New policy requires reporting children without lunch money
LAFAYETTE — A Lafayette Parish School System policy takes effect today requiring school officials to report to the state the parents who repeatedly send their child to school without lunch money.
The policy is in compliance with new state legislation that sets guidelines for schools who don’t allow students to charge school lunch meals.
Prior to its no-charge policy implemented in 2007, the school system ate more than $250,000 in unpaid meal bills each year, according to a school system release.
At least 15,745 meals have been served to students without lunch money since school started in August, according to Renee Sherville, child nutrition supervisor.
The majority of those meals were served to elementary students, she said.
The legislation applies to students in grades pre-K through eight and requires schools with no-charge policies to provide students either a “sandwich” or “substantial and nutritious snack” if a meal is denied for nonpayment.
The child’s parent or guardian must also be notified when a meal is denied and of the consequences of a third incident of no lunch money — a report made to the Department of Children and Family Services, according to the legislation.
Read More:
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/106582358.html
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
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
It started after the wedding ... now he controls ...
It started after the wedding ... now he controls ...
The message below references a restraining order against the mother from the fathers "friend" at the time now wife. It can be found in Nashua District Court and was unfounded - because the mother brought in her wittnesses including her employers to verify she was working on all the site dates she supposedly drove by her house. Moreover, several other wittnesses testified to where she was and it was thrown out. Coincidentally Lori Wilson Ayotte McIntosh also filed a restraining order against her x-husband who then had to go to anger managment classes for something when you look at her disclosure makes no sense on how it could have happened.
---- Forwarded Message -----
From: "William McIntosh"
To: d-mvc@comcast.net, "Howard A. Roever"
Cc: COUNSELOR
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 7:16:21 PM
Subject: RE: response to your Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:15:57 AM
Denise:
"It should be noted that your client had the ability to choose someone "local", and for reasons unknown did not, furthermore the visitation center is not on the table." Denise, the court order gave me thirty days and wanted me to start with the list you provided. I contacted everyone on your list and nobody local would take the case in the time frame allotted. As you have noted we started later than the thirty days (not 67 days by the way) he is correct was 68+. I did not have the name of your insurance provider to look for anyone beyond the list you provided the court as your insurance is paying for your visits. However, at the same hearing I gave him our childs insurance card. But I guess one would assume mine would be different.Let me refresh your memory that you did have a restraining order against you from Lori and she chose not to continue it for longer. mentioned above and Lori Wilson Ayotte McIntosh currently at Nashua North HS in special education never showed up for the hearing with our wittnesses - ;-) Perhaps in hindsight, that was a mistake. However, moving forward with the tortured history of the case I do not think it is necessary for us to review it all. The final court order from district court as well a superior court both have referred to this case as long and tortured so review your court orders for clarification. Yes because some guy named Clemmins from a fathers right group told him to take me to court continously - if you look at McIntosh and McIntosh Nashua Superior Court you see he is the Petitioner taking the mother back to court.
There have been three incidents where you have seen myself and/or Lori at the end of the visits. Once when I was there and (xxxx therpist on list with other providers and insurance) took her next client and left us both to leave, once with Lori when Child had to use the bathroom in the waiting room and you waited to use the rest room, and at the last visit when you left right after Child and started a conversation with Lori in the waiting room. You started to leave with Lori and xxxxx when Lori said for you to go ahead that her and xxxxx will would wait for you to leave. You then said for them to leave that you were going to use the rest room.
therpist, on all three of these occasions you took another client into your office and closed the door. I met with you twice before this process began and we were very clear that this was a scenario that we had great concern about. You strongly reassured us that you understood our concern and would put everyone's safety at the forefront. We are very discouraged that this is not the case.
therpist, of even greater concern is at the last visit you instructed Child to go in and say hello to his mother while you stood in the doorway closed the door and expressed concern to Lori for her late arrival and need to know if Bill could accept the next appointment. The entire time Denise and Child were unsupervised. I do not think you understand that your role is to supervise visits not to provide a therapy session for Child and his mother. The Nashua district court judge expressed grave concern t hat Denise not have unfettered access to the child. I have tried to explain the situation to you , have asked you to contact child's counselor and school. I do not feel you have an appropriate handle on this case.
I understand you and Denise feel that visits have gone well. I think that you have provided a visitation setting but without the security we had hoped for.
xxxxx has reported several things in the session that he has not felt comfortable with. The most recent being you and his mother asking him where he would prefer visits, with you or at the visitation center. When he stated the visitation center (which is where he has always told his therapist that is where he wants to see his mom)You then asked him why he wanted to go here. He stated that he felt as though you were mad that he told you that he would like visits to occur. According to Alexis' last e-mail the last visit Child went to was going to be a transition visit. Instead xxxxx was interrogated as to where he wants the visits to occur. This questioning was all done with his mother present in the room. This is in contrast to what you assured us and in contrast to what the district judge who stated when he said mom should not have unfettered access to Simon. Here we are in superior court with an order for theraputic visits - which the marital master Alice Spelas Love changed to suit the fathers request and not hold him in contempt. The conversation with the Child was because the child told the therpist daddy is ending visits - we asked why he said the father wanted to go to the visitation center - then he was asked what he preferred.
At our initial intake meeting Child asked you to keep mom busy, not be left alone, and no whispering. You assured us you would do this. We spoke to you twice on this issue. You assure me that you would put Simon's safety first. I don't feel that you are honestly doing that at this time, I do not feel comfortable with you supervising these visits in this manner.
So, I think until we have a court date I should look for another therapist in the Nashua area that will provide a setting in which all of the parties can feel comfortable. Denise, the same problem arises as when we searched for a therapist the first time, we need the name of your insurance to confirm that any therapist we contact will take your insurance.
Bill
________________________________
From: d-mvc@comcast.net [d-mvc@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:05 PM
To: Howard A. Roever
Cc: Alexis Wallce, M.Ed., C.A.G.S.; William McIntosh
Subject: Re: response to your Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:15:57 AM
Dear Attorney Roever,
Thank you for taking the time to get back to me.
It should be noted that your client had the ability to choose someone "local", and for reasons unknown did not, furthermore the visitation center is not on the table.
Please elaborate on the torture history where, whose security maybe a concern? There are no restraining orders or incidents that require one, nor has there ever been one on your clients behalf. To-date there has been one incident where the Respondent inadvertently saw your clients wife and engaged in mimal conversation including wishing her a Merry Christmas in the presence of xxxxx, the child (so that he would feel comfortable). The Respondent let them leave and left 10 minutes after them (documented), the Respondent has never seen your client or his wife going in or in the waiting area as the Respondent arrives early, nor have the parties ever left the building or parking area at the same time.
With that in mind, thank you for bringing your clients real issue to the forefront. In keeping visits consistent for the benefit and best interest of the child xxxxx, of course the Respondent would be happy to oblige in the following manner: On 1/8/08 xxxxx will leave at 6:20 the Respondent will stay behind until 6:30 with therpist for parenting feedback, your client can make an appointment for himself under his own coverage and time frame.
The Respondent would like to propose that at future visits (until a court date is set), the following, if the therpist and your client are willing to book two hour appointments (incidentally as court ordered but not happening for a 20 minute drive) in the future, the Respondent would be happy to arrive on time with the child/xxxxx arriving 10 minutes after the booking time, and then leaving 10 minutes early. Moreover, the Respondent will pay any associated costs with the longer time frame booked.
