Mosquito Report Parent’s Information Report In the interest of public integrity of the judicial branch of the United States of America

Please keep this going to others.

jane@abusefreedom.com

Mosquito Report Parent’s Information Report
In the interest of public integrity of the judicial branch of the United States of America
mosquitoreport@yahoo.com Mosquito Report Updated: March 3, 2010

Wise Old American Indian saying: Be like the mosquito small, fast, annoying, persistent, inflects pain, and swarms. Join us in building a swarm to bring back integrity and accountability to our justice system. Forward this report to everybody you know. Pick up your phone and pen and call your legislators. Let’s stop CHILD ABUSE FOR PROFIT.

James Madison Quote President of the United States (1809–1817)

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny" (James Madison, Federalist No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788).
What this means: Stop voting for attorneys entering legislative service. Our constitution clearly state a separation of power must be maintained with the executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is professional misconduct for practicing judicial members to seek legislative office. Look at the campaign funding and you will find a large portion coming from other legal professionals, this is called self promotion. To stop corruption of our laws by profit seeking self interests of judicial members the public must enforce the separation of power laws and impeach or have judicial members resign from the judicial branch. (This is the root cause of corruption.)

Thomas Paine video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA (Tea parties/public outcry!)

Acknowledgements

The Mosquito report represents the struggle and achievements of thousands of parents and organizations that have paved the way for changes in our family law system across the United States. Sadly many parents have taken their own lives for having no place to turn for help. We want to express our deepest regret to their families and friends for their loss. In addition our country has turned its back on our armed service personnel and their special needs at a stressful time. We pray that this report will aid in preventing this from happening in the future. The Mosquito report has been assembled to provide the resources needed to provide hope and support and gain access to children.
We thank each and every parent and organization for their input to this public effort. We thank everyone for the fight and sacrifices they have made. We want to show our armed service personal that we hear them. We want to give them our highest praise for protecting our way of life and our children’s rights to access both parents. We want to thank all parents for exposing Judicial Misconduct and Professional Misconduct of attorneys profiting and preying on parents struggle to access their children. We want to thank every citizen for taking the time to help make legislative changes that parents need. We want to thank each and every person who will join us making calls and writing letters for legislative change, you are not alone with your struggle, and here is the information parents need. Let us protect the future of our children and the American Family and STOPCHILD ABUSE FOR PROFIT. We seek to correct this wrong.
We want everybody to know how our government is allowing military personnel to return from deployment with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) without providing treatment. They have served our country with honor and many are returning to face family law issues. Studies are showing a high rate of suicides with our returning military personnel we seek to correct this wrong. It is time to put our troop’s needs first over money and profit. No child benefits when a parent takes their own life.
Table of Contents (in progress)

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Mosquito Report Objective …………………………….………………….………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Separation of Power “The Problem” and how it relates to family law ……………….……………………………………………….…. 4
Your Children’s Rights and Presumption of Shared Parenting ….………………………………………………….……………………….. 5
Parental access to children (Your constitutional rights).…………….…..………………..…….…………………………………………..... 6
Economic Impact of joint custody ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
COURT TIMEFRAMES AND SUA SPONTE MOTIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) “Flight or Fight”………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Frye test ……………………….………………………………………………………. 9
Violence Against Woman Act (VAWA)……………………………………….................................................................................. 12
Bradley Amendment……………………......………………..…………………………………………………………………………..…………………….. 12
Federal Racketeering Violations being covered up………………….……………………………………………………………………………… 13
Demand a Trial by Jury……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………….. 13
Tape or Record All Hearings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
SAMPLE MOTION TO RECORD ALL HEARINGS (Modify to fit your case and if you use an attorney remove #1.)……… 14
Access to Justice……………………………….………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………. 15
Family Court Abuses of the Public …................................................................................................................................ 15
Know the “Enemy”……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..... 16
Document Racketeering…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
Sample Affidavit………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………........ 17
The Bigger Issue …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Domestic Violence and Escalation of your conflict………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Divorce information and Internet Links………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Supporting Reference Statutes Presumption of Shared Parenting…(Section break at page 21 number reset)………... 20
Parental rights a fundamental right………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2?
Case law …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2?
Reference Studies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2?





