Massachusetts (Connor B. v. Patrick) — Children’s Rights

Massachusetts (Connor B. v. Patrick) — Children’s Rights


Citing one of the nation’s highest rates of abuse of children in foster care and other persistent and severe problems throughout the Massachusetts child welfare system, the national advocacy group Children’s Rights and Boston law firm Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP – with the support of advocates and families throughout the state — filed a class action in federal court on April 15, 2010, seeking broad reform on behalf of 8,500 abused and neglected children statewide.
Naming six child plaintiffs who have been badly harmed in Massachusetts foster care, the lawsuit (known as Connor B. v. Patrick) charges the state’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) with violating the constitutional rights of children by routinely placing them in dangerous and unstable situations once removed from their parents’ care and failing to take necessary actions to meet the legal and moral obligation of the state-run child welfare system to ensure the safety and well-being of children in its custody.
According to the children’s complaint, the rate at which children in Massachusetts foster care suffer abuse in state-supervised foster homes and institutions is nearly four times the national standard. DCF further traumatizes children by moving them frequently between foster placements; one-third of children in state foster care get shuffled around to at least five different placements during their time in state custody, according to the complaint. The complaint also points to the state’s decade-long failure to adequately prepare and support families to be successfully reunified with their children in foster care.

NH Gov. Corruption-NH INSIDER- Your Source for NH Politics

NH INSIDER- Your Source for NH Politics - Guest Blogs - NH Gov. Corruption
NH Gov. Corruption

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 AT 03:23PM
My case is going to prove how deep the rot goes in the NH Government. I must continue to speak to publicize what these people really care about: Political Influence. We have an Ex-Chief of Police, Pickering, who would force two attorneys, Jennifer Haskell and Stanley Hawthorne to feign a breakdown in communication to abandon me days before important hearings and offer no referals. We have Pickering forcing Haskel to sign a bogus affidavit, which is now deleted/destroyed feigning I knew of no continuance so that Pickering, for the second time, could falsely arrest me before a custody hearing. We have GAL Mullen filling in for another GAL who withdrew because she was most likely approached to abandon me. We have me being accosted before the second custody hearing by two men with a bearknife as a silent threat as I waited for a taxi in Conway. We have a report by DCYF that didn't speak to a parents many neglect inquiries or past drug use but instead spoke to accusing me of having an issue with Pickering, an effort to gangup on me. We have a Washington state CPS worker who's every report said I was uncooperative in every coorespondence. They are investigating her office currently as well. We have Judge albee stating during court, to no one in particular "Don't go to the media"! We have my son in a coma and the mother found guilty of Physical Neglect. We have Brodeur penning a letter early on saying "you had better worry about the charges (bogus) against you as opposed to charges against Pickering". We have Colantuono supposedly watching to make sure court was as it should have been and his letter says "everything is legal". Law Enforcement can look to NH Goverment to look the other way and allow malfeasance of the sickest kind. I WILL LIVE FREE OR DIE and if your name appears in this piee and you want to meet me in a court OUTSIDE of your snakepit, BRING IT! If I seem bitter it is because I am, nobody is going to treat me and my children like this. Ayotte, you were contacted from day one, 2006 and you did nothing to stop this Fraud and Conspiracy, was it for the Law Enforcement vote? The words I have for you when I see you across a courtroom will be very ghetto......

Michael Holman

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW-Civil Rights Division Home Page

Civil Rights Division Home Page
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Summary:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Document Title IV-A funding

Document Title IV-A.rtf

Social Security, Welfare, and Child Support Enforcement

How federal welfare funding drives judicial discretion in child-custody determinations and domestic relations matters.

Get Back to the Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Reform (CSE Reform)



By Lary Holland and Jason Bottomley

February 2006



Introduction

There is a growing pandemic in this country where the very fabric of our society, the family, is being attacked and destroyed. Our children are systematically being torn away from willing and capable parents who want to be involved in parenting their children. Families are systematically being torn apart instead of being helped when they turn to the states' family courts to solve domestic relations disputes. This document demonstrates an attempt to trace this problem back to its source.



The topics and issues being discussed are quite complex because of the nature of the multiple welfare programs created within Title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA); so the authors have attempted to provide a simplified overview of how federal welfare funding motivates the state family court judges to remove a willful parent and create high child support orders.



The authors have spent a tremendous amount of time researching external economic factors that they believe drive judicial discretion and influence professional judgment in domestic relations matters. Through their research and experience, the authors have concluded that a relationship exists between the federal funding of state welfare programs and the determinations made by state family court judges presiding over child-custody and domestic relations matters. They believe that it is this relationship that de-emphasizes the importance of sharing parental responsibility, and instead emphasizes a manufactured public policy concerned only on the financial obligations of one parent - rather than on the real interests of the children involved.