This counter-offer should appease your clients concerns, while allowing mother and child their current standing visitation times. At all times it would be appreciated if your client could arrive on time.
Looking forward to your reply and best wishes to all for the New Year.
--
Sincerely,
Denise-Marie McIntosh
This has been going on for 8 - 9 years
http://thetruthbitesnh.blogspot.com/2010/11/it-started-after-wedding-now-he.html
The message below references a restraining order against the mother from the fathers "friend" at the time now wife. It can be found in Nashua District Court and was unfounded - because the mother brought in her wittnesses including her employers to verify she was working on all the site dates she supposedly drove by her house. Moreover, several other wittnesses testified to where she was and it was thrown out. Coincidentally Lori Wilson Ayotte McIntosh also filed a restraining order against her x-husband who then had to go to anger managment classes for something when you look at her disclosure makes no sense on how it could have happened.
---- Forwarded Message -----
From: "William McIntosh"
To: d-mvc@comcast.net, "Howard A. Roever"
Cc: COUNSELOR
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 7:16:21 PM
Subject: RE: response to your Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:15:57 AM
Denise:
"It should be noted that your client had the ability to choose someone "local", and for reasons unknown did not, furthermore the visitation center is not on the table." Denise, the court order gave me thirty days and wanted me to start with the list you provided. I contacted everyone on your list and nobody local would take the case in the time frame allotted. As you have noted we started later than the thirty days (not 67 days by the way) he is correct was 68+. I did not have the name of your insurance provider to look for anyone beyond the list you provided the court as your insurance is paying for your visits. However, at the same hearing I gave him our childs insurance card. But I guess one would assume mine would be different.Let me refresh your memory that you did have a restraining order against you from Lori and she chose not to continue it for longer. mentioned above and Lori Wilson Ayotte McIntosh currently at Nashua North HS in special education never showed up for the hearing with our wittnesses - ;-) Perhaps in hindsight, that was a mistake. However, moving forward with the tortured history of the case I do not think it is necessary for us to review it all. The final court order from district court as well a superior court both have referred to this case as long and tortured so review your court orders for clarification. Yes because some guy named Clemmins from a fathers right group told him to take me to court continously - if you look at McIntosh and McIntosh Nashua Superior Court you see he is the Petitioner taking the mother back to court.
There have been three incidents where you have seen myself and/or Lori at the end of the visits. Once when I was there and (xxxx therpist on list with other providers and insurance) took her next client and left us both to leave, once with Lori when Child had to use the bathroom in the waiting room and you waited to use the rest room, and at the last visit when you left right after Child and started a conversation with Lori in the waiting room. You started to leave with Lori and xxxxx when Lori said for you to go ahead that her and xxxxx will would wait for you to leave. You then said for them to leave that you were going to use the rest room.
therpist, on all three of these occasions you took another client into your office and closed the door. I met with you twice before this process began and we were very clear that this was a scenario that we had great concern about. You strongly reassured us that you understood our concern and would put everyone's safety at the forefront. We are very discouraged that this is not the case.
therpist, of even greater concern is at the last visit you instructed Child to go in and say hello to his mother while you stood in the doorway closed the door and expressed concern to Lori for her late arrival and need to know if Bill could accept the next appointment. The entire time Denise and Child were unsupervised. I do not think you understand that your role is to supervise visits not to provide a therapy session for Child and his mother. The Nashua district court judge expressed grave concern t hat Denise not have unfettered access to the child. I have tried to explain the situation to you , have asked you to contact child's counselor and school. I do not feel you have an appropriate handle on this case.
I understand you and Denise feel that visits have gone well. I think that you have provided a visitation setting but without the security we had hoped for.
xxxxx has reported several things in the session that he has not felt comfortable with. The most recent being you and his mother asking him where he would prefer visits, with you or at the visitation center. When he stated the visitation center (which is where he has always told his therapist that is where he wants to see his mom)You then asked him why he wanted to go here. He stated that he felt as though you were mad that he told you that he would like visits to occur. According to Alexis' last e-mail the last visit Child went to was going to be a transition visit. Instead xxxxx was interrogated as to where he wants the visits to occur. This questioning was all done with his mother present in the room. This is in contrast to what you assured us and in contrast to what the district judge who stated when he said mom should not have unfettered access to Simon. Here we are in superior court with an order for theraputic visits - which the marital master Alice Spelas Love changed to suit the fathers request and not hold him in contempt. The conversation with the Child was because the child told the therpist daddy is ending visits - we asked why he said the father wanted to go to the visitation center - then he was asked what he preferred.
At our initial intake meeting Child asked you to keep mom busy, not be left alone, and no whispering. You assured us you would do this. We spoke to you twice on this issue. You assure me that you would put Simon's safety first. I don't feel that you are honestly doing that at this time, I do not feel comfortable with you supervising these visits in this manner.
So, I think until we have a court date I should look for another therapist in the Nashua area that will provide a setting in which all of the parties can feel comfortable. Denise, the same problem arises as when we searched for a therapist the first time, we need the name of your insurance to confirm that any therapist we contact will take your insurance.
Bill
________________________________
From: d-mvc@comcast.net [d-mvc@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:05 PM
To: Howard A. Roever
Cc: Alexis Wallce, M.Ed., C.A.G.S.; William McIntosh
Subject: Re: response to your Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:15:57 AM
Dear Attorney Roever,
Thank you for taking the time to get back to me.
It should be noted that your client had the ability to choose someone "local", and for reasons unknown did not, furthermore the visitation center is not on the table.
Please elaborate on the torture history where, whose security maybe a concern? There are no restraining orders or incidents that require one, nor has there ever been one on your clients behalf. To-date there has been one incident where the Respondent inadvertently saw your clients wife and engaged in mimal conversation including wishing her a Merry Christmas in the presence of xxxxx, the child (so that he would feel comfortable). The Respondent let them leave and left 10 minutes after them (documented), the Respondent has never seen your client or his wife going in or in the waiting area as the Respondent arrives early, nor have the parties ever left the building or parking area at the same time.
With that in mind, thank you for bringing your clients real issue to the forefront. In keeping visits consistent for the benefit and best interest of the child xxxxx, of course the Respondent would be happy to oblige in the following manner: On 1/8/08 xxxxx will leave at 6:20 the Respondent will stay behind until 6:30 with therpist for parenting feedback, your client can make an appointment for himself under his own coverage and time frame.
The Respondent would like to propose that at future visits (until a court date is set), the following, if the therpist and your client are willing to book two hour appointments (incidentally as court ordered but not happening for a 20 minute drive) in the future, the Respondent would be happy to arrive on time with the child/xxxxx arriving 10 minutes after the booking time, and then leaving 10 minutes early. Moreover, the Respondent will pay any associated costs with the longer time frame booked.
This counter-offer should appease your clients concerns, while allowing mother and child their current standing visitation times. At all times it would be appreciated if your client could arrive on time.
Looking forward to your reply and best wishes to all for the New Year.
--
Sincerely,
Denise-Marie McIntosh
This has been going on for 8 - 9 years
http://thetruthbitesnh.blogspot.com/2010/11/it-started-after-wedding-now-he.html
The Father William P. McIntosh was given the if and when the mother or her family could ever see their child.
The Father William P. McIntosh was given the if and when the mother or her family could ever see their child. Looks like they gave the batterer another way to control his former wife and child.