Mosquito Report Objective
The objective of this report is to educate the public about peaceful alternatives to litigation and the traps set by profit seeking legal professionals. We seek to make fundamental legislative changes to our family law system across the United States. We seek both parties to control their anger towards the other parent and come to a reasonable settlement and preserve assets to benefit their children. The information in this report will help to avoid escalation of your issues by the legal profession. Remember the legal profession is a business and seeks to profit from your conflict. Let us state this again the legal profession is a business and seeks to profit from your conflict. Did you get the point they want your assets (money). We have assembled important information, case laws, and statutes and provided legal forms within this report. Our objective is to take the profit out of conflicts and aid the cost effective resolution of your dispute. We seek to preserve family assets for the benefit of your children. The Best Interest of your children is not to pay attorneys and experts seeking to profit from your conflict. We seek to expose the organized pattern of child abuse for profit with parental alienation tactics.
The negative economic (loss of money) impact to yourself and family assets will be great if you enter litigation. Avoid this at all costs your children need your assets not the legal profession. One of the largest causes for foreclosure and bankruptcy is divorce. You will be told by attorneys that you can sell everything you own to pay legal expenses to continue the conflict. Remember you have a choice to escalate the conflict or find a cost effective settlement path. Think of the needs of your children. How would your paying attorneys, court appointed experts, social workers benefit your children. We want to make this clear IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY BENEFIT YOUR CHILDREN. Science has proven absent neglect, abuse, abandonment children need both parents. Do not allow attorneys to twist normal conflicts into domestic violence or abuse. We seek to expose these attorneys and organizations extortion of the public, bring witnesses to meetings.
An attorney or organization might “suggest” the use of domestic violence as a tactic. Do not fall into this trap. They are creating a self servicing need for their services a “high conflict divorce or High conflict child custody battle” is the result. Abraham Lincoln Quoted: “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this.” (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President from 1861 until his assassination in April 1865) Attorneys will routinely not tell you that this tactic blocks mediation. Attorneys will not inform you that the use of this tactic will affect the earning potential of the accused for the rest of their lives. This tactic stops parties from talking creating a need for the additional services from the legal profession. This is a form of extortion under US Code. Make no mistake attorneys routinely plan to extort your assets with this tactic. The routine miss use of domestic violence funding by this tactic reduces resources needed for true victims of violence. Remember if you use this tactic for a divorce you are taking these resources away from these victims. Attorney’s business objective is to create a conflict from “custody battles”. Your focus must be to resolve your conflict with your opponent and not involve the children. Keep the children out of the conflict and provide the best possible solution you can that meets the needs of both parties. We seek to expose these organized extortion tactics to the United States Senate Judiciary Oversight committee for large scale investigation of abuses of the public interests. We seek to have Federal legislation past to Stop Child Abuse for Profit with a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.
Child abuse comes in many forms and what the legal profession is fighting to conceal is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). This form of child abuse exposes the legal system to huge liabilities. The simple fact is the legal profession routinely uses this tactic to start a child custody battle between parents to serve the self interest of the legal profession for profit. Fact the legal system’s pattern to prey on the basic instincts of parents to protect their children is exploited for profit. The legal system is preying on the parent child relationship to serve their interest of profit. Remember this you and your children are the prey of the legal profession. Without your conflict they make no money or have a job. We seek to expose how the legal profession singles out and suppresses Parental Alienation Syndrome target parents with the use of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP). We seek to expose how attorneys routinely make it too expensive to fight this tactic. We seek to establish a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting in the best interest of the children’s right to access both parents.
Stress and the child custody battle, the loss of a child is the most traumatic event any parent can experience. When judges routinely strip access of parents to children without due cause, it causes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Judges and lawyers that knowingly and willfully do this to promote the self interest of the legal profession are directly responsible for countless suicides and violent acts. Human basic instincts kick in when parents are denied access to their children. On one hand some people become violent and misplace their anger toward the other parent or children these acts serves the interest of the legal system. The fact is the judge and the lawyers are responsible. On the other hand The Center for Disease Control (CDC) studies has shown that parents and military service personnel are committing suicides at an increasing rate. These suicides do not serve the purpose of the court and create a huge liability to the courts for the neglect of the public interests. The best interest of the child is not served with the loss of a parent. We seek to require stress management counseling during family law matters and return of deployed troops.
Remember someone always gets hurt in a divorce or custody battle. Know if you are hurt or mad and seek revenge against your opponent do not involve the children. Do not drain financial resources to the legal profession that could be used to benefit yourself and your children. Think of the children and remember you once loved your opponent to the point of having a child in the first place. Any issues can be resolved without the involvement of litigation. Seek to preserve your assets from profit seeking legal professionals and protect your children’s rights to both parents. Know if you are fighting or fleeing (fight or flight). Calm down and take a breath. We seek to demand state provide mediation services outside the predatory practices of the legal profession.
Separation of power “ The Problem” and how it relates to family law
Stop voting for Attorneys to enter public office. Take a look at their campaign funding and you will find the legal profession self promote each other into office. The campaign funding trail demonstrates how this takes place it is available to the public (online) ask where in your state. Key committees on the state and federal level are controlled by judicial members (lawyers) effectively placing one class of Americans in control of our society. As of this date the Unite States Senate Judiciary oversight committee is made up of 19 members 13 are lawyers. Our form of government (federal and state levels) has three branches each service a control purpose. They are the executive branch (president’s and governor’s veto power), the legislative branch (Senate, House creates laws), judicial branch (enforcement of laws). Fact the Constitution of the United States clearly demands a separation of power. Many state’s Constitutions also demand a separation of power. The purpose was to provide a balance to the people. As we elect more members of the Judicial branch into the legislative branch the basic balance of our society becomes imbalanced. With no balances, corruption expands for lack of controls and oversight. It is common knowledge that attorneys do not prosecute each other for misconduct. Remember it is misconduct for an attorney not to report misconduct. The public has no resources to file proper successful grievances against attorneys and they know this. As misconduct rules become overlooked and the duty of the legal profession for self enforcement is neglected corruption expands. No self enforcement of judicial members truly exists to protect the public’s interests. The public must demand public oversight of the Attorney Grievance system with public workshops and clinics.
