on Child Support and Child Custody Related Issues" (available here: www.cbelow.org/Child Support Commission Final Report 12-1-04.pdf), along with its minority report have been ignored by the state and no action has been taken. For a thorough analysis on what's wrong with our family courts, see also "Taken Into Custody: The War against Fathers, Marriage and the Family,"by Stephen Baskerville. See also the reports of the NH Commission on the Status of men downloadable from www.nh.gov/csm.
During the operations of the Citizen's Commission on NH State Courts, "listening sessions" were held around the state. Since this was to be a "CITIZEN'S" commission, it could be assumed that public input would affect the bulk of the commissions' recommendations. This was not to be the case, in a court dominated commission. The issues MOST complained about were almost totally ignored. Issues mentioned by only one person were often the subject of recommendations.
PUBLIC INPUTTO THE SUPREME COURT’S CITIZEN’S COMMISSION ON NH STATE COURTSCompiled by Commission member Paul M. Clements and included as an addendum to the final report.
This Commission was created to gauge public perceptions of the courts in NH, and to receive and formulate recommendations to address their concerns. To that end, the commission held twenty-two “Listening Sessions” in eleven locations around the state. It also distributed surveys and invited contact by email and letter from interested persons. The following represents the criticisms and concerns of the people who responded.
In tabulating those responses, people testifying at more than one listening session, or submitting more than one survey, were only counted on the first instance, as far as possible.
71 persons spoke at listening sessions, not including multiple appearances.67 surveys were returned. (Duplicates eliminated)56 emails were received.TOTAL CONTACTS: 194
Complaints/concerns involving the Family Courts: 96Complaints/concerns involving all other courts: 33>Probate court: 5 > District court: 12 > Supreme court: 5 >Superior court: 10 > Part time courts: 1 >Persons expressing a negative perception of the courts: 103
NATURE OF CONCERNS:
Expense of going to court: 79 >Bias against fathers: 74 >Suspicion of corruption/criminal acts: 40 >Allegations of Denial of Rights/Denial of Due Process: 36 >Profiteering (to benefit courts, lawyers, & others): 23 >Problems with delays and scheduling: 23 >Problems with false complaints of domestic violence: 21>Ineffectiveness of the Committee on Judicial Conduct: 21 >(NOTE: None of the above issues were addressed by the final report)Filing delays/staff shortages: 7 >Judicial Activism (legislating from the bench): 6 >Lack of training for GAL’s: 6 >Lack of security: 5 >Need for technical updates: 5 >Need for assistance for pro-se litigants: 4 >Bias against women: 3 >Need for “Restorative Justice” programs: 2 >More use of Mediation: 2 >
One response for each of the following:Orientation for jurors;Lack of training for judges;
Bias favoring cities and towns;
Treatment programs for drug offenders;
Access/input to Grand Juries;
Concern about life tenure for judges;Treatment of mental illness programs in prison;Additional funding for indigent defense;
Sentencing of sex offenders;
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR);Alternatives for juvenile offenders;
Need for case managers;
MINORITY REPORTFAMILY LAW RESEARCH COMMITTEESupreme Court Citizens’ Commission on NH State CourtsPaul Clements(NOTE: The members of this commission were invited to submit "minority reports", and Paul M.Clements, member of the Family Law Research Sub-committee submitted the following. Upon doing so, a rule was created requiring ten co-signors for recognition of the report. Only two other members agreed to co-sign, and this report was not included in the commissions final report.)
The Supreme Courts’ “Citizens Commission on NH State Courts” was created by Chief Justice John Broderick because of the escalating complaints about the NH court system. Far from being a “Citizen’s” commission, the one hundred and five member group was composed of one third judges and lawyers, and dozens more court hangers-on. There are retired judges, members of the committee on judicial conduct, the executive director of the Judicial Council, court clerks, members of the public defenders office, the Legal aid society, law school professors, the past and present Attorneys-General, law enforcement officers, and others closely connected to the courts. In sum, over 70% of the commission were closely connected to the courts. Members of the general public are in decidedly short supply. As might be expected, the 70% majority seemed more intent in growing the courts’ size, budget, and influence, than in creating real reforms in the way the courts operate, to better serve the public.