----- "William McIntosh" wrote:
> From: "William McIntosh"
> To: d-mvc@comcast.net
> Cc: "Attorney Roever"
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 8:21:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: xxxxx's phone call
>
> I felt it was necessary to cut xxxxx's phone call short when his grandfather said, "I hope your dad lets you see us". I really feel strongly that saying things like that to xxxxx is unfair to xxxxx. It is not xxxxx's fault he is in this situation.
> Can xxxxx call you Sunday night?
> Sincerely, Bill
http://thetruthbitesnh.blogspot.com/2010/11/father-william-p-mcintosh-was-given-if.html
----- "William McIntosh"
> From: "William McIntosh"
> To: d-mvc@comcast.net
> Cc: "Attorney Roever"
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 8:21:26 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: xxxxx's phone call
>
> I felt it was necessary to cut xxxxx's phone call short when his grandfather said, "I hope your dad lets you see us". I really feel strongly that saying things like that to xxxxx is unfair to xxxxx. It is not xxxxx's fault he is in this situation.
> Can xxxxx call you Sunday night?
> Sincerely, Bill
http://thetruthbitesnh.blogspot.com/2010/11/father-william-p-mcintosh-was-given-if.html
Email from Supervisor Tracy Gubbins to Denise-Marie McIntosh
Email from Supervisor Tracy Gubbins to Denise-Marie McIntosh - The case is finished but... two months after the cases closes the social worker hasn't finsihed the case closure Summary and as of 2010 its still not in the court file.
From: d-mvc@comcast.net
To: TGubbins@dhhs.state.nh.us
Cc: "Kris Geno", "Lorraine Bartlett" , DKavanagh@dhhs.state.nh.us
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 4:37:38 PM
Subject: Re: Canceled visits & Contact log
Ms. Gubbins
Thank you for your email, while I do appreciate your writing back I am confused over your mention of the Case Close Summary not being completed.
Attorney Roever, handed in a DCYF Case Close Summary on December 27, 2007 to Superior court south - written by CPSW - Kris Geno in reference to the McIntosh Case 05-JV-XXX it is dated 11-27-07 and is something that neither I nor Attorney McCarroll have received.. Could you please check into this and send me a copy of same.
Thank you inadvance.
Sincerely,
Denise-Marie McIntosh
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
http://thetruthbitesnh.blogspot.com/2010/11/from-d-mvccomcast.html
From: d-mvc@comcast.net
To: TGubbins@dhhs.state.nh.us
Cc: "Kris Geno"
Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 4:37:38 PM
Subject: Re: Canceled visits & Contact log
Ms. Gubbins
Thank you for your email, while I do appreciate your writing back I am confused over your mention of the Case Close Summary not being completed.
Attorney Roever, handed in a DCYF Case Close Summary on December 27, 2007 to Superior court south - written by CPSW - Kris Geno in reference to the McIntosh Case 05-JV-XXX it is dated 11-27-07 and is something that neither I nor Attorney McCarroll have received.. Could you please check into this and send me a copy of same.
Thank you inadvance.
Sincerely,
Denise-Marie McIntosh
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
http://thetruthbitesnh.blogspot.com/2010/11/from-d-mvccomcast.html
Current Matter in Nashua, NH District Court involving a Mother and Child - Facts Confirmed
The Truth Bites-The writer requested me to share her writing.
Information on the laws and issues affecting families in NH. Principal players to be aware of on issues of corrruption and greed. Updates in progress. Disclosure: The Information contained within is based on research in NH., And is not to be conscrewed as legal advice.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Current Matter in Nashua, NH District Court involving a Mother and Child - Facts Confirmed
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
NASHUA DISTRICT COURT Case 05-JV- , et al
In re
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON ORDER FOR CONTEMPT
And ORDER/ RULING ON MOTION FILED AT HEARING
NOW COMES, the Respondent, Denise M. McIntosh, pro se, who responds and states as follows:
1. The court erred in finding the Respondent in contempt.
2. The assented to order of 11/24/09, through this court “gave the Reimbursement Unit (RU) the right to garnish wages through automatic payroll deduction only.” Through no fault of the Respondent they did not.
3. The court’s manipulation of the facts in stating the Respondent as delaying meeting her statutory requirement is preposterous. The order that brought this matter forward is for the RU to start payroll deduction. All documentation has been provided to enable them to do that. The Cross Petition is for TRUTH IN BILLING.
4. The ability to enable a company to make payroll deductions rests solely with the Petitioner. The Process starts by mailing the following to the Respondents’ previously and repeatedly disclosed employer UPS:
I. The RU’s right to attach the Respondents pay by this court’s 11/24/09 order with a seal of authenticity
II. Requested attention on RU letter head to have pay attached
III. With instructions on where to wire/deposit money (account it goes in)
5. This is not something the Respondent can help them with – it’s standard procedure everywhere and they never gave the Respondent information on where to have her employer wire transfer the money. A Procedure routinely done with Child Support, by Family courts and possibly unfamiliar to this court.
6. The RU also failed to disclose the mother is indigent close to $60,000 in debt directly related to these hearings in district court. The Respondent cannot afford to pay any now alleged arrearages due to their neglect any more than she could before.
7. The cross petition has been accepted by the court and should stand on its own merit because it would have come in as a Motion/Petition for FRAUD due to new findings in this courts file on or about 2/27/10. Items resubmitted to the court illustrate that the non-accused father’s attorney was paid through the RU, an order clearly signed by Judge Bamberger and contrary to NH RSA 169 C:27 (f).
8. This Court failed to address why this was initially included in the mother’s bill and then redacted. Furthermore, the fact that it is a mis-use of public funds given to a non-indigent, non-accused Father seems to be a bias of Judge Bamberger who signed the order for his attorney to be paid but not for the accused mother’s attorney to be paid.
9. The RU since 2006 and now this court have suppressed evidence and given orders that do NOT support public confidence.
10. Whether or not the RU filed, the Respondent’s cross-petition for misappropriated billing. Under Title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act – the Respondent has a right to truth in billing including payments made by other parties on the same bill not to mention the actions under mail fraud.
11. Attorney Dennis J. Thiverge, assistant director of the Hillsborough County Department of Human Services, Goffstown, NH confirmed that William P. McIntosh and Lori Ayotte-Wilson were in fact paying on the bill and the amounts have yet to be disclosed, in November 2009 the RU affirmed and did not disclose amounts but attempted to take off charges without providing a new bill. In fact, Attorney Thiverge affirmed that William McIntosh has the exact same bill – but he stated “who cares because no one ever pays it back in full.”
12. In the first instance, the court failed to distinguish that a real order for reimbursement was established prior to the assented to motion. The reliance of which was used by the RU to coerce and induce the Respondent to sign the assented to motion.
13. In the second instance, despite the fact that the Respondent may have agreed to the bill post haste the reality is the LAW specifically NH RSA 169 C:27 I (a.) … the court and/or the Petitioner have to established that the reimbursement was for voluntary services. They have not.
14. If the contract for services was valid – it was originally signed when reunification had been the established goal of the case between mother and child and set by this court under Judge Bamberger, on 11/09/05, when he issued an order for reunification to “commence immediately.”
15. Additionally, Judge Bamberger found the mother guilty of “dispositional neglect” for by ALL ACCOUNTS WAS due to a one time conversation. One that did not have the support of a single witness. This finding - is not a defined action that would entail a right to recovery under NH RSA 169 C or for that matter the involvement of DCYF or this court.