The authors have also concluded that, while this relationship has successfully been masked behind what is commonly termed "the best interests of the child," the federal funding created within the Social Security Act provides clear monetary incentives to states that have a high-occurrence of one-parent households, where a child has the majority of access to only one of their parents. The authors believe that this "best interests of the child" standard is loosely subjective, gives unlimited discretion to state family court judges, and ultimately leaves a tremendous amount of room for abuse.



In simplest terms: State family courts are forcibly depriving children's access to a parent because it is a source of revenue for the states - and because they can.



Social Security Covers Welfare

The most basic component of the federal welfare system was originally created by the Social Security Act with the intent of providing assistance to families in which the parent who financially supported the family was absent due to death, or where a disability prevented that parent from providing for the family. Unfortunately, the welfare system has shifted away from providing assistance to needy families into a system of entitlement and abuse by both the state and the welfare recipient.



Welfare programs are a combined effort between federal and state government. Federal welfare programs impose voluntary guidelines on the states and provide block grant funding for compliance. These block grants similarly resemble how the states' are granted federal funding for enacting motorcycle-helmet and motor vehicle seat-belt legislation or risk losing substantial federal highway repair dollars. States are not required to participate in the federal welfare programs created within Social Security; state participation is strictly voluntary - but by not participating, the state is turning down extremely large sums of federal money.



Title IV (four) of the Social Security Act consists of four parts (A, B, D, and E) and provides for the annual appropriation of block grant funding to subsidize the operation of various state-level welfare programs as outlined in each part of the title as long as the states are compliant to the federal guidelines.



Title IV, Part A (or IV-A) is the most widely recognized welfare program, and is referred to as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.



Formerly known as AFDC, the TANF welfare program imposes federal guidelines to which all states must adhere in order to receive billions of dollars in federal block grant funding. This money is only available to a state when that state fully or substantially complies with these federally imposed guidelines. The complying individual states can use the money they receive to pay for the administration of their own programs, and to provide cash assistance to "needy" families pursuant to the federal guidelines.



The type of program described in Title IV-A is referred to as an entitlement program at both the state and welfare recipient level because it entitles the complying states to receive blocks of grant money, and it entitles the recipients who qualify to receive a certain amount of money as well.



Eligibility Requirements in Title IV-A (TANF) Exclude the Middle-Class

Eligibility must be proven in order to receive services and cash assistance through the IV-A TANF welfare program. The eligibility requirement, which uses income level as an indicator to demonstrate need, limits program participation to families with dependent children that show an actual need for income assistance. Not every person is eligible to receive cash assistance benefits and services through the TANF welfare program, and sometimes eligibility is limited to only the children of "needy" families.



Paternity establishment is one requirement, except in limited circumstances, that determines continuing eligibility of benefits to a recipient. If paternity is not already established or paternity is not actively being sought by the recipient, the recipient s portion of any cash assistance is reduced or even completely discontinued. If paternity is successfully established, the recipient is required to surrender and assign to the state any child support benefits established by court order.



Other eligibility requirements provide restrictions to the duration of Title IV-A benefits to 5 years and mandatory requirements for recipients to participate in certain work activities. Also, if the recipient is an un-emancipated minor with a child, the minor must be involved in schooling and be under the supervision of a responsible adult.



Welfare Reform

In the eyes of many, including Congress, the IV-A TANF welfare program has been widely abused since its inception. People have been known to alter their living conditions to fit the eligibility requirements in order to receive the cash assistance offered by the program. Abuse has prompted Congress to reform the entire Title IV welfare system by modifying the federal guidelines, changing how the states operate welfare programs - including who is eligible and for how long benefits may be received.



Attempts by Congress to reform welfare have caused the spurious growth of new and expanded programs within Title IV. In addition to other programs, Title IV currently includes a Child Support and Establishment of Paternity welfare program in Part D (Title IV-D).



The federal Title IV-D program makes large sums of grant money available to the states through the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). In Fiscal Year 2006, Congress appropriated $4,200,000,000 (4.2 billion dollars) for the states that operate programs in accordance with federal guidelines.