Nowhere was this judicial bias more evident than in the Family Law Research (sub) Committee. The Commission was charged with reviewing the reports of several committees which preceded it. One of those reports, issued by the Family Law Task Force, was issued at about the same time as the report of the Commission to Study Child Support and Custody Issues. However, THAT report was not on the list to be studied. Neither was the report by the Commission on the Status of Men. Is it just coincidental that both reports strongly recommended a rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody? The oversight was corrected, and both reports were eventually posted on the Citizen’s Commission web site for review, along with the report of the National Probate Judges College, which also recommended a rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody. It should be noted that the report of the Task Force on Family Law strongly reinforced the idea that shared custody was in the best interests of the children, although the task force stopped short of actually recommending such a presumption.
Individual members of the Family Law Research Committee were charged with condensing the recommendations of each of the reports suggested for study. The judge reporting back on the Child Support and Custody Commission failed to mention their recommendation regarding shared custody. That oversight was brought to his attention, and although he promised to submit a revised report, the shared custody recommendation was omitted once again.
The Citizen’s Commission held “Listening Sessions” at several locations around the state to obtain feedback from the general public. Complaints about the family courts outnumbered complaints about all other courts COMBINED by a ratio of 5:1. Chief among those complaints was the inequity in custody decisions, which were said to favor primary maternal custody in an overwhelming majority of cases. Indeed, statistics from the Department of Vital Statistics indicate that mothers are awarded primary custody in seventy five percent of all cases, while fathers are awarded custody in only 10 – 15% of cases. Complaints about the unfairness of child support orders closely followed the complaints about custody. The nature of those complaints notwithstanding, the family law research committee failed to recommend any of the suggestions from previous commissions regarding either custody or child support. Their actions beg the question, “If the objective of the commission was to make the courts more equitable, just, and user friendly, why not address the concerns most often voiced by the “consumers” of court services?” Instead of taking those complaints seriously, the commission was told that the nature and number of those complaints was due to the “superior organization” of the fathers’ groups, who “rallied the troops” to come out and testify. The obvious obverse observation, that those who are favored by the courts failed to complain because they had no reason to complain, was overlooked. Furthermore, the commission made no plan or attempt to tabulate the public input from the listening sessions and court surveys, until this writer recommended such action, and volunteered to do the work involved. Otherwise, no-one reading the commissions report would know if the commission had addressed any of the public’s concerns.
Instead of addressing “consumer” complaints, the family law research committee chose, instead to focus on recommendations which would increase the size of the court system, add multiple layers of bureaucracy, require the hiring of large numbers of new personnel, and dramatically increase the courts’ budget, without addressing the underlying reasons for re-litigation and conflict. Finding money for all the above was a prime concern. It was suggested that the courts already had a funding source available, in the form of payments from the child support collection agency, amounting to in excess of two million dollars per year. Committee members first tried to deny the existence of those payments, then, simply resorted to ignoring them. One must wonder what becomes of that two million dollars, if it’s not available to fund new court programs. When the legality of those payments, from an executive branch agency to the judicial branch, in violation of the Constitutional mandate for Separation of Powers, was questioned, the question was deferred to the legislature.
Several of the newly sought programs are well intentioned, and could prove beneficial. However, there was exhibited some reluctance to do away with the status quo. Although complaints of gender bias were foremost in the “listening sessions”, precautions against continuing the bias were dismissed out of hand. Mediation, as a method of forestalling conflict and court appearances is a good idea. But the committee balked at the idea of making it mandatory for all parties. They want, instead, to allow one party to opt out of bargaining in good faith by playing the domestic violence card. An unsupported accusation against the other party, a tactic currently in common practice, would throw the case back to the court for decision by a judge or marital master.
The same criticism holds true for the parties’ cooperative development of “parenting plans”. When the court is known to be biased, to a statistically provable degree, why bargain away entitlements, monetary advantages, property, and custody? In response to a discerned need to provide for unrepresented “pro-se” litigants, the employment of “case managers” was recommended by the committee. The case manager would provide legal information and guidance to the pro-se litigant. But in each case, mediation, parenting plans, and case management, the committee is recommending that ONLY current court employees with a minimum of five years experience be employed. That’s like drawing water from a contaminated well. The courts have demonstrated gender bias at all levels; to require that new positions are filled by “old” employees would only continue the biases.