16. On 4/4/06 this court through Judge Bamberger breeched any contrived contract that would have been established with the order of 11/09/05. The breech occurred when Judge Bamberger issued another order on 4/4/06 “that reunification was not the goal of this case.” Behind closed doors Judge Bamberger obviously does not need to clarify, justify or have cause to present the reasoning.
17. Assistant Attorney General Glenn Perlow under Kelly Ayotte as Attorney General stated in other court documents and upheld by the Supreme Court and NH RSA 169 C:28 that the only opportunity to appeal a NH RSA 169 C case is at the adjudicatory hearing - which occurred prior to the change. Actually giving criminals more rights than families.
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FACTORS CONTAIN IN THE CASE FILE – NOT HEARD DUE TO THE COURTS NEED TO MEET AN 11AM APPOINTMENT:
18. Disclosures by Social Worker Kris Geno to provoke the courts order of 4/4/06 entailed that the mother was argumentative - actually - demanding that all weekly visits take place between her and her child and that only nine (9) visits since January of 2006 were cancelled as of the date of the hearing. Visits that were in fact court ordered – apparently charged for and never happened because the father and/or DCYF chose to cancel them.
19. Furthermore, Social Worker Kris Geno now of RTT associates in Manchester NH complained because the mother in this matter called her bosses Tracy Gubbins, Lorraine Bartlett and then Maggie Bishop of DCYF/DHHS to get her to follow the court order. The result that followed that hearing - included but not limited to an additional 18 cancelled visits by the division and father in this matter - aka William P. McIntosh, a Nashua School District teacher.
20. Of additional concern, a confirmation by email between Denise-Marie McIntosh and Tracy Gubbin for a visit on one day. Only to receive a call from Ms Gubbin’s the day before saying she had the child at DCYF why wasn’t she (the mother) there. The mother made it there, for being in the area, to find her then 7 year old child in tears because Gubbin’s had told him his mother forgot him. The child was held hostage and/or used a pawn – the real documentation proving the incident was given to Maggie Bishop who promoted Gubbin’s actions.
21. On 11/07/06 the Mother in this matter met with then Commissioner of DHHS John Stephen to discuss the missed visits and demoralizing infractions in this case as well as the bills. Stephen responded by asking the mother “if she wanted custody of her child or to talk about the bills” and gave his card and had his assistant Greg Moore show her out of his office.
22. This was followed up by a telephone conversation with DHHS employee Bob Boisvert who told the mother that if she talked about the bills or asked anymore questions he would be sure she went to jail. When the complaint went to Maggie Bishop – the follow-up was that he didn’t mean it as a threat.
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FACTORS preserved in the hearing of October 01, 2010
23. The court neglected to apply the standard set “Under NH RSA 169 C:27 I (c.) Which restricts the Department’s right to recovery to … per month or per week basis and shall continue from the time the services begin until 4 years beyond the time such services end …”based on their ability to pay showing that the time-period to collect is 279 weeks maximum. Services on this case started 8/15/05 through 12/06 there were no services provided during 2007. The calculation would be as follows:
> 4.33 x 16.5 months = 71 weeks for years of service provided
> plus the four years per statue = 4 x 52 weeks = 208 weeks
> 208 weeks + 71 weeks = 279 weeks that the Respondent can be billed.
279 weeks NOT the 627 weeks that the RU induced the Respondent to sign for and fraudulently represent that the Respondent was ordered to pay. This is in fact another form of double billing and validates the Respondent’s cross petition for production of evidence.
24. Detailed accounting has not been provided to the Respondent as asserted by this court, and proven through records submitted by the RU. Requests by the Respondent since 2006-2007 and subsequent years and specifically requested of the RU for this hearing for an accounting of federal reimbursements that the division of DCYF receives under Medicaid and the Social Security Act Title IV b subpart 1 & 2 and payments by the father William P. McIntosh and Lori Ayotte-McIntosh are not included. Child & Family and Southern NH Services are known to fall under these reimbursement areas. The chain of events would be:
I. Service Providers bill the State
II. The State pays the Service Providers, allegedly only when they follow up consistently
III. The State then submits for reimbursement from the federal government.
IV. The Federal grants and not loans - pay these bills within 90 to 180 days
V. The Reimbursement rate is 75% of the total
VI. HOWEVER, the RU is charging parents/in particular the Respondent 100%
25. Moreover the RU maintained during said hearing that the federal reimbursement was only for parenting classes – something the bill of $22,000 + does not even disclose.
26. The motion submitted at the end of the hearing on – October 01, 2010 to continue for the production of evidence is proper and in line with standard administrative practices of this court. Due to the RU’s suppression of evidence during said hearing, a motion to continue to produce/ for failure to prove, is not late but the only opportunity during the hearing since a good faith request to produce was not heeded.
27. Without the disclosure of funds paid by these grants and the father and step-mother payments. The court is imposing a much greater interest rate, than just the federal issue of a 75% increase in what is owed. Furthermore, it denies the Respondent’s entitlement under Federal Truth and Lending Law statute sec 164 to an accounting of prompt crediting of payments by all parties responsible for the bill. Equal to the right of truth in billing. The RU’s and courts reliance indicates that contentiously divorced parents would never question the bill, has been squashed.
28. This court’s order and the actions of all the named actors in this matter is one of collusion and conspiracy in its failure to have the RU justify and produce their real billing and it is a denial of the Respondent’s 14th amendment right to procedural due process, which has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.
29. The questionable actions of these “closed” proceeding’s can be seen when the misappropriation of funds surrounding the payment of the non-accused parent’s attorney paid by the RU and contrary to the 169 C was retrieved from this courts file on 2/27/10 only to be followed up with these results:
> Reported to the Attorney General’s Office on 3/4/10 by State Representative Alfred Baldasaro when presented by the mother in this matter.
> Followed by an unprovoked order by this Court specifically Judge Bamberger to the Respondent - again denying access to her court records on 3/22/10.
> All coincidentally in contradiction to NH RSA 170-G:8-2 II (3) the parent of the child named in the case record, as defined in RSA 169-C:3, XXI is entitled to review the records.
These actions are not coincidental but malicious in and of themselves then combined with the current order for contempt against the mother is a deprivation of rights under the color of law Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242., by supervising Justice Leary.
30. Under the Federal Freedom of Information Act and the NH Right to know law, the respondent is entitled to an accounting of Federal Funds received, payments by other parties and all accounting previously requested. The court’s offer to view in camera after showing it does not comprehend the process is arbitrary and a denial of due process.
31. Discovery is essential to this case, to satisfy the burden of proof that the billing is NOT erroneous. Documentation that the court refers to- is in fact requests by the Respondent to produce documentation since 2006.
32. Of notable mention is this courts scheduling of this past hearing – On October 01, 2010, at least 3 possibly 4 cases were scheduled at 8am, not indicative of a justice system serving community needs when the Respondent was forced to take a day off of work to attend and could have avoided it when the court did not hear her case until almost10am.
33. The courts declaration at the commencement of this matter, was that the bills in fact the entire matter ALL and the billing combined are confidential – this would impede the Respondents first amendment right to free speech, whether or not the information is contained in court records. Stanfield v Florida Dep’t Children & Families, 680 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1997).