Child Support Enforcement is a Welfare Program

The purpose for the creation of the IV-D welfare program was to recover taxpayer money which was being spent by the federal government on needy families under Title IV-A (TANF). The intent of Congress was to slow the drain that the Title IV-A (TANF) cash assistance program had on the budget. The presumption was that single mothers with a high incidence of out-of-wedlock births were the proximate cause of the rising welfare expenditures. Congress attempted to shift the financial burden from their own budget to the parent who abandoned the family.



The result of Congress' intention was the creation of Title IV-D federally mandated guidelines, incentive block grants, and performance based grants being made available to the states for their operation of federally compliant programs. States that would comply with the federal guidelines made it a priority to collect money (termed as "child support") from willfully absent parents who had abandoned their parental responsibilities to their children. The goal was twofold: To reimburse the expense of providing public assistance to children who had been willfully abandoned by a parent (and thus forced to become dependent on public assistance to satisfy basic needs), and to ensure continued financial support from willfully absent parents with children that were at risk of requiring public assistance if they didn t receive support (to prevent them from requiring public assistance to satisfy basic needs).



In essence, the federal guidelines wanted the states to function as collection agencies, recovering financial support from parents who had willfully abandoned their parental responsibilities to their children. The result, however, was different from the intent and has caused the state welfare programs to adjust their environment to have a greater need, which has caused the program to collect from willing parents that would ordinarily provide a loving environment for their children absent a court order limiting a parent's involvement. Despite the original intent of the IV-D welfare program, it now provides an incentive for the states to use their family courts to produce forcibly absent parents in order to increase the states' IV-D welfare caseload.



Nonexistent Eligibility Requirements for IV-D Welfare Isolate Children from Willing Parents

There are no limitations for participation, or eligibility requirements for recipients of the Title IV-D welfare program. This lack of eligibility requirements has been used to trap otherwise willing and fit parents, particularly of the middle-class, into participating in this program for the purpose of increasing federal reporting numbers. The forced inclusion of the middle-class maximizes the federal block grants being allocated for the operation of each state's Title IV-D welfare program. The Title IV-D welfare model isolates children from an otherwise willing custodian.



The lack of any eligibility requirements for Title IV-D welfare services has caused exponential growth within this welfare program as well as in private professional sectors. In fact, an entire industry has evolved from the creation of the federal CSE program, which will be discussed later in this document. This entire private industry generates even more money from involvement in domestic relations disputes - turning a delicate private family matter into a money-maker for both the private and public sectors.



The lack of any eligibility requirements gives a huge financial incentive to every state to include middle-class divorcing parents, and to isolate a child from an otherwise willing and fit parent. By including the middle-class, state family courts and associated state agencies have expanded the operation of their Title IV-D welfare programs well beyond needy families. This lack of eligibility has led to the near complete inclusion of the middle-class, which has given a benefit to the state of larger child support awards to be collected from an otherwise willing and fit parent. The result is that children are being isolated from physical contact with a willing parent in lieu of financial gains enjoyed by the other parent, and by the state - all through the issuance of a court order.



The states have resorted to forcing parents involved in domestic relations matters into the welfare system either as wards of the state or as welfare recipients, whether or not either parent has actually willfully abandoned the child or requires public assistance. After the parents are included into the operating Title IV-D welfare program, one parent is then groomed into a role of non-custodial or forcibly absent parent. A court order is then issued against the now absent parent to pay child support through a state disbursement unit to the other parent who may or may not be equipped financially to run their own household in the first place - despite the other parent's ability to maintain an intact loving and caring household.



Inclusion of Middle-Class into Welfare = More Federal Funding

The exponential inclusion of the middle-class into the state operated Title IV-D Welfare System has facilitated and furthered a perceived need for increased funding from the federal government to the states. Because there is an overwhelming majority of middle-class parents that have child support automatically withheld from their paychecks, there is the appearance of a tremendously successful state run Title IV-D welfare program - and it causes even more federal incentive payments and reimbursement funding to be received by the states.



Even amidst cutbacks by the federal government for entitlement block grants and restrictions on the use federal incentive dollars as matching funds, the states' standing remains to gain billions in funding by including more and more of the middle-class in their welfare programs.



To be more specific: We believe that Title IV welfare programs actually encourage the diminishment of parents' roles in the lives of their children, and that these programs actually provide financial incentives for the breakup of the family - which is incidentally the exact opposite of the purpose of Title IV in reducing family dependence on government and encouraging safe and stable families.



The consequence of how and why the states receive federal funding is providing financial incentives to the state, its agencies, its human services professionals, and its family courts in general to create court-ordered child-support paying absentee parents wherever it can, and by whatever means available. The states' manufacturing of non-custodial parents maximizes incoming federal and state revenue redistribution. Similar to those who were accused of abusing the Title IV-A welfare program, which prompted reform, the states are now modifying their own environment in order to receive more federal money.