Another common complaint heard at the “listening sessions” concerned illegal and discriminatory actions by the presiding judges and marital masters, in support of an obviously gender biased agenda. Speakers told of decisions made on the basis of hearsay evidence, proven perjury being allowed, legitimate motions being denied a hearing, testimony and witnesses not being allowed, false reports submitted by lawyers and GAL’s being accepted without challenge, alteration of transcripts, and decisions which were in violation of state and federal law. It was suggested that the Committee on Judicial Conduct was not performing the function intended, discipline of members of the court. Indeed, it was suggested that the committee sees its function as protecting the judges from complaints, rather than protecting the litigants. However, suggestions for changes as to how the committee operates were ridiculed. Once again, the concerns of the “consumers” were ignored.
In sum, we have a commission, appointed by the courts, composed largely of members and friends of the courts, reviewing the reports from previous court appointed commissions, acting to protect the image of the courts without making any substantial changes to the status quo. Rather than address the legitimate concerns of the public, they propose expansion of a corrupt and biased system. They propose window dressing and band-aid measures to re-assure the public that the court system is functioning in its best interests, while maintaining and increasing their own profitability. They ignore obvious flaws in the court system, institutionalized violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct, in order to protect the political agendas of special interest groups.
Had there been any REAL interest in reforming the courts to make them more responsive to the ideals of justice and service to the public, they would have focused more closely on the complaints of litigants. It was a cruel joke to call this a “Citizen’s Commission”. The suggestions below would have addressed some of the citizens’ concerns, but, unfortunately, they will not be found in the commission’s final report. The citizen’s voices were not heard, their concerns will not be addressed.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MINORITY
1: There should be a rebuttable presumption, operative from the first appearance, that shared custody is in the best interests of the children following a divorce, and that both parents deserve equal consideration from the courts. The court should actively promote shared custody in keeping with that presumption. In any case where shared custody is NOT ordered, the decision must be defended by written findings of fact.
2: The courts should support a change in the child support guidelines, from an “income shares” method of calculation, to a “cost shares” method, including a calculation of actual parenting time spent with the children.
3: The court should renounce the “Cooperative Agreement” which provides for payments to the court from the child support collection agency, and promotes the abuse of support orders to enhance state and court revenues.
4: The court should support and promote a Constitutional amendment to remove the Committee on Judicial Conduct from the authority of the courts.
5: Programs providing for mediation, cooperative formulation of parenting plans, and child impact seminars should be required to provide information that is balanced and unbiased. Such programs should be made mandatory, allowing for exceptions only in cases where substantive evidence can show that an exception is warranted. Every exception must be noted in written findings of fact.
6: Training of court personnel on the issue of domestic violence should present a balanced perspective, free of gender bias, and based on verifiable facts.
http://maps.thefullwiki.org/New_Hampshire_Family_Division
Monday, August 2, 2010
A 'sham' executive order and 'unenforceable' abortion restrictions
A 'sham' executive order and 'unenforceable' abortion restrictions
By Marjorie Dannenfelser
Catholics United thinks it's going to convince one of the savviest voting blocs in America that black is white and up is down. Its modus operandi: slinging accusations of partisanship at the Susan B. Anthony List, National Right to Life and the Family Research Council - pro-life groups doing the "dirty work" of holding politicians accountable. Chris Korzen's piece in this section of the Post, "Pro-life movement and GOP politics: unholy alliance," relied on the same hollow reasoning used by the "pro-life" Democrats he is now defending. His arguments come a day late and dollar too short to salvage the integrity of turncoats facing what, forecasters promise, will be a brutal election season for the party in power, a party committed to expanding abortion rights.
Amidst his finger-pointing, he misses the SBA List's commitment to supporting authentic pro-life leaders on both sides of the aisle. Before the health care vote, we were preparing to defend pro-life Democrats in their home districts, even airing radios ads praising Bart Stupak's steadfast pro-life leadership. And we have often called attention to one of the health care fight's most unsung heroes, Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL-03), who held the line on abortion-funding while others in his party folded. Lipinski and a small handful of other pro-life Democrats quietly shared our grief and dismay at the defections of longtime pro-life Democrats like Bart Stupak and Kathy Dahlkemper.
Contrary to the attack Korzen is mounting, the reason "pro-life" Democrats like Brad Ellsworth and Kathy Dahlkemper are coming under fire is not that Republicans plan to win back Congress on a wave of misinformed anger. Sellouts who hide behind a sham executive order and the unenforceable promises of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) are personae non gratae in their home districts because their pro-life constituents are too savvy to believe their lies.