The above might sound like no big deal on the first glance but think about how it affects every aspect of our lives. We will focus on family laws. As an example in the state of Maryland we have a “gatekeeper” she is a delegate that practices family law and has become the “go to” person with family law matters in the general assembly. She also sits on the attorney grievance commission and has sat on listening events for the access to justice hearing events. She has presented Bills for the determination of child custody in Maryland. What she doesn’t want the public to know is that her co-counsel on a case has defended a child pornography defendant. This is a true conflict of interests first she makes her living from laws she is creating, second she associates with defenders of child pornography, third she accepted input to her Bill from the defender of child pornography, forth the Bill presented are not in the best interest of the public, third she is promoting the profit seeking interests of her profession over the public’s. During the access to justice hearings she listens to public outcry for mediation and to remove children from custody issues.
The impact of a single “gatekeeper” can block the interest of the public. As the example above shows a gatekeeper can also be anybody who “trashes” important information and prevents the decision maker from making a proper judgment on the issue. A simple way to test for gatekeepers is to send letters to your legislators, after a few days call the legislator to see if the letters have been received and presented to your legislator. If no letters have been received, you have a gatekeeper problem.
The enforcement of professional misconduct is the duty of the judicial branch. However it is a known fact that attorneys will not report misconduct on another attorney. The way to expose this is to simply bring two collaborating witnesses to an attorney’s office and inform the attorney of misconduct or a criminal act of another attorney. You must meet the threshold of “Probable Cause” with your information and documents. Remember it is the responsibility of the profession to enforce the rules of professional misconduct. Read your states rules of professional misconduct and document and expose it in the public’s interests. We are seeking public oversight of the Attorney Grievance process for the neglect of the professions responsibility to enforce misconduct.
Learn about free legal clinics, pro se projects and you law libraries in your state. Learn how to represent yourself in order to avoid litigation. Always interview attorneys for free do not pay a fee for the interview. The “right to counsel” is your right under the sixth and fourteenth amendment. If you cannot afford an attorney ask for accommodations and have one appointed. What you need to know is that you have the right to timely hearings (To be heard) so get to know the assignment office of the court. Attorneys will delay and schedule hearings so you have to pay additional fees. Keep your hearings within your needs not the needs of the attorney or courts profit seeking objective. Know the basic appeal period for your area.
If you enter litigation demand a trial by jury first thing and remember attorneys provide a service to you they work for you. Yes they have to make a living but do not sign retainers that allow them to charge for large blocks of time. Review the fee structure be carefully and negotiate items to make them reasonable. Most attorneys charge their hourly rate when they make copies; travel time, phone calls and research etc. document your dealings with them to protect yourself. Always provide a 1099 to them for tax purposes and get receipts for each payment you make. Read the rules of professional misconduct and expose any violations. A common tactic used to protect the legal profession is to discredit parents and suppress opposition with expensive litigation. Their objective is to get a list of assets quickly so they know how much they can strip with legal fees and associated experts. The pattern is to single out a parent and discredit them the main tool they use is your children. What I mean by this is the legal profession does not produce a product they provide a service. They provide a service that in many cases for something they have created. This is the very definition of extortion used to create a conflict for the increased fees for their services. We need to have more citizen based oversight of the judiciary branch and its members. Less than 1% of attorney grievances are prosecuted and a recent study shows that if a citizen files a law suit against a state or the government most are not even heard a violation of the victims civil rights.
Your Children’s Rights and Presumption of Shared Parenting
The most important issue is the Children. The children have a fundamental right to see both parents. The court uses the term “in the best interest of the children” as a smoke screen to promote parental alienation tactics to strip parents access to children. Protect your children from the legal system. Parental alienation will damage the children for the rest of their lives. We need every parent to keep the children out of their fight. What is said and what is practiced by the legal system are two separate things. It is becoming routine for facts about normal parental relationships to be twisted into domestic violence, spousal abuse, and child abuse these false accusations must be documented. Early statistics are showing that 80% of accusations are unfounded, or worse, planned and executed. The country of India has taken measures to remove domestic violence due to the fact of high level of abuses. “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this.” (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President) When a false accusation plan is executed the sole purpose is to circumvent due process of law and gain control of custody of children and assets. This creates an unfair advantage, a violation of Rules of professional misconduct by the party that executed the plan. Courts will routinely overlook this misconduct due to the “political nature” of these cases. What happens in these cases is a parent is stripped of their access to their children (Parental Alienation Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Please seek to modify the determination of child custody and support a presumption of shared parenting in your state. Let’s keep our children away from the lawyers and legal system. Stop Child Abuse for Profit. President Abraham Lincoln warned of this in his quote:
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough." (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President)
Reasons for Support a Presumption of Shared Parenting
1. A custody decision should focus upon the U.S. constitutional custody rights and responsibilities of parents first and the unfitness of parents afterwards. The "Best interests of children" are typically served by encouraging and facilitating maximum involvement among both parents and children. Absent abuse neglect and abandonment the children deserve access to both parents.