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FACTORS CONTAIN IN THE CASE FILE ON 2/27/10 –
34. The end result of this matter prior to the billing was an order - that the mother not have unfettered access to her child on 11/27/2007. Well past the statues provision of one year and without the intent of reunification apparently ever. Mother and Child were solely separated due to the fact that others viewed the mother as argumentative and demeaning to the adults in the matter. The condition that alleged to have coveted the division of DCYF involvement was never sited as to have repeated. Custody and support of the children, is not a question to be determined upon the basis of the rights of the parties or used as a penalty or reward for their conduct. See Norman v. Norman 27 Wn. (2d) 25, 176 P. (2d) 349; Sweeny v. Sweeny, 43 Wn. (2d) 542, 262 P. (2d) 207; Olson v. Olson, 46 Wn. (2d) 246, 280 P. (2d) 249. Unwise trial tactics by a party cannot be permitted to adversely affect the welfare of children. Custody is not awarded as a reward to, or punishment of, either parent. Ketron v. Ketron, 15 Ark. App. 325 (1985).
35. The actions of this court and recent developments in access to the court records shows that besides the above the following inappropriate activities also existed in this case:
a) Dr SusanVonderheide, private practitioner in Nashua, NH, hired by the father in this matter was another principal actor - who contributed to falsifying disclosures of what the child was to have said to her. The initial report in this matter to the court by Tracy Rooke discloses that Vonderheide stated: “patient of two years … has always complained about his mother’s behavior during visits ….” On 7/26/05 Rooke reported she spoke to Vonderheide by phone who stated “she had a session with the Child named in this case the previous day … she stated the child would like to see his mother at supervised visitation center…felt it was child’s attempt of telling us he doesn’t feel safe with his mother.”
b) Dr. Susan Vonderheide patient notes found and copied on 2/27/10 apparently received by this court on 2/7/07 fail to mirror her disclosures to DHHS – one blatant example is the log for 7/25/05 the day before her above disclosure - her notes state “… child did not want to talk about his visits today, so I did not push him to do so.” All of her notes mirror that the child talked about sibling rivalry in his father’s family without substantiated documentation that the child said anything to her about the mother that she reported to the division and apparently overlooked or deemed irrelevant by the social workers involved.
33. This matter is of broad public interest, due in whole or in part to the closed door sessions. The entirety of the case brought forward on October 01, 2010 and herein warrants a FULL review. The heinous results of permanently separating a mother and child, when the Mother had no police record, proved beyond a reasonable that she had no mental illness that would impair her ability to parent, no drug/alcoholic addiction condition and supporters commended her involvement in the community. The results of this case leaving the if and when mother and child can see each other - to a father who admitted to dragging the mother down a flight of stairs and trying to strangle her, for which Judge Bamberger the same principal Judge in this case had awarded a restraining order approximately two (2) years earlier to the mother only to have it taken away by a Marital Master Alice Love in superior court when the order was transferred – under the guise it was not warranted because the mother fought back when she couldn’t breathe and kneed him – evidence suppressed by DCYF.
34. In conclusion, the RU failure to disclose re-opened this case and in order to proceed, all the facts of the matter – the compelling reason for DCYF’s initial involvement and why when the alleged action never repeated itself., Mother and a child of 6 at the start of this case and now 12 have been restricted to unfettered access. This entire matter demands a case re-evaluation by a Judge unattached to the matter.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court order:
A. Order that the Respondent is not in contempt and have the Reimbursement Unit simply do their job and attach the pay as previously ordered but at the statutory requirement of 279 weeks at $6.50 per week ref. NH RSA 169 C:I (c).
B. This matter is of broad public interest Order that the DHHS Reimbursement Unit provide the Respondent with the entire requested discovery, obtainable under the Federal Right to know laws and the NH Right to know laws and/or under current transparency laws.
C. When discovery shows the anticipated erroneous billing - that the court re-hears the matter upon a motion for reintroduction by the Respondent based on specific findings in discovery requests.
D. Due to the heinous and unspeakable actions of actors named in this motion to knowingly and with malicious intent seek the destruction of a mother/child relationship for unknown motivates, that the court rehears and/or reviews the REAL evidence and amends to grant custody/visitation back to the mother and hold ALL the actors responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
E. Grant such other relief as the court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
Denise-Marie McIntosh
Dated: November 01, 2010 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that a copy of the above Motion has been mailed to Matt Barrington, Reimbursement Specialist, DHHS Reimbursement Unit, on this day by USPS with a confirmation of mailing.
http://thetruthbitesnh.blogspot.com/
Information on the laws and issues affecting families in NH. Principal players to be aware of on issues of corrruption and greed. Updates in progress. Disclosure: The Information contained within is based on research in NH., And is not to be conscrewed as legal advice.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Current Matter in Nashua, NH District Court involving a Mother and Child - Facts Confirmed
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
NASHUA DISTRICT COURT Case 05-JV- , et al
In re
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON ORDER FOR CONTEMPT
And ORDER/ RULING ON MOTION FILED AT HEARING
NOW COMES, the Respondent, Denise M. McIntosh, pro se, who responds and states as follows:
1. The court erred in finding the Respondent in contempt.
2. The assented to order of 11/24/09, through this court “gave the Reimbursement Unit (RU) the right to garnish wages through automatic payroll deduction only.” Through no fault of the Respondent they did not.
3. The court’s manipulation of the facts in stating the Respondent as delaying meeting her statutory requirement is preposterous. The order that brought this matter forward is for the RU to start payroll deduction. All documentation has been provided to enable them to do that. The Cross Petition is for TRUTH IN BILLING.
4. The ability to enable a company to make payroll deductions rests solely with the Petitioner. The Process starts by mailing the following to the Respondents’ previously and repeatedly disclosed employer UPS:
I. The RU’s right to attach the Respondents pay by this court’s 11/24/09 order with a seal of authenticity
II. Requested attention on RU letter head to have pay attached
III. With instructions on where to wire/deposit money (account it goes in)
5. This is not something the Respondent can help them with – it’s standard procedure everywhere and they never gave the Respondent information on where to have her employer wire transfer the money. A Procedure routinely done with Child Support, by Family courts and possibly unfamiliar to this court.
6. The RU also failed to disclose the mother is indigent close to $60,000 in debt directly related to these hearings in district court. The Respondent cannot afford to pay any now alleged arrearages due to their neglect any more than she could before.
7. The cross petition has been accepted by the court and should stand on its own merit because it would have come in as a Motion/Petition for FRAUD due to new findings in this courts file on or about 2/27/10. Items resubmitted to the court illustrate that the non-accused father’s attorney was paid through the RU, an order clearly signed by Judge Bamberger and contrary to NH RSA 169 C:27 (f).
8. This Court failed to address why this was initially included in the mother’s bill and then redacted. Furthermore, the fact that it is a mis-use of public funds given to a non-indigent, non-accused Father seems to be a bias of Judge Bamberger who signed the order for his attorney to be paid but not for the accused mother’s attorney to be paid.
9. The RU since 2006 and now this court have suppressed evidence and given orders that do NOT support public confidence.
10. Whether or not the RU filed, the Respondent’s cross-petition for misappropriated billing. Under Title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act – the Respondent has a right to truth in billing including payments made by other parties on the same bill not to mention the actions under mail fraud.
11. Attorney Dennis J. Thiverge, assistant director of the Hillsborough County Department of Human Services, Goffstown, NH confirmed that William P. McIntosh and Lori Ayotte-Wilson were in fact paying on the bill and the amounts have yet to be disclosed, in November 2009 the RU affirmed and did not disclose amounts but attempted to take off charges without providing a new bill. In fact, Attorney Thiverge affirmed that William McIntosh has the exact same bill – but he stated “who cares because no one ever pays it back in full.”