Creating Non-Custodian = More Child Support = More Federal Funding

Title IV created incentives for the states that were intended to reduce the occurrence of single parent households; however these incentives have caused an exact opposite result. Instead of looking to Congressional intent, one only needs to look at the results.



State family court judges, agencies, and both public and private professionals now have a pecuniary interest in establishing single-parent households in which the majority of a child s time is limited by court order to be spent with only one parent. There is now a disincentive for a child to be equally placed with both parents where those parents share equal responsibilities while maintaining their own homes and lifestyles. If the state family courts do not produce an absent or non-custodial parent through their orders, the courts would effectively exempt the state (and any associated professional beneficiaries) from receiving the billions of dollars in federal funding which is offered through compliance with federally imposed welfare guidelines.



Federal Funding: A Working Perspective

The U.S. Tax Payer is solely supporting the middle-class's inclusion in the Title IV-D program because there is no reimbursement to welfare. For Fiscal Year 2006, Congress has appropriated $4,200,000,000 (4.2 billion dollars) from the collection of federal and Social Security taxes solely to fund the operations of federally compliant state IV-D welfare programs. Despite a commonly held public misconception that child support enforcement activities are funded by the people within the system, the fact is that this welfare program is funded with the money that comes from the U.S. Taxpayer in the form of federal and Social Security taxes.



The federal funding is based on the reported needs of the multitude of federal and state bureaucracies operating within the IV-D welfare program. The need is further amplified by increasing the number of forced absentee parents being generated from the family courts each year.



In fact, an entire national special interest lobby comprised of judges associations; national child support enforcement associations (representing both private and public sectors); state bar associations; labor unions representing government employees; social workers associations; and everyone else with a stake in the multi-billion-dollar industry that the Title IV-D welfare program has created, exists solely to ensure that the current annual flow of federal funding into the states continues increasingly and remains uninterrupted.



The U.S. tax payer is supporting two-thirds of the federal expenditures associated with the inclusion of the middle-class in the operation of the state Title IV-D programs. The remaining one-third of the expenses for the inclusion of the middle-class is left up to the state and local governments - which again, is paid for with taxpayer money. The bottom line is that the federal, state, and local governments are footing the bill with our tax dollars for the inclusion of the middle-class in the state operated Title IV-D welfare program.



Federal Reimbursement Funding

Out of the total $4.2 Billion appropriated by Congress for the operation of federally compliant state Title IV-D welfare program, there exists unchecked federal reimbursement funding to the states for the following: 66% of the costs of their Child Support Enforcement (CSE) operational activities (which range all the way down to the activities of each of the states county prosecutors in domestic relations and paternity cases); 80% of the states costs related to the improvement of technology as related to CSE activities; and, most recently changed to 66% from 90% for the costs of genetic DNA testing in paternity establishment cases.



Reimbursement funding has no performance standards or requirements, so even the most ill-performing state operated IV-D welfare programs still get federally reimbursed for their lackluster and ineffective operations.



The massive federal funding available to the states have led judicial discretion, government agencies, and professionals to establish that it is now in the best interests of the child to limit the child's involvement with one of their own otherwise willing, capable, and available parents.



In essence, the more cases involving Title IV-D welfare services that a court can create, the more operational expenses it will endure, and the more federal funding it will be able to pursue and receive as a reward for undermining a child's involvement with one of their own parents.





Performance Based Federal Incentive Funding

Title IV-D also provides performance-based federal incentive funding to the states based on certain criteria that is used to measure the states' performance of certain program functions.



Incentive funding comes from the total funding appropriated by Congress for the operation of the CSE program ($4.2 Billion). The total incentive funding available to the states is a fixed amount per fiscal year. For FY2006, the total available incentive funding is $458,000,000; and each participating state competes for a share of this total.



Each state competes based on their performance measure of the following criteria:



The paternity establishment performance level.

The support order performance level.

The current payment performance level.

The arrearage performance level.

The cost-effectiveness performance level.



Conclusion

As Robert Burns once wrote in To a Mouse:



The best laid schemes o mice an men gang aft agley (which is popularly misquoted as: The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray).



Mr. Burns concept seems to be applicable to Congress intentions in Title IV-D as the intentions sound good, but the result actually undermines the stated purpose of Title IV welfare services.