Pro-life Members of Congress repeatedly condemned the accounting gimmick drafted into the health care bill, which allows for federal subsidization of insurance plans that cover abortion. The trouble the pro-life movement caused led pro-life Democrats to insist on including language from the Stupak Amendment, included in the original House bill in late 2009. But the final bill that many "pro-life" Democrats supported offered no solution to the accounting gimmick they originally opposed. Further, the Executive Order they now use as political cover, not only holds no weight in court but repeats the accounting gimmick and asserts that Hyde Amendment restrictions are maintained - the spirit of which it directly contradicts.
The Executive Order also offers an insufficient substitute for the bill's of provisions preventing taxpayer-funding of abortion. The pro-life movement knew this was the case and the Obama Administration has recently admitted as much. As states began implementing high risk insurance pools just weeks ago, some tried to include abortion funding. Only after vigorous opposition from pro-life groups did the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issue a statement promising that there would be no such funding of abortion within these programs. But, the White House quickly inoculated the statement, stating that it was "not a precedent for other programs or policies given the unique, temporary nature of the program..."
In other words, the White House is leaving the door open for abortion funding elsewhere in the health care bill. A Congressional Research Service assessment confirmed that "neither the restrictions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Presidential Executive Order 13535 nor the recently released HHS contract materials actually prohibit a state high-risk pool from covering elective abortions."
Ignoring the facts? One of us is.
Because the Executive Order doesn't fix the bill's accounting gimmick, address other abortion concerns within it or, even hold up in court at the end of the day, only a legislative fix will prevent taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions.
Pro-life voters need to hold Congress' feet to the fire. The timeline of events that has already unfolded proves that Obama and Democrats have no intention of addressing abortion-funding concerns until the pro-life movement raises them one by one. In fact, with election season upon us, it's becoming increasingly clear that the only language "pro-life" Democrats speak is "ballot box."
Pro-life watchdogs aren't wrong to hold politicians to their promises. Our leaders are elected to represent the views of their constituents and when those leaders cease to do so, it is every voter's right and obligation to elect someone who will. Our mission now is to show "pro-life" Democrats who supported the health care bill that their votes have consequences and to replace them with authentic pro-life leaders who won't put party over principle.
Marjorie Dannenfelser is President of the Susan B. Anthony List, a nationwide network of over 280,000 pro-life Americans dedicated to advancing, mobilizing and representing pro-life women in the political process.
BY MARJORIE DANNENFELSER | AUGUST 2, 2010; 5:20 PM ET
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/08/a_sham_executive_order_and_unenforceable_abortion_restrictions.html
By Marjorie Dannenfelser
Catholics United thinks it's going to convince one of the savviest voting blocs in America that black is white and up is down. Its modus operandi: slinging accusations of partisanship at the Susan B. Anthony List, National Right to Life and the Family Research Council - pro-life groups doing the "dirty work" of holding politicians accountable. Chris Korzen's piece in this section of the Post, "Pro-life movement and GOP politics: unholy alliance," relied on the same hollow reasoning used by the "pro-life" Democrats he is now defending. His arguments come a day late and dollar too short to salvage the integrity of turncoats facing what, forecasters promise, will be a brutal election season for the party in power, a party committed to expanding abortion rights.
Amidst his finger-pointing, he misses the SBA List's commitment to supporting authentic pro-life leaders on both sides of the aisle. Before the health care vote, we were preparing to defend pro-life Democrats in their home districts, even airing radios ads praising Bart Stupak's steadfast pro-life leadership. And we have often called attention to one of the health care fight's most unsung heroes, Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL-03), who held the line on abortion-funding while others in his party folded. Lipinski and a small handful of other pro-life Democrats quietly shared our grief and dismay at the defections of longtime pro-life Democrats like Bart Stupak and Kathy Dahlkemper.
Contrary to the attack Korzen is mounting, the reason "pro-life" Democrats like Brad Ellsworth and Kathy Dahlkemper are coming under fire is not that Republicans plan to win back Congress on a wave of misinformed anger. Sellouts who hide behind a sham executive order and the unenforceable promises of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) are personae non gratae in their home districts because their pro-life constituents are too savvy to believe their lies.
Pro-life Members of Congress repeatedly condemned the accounting gimmick drafted into the health care bill, which allows for federal subsidization of insurance plans that cover abortion. The trouble the pro-life movement caused led pro-life Democrats to insist on including language from the Stupak Amendment, included in the original House bill in late 2009. But the final bill that many "pro-life" Democrats supported offered no solution to the accounting gimmick they originally opposed. Further, the Executive Order they now use as political cover, not only holds no weight in court but repeats the accounting gimmick and asserts that Hyde Amendment restrictions are maintained - the spirit of which it directly contradicts.