12. In the first instance, the court failed to distinguish that a real order for reimbursement was established prior to the assented to motion. The reliance of which was used by the RU to coerce and induce the Respondent to sign the assented to motion.
13. In the second instance, despite the fact that the Respondent may have agreed to the bill post haste the reality is the LAW specifically NH RSA 169 C:27 I (a.) … the court and/or the Petitioner have to established that the reimbursement was for voluntary services. They have not.
14. If the contract for services was valid – it was originally signed when reunification had been the established goal of the case between mother and child and set by this court under Judge Bamberger, on 11/09/05, when he issued an order for reunification to “commence immediately.”
15. Additionally, Judge Bamberger found the mother guilty of “dispositional neglect” for by ALL ACCOUNTS WAS due to a one time conversation. One that did not have the support of a single witness. This finding - is not a defined action that would entail a right to recovery under NH RSA 169 C or for that matter the involvement of DCYF or this court.
16. On 4/4/06 this court through Judge Bamberger breeched any contrived contract that would have been established with the order of 11/09/05. The breech occurred when Judge Bamberger issued another order on 4/4/06 “that reunification was not the goal of this case.” Behind closed doors Judge Bamberger obviously does not need to clarify, justify or have cause to present the reasoning.
17. Assistant Attorney General Glenn Perlow under Kelly Ayotte as Attorney General stated in other court documents and upheld by the Supreme Court and NH RSA 169 C:28 that the only opportunity to appeal a NH RSA 169 C case is at the adjudicatory hearing - which occurred prior to the change. Actually giving criminals more rights than families.
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FACTORS CONTAIN IN THE CASE FILE – NOT HEARD DUE TO THE COURTS NEED TO MEET AN 11AM APPOINTMENT:
18. Disclosures by Social Worker Kris Geno to provoke the courts order of 4/4/06 entailed that the mother was argumentative - actually - demanding that all weekly visits take place between her and her child and that only nine (9) visits since January of 2006 were cancelled as of the date of the hearing. Visits that were in fact court ordered – apparently charged for and never happened because the father and/or DCYF chose to cancel them.
19. Furthermore, Social Worker Kris Geno now of RTT associates in Manchester NH complained because the mother in this matter called her bosses Tracy Gubbins, Lorraine Bartlett and then Maggie Bishop of DCYF/DHHS to get her to follow the court order. The result that followed that hearing - included but not limited to an additional 18 cancelled visits by the division and father in this matter - aka William P. McIntosh, a Nashua School District teacher.
20. Of additional concern, a confirmation by email between Denise-Marie McIntosh and Tracy Gubbin for a visit on one day. Only to receive a call from Ms Gubbin’s the day before saying she had the child at DCYF why wasn’t she (the mother) there. The mother made it there, for being in the area, to find her then 7 year old child in tears because Gubbin’s had told him his mother forgot him. The child was held hostage and/or used a pawn – the real documentation proving the incident was given to Maggie Bishop who promoted Gubbin’s actions.
21. On 11/07/06 the Mother in this matter met with then Commissioner of DHHS John Stephen to discuss the missed visits and demoralizing infractions in this case as well as the bills. Stephen responded by asking the mother “if she wanted custody of her child or to talk about the bills” and gave his card and had his assistant Greg Moore show her out of his office.
22. This was followed up by a telephone conversation with DHHS employee Bob Boisvert who told the mother that if she talked about the bills or asked anymore questions he would be sure she went to jail. When the complaint went to Maggie Bishop – the follow-up was that he didn’t mean it as a threat.
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FACTORS preserved in the hearing of October 01, 2010
23. The court neglected to apply the standard set “Under NH RSA 169 C:27 I (c.) Which restricts the Department’s right to recovery to … per month or per week basis and shall continue from the time the services begin until 4 years beyond the time such services end …”based on their ability to pay showing that the time-period to collect is 279 weeks maximum. Services on this case started 8/15/05 through 12/06 there were no services provided during 2007. The calculation would be as follows:
> 4.33 x 16.5 months = 71 weeks for years of service provided
> plus the four years per statue = 4 x 52 weeks = 208 weeks
> 208 weeks + 71 weeks = 279 weeks that the Respondent can be billed.
279 weeks NOT the 627 weeks that the RU induced the Respondent to sign for and fraudulently represent that the Respondent was ordered to pay. This is in fact another form of double billing and validates the Respondent’s cross petition for production of evidence.
24. Detailed accounting has not been provided to the Respondent as asserted by this court, and proven through records submitted by the RU. Requests by the Respondent since 2006-2007 and subsequent years and specifically requested of the RU for this hearing for an accounting of federal reimbursements that the division of DCYF receives under Medicaid and the Social Security Act Title IV b subpart 1 & 2 and payments by the father William P. McIntosh and Lori Ayotte-McIntosh are not included. Child & Family and Southern NH Services are known to fall under these reimbursement areas. The chain of events would be:
I. Service Providers bill the State
II. The State pays the Service Providers, allegedly only when they follow up consistently
III. The State then submits for reimbursement from the federal government.
IV. The Federal grants and not loans - pay these bills within 90 to 180 days
V. The Reimbursement rate is 75% of the total
VI. HOWEVER, the RU is charging parents/in particular the Respondent 100%
25. Moreover the RU maintained during said hearing that the federal reimbursement was only for parenting classes – something the bill of $22,000 + does not even disclose.
26. The motion submitted at the end of the hearing on – October 01, 2010 to continue for the production of evidence is proper and in line with standard administrative practices of this court. Due to the RU’s suppression of evidence during said hearing, a motion to continue to produce/ for failure to prove, is not late but the only opportunity during the hearing since a good faith request to produce was not heeded.
27. Without the disclosure of funds paid by these grants and the father and step-mother payments. The court is imposing a much greater interest rate, than just the federal issue of a 75% increase in what is owed. Furthermore, it denies the Respondent’s entitlement under Federal Truth and Lending Law statute sec 164 to an accounting of prompt crediting of payments by all parties responsible for the bill. Equal to the right of truth in billing. The RU’s and courts reliance indicates that contentiously divorced parents would never question the bill, has been squashed.
28. This court’s order and the actions of all the named actors in this matter is one of collusion and conspiracy in its failure to have the RU justify and produce their real billing and it is a denial of the Respondent’s 14th amendment right to procedural due process, which has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.
29. The questionable actions of these “closed” proceeding’s can be seen when the misappropriation of funds surrounding the payment of the non-accused parent’s attorney paid by the RU and contrary to the 169 C was retrieved from this courts file on 2/27/10 only to be followed up with these results:
> Reported to the Attorney General’s Office on 3/4/10 by State Representative Alfred Baldasaro when presented by the mother in this matter.
> Followed by an unprovoked order by this Court specifically Judge Bamberger to the Respondent - again denying access to her court records on 3/22/10.
> All coincidentally in contradiction to NH RSA 170-G:8-2 II (3) the parent of the child named in the case record, as defined in RSA 169-C:3, XXI is entitled to review the records.
These actions are not coincidental but malicious in and of themselves then combined with the current order for contempt against the mother is a deprivation of rights under the color of law Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242., by supervising Justice Leary.