The U.S. Tax Payer, including the poor, is currently footing the bill for the inclusion of the middle-class into state operated Title IV-D welfare programs because of the lack of eligibility requirements in the federally imposed guidelines. In order to strengthen families, and to better meet the goals of Title IV, it is imperative for eligibility requirements to be included in the federal guidelines to the states. Without eligibility requirements, states will continue to have an incentive to limit children's involvement with an otherwise willing, caring, loving, and fit parent.



The states are currently undermining the purpose of Congress' Title IV, which is to keep families together. It's a commonly held belief that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions Congress' intent may have been well-meaning, but the result has created another welfare abuser... the states.

RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CIVIL RULESRule 3.11. Motions.

Rule 3.11. Motions.

RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CIVIL RULES

Rule 3.11. Motions.

A. Motions for summary judgment shall be filed, defended and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of RSA 502-A:27-c and RSA 491:8-a as amended. Such motions and responses thereto shall provide specific page, paragraph, and line references to any pleadings, exhibits, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and affidavits filed with the court in support or opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Only such materials as are essential and specifically cited and referenced in the motion for summary judgment, responses, and supporting memoranda shall be filed with the court. In addition, except by permission of the court received in advance, no such motion, response, or supporting memorandum of law shall exceed twenty (20) double-spaced pages. The purpose of this rule is to avoid unnecessary and duplicative filing of materials with the court. Excerpts of documents and discovery materials shall be used whenever possible.

Where a plaintiff successfully moves for summary judgment on the issue of liability or a defendant concedes liability, the parties must provide the trial judge with a statement of agreed facts sufficient to explain the case to the jury and place it in a proper context so that the jurors might more readily understand what they will be hearing in the remaining portion of the trial. Absent such an agreement on facts, the matters of liability and damages cannot be severed.

If it appears to the court at any time that any motion for summary judgment, response, or affidavit has not been presented in good faith or has been presented solely for the purpose of delay, the court shall forthwith order the party and/or the attorney presenting it to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the motion, response, or affidavit caused the party to incur, including reasonable attorney's fees. Such additional sanctions may be imposed as justice may require.

B. Unless the opposing party requests a hearing upon any motion within ten days after the filing thereof, he shall be deemed to have waived hearing and the Court may act thereon.

C, D. Repealed.

E. (1) A motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall be filed within ten (10) days of the date on the clerk's written notice of the order or decision which shall be mailed by the clerk on the date of the notice. The motion shall state, with particularity, points of law or fact that the Court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the motion as the movant desires to present; but the motion shall not exceed ten (10) pages. A hearing on the motion shall not be permitted except by order of the Court.

(2) No answer to a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall be required unless ordered by the Court, but any answer or objection must be filed within ten (10) days of notification of the motion.

(3) If a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief is granted, the Court may revise its order or take other appropriate action without rehearing or may schedule a further hearing.

(4) The filing of a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall not stay any order of the Court unless, upon specific written request, the Court has ordered such a stay.

F. Any party filing a Motion for Summary Judgment shall provide the opposing party with notice, substantially as set forth in Form M, of the obligation to file an objection and supporting affidavit within 30 days.

FAMILY DIVISION RULES -- GENERAL PROVISIONS

FAMILY DIVISION RULES -- GENERAL PROVISIONS

RULES OF THE FAMILY DIVISION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SECTION 1 -- GENERAL PROVISIONS

These rules are established and relate to the Judicial Branch Family Division pursuant to RSA 490-D.
1.1 Scope and Application: These general provisions apply to all family division case types, unless otherwise stated. All references to “judge” include “marital master” unless otherwise stated.
1.2 Waiver of Rules: As good cause appears and as justice may require, the family division may waive the application of any rule, except where prohibited by law.
1.3 Waiver of Fees: The family division may waive any fee for good cause shown.
1.4 Open to the Public: Hearings in the family division are open to the public unless otherwise specified by statute or order.
1.5 Courtroom Conduct: Any person addressing the Court or questioning a witness shall stand, unless excused by the Court. No person shall approach the bench without permission of the Court.
1.6 Recordings: All hearings held in the courtroom shall be recorded electronically. Recordings need not be monitored unless a party files a formal request for a record and the trial judge determines that the procedures for monitor-less recordings will not adequately protect the record. In making this determination the Court should consider the quality of the recording device, the general sound quality of the courtroom, the nature of the proceedings, and the likelihood of a transcription request.
1.7 Clerk’s Office and Judge’s Chambers:
A. No petitioners, respondents, witnesses, police personnel, prosecutors, attorneys, or others shall be permitted into a Clerk's office or judge's chambers, except when necessary and as authorized by the Court.