The Executive Order also offers an insufficient substitute for the bill's of provisions preventing taxpayer-funding of abortion. The pro-life movement knew this was the case and the Obama Administration has recently admitted as much. As states began implementing high risk insurance pools just weeks ago, some tried to include abortion funding. Only after vigorous opposition from pro-life groups did the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issue a statement promising that there would be no such funding of abortion within these programs. But, the White House quickly inoculated the statement, stating that it was "not a precedent for other programs or policies given the unique, temporary nature of the program..."
In other words, the White House is leaving the door open for abortion funding elsewhere in the health care bill. A Congressional Research Service assessment confirmed that "neither the restrictions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Presidential Executive Order 13535 nor the recently released HHS contract materials actually prohibit a state high-risk pool from covering elective abortions."
Ignoring the facts? One of us is.
Because the Executive Order doesn't fix the bill's accounting gimmick, address other abortion concerns within it or, even hold up in court at the end of the day, only a legislative fix will prevent taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions.
Pro-life voters need to hold Congress' feet to the fire. The timeline of events that has already unfolded proves that Obama and Democrats have no intention of addressing abortion-funding concerns until the pro-life movement raises them one by one. In fact, with election season upon us, it's becoming increasingly clear that the only language "pro-life" Democrats speak is "ballot box."
Pro-life watchdogs aren't wrong to hold politicians to their promises. Our leaders are elected to represent the views of their constituents and when those leaders cease to do so, it is every voter's right and obligation to elect someone who will. Our mission now is to show "pro-life" Democrats who supported the health care bill that their votes have consequences and to replace them with authentic pro-life leaders who won't put party over principle.
Marjorie Dannenfelser is President of the Susan B. Anthony List, a nationwide network of over 280,000 pro-life Americans dedicated to advancing, mobilizing and representing pro-life women in the political process.
BY MARJORIE DANNENFELSER | AUGUST 2, 2010; 5:20 PM ET
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/08/a_sham_executive_order_and_unenforceable_abortion_restrictions.html
Foster Parents; did you know? Selective Protection. Part 3 of 4
Foster Parents; did you know? Selective Protection. Part 3 of 4
August 2, 8:27 PMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
CPS; Selective Protection?
Part 3 of 4
In the second part of our article, we were exploring our subject selective protection. We were asking a few very pointed questions in example; what are our elected officials doing about this problem?
We asked; is it not a politician’s job to keep watch on the programs they unleash on our American society? These entities like CPS only apply to the lower end of society, not the influential. The programs they create are to assist us, but this one is destroying American families? Where are you and why are allowing this destruction to continue?
Politicians; we, American parents challenge each of you. Randomly examine any ten cases from the CPS files of destruction, ten from each state, study them, including the reasons children are being removed. You will not have to look far to find the corruption within. You will find the following;
Unfair practices,ridiculous allegations of abuse, illegal seizures, illegal entry without a warrant, you will find foster parents whose names are placed on the state child abuse registries without due process, and you will discover the real motivation for removal of our children, money, all ignoring our Constitutional rights and Declaration of Independence.
Blatantly you will discover it is not in the “best interests of the children” it is in the best interest of the treasure chest that has become the only interest of CPS. Legal kidnapping, for which you are responsible, of American children, and the destruction of American families that has now become what Mondale warned you of, a billion dollar business for profit.
Read these documents Constitutional and Declaration of Independence, just in case you have forgotten what they say. Here is a quote;
“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”.
http://www.examiner.com/featured~National-Info_101.html
August 2, 8:27 PMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
CPS; Selective Protection?
Part 3 of 4
In the second part of our article, we were exploring our subject selective protection. We were asking a few very pointed questions in example; what are our elected officials doing about this problem?
We asked; is it not a politician’s job to keep watch on the programs they unleash on our American society? These entities like CPS only apply to the lower end of society, not the influential. The programs they create are to assist us, but this one is destroying American families? Where are you and why are allowing this destruction to continue?
Politicians; we, American parents challenge each of you. Randomly examine any ten cases from the CPS files of destruction, ten from each state, study them, including the reasons children are being removed. You will not have to look far to find the corruption within. You will find the following;
Unfair practices,ridiculous allegations of abuse, illegal seizures, illegal entry without a warrant, you will find foster parents whose names are placed on the state child abuse registries without due process, and you will discover the real motivation for removal of our children, money, all ignoring our Constitutional rights and Declaration of Independence.