30. Under the Federal Freedom of Information Act and the NH Right to know law, the respondent is entitled to an accounting of Federal Funds received, payments by other parties and all accounting previously requested. The court’s offer to view in camera after showing it does not comprehend the process is arbitrary and a denial of due process.
31. Discovery is essential to this case, to satisfy the burden of proof that the billing is NOT erroneous. Documentation that the court refers to- is in fact requests by the Respondent to produce documentation since 2006.
32. Of notable mention is this courts scheduling of this past hearing – On October 01, 2010, at least 3 possibly 4 cases were scheduled at 8am, not indicative of a justice system serving community needs when the Respondent was forced to take a day off of work to attend and could have avoided it when the court did not hear her case until almost10am.
33. The courts declaration at the commencement of this matter, was that the bills in fact the entire matter ALL and the billing combined are confidential – this would impede the Respondents first amendment right to free speech, whether or not the information is contained in court records. Stanfield v Florida Dep’t Children & Families, 680 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1997).
ADDITIONAL RELEVANT FACTORS CONTAIN IN THE CASE FILE ON 2/27/10 –
34. The end result of this matter prior to the billing was an order - that the mother not have unfettered access to her child on 11/27/2007. Well past the statues provision of one year and without the intent of reunification apparently ever. Mother and Child were solely separated due to the fact that others viewed the mother as argumentative and demeaning to the adults in the matter. The condition that alleged to have coveted the division of DCYF involvement was never sited as to have repeated. Custody and support of the children, is not a question to be determined upon the basis of the rights of the parties or used as a penalty or reward for their conduct. See Norman v. Norman 27 Wn. (2d) 25, 176 P. (2d) 349; Sweeny v. Sweeny, 43 Wn. (2d) 542, 262 P. (2d) 207; Olson v. Olson, 46 Wn. (2d) 246, 280 P. (2d) 249. Unwise trial tactics by a party cannot be permitted to adversely affect the welfare of children. Custody is not awarded as a reward to, or punishment of, either parent. Ketron v. Ketron, 15 Ark. App. 325 (1985).
35. The actions of this court and recent developments in access to the court records shows that besides the above the following inappropriate activities also existed in this case:
a) Dr SusanVonderheide, private practitioner in Nashua, NH, hired by the father in this matter was another principal actor - who contributed to falsifying disclosures of what the child was to have said to her. The initial report in this matter to the court by Tracy Rooke discloses that Vonderheide stated: “patient of two years … has always complained about his mother’s behavior during visits ….” On 7/26/05 Rooke reported she spoke to Vonderheide by phone who stated “she had a session with the Child named in this case the previous day … she stated the child would like to see his mother at supervised visitation center…felt it was child’s attempt of telling us he doesn’t feel safe with his mother.”
b) Dr. Susan Vonderheide patient notes found and copied on 2/27/10 apparently received by this court on 2/7/07 fail to mirror her disclosures to DHHS – one blatant example is the log for 7/25/05 the day before her above disclosure - her notes state “… child did not want to talk about his visits today, so I did not push him to do so.” All of her notes mirror that the child talked about sibling rivalry in his father’s family without substantiated documentation that the child said anything to her about the mother that she reported to the division and apparently overlooked or deemed irrelevant by the social workers involved.
33. This matter is of broad public interest, due in whole or in part to the closed door sessions. The entirety of the case brought forward on October 01, 2010 and herein warrants a FULL review. The heinous results of permanently separating a mother and child, when the Mother had no police record, proved beyond a reasonable that she had no mental illness that would impair her ability to parent, no drug/alcoholic addiction condition and supporters commended her involvement in the community. The results of this case leaving the if and when mother and child can see each other - to a father who admitted to dragging the mother down a flight of stairs and trying to strangle her, for which Judge Bamberger the same principal Judge in this case had awarded a restraining order approximately two (2) years earlier to the mother only to have it taken away by a Marital Master Alice Love in superior court when the order was transferred – under the guise it was not warranted because the mother fought back when she couldn’t breathe and kneed him – evidence suppressed by DCYF.
34. In conclusion, the RU failure to disclose re-opened this case and in order to proceed, all the facts of the matter – the compelling reason for DCYF’s initial involvement and why when the alleged action never repeated itself., Mother and a child of 6 at the start of this case and now 12 have been restricted to unfettered access. This entire matter demands a case re-evaluation by a Judge unattached to the matter.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court order:
A. Order that the Respondent is not in contempt and have the Reimbursement Unit simply do their job and attach the pay as previously ordered but at the statutory requirement of 279 weeks at $6.50 per week ref. NH RSA 169 C:I (c).
B. This matter is of broad public interest Order that the DHHS Reimbursement Unit provide the Respondent with the entire requested discovery, obtainable under the Federal Right to know laws and the NH Right to know laws and/or under current transparency laws.
C. When discovery shows the anticipated erroneous billing - that the court re-hears the matter upon a motion for reintroduction by the Respondent based on specific findings in discovery requests.
D. Due to the heinous and unspeakable actions of actors named in this motion to knowingly and with malicious intent seek the destruction of a mother/child relationship for unknown motivates, that the court rehears and/or reviews the REAL evidence and amends to grant custody/visitation back to the mother and hold ALL the actors responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
E. Grant such other relief as the court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
Denise-Marie McIntosh
Dated: November 01, 2010 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that a copy of the above Motion has been mailed to Matt Barrington, Reimbursement Specialist, DHHS Reimbursement Unit, on this day by USPS with a confirmation of mailing.
http://thetruthbitesnh.blogspot.com/
Adoptive Family Forced To Give Up Child-Back with Bio Father
An Indiana family was forced to give up their adopted child after losing a court battle in Ohio. Cheryl Parker reports.
LK: http://legallykidnapped.blogspot.com/2010/11/adoptive-family-forced-to-give-up-child.html#ixzz1r0ze0x1D
Monday, November 1, 2010
A Letter From A Mom
A Letter From A Mom
by Watchman Noyes on Monday, November 1, 2010 at 8:56pm
Hello all ..this is a letter from J4P's Mom sent to various politicians. She and JULY 4 PATRIOT have asked we post this on our sites. Please do pass this around, re-post it and share it. Thank you for reading. Posted with permissions from J4Ps Mom and J4P.