B. Official business should be transacted in an area set aside as being accessible to the public for that purpose.

C. No person shall make any statement with regard to the merits of that person's case, orally or in writing, to any judge in whose court or before whom any case is pending or to be heard except in open court or in the presence of all parties.

D. Any person who shall make any such statement to any judge, except in open court or in the presence of all parties, may be subject to contempt proceedings under RSA 495:2.
1.8 Case Transfer:

A. Any case filed in one family division location involving a family that has another active case filed at a different family division location may be transferred to a single location upon motion by any party or upon independent action of the family division. A party wishing to transfer such a case shall file a motion to transfer with the proposed family division location, with a copy to the original family division location. A transfer of the case will take place only upon mutual agreement of both family division locations.

B. Parties who have cases filed in both family division and non-family division locations may request that one case or the other be transferred so that both may be heard at the same location. Similarly, either Court may, on its own motion, recommend transfer. A transfer of the case will take place only upon mutual agreement of both Courts. The request to transfer shall be filed with the court from which the case will be transferred.
1.9 Multiple Case Filings:

A. In the event that two petitions for divorce, parenting, legal separation, or other action are filed involving the same parties but at different family division locations, the court shall transfer one case, considering the second case filed to be a cross-petition in the same action. In deciding which location will retain jurisdiction, the Court will consider, among other factors, convenience of the parties and witnesses and the timing of the filing of the respective petitions.

B. In the event two such petitions are filed involving the same parties, one in a family division location and one in a superior court, upon motion of either party or upon independent action of the Court, and upon consultation of the Courts, and upon consideration of such factors as convenience to the parties and witnesses, the cases shall be heard in a single location.
1.10 Recusal: All grounds for recusal that are known or should reasonably be known prior to trial or hearing shall be incorporated in a written motion for recusal and filed promptly with the court. Grounds for recusal shall be immediately brought to the attention of the court. Failure to raise a basis for recusal shall constitute a waiver of the right to request recusal on such ground. If a record of the proceedings is not available, the Court shall make a record of the request, the Court’s findings, and its order.
1.11 Interpreters: If an objection is raised, no person who has assisted in the preparation of a case shall act as an interpreter at the hearing.
1.12 Scheduling: Parties are expected to attend court prepared to select dates for future hearings.
1.13 Computation and Extension of Time: In computing any period of time, the day of the act, event, or default after which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, as specified in RSA 288, in which case the period shall extend until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday.
1.14 Guardians ad Litem:

A. Certification by the New Hampshire Guardian ad Litem Board (referred to in this rule as the “Board”) in superior, district and probate courts is encouraged to ensure adequate numbers of guardians ad litem who are qualified to serve in all categories of family division cases.

B. At a minimum, persons serving as guardians ad litem in the family division must be Board certified as follows:

(1) For appointment in family division cases of divorce, legal separation, parental rights and responsibilities, guardians ad litem must be Board-certified in the superior court.

(2) For appointment in family division cases of juvenile delinquency, children in need of services, and abuse and neglect, guardians ad litem must be Board certified in the district court.

(3) For appointment in family division cases of termination of parental rights, guardianship of minors, or adoption, guardians ad litem must be Board-certified in the probate court.

(4) For appointment in family division cases of domestic violence, guardians ad litem must be Board-certified in either superior or district court.

C. Untimely-filed Guardian ad Litem Reports.

(1) A guardian ad litem who, without good cause, fails to file a report required by any Court or statute by the date the report is due may be subject to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than the amount of costs and attorneys fees incurred by the parties to the action for the day of the hearing. The guardian ad litem shall not be subject to the fine under this rule if, at least ten (10) days prior to the date the report is due, the GAL files a motion requesting an extension of time to file the report. See RSA 490:26-g.

(2) The Clerk shall report to the Guardian ad Litem Board all guardians ad litem who fail to file a report by the date the report is due. However, the report shall clearly indicate all such guardians for whom the court has found good cause for the late filing. The Clerk shall make such report available to the public.
1.15 Recommendations/Ex Parte Orders: Recommendations of marital masters may be approved in person, by facsimile transmission, by telephone or electronically. Such recommendations may be approved by any judge of the state, regardless of whether they are specially designated as family division judges. Any judge of the state may issue emergency orders for family division cases in person, by telephone, by facsimile transmission or electronically. All such orders shall be transmitted to the appropriate family division location upon execution. See RSA 490-D:9.
1.16 Appearances: A lawyer intending to represent a party must file a written Appearance.
1.17 Special Appearances: Special Appearances shall be deemed general thirty (30) days after the return day of the action, unless a special plea or motion to dismiss is filed within that time.
1.18 Non-Lawyer Representation:

A. No person who is not a lawyer will be permitted to appear, plead, prosecute or defend an action for any party, other than the person’s own case, unless of good character and until there is on file with the court:

(1) A power of attorney signed by the party for whom the person seeks to appear, witnessed and acknowledged before a Justice of the Peace or Notary Public, authorizing this person to appear in the particular action; and

(2) An affidavit in which the person discloses:

(a) all misdemeanor and felony convictions (other than those in which a record of the conviction has been annulled by statute),

(b) all instances in which the person has been found by any court to have violated a court order or any provision of the rules of professional conduct applicable to non-lawyer representatives, and

(c) all prior proceedings in which the person has been permitted to appear, plead, prosecute or defend any action for any party, other than himself, in any court.

B. Any person who is not a lawyer who is permitted to represent any other person before any court of this State must comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in Professional Conduct Rule 8.5, and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Professional Conduct.
1.19 Limited Representation By Attorneys:

A. Limited Appearance. To the extent permitted by Rule 1.2 of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney providing limited representation to an otherwise unrepresented litigant may file a limited appearance on behalf of such unrepresented party. The limited appearance shall state precisely the scope of the limited representation, and the attorney’s involvement in the matter shall be limited only to what is specifically stated. The requirements of Family Division Rule 1.24 shall apply to every pleading and motion signed by the limited representation attorney. An attorney who has filed a limited appearance and who later files a pleading or motion outside the scope of the limited representation shall be deemed to have amended the limited appearance to extend to such filing. An attorney who signs a writ, petition, counterclaim, cross-claim or any amendment which is filed with the court, will be considered to have filed a general appearance and for the remainder of that attorney’s involvement in the case, shall not be considered as a limited representation attorney under these rules; provided, however, if such attorney properly withdraws from the case and the withdrawal is allowed by the Court, the attorney could later file a limited appearance in the same matter.

B. Pleadings Prepared for Unrepresented Party. When an attorney provides limited representation to an otherwise unrepresented party, by drafting a document to be filed by such party with the court in a proceeding in which:

(1) the attorney is not entering any appearance, or

(2) the attorney has entered a limited appearance which does not include representation regarding such document, the attorney is not required to disclose the attorney’s name on such pleading to be used by that party; any pleading drafted by such limited representation attorney, however, must conspicuously contain the statement “This pleading was prepared with the assistance of a New Hampshire attorney.” The unrepresented party must comply with this required disclosure. Notwithstanding that the identity of the drafting attorney need not be required to be disclosed under this rule, by drafting a pleading to be used in court by an otherwise unrepresented party, the limited representation attorney shall be deemed to have made those same certifications as set forth in Family Division Rule 1.24 despite the fact the pleading need not be signed by the attorney.

C. Automatic Termination of Limited Representation. Any limited representation appearance filed by an attorney, as authorized under Professional Conduct Rule 1.2(f)) and Family Division Rule 1.19, shall automatically terminate upon completion of the agreed representation, without the necessity of leave of Court, provided that the attorney shall provide the court a “withdrawal of limited appearance” form giving notice to the court and all parties of the completion of the limited representation and termination of the limited appearance. Any attorney having filed a limited appearance who seeks to withdraw prior to the completion of the limited representation stated in the limited appearance, however, must comply with Family Division Rule 1.20.
1.20 Withdrawal and New Representation:

A. Subject to limited representation under Family Division Rule 1.19 and subject to Professional Conduct Rule 1.2(f), an attorney may withdraw at any time unless a hearing or trial is scheduled within 60 days. If a hearing or trial is scheduled within 60 days, an attorney must file a motion to withdraw.

B. Any motion to withdraw filed by counsel shall clearly set forth the reason for the request and contain a certification that copies have been sent to all other counsel or opposing parties, if appearing pro se, and to counsel's client at the client's last known address, which shall be fully set forth within the body of the motion. A factor which may be considered by the Court in determining whether good cause for withdrawal has been shown is the client's failure to meet the financial obligations to pay for the attorney's services. Notice by mail shall be sent to all counsel of record, or parties if unrepresented by counsel, and to the client of withdrawing counsel, at the client's last known address.