2. Since courts currently award joint custody as it relates to the decision-making abilities of parents, the courts are rarely presented with a true and accurate picture due the contentiousness of divorces, the adversarial climate of family courts, and their historically biased custody rulings favoring a single parent (mothers) in 88% of cases.

3. Current law requires trial courts to make findings on requests for joint custody. Instead there should be a statutory presumption of joint physical custody. Trial courts should make findings on reasons for not awarding joint physical custody.

4. Where trial courts must determine custody under existing child custody factors, mothers receive sole physical custody in the overwhelming majority of cases. Fathers are required to separate motion separately for visitation (parenting time) in order to exercise their parental responsibilities.

5. Joint custody awards should not necessarily reflect the voluntary distribution of parental involvement in an intact household prior to divorce. The environment of a two-household, non-intact family will place new demands upon parents and children alike.

6. A joint physical custody award will practically guarantee a greater involvement of both parents in the lives and activities of their children. Typical visitation (parenting time) awards hamper the involvement of both parents in their child's development post divorce. Custody awards to unmarried mothers seldom involve adequate child visitation of fathers.

7. The definition of an unfit parent is easily defined by the U.S. constitution and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. This definition is limited to physical, psychological, or child abuse. If parental unfitness were to be defined by current Maryland domestic violence statutes, it would be so broad that few parents (married or otherwise) would be deemed fit to parent.

8. There are indeed times when joint physical/legal custody is not in the best interest of the children, but these times are the exceptions and involve actual physical, psychological, or child abuse.

9. These changes will dramatically reduce the documented bias of custody awards by state trial courts. Further it will reduce litigation and its associated costs. Further it will preserve the marital assets for the minor children.

10. These changes will encourage both parents to remain accessible to their children. Court discretion can be utilized to determine specific physical custody durations based upon circumstances. Presumption of 50/50 for physical custody.

11. MARYLAND CASE LAW: In Maryland there is case law already established Kimberly Boswell v. Robert G. Boswell (Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204, 721 A.2d 662(1998)) quoted from court clarifying the best interest standard:(b) in making a determination of legal and physical custody under this subtitle, the court shall give primary consideration to the best interest of the child. Reasonable maximum exposure to each parent is presumed to be in the best interest of the child. The Maryland Court of Appeals overruled this decision and stated as part of their decision, “We seek to clarify that only one standard is used in determining whether to restrict parental visitation in the presence of non-marital partners, bests interests of the child, but we also want to emphasize that when a court is engaging in a best interests analysis, reasonable maximum exposure to each parent is presumed to be in the best interests of the child.” (352 Md. 204, at 214.) This language was important as it was the first time a Maryland state court has mentioned any presumption towards both parents, at least in any published opinion.

Some have claimed that Boswell was really a case about gay rights, and only nominally discussed this issue of a presumption towards maximum reasonable exposure. For a time, it seemed that the courts were also treating Boswell in such a manner. However, we have recently found a 2007 Court of Special Appeals case applying Boswell. In Gordon v. Gordon (174 Md.App. 583, 923 A.2d 149 (Md.App., 2007).), the Court of Special Appeals took up the case of a father who was attempting to modify a custody order to have the time split 50-50. While the court ruled that 50-50 was not the meaning of maximum reasonable exposure, the court did report favorably on the presumption first articulated is Boswell and did not rule that this presumption was just dicta. Furthermore, the court noted that the custody arrangement currently in place for the Gordons afforded Mr. Gordon every other weekend from Thursday night through Monday morning and Wednesday morning through Thursday morning on alternate weeks. It should not go without noting that the one published case citing Boswell’s presumption language had a custody arrangement that was much more equitable than most.