We have tried to talk to people but there is no person who will listen to us so, I decided I would write you and let you know my feelings. It seems that the American Citizen......is not allowed to have any feelings or beliefs unless they are agreed to by the government and may be arrested for them. Seems as though they are supposed to be quashed in these new days. I am old and remember when the United States was revered and everyone was proud to say, “I am an American”, at this moment I am not sure. Let me tell you my reasons.There is an agency set up by the American government to protect its smallest citizens from harm. They have regulations, laws and limits in writing. They tell me that they do not have to follow the laws, they are able to do whatever they want. They can take these young citizens without warning or evidence and hold them without warrant and without reason to force the parents to do something that the constitution says they do not have to do.The present situation is as follows:
1.Vengeful wife presses charges of rape of daughter on husband during a divorce.2.Husband and wife separated for a year, both are seeing other people.3.Husband then charged with weapon, found “not guilty” in Federal court.4.Husband has girlfriend with daughter and daughter found to have NOT been harmed by him by Child Protective Services.5.Child Protective Services suggests that he not be alone with child so child is either with her mother or his parents and never alone with him. (This arrangement was approved by Child Protective Services.)6.CPS decided that the accused had to take a 2 year voluntary counseling as a child abuser (in which he would have to admit guilt and the OK Supreme Court has ruled on such a case that it was unconstitutional and could not be required.)This could be used against him in his court case.7.The mother was told she needed to take a 6 month voluntary course for she and the child for non offender sex abuse classes (in which she would have to admit that she believed he was guilty and the OK Supreme Court has ruled on such a case and said it was unconstitutional and could not be required)8. Child Protective Services says the mother must see that the child is removed from the state for protection because the mother may have to go to the bathroom or take a shower and the child may be molested during that time. Said it was not because she was not a protective or bad mother but because she did not believe he was guilty.9.Judge refused to hold scheduled hearing and screamed at the mother and attorney in courthouse waiting area that she needed to “get in there and sign the papers,this is my case and I am not waiting” when the mother and attorney came to talk to the accused.10.Before any papers were presented to the mother to be signed (had to be written and presented to her attorney) the sister of the accused came from Tennessee, pape rwork was done and she took temporary custody and removed the child to Tennessee (original “suggestion” by CPS). She was met in Tennessee because the judge called a judge there and said he wanted the child returned to OK.11.The TBI looked at the paperwork and said it was in order and suggested she go ahead and enroll the child in school, which she did the following morning.12.The day the child started her new school she was taken kicking and screaming by CPS in Tennessee on orders of OK. (She was now far enough away from the accused that there could be no type of contact.)13.Child brought back to OK and hearing held. The mother was told that if the child’s grandmother was here from Chicago arrangements could be made the mother and her daughter to go to Chicago and the case would be dismissed.Arrangements were made and tentative rental of a U-haul to move all their possessions was acquired. During the court hearing all the things required of them were presented to the court. The child was not adjudicated deprived in the hearing and they had 4 days to make a final decision.14.On the fourth day the decision is made. The grandmother of the child said in court that she did not believe the accused is guilty so they refuse to let the mother and child go with her. Child has to remain in state custody. They will consider removing custody from the mother and giving it to the great-grandmother but she has to come to OK so they can talk to her and make a decision.
Here is where we are:There does not have to be evidence, in fact there can be no evidence of abuse, neglect or any type of harm to a child but the child can be removedand custody taken because they believe that some day there might be.It does not matter what the law states because they do not have tofollow it. In fact, they state that even if the accused is found“not guilty” they can call wherever he lives and tell the CPSthere that he is in the area and he will never be allowed to be withchildren for the rest of his life. He will be on “their list”and that is their right. This agency has total control, there is nooversight, there is nowhere to turn for recourse and there is no“common sense”.
America? When there is an agency that has total immunity and does not have to follow the law of the land, abide by the constitution and can take children away for no lawfulreason that is not what it sounds like to me.
RECAP: Unlawful kidnapping, holding hostage, ransom is admission of guilt.
These are things that are just not understandable for me. Please explain why this can happen in America. Sounds like a country I studied in school many years ago.How can this happen in a “free society” governed by laws and aconstitution.
Keep us in your prayers
J4P’s mom
by Watchman Noyes on Monday, November 1, 2010 at 8:56pm
Hello all ..this is a letter from J4P's Mom sent to various politicians. She and JULY 4 PATRIOT have asked we post this on our sites. Please do pass this around, re-post it and share it. Thank you for reading. Posted with permissions from J4Ps Mom and J4P.
We have tried to talk to people but there is no person who will listen to us so, I decided I would write you and let you know my feelings. It seems that the American Citizen......is not allowed to have any feelings or beliefs unless they are agreed to by the government and may be arrested for them. Seems as though they are supposed to be quashed in these new days. I am old and remember when the United States was revered and everyone was proud to say, “I am an American”, at this moment I am not sure. Let me tell you my reasons.There is an agency set up by the American government to protect its smallest citizens from harm. They have regulations, laws and limits in writing. They tell me that they do not have to follow the laws, they are able to do whatever they want. They can take these young citizens without warning or evidence and hold them without warrant and without reason to force the parents to do something that the constitution says they do not have to do.The present situation is as follows:
1.Vengeful wife presses charges of rape of daughter on husband during a divorce.2.Husband and wife separated for a year, both are seeing other people.3.Husband then charged with weapon, found “not guilty” in Federal court.4.Husband has girlfriend with daughter and daughter found to have NOT been harmed by him by Child Protective Services.5.Child Protective Services suggests that he not be alone with child so child is either with her mother or his parents and never alone with him. (This arrangement was approved by Child Protective Services.)6.CPS decided that the accused had to take a 2 year voluntary counseling as a child abuser (in which he would have to admit guilt and the OK Supreme Court has ruled on such a case that it was unconstitutional and could not be required.)This could be used against him in his court case.7.The mother was told she needed to take a 6 month voluntary course for she and the child for non offender sex abuse classes (in which she would have to admit that she believed he was guilty and the OK Supreme Court has ruled on such a case and said it was unconstitutional and could not be required)8. Child Protective Services says the mother must see that the child is removed from the state for protection because the mother may have to go to the bathroom or take a shower and the child may be molested during that time. Said it was not because she was not a protective or bad mother but because she did not believe he was guilty.9.Judge refused to hold scheduled hearing and screamed at the mother and attorney in courthouse waiting area that she needed to “get in there and sign the papers,this is my case and I am not waiting” when the mother and attorney came to talk to the accused.10.Before any papers were presented to the mother to be signed (had to be written and presented to her attorney) the sister of the accused came from Tennessee, pape rwork was done and she took temporary custody and removed the child to Tennessee (original “suggestion” by CPS). She was met in Tennessee because the judge called a judge there and said he wanted the child returned to OK.11.The TBI looked at the paperwork and said it was in order and suggested she go ahead and enroll the child in school, which she did the following morning.12.The day the child started her new school she was taken kicking and screaming by CPS in Tennessee on orders of OK. (She was now far enough away from the accused that there could be no type of contact.)13.Child brought back to OK and hearing held. The mother was told that if the child’s grandmother was here from Chicago arrangements could be made the mother and her daughter to go to Chicago and the case would be dismissed.Arrangements were made and tentative rental of a U-haul to move all their possessions was acquired. During the court hearing all the things required of them were presented to the court. The child was not adjudicated deprived in the hearing and they had 4 days to make a final decision.14.On the fourth day the decision is made. The grandmother of the child said in court that she did not believe the accused is guilty so they refuse to let the mother and child go with her. Child has to remain in state custody. They will consider removing custody from the mother and giving it to the great-grandmother but she has to come to OK so they can talk to her and make a decision.
Here is where we are:There does not have to be evidence, in fact there can be no evidence of abuse, neglect or any type of harm to a child but the child can be removedand custody taken because they believe that some day there might be.It does not matter what the law states because they do not have tofollow it. In fact, they state that even if the accused is found“not guilty” they can call wherever he lives and tell the CPSthere that he is in the area and he will never be allowed to be withchildren for the rest of his life. He will be on “their list”and that is their right. This agency has total control, there is nooversight, there is nowhere to turn for recourse and there is no“common sense”.
America? When there is an agency that has total immunity and does not have to follow the law of the land, abide by the constitution and can take children away for no lawfulreason that is not what it sounds like to me.
RECAP: Unlawful kidnapping, holding hostage, ransom is admission of guilt.
These are things that are just not understandable for me. Please explain why this can happen in America. Sounds like a country I studied in school many years ago.How can this happen in a “free society” governed by laws and aconstitution.
Keep us in your prayers
J4P’s mom
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)