C. Upon receipt of a motion to withdraw and any related objections, the court will give the motion and any objections expedited consideration, rule upon the motion to withdraw, or schedule a hearing as promptly as the docket allows. If withdrawing counsel's client fails to appear at said hearing, the Court may, in its discretion, and without further notice to said client, grant the withdrawal, order the hearing date continued, or make such other orders as justice may require.
1.21 Pro Hac Vice Representation:

A. An attorney who is not a member of the Bar of this State (a “Nonmember Attorney”) who wishes to participate in any hearing must file an application to appear pro hac vice. The application shall contain the following information:

(1) The applicant's residence and business address;

(2) The name, address and phone number of each client sought to be represented;

(3) The courts before which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the respective period(s) of admission;

(4) Whether the applicant:

(a) has been denied admission pro hac vice in this State;

(b) had admission pro hac vice revoked in this State; or

(c) has otherwise formally been disciplined or sanctioned by any court in this State. If so, the applicant shall specify the nature of the allegations; the name of the authority bringing such proceedings; the caption of the proceedings; the date filed; and what findings were made and what action was taken in connection with those proceedings;

(5) Whether any formal, written disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against the applicant by any disciplinary authority in any other jurisdiction within the last five years and, as to each such proceeding: the nature of the allegations; the name of the person or authority bringing such proceedings; the date the proceedings were initiated and finally concluded; the style of the proceedings; and the findings made and actions taken in connection with those proceedings;

(6) Whether the applicant has been formally held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned by any court in a written order in the last five years for disobedience to its rules or orders, and, if so: the nature of the allegations; the name of the court before which such proceedings were conducted; the date of the contempt order or sanction, the caption of the proceedings, and the substance of the court's rulings (a copy of the written order or transcript of the oral rulings shall be attached to the application); and

(7) The name and address of each court or agency and a full identification of each proceeding in which the applicant has filed an application to appear pro hac vice in this State within the preceding two years; the date of each application; and the outcome of the application.

(8) In addition, unless this requirement is waived by the family division, the verified application shall contain the name, address, telephone number and bar number of an active member in good standing of the Bar of this State (the “In-State Attorney”) who will be associated with the applicant and present at any hearing. However, presence of New Hampshire Bar member may be waived by the Court.

B. The Court has discretion to grant applications for admission pro hac vice. An application ordinarily should be granted unless the Court finds reason to believe that:

(1) such admission may be detrimental to the prompt, fair and efficient administration of justice;

(2) such admission may be detrimental to legitimate interests of parties to the proceedings other than the client(s) the applicant proposes to represent;

(3) one or more of the clients the applicant proposes to represent may be at risk of receiving inadequate representation and cannot adequately appreciate that risk; or

(4) the applicant has engaged in such frequent appearances as to constitute common practice in this State.

C. When a Nonmember Attorney appears for a client in a proceeding pending in this state, either in the role of co-counsel of record with the In-State Attorney, or in an advisory or consultative role, the In-State Attorney who is co-counsel or counsel of record for that client in the proceeding remains responsible to the client and responsible for the conduct of the proceeding before the court or agency. It is the duty of the In-State Attorney to advise the client of the In-State Attorney’s independent judgment on contemplated actions in the proceeding if that judgment differs from that of the Nonmember Attorney.

D. An applicant for permission to appear pro hac vice shall pay a non-refundable fee of $225.00; provided that not more than one application fee may be required per Nonmember Attorney for consolidated or related matters regardless of how many applications are made in the consolidated or related proceedings by the Nonmember Attorney; and further provided that the requirement of an application fee may be waived to permit pro bono representation of an indigent client or clients, in the discretion of the court.
1.22 Testimony of Attorney or Witness:

A. No attorney shall be compelled to testify in any case unless provided with five (5) days’ written notice.

B. Witness Testimony: Witnesses may appear voluntarily on behalf of any party, or may be compelled to appear through the subpoena procedures set forth in RSA 516, et seq.
1.23 Pleadings:

A. Copies of all pleadings filed and communications addressed to the court shall be provided to all other counsel or to the opposing party if appearing pro se. When an attorney has filed a limited appearance under Family Division Rule 1.19 A, copies of pleadings filed and communications addressed to the court shall be furnished both to the opposing party who is receiving the limited representation and to the limited representation attorney. After the limited representation attorney files that attorney’s “withdrawal of limited appearance” form, as provided in Family Division Rule 1.19 C, no further service need be made upon that attorney. All such pleadings and communications shall contain a statement of compliance with this rule.

B. A no contact order in a domestic violence, stalking, or similar matter shall not be deemed to prevent either party from filing appearances, motions, and other appropriate pleadings with the court. At the request of the party filing the pleading, the court shall forward a copy of the pleading to the party or counsel on the other side of the case. Furthermore