Parental Access to Children
Listed below is a section of case law that has been established in support of constitutional right to have access to your children. These cases have established parental rights from a constitutional stand point. However be aware that state appointed judges will violate your rights to add expense to your conflict and meet their funding requirements. The family court system is basically a divorce industry that preys on one parent’s anger for profit. The objective of the court is to strip one parent’s access to their children. Remember this fact a system has been developed to exploit your parental instincts and take your money.
Do not fall into the trap of allowing legal professionals to exploit your parental instincts to protect and nurture your children. Both parties have these instincts. The best way for both parties to win is to allow equal access to children when possible. Absent abuse neglect and abandonment this should be in the form of joint physical and legal custody. It has been proven that parents that pay child support that have access continue to pay. Use mediators to establish fair child support payments for both parents using you state’s child support guidelines. Again do not allow legal professionals to exploit your parental instincts to protect and nurture your children. Fight for the presumption of shared parenting and seek the best interest of your children is to have access to both parents and preserve family assets.
We seek to expose how the legal profession uses parental access to promote the need for their services. When a judge demonstrates their prejudice and strips a parent of access with no cause, it is judicial misconduct. When a judge abuses their discretion and strips a parent of access to their children, it is judicial misconduct. What these court actions do is promote the need for legal services. The judges are aiding attorneys to collect fees for their services. What needs to be proven is simply that two or more judges or attorneys are involved and you have a racketeering charge which is a US Code violation. To establish this show how the courts striped you of your access to your children without any proof being presented. Demonstrate how you informed your attorney. Lastly demonstrate how the courts routinely have ex parti communications with attorneys without your presence.
The simple fact is judges will abuse their discretion and demonstrate prejudice to obtain their objectives. Their first objective is to extract the maximum assets from the at risk family. The second objective is to obtain child support enforcement funding. This latter objective requires that one party is subjected to child support. This is accomplished by creating a conflict over your children. The conflict as outlined earlier creates a need for legal services. What happens is one parent is given control of the assets and the sense that they are in control. The fact is the courts have control and are aiding lawyers to extort funds from your family. The other parent is at a disadvantage because they need access to assets to obtain adequate legal representation. This tactic is the routine pattern. The system will isolate and suppress one parent that does not have the means to obtain legal representation. Do not make this mistake this is vengeful and in no way benefits your children. Remember this simple fact you loved the person to the point of having a child with them they deserve to see the child. The support they can provide to you and aid the child cannot be measured in dollars. Do not make this mistake. Attorneys and judges will tell you we can get this or that but in the end it is your children that have lost. Your children need the support of both loving parents willing to protect them from the legal system.
Economic Impact of joint custody
Many Studies have been conducted on the positive economic benefits to the child of joint custody and we ask you to research this subject on the World Wide Web and not depend on individuals who make their living from Family law. We ask that you review the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the Fatherhood Initiative programs and the various foundations that are now funding and promoting the strong positive impact of fathers in the best interest of the children of America. We need to stress that both parents are needed to help the children develop. These programs express the need to help low income families and father to obtain the training they need to be the best parents they can be. We have attached two reprinted articles that outline the truth about economic impact of custody. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL article included below “The Myth of Deadbeat Dads” outlines percentages of mothers and fathers payments of child support. The Washington Times article “Child-support-law amendment comes to attention of Hill” outlines how custody becomes an incentive to pay child support. This article also shows the negative economic impact of driving child support payers into the underground economy. Reports of statistics of parents with joint custody pay their child support obligations at a much higher rate providing a reduction in Child-support enforcement.
Keep in mind that both parents should provide for the children. However the legal system destroys the earning potential with the systematic abuse of domestic violence laws. This abuse of domestic violence laws is called “abuse excuse” this is a legal trap to create high conflict child custody and divorce cases. The minute one party accuses the other party the long term earning potentials will be damages to the accused party. In no way can this be “in the best interest of the children”. Long term income damage will have long term impact on your family. Do not allow abused person programs or attorneys to suggest the use of the “abuse excuse” tactic for a divorce absent abuse, neglect and abandonment. Keep your divorce simple and low conflict to save money for your children. Keep your hurt and anger under control to keep the assets in the family.
To expand on the negative economic impact you just need to look deeply at how the justice system of the United States has removed resource from our productive citizens. The negative economic impact to the dysfunctional family with child custody and divorce conflicts is common knowledge. Everybody has heard the stories how the attorneys strip all the assets including housing from parents. Remember your attorney has NO financial obligation to you. They just want to make profit from your conflict. We call any service industry that doesn’t produce anything a parasitic industry. Any service industry that creates a demand for their services is in violation of federal racketeering laws defined under US. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 96§ 1961. Do not allow attorneys off the record suggestions to increase their fees. Document their off record suggestions with videos, collaborating witnesses or detailed letters. As these parasitic industries grow our society will not be able to support their greed.