Blatantly you will discover it is not in the “best interests of the children” it is in the best interest of the treasure chest that has become the only interest of CPS. Legal kidnapping, for which you are responsible, of American children, and the destruction of American families that has now become what Mondale warned you of, a billion dollar business for profit.
Read these documents Constitutional and Declaration of Independence, just in case you have forgotten what they say. Here is a quote;
“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”.
http://www.examiner.com/featured~National-Info_101.html
Foster Parents; did you know? Selective Protection. Part 1 of 4
Foster Parents; did you know? Selective Protection. Part 1 of 4
August 2, 7:33 PMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
CPS; Selective Protection?
Part 1 of 4
In this article we will take a closer look at just who CPS protects, is this selective protection?
Your examiner thinks it is extremely interesting that our government creates/implements programs that will supposedly assist our American society,for the protection American children, yet how many have experienced the protection programs?
We tend to doubt whether most of the elected officials in our government system have ever lived on the street, been unemployed, or stood in line at a food bank, or had their children taken away from them. Have the ever experienced this entity called Child Protective Services that they created?
Think about this; have you ever seen a government official on the news fighting CPS for the return of their children, an influential citizen like a Senator, Legislator, who has lost their child (ren)? Why do you suppose that never happens?
Could it be because these people are all perfect parents, never made a mistake, spanked their child (ren), disciplined their child (ren), or because CPS does not dare attack someone with that kind of money, and/or influence? So, in reality what we are saying is there are some people CPS may be afraid to challenge, or is it only the children of poor and defenseless that are child abusers?
Is this equal justice or selective protection?
This supposition makes a person realize there is indeed an entity that lives comfortably within our society, in fact very selective of which members of our society it will sever the bloodline from, or should we say the children’s bloodline and only the poor defenseless members of our society. Depriving children of their heritage, taking them away family, relatives and other members who stand ready to take these children temporarily.
Yet, this is the same government that encourages many cultures to carry on the generations, even funding educational efforts to keep their culture alive, yet disengages the culture in another end of our society. How is this logical?
Can you picture an anonymous caller reporting they heard a child’s screams coming from the home of a Senator/Congressman/Legislator, do you think CPS would send a social worker and police to force their way in to see the child (ren) and then proceed to remove the child (ren) from this home?
Interesting subject, go on to part two. Subscribe so you won't miss any.
http://www.examiner.com/x-46864-Foster-Families-Examiner~y2010m8d2-Foster-Parents-did-you-know-Selective-Protection-Part-1-of-4
August 2, 7:33 PMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
CPS; Selective Protection?
Part 1 of 4
In this article we will take a closer look at just who CPS protects, is this selective protection?
Your examiner thinks it is extremely interesting that our government creates/implements programs that will supposedly assist our American society,for the protection American children, yet how many have experienced the protection programs?
We tend to doubt whether most of the elected officials in our government system have ever lived on the street, been unemployed, or stood in line at a food bank, or had their children taken away from them. Have the ever experienced this entity called Child Protective Services that they created?
Think about this; have you ever seen a government official on the news fighting CPS for the return of their children, an influential citizen like a Senator, Legislator, who has lost their child (ren)? Why do you suppose that never happens?
Could it be because these people are all perfect parents, never made a mistake, spanked their child (ren), disciplined their child (ren), or because CPS does not dare attack someone with that kind of money, and/or influence? So, in reality what we are saying is there are some people CPS may be afraid to challenge, or is it only the children of poor and defenseless that are child abusers?
Is this equal justice or selective protection?
This supposition makes a person realize there is indeed an entity that lives comfortably within our society, in fact very selective of which members of our society it will sever the bloodline from, or should we say the children’s bloodline and only the poor defenseless members of our society. Depriving children of their heritage, taking them away family, relatives and other members who stand ready to take these children temporarily.
Yet, this is the same government that encourages many cultures to carry on the generations, even funding educational efforts to keep their culture alive, yet disengages the culture in another end of our society. How is this logical?
Can you picture an anonymous caller reporting they heard a child’s screams coming from the home of a Senator/Congressman/Legislator, do you think CPS would send a social worker and police to force their way in to see the child (ren) and then proceed to remove the child (ren) from this home?