COURT TIMEFRAMES AND SUA SPONTE MOTIONS
The most important thing to know is the timeframe for filing court documents. The court will hold to these technical timeframes to meet the needs of the courts business. KNOW THE TIMEFRAMES REQUIRED BY COURT RULES. The bad news is the court will allow lawyer’s to violate time frames with Sua Sponte motions to meet the needs of the courts business. These motions are used to protect the interest of the courts over the interest of the public. The courts have the power to conceal information with sealed records as a tactic to protect the business of the courts. So remember just because you filed something in a timely manner does not mean the court will accept it or act on it they might even seal it. You need to get you side on court record in a timely manner is the bottom line. What the courts do with the information is another issue. Objecting to information entered into record is very important and you attorney must do this in a timely manner. Expose the candor and lies quickly.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) “Flight or Fight”
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can be triggered by the loss of access to your children. Please learn about this disorder at http://www.ptsdalliance.org. This can be a life threatening disorder and can affect people in various ways.
The legal system has developed a system that preys on your basic parenting instincts. What they do is exploit a parent’s anger toward the other parent. This takes the form of a custody battle over the children. No consideration is given to the rights of the children to see both parents. Absent abuse, neglect and abandonment every child deserves both parents. As a parent we have all heard the stories of parents going “nuts” and killing their children and families. These are the stories that the media love to report on and are relatively very few. These cases serve the interest of the court to create a bias. These violent cases with media exposure create the fear and ultimately the bias the courts exploit for profit. This is one form of the “fight” we ask that if you intend to fight expose the injustice of the predatory practices of the judicial system. Hold the judges and lawyers accountable for their criminal actions by documenting them and filing proper criminal charges.
It is normal to get angry or depressed when you are removed from your children. Parental Alienation is one of the most traumatic experiences any person can endure. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) affects many parents at this point. As parents become depressed several things can happen. First when good parents are backed up against a wall some fight back with force. There is a book called “Kill the Attorneys” and a sad fact is many people are turning their anger towards biased judges. This has become a problem for this movement because judges are being targeted and killed. What seems to be happening is people are starting to take the time to plan military style assaults with diversions and escape routes to execute their violent plans. These tactics take time to plan and this level of anger is a direct result of parents having no place to turn for justice. Depressed parents are targeting and holding judges and attorneys accountable with violent actions. Sadly these violent acts service the interest of the courts with negative media coverage. These violent acts are due to legal professionals ignoring civil rights of parents in the first place.
As harsh legislation against parent’s rights is starting to be passed into law many parents are holding attorneys and judges accountable. The attorneys and judges motive is simple protect their profit making industry and cover up their wrong doing. These sworn legal professionals strip families of resources and place financial burdens on parents to meet federal funding requirements. We need to get to the root of the problem and use the pen and change legislation to take the profit out of these predatory practices. The issue is committees of the legislative bodies of our government are controlled by attorneys this is a true conflict of interest. This conflict of interest is not enforced to protect the interest of the public but neglected by the judicial branch. Judicial neglect to enforce conflict of interest laws to preserve the self interest of profit. Remember they are exploiting your parent child relationship for their profit.
The Second PTSD issue that doesn’t get the media’s attention is how many parents use “flight” to escape these legal attacks for profit. The CDC studies show how parents are committing suicide at an alarming rate. The studies show men have a higher success rate at committing suicide. These suicides are a direct result of predatory practices and place a negative economic impact on our society. The justice system has built in controls to protect them from being accused. These controls take the form of publicly funded social programs or crisis centers. Depression is a very powerful emotion and victims sometimes seek help from these programs. The truth is parents seeking help from social programs for their depression are labeled. They later find the very organization they went for help from are used against them in a court of law. This sometimes triggers a negative response and the person now feels they have no place to turn and they commit suicide. The legal system always terms their victims as unstable or mentally unstable for the media. These simple examples outline how when parents have no place to turn for justice their emotions kick in and becomes basic instincts of fight or flight. The trigger the legal profession doesn’t what you to know about is the following section. Parental alienation is currently being suppressed in legislation by legal professionals and abused person funded organizations.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Frye test
Avoid this behavior the long term damage to your children cannot be repaired. The basic trust between child and parents should remain intact for both parents. It is the child’s right to have this trust of both parents. Use the Frye test information below to get your state to establish case law for PAS. Stop this form of child abuse.
What is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)? This is the definition of PAS as described by R.A. Gardner: http://www.paskids.com/ "The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent." (Excerpted from: Gardner, R.A. (1998) The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Second Edition, Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc.)
Be aware that the legal profession is trying to discredit this syndrome so they can continue to profit from your children. The best interest of your children is to have access to both parents. The courts and associated experts and social workers are defending their interests of profiting from your conflict. Their past actions expose them to huge liabilities for this form of child abuse. Make no mistake the judicial system will retaliate to defend against this liability. Get involved and use the Frye test to defeat the legal profession to protect your children and future children. In Maryland our Maryland law has only marginally addressed the issue in the case of Barton v. Hirshberg 137 Md.App. 1, 767 A.2d 874 Md.App., 2001. Courts outside of Maryland have reviewed the issue in greater detail and case law established listed below. The following websites will provide some insight to this complex issue:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2117396/the_gregory_mantell_show_parental_alienation_part_2/
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8nfdc_the-gregory-mantell-show-parental-a_shortfilms
http://www.hostile-aggressive-parenting.com/
http://www.paawareness.org/
http://www.stopparentalalienation.org/
Frye v Gardner in the Family Courts (Part 1)
http://expertpages.com/news/parental_alienation_syndrome.htm
Frye v Gardner in the Family Courts (Part 2)
http://expertpages.com/news/parental_alienation_syndrome2.htm
www.stopparentalalienation.org
www.breakthroughparentingservices.org
Expert:
Jayne A. Major, Ph.D., Executive Director Telephone: (310) 823-7846
Stop Parental Alienation of Children Fax: (310) 388-0700
Breakthrough Parenting Services, Inc. Email: jaynemajor@gmail.com
12405 Venice Boulevard, #172, Los Angeles, CA 90066 (Map)

Court Frye test Rulings Relevant to Parental Alienation for the UNITED STATES (2 States)
The Frye Test is the standard by which a court can determine whether a scientific contribution has gained enough general acceptances in the scientific community to be admissible in a court of law. The Frye Test criteria for admissibility were applied to The Parental Alienation Syndrome in the following cases:
· Kilgore v. Boyd, 13th Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, FL., Case No. 94-7573, 733 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) Jan 30, 2001.
o Boyd v. Kilgore, 773 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Prohibition Denied)
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.
· Bates v. Bates 18th Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, IL Case No. 99D958, Jan 17, 2002.
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.[excerpt]
Court Rulings relevant to Parental Alienation (22 States)
Alabama
· Berry v. Berry, Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, AL, Case No. DR-96-761.01. Jan 06, 2001

Alaska
· Pearson v. Pearson, Sup Ct. of AK., No. S-8973, No. 5297, 5 P.3d 239; 2000 Alas. Lexis 69. July 7, 2000.

Arkansas
· Chambers v. Chambers, Ct of App of AR, Div 2; 2000 Ark App. LEXIS 476, June 21, 2000.

California
· Coursey v. Superior Court (Coursey), 194 Cal.App.3d 147,239 Cal.Rptr. 365 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., Aug 18, 1987.

· John W. v. Phillip W., 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 899; 1996.

· Valerie Edlund v. Gregory Hales, 66 Cal. App 4th 1454; 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671.

Colorado
· Oosterhaus v. Short, District Court, County of Boulder (CO), Case No. 85DR1737-Div III.
Connecticut
· Case v. Richardson, 1996 WL 434281 (Conn. Super.,Jul 16, 1996).
· Metza v. Metza, Sup. Court of Connecticut, Jud. Dist. of Fairfield, at Bridgeport,
1998 Conn. Super. Lexis 2727 (1998).
Florida
· Schutz v. Schutz, 522 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3rd Dist. Ct. App. 1988).
· Blosser v. Blosser, 707 So. 2d 778; 1998 Fla. App. Case No. 96-03534.
· Tucker v. Greenberg, 674 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
· Berg-Perlow v. Perlow, 15th Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Fl.,Case no. CD98-1285-FC. Mar 15, 2000.
o An exceptionally strong family court decision in which five experts testified to the diagnosis of PAS.
· Loten v. Ryan, 15th Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, FL., Case No. CD 93-6567 FA. Dec 11,2000.
· Kilgore v. Boyd, 13th Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, FL., Case No. 94-7573, 733 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) Jan 30, 2001.
o Boyd v. Kilgore, 773 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Prohibition Denied)
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.
· McDonald v. McDonald, 9th Judicial Circuit Court, Orange County, FL. Case No. D-R90-11079, Feb 20, 1001.
· Blackshear v. Blackshear, Hillsborough County, FL 13th Jud. Circuit: 95-08436.
Illinois
· In re Violetta 210 III.App.3d 521, 568 N.E2d 1345, 154 III.Dec. 896(Ill.App. I Dist Mar 07, 1991).
· In re Marriage of Divelbiss v. Divelbiss, No. 2-98-0999 2nd District, Ill.(Appeal from Circ Crt of Du Page Cty No. 93-D-559) Oct 22, 1999.
·
YouTube - Videos from this email