Interesting subject, go on to part two. Subscribe so you won't miss any.
http://www.examiner.com/x-46864-Foster-Families-Examiner~y2010m8d2-Foster-Parents-did-you-know-Selective-Protection-Part-1-of-4
Foster Parents; did you know? Selective Protection. Part 2 of 4
Foster Parents; did you know? Selective Protection. Part 2 of 4
August 2, 7:48 PMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
Selective Protection. Part 2 of 4
In the first part of our article, we were exploring our subject selective protection.
We were asking a few very pointed questions in example; Is there a rule that say’s all of these parents are perfect, or is this indeed selective protection.
One particular portion of our society, the wealthy and/or influential is left alone by CPS? Why do we not see in the news that an influential end of our society has had their children removed?
Is child abuse actually taking place in this upper end of our society? Would this draw the wrong kind of media coverage into the workings of CPS, of course! Would Th's kind of media coverage cause an investigation into their unconstitutional ways inclusive of; illegal search/seizures, lack of due process in the case of foster parents, kidnapping of American children, for profit.
Our Constitutional rights/laws only apply to the
influential of our society not to the poor.
If experiences with CPS have not actually happened to them, can politicians then continue to look the other way, possibly by mutual agreement, you leave my children/family alone and we will give you free license to abuse the poor, downtrodden members of our society. This way the politicians can pretend it is not going on, keep their heads in the sand, and allow our children to suffer the disengagement/severing of their family heritages, and they can go on drugging of children by this corrupt government entity called CPS.
It is the same situation as another time in history. Why do we wait until we see bodies, skeletons of abused broken families laying before us, the traumatized children who are mentally, emotionally, and psychologically incapable of taking leadership roles in our future society mounting do we ignore it ?
Gentlemen/Ladies of the House/Senate/ and Congress how many broken families will take to get your attention? Thousands of children have been wrongfully removed from their biological parents and then the foster parents for money.
Is it not a politician’s job, to keep watch on what they unleash on our American society? Oh, excuse us, laws and government programs only apply to the lower end of society, not the influential. The programs they create are to assist us, but this one is destroying us? Where are you and why are allowing this destruction to continue? Just like the health bill that you passed without even reading this 2000 page document, wake up!
http://www.examiner.com/x-46864-Foster-Families-Examiner~y2010m8d2-Foster-Parents-did-you-know-Selective-Protection-Part-2-of-4?cid=examiner-email
August 2, 7:48 PMFoster Families ExaminerMarilyn Harrison
Selective Protection. Part 2 of 4
In the first part of our article, we were exploring our subject selective protection.
We were asking a few very pointed questions in example; Is there a rule that say’s all of these parents are perfect, or is this indeed selective protection.
One particular portion of our society, the wealthy and/or influential is left alone by CPS? Why do we not see in the news that an influential end of our society has had their children removed?
Is child abuse actually taking place in this upper end of our society? Would this draw the wrong kind of media coverage into the workings of CPS, of course! Would Th's kind of media coverage cause an investigation into their unconstitutional ways inclusive of; illegal search/seizures, lack of due process in the case of foster parents, kidnapping of American children, for profit.
Our Constitutional rights/laws only apply to the
influential of our society not to the poor.
If experiences with CPS have not actually happened to them, can politicians then continue to look the other way, possibly by mutual agreement, you leave my children/family alone and we will give you free license to abuse the poor, downtrodden members of our society. This way the politicians can pretend it is not going on, keep their heads in the sand, and allow our children to suffer the disengagement/severing of their family heritages, and they can go on drugging of children by this corrupt government entity called CPS.
It is the same situation as another time in history. Why do we wait until we see bodies, skeletons of abused broken families laying before us, the traumatized children who are mentally, emotionally, and psychologically incapable of taking leadership roles in our future society mounting do we ignore it ?
Gentlemen/Ladies of the House/Senate/ and Congress how many broken families will take to get your attention? Thousands of children have been wrongfully removed from their biological parents and then the foster parents for money.
Is it not a politician’s job, to keep watch on what they unleash on our American society? Oh, excuse us, laws and government programs only apply to the lower end of society, not the influential. The programs they create are to assist us, but this one is destroying us? Where are you and why are allowing this destruction to continue? Just like the health bill that you passed without even reading this 2000 page document, wake up!
http://www.examiner.com/x-46864-Foster-Families-Examiner~y2010m8d2-Foster-Parents-did-you-know-Selective-Protection-Part-2-of-4?cid=examiner-email
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)