New_Hampshire_Family_Division

New_Hampshire_Family_Division - 1 reference result
Family New Hampshire
Research your Genealogy Locally Free on MyHeritage.com
www.myheritage.com
New Hampshire Genealogy
1) Search for Your Family Members 2) Build
your Complete Family Tree!
New-Hampshire.Archives.com
New Divide
All About New Divide New Divide in One Site!
Sponsored Results
Peeplo.com/New+Divide
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 Sullivan Counties 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 INPUT TO THE SUPREME COURT’S CITIZEN’S COMMISSION ON NH STATE COURTS Compiled 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: 96 Complaints/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 REPORT FAMILY LAW RESEARCH COMMITTEE Supreme Court Citizens’ Commission on NH State Courts Paul 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.
Lists
State courts by cities, towns, and unincorporated places
External links
Official Website
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors ( Disclaimer)
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Last updated on Tuesday September 30, 2008 at 01:27:03 PDT (GMT -0700)
View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation
Search another word or see New_Hampshire_Family_Division on Dictionary | Thesaurus

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/New_Hampshire_Family_Division

Happy Birthday Isabella Brooke Knightly! D.O.B. August 31, 2005 Nashua, NH

Happy Birthday Isabella Brooke Knightly! D.O.B. August 31, 2005 Nashua, NH

Happy birthday sweet Princess. I wish your REAL family could be with you on this very special day. Had you not been stolen from us and placed with stranger's on October 3rd, 2005,you would be here with us.
We were told you have your Mommy's attitude. I hope you do. I hope your being treated as if you were a real daughter to the stranger's raising you, even though no-one can love you as much as we do.
I pray you haven't been abused and you're happy. I can't wait for the day you realize the stranger's are NOT your parent's. I can't wait for you to hear the truth, knowing the lies the stranger's will tell you, because that's what foster stranger's do. But it's not all their fault. They've been fed lies by the people who stole you. They just wanted a baby. Any baby. They didn't care where that baby came from or that the baby was taken from her parent's illegally. They put their name on a list and DCYF was glad to oblige. Some day you will know the whole truth. Some day you will learn all about the fraud used by Nashua DCYF in the kidnapping of Nashua children and the money they made off your kidnapping.
You have four new cousin's. Some day you'll get to meet them. Twin boy's and two girl's. But no-one can take your place.
We took care of your Mommy while she was pregnant with you, because the Doctor's didn't care whether she lived or died. They didn't even care about you, until after you were born. All they cared about was taking you from your Mother. A healthy little baby girl. There was money to be made.
All your Mommy wanted was a healthy baby girl, which would mean a new life, for both you and her. A life filled with love and happiness. She wanted to alway's be there for you. To take care of your every need. She was on the right track until you were stolen. That's what happen's when DCYF is pushed into parent's live's. They go ever the edge and can no longer function. They give up, knowing that no matter what they do, their child won't be returned. That's how it is in NH. Kids are NEVER returned. That's what happened to your Mommy. The life that she planned for you was put on hold. Thank God she has finally regained her strength to overcome the pain and all the obstacles which were thrown at her. She has a new life, but never stop's loving or thinking about you. Her little Princess. Some day you WILL come home! Then your birthday will be celebrated with you instead of without you. We won't have to celebrate your birth with just a picture.We'll be able to celebrate the precious gift God has given us. Our little Princess Isabella!
Your entire family is wishing you a Happy and Safe Birthday! You will alway's be our Princess!
Love ALWAY's, Mommy, Daddy,Grammie, Grampie and your entire REAL FAMILY!
The Family Who Gave You Life!!!!!!

DCFS Adoptions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnkPRtp05ok

Small Justice - U.S. Courts Harm Children

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0LILd0wtbU

NH Statistics of Children in Foster Care in 2005

http://www.fostercaremonth.org/AboutFosterCare/StatisticsAndData/Documents/NH-Facts-FCM07.pdf

Proof that NH DCYF takes more white children than other races.


In NH the ethnicity statistic's of children removed and placed in foster care in 2005 are as follows:

White-81%
Black-4%
Hispanic-6%
American Indian-1%
Unknown-5%
2 or more races-3%

Statistics show that minorities are overrepresented in the foster care system in all states.-Not NH-More white children are removed

Native American numbers on rise in North Dakota foster care system
Statistics show that minorities are overrepresented in the foster care system in all states.

In NH the percentage is higher for white children removed and placed in Foster care

By: Andi Murphy, INFORUM
SendPrint

JAMESTOWN COMMUNICATIONS
Statistics show that minorities are overrepresented in the foster care system in all states.

The most recent Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System report shows that Caucasian children represent 40 percent of all foster children. African-American children make up 31 percent, Hispanic children 20 percent, and Native American children about 2 percent.

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/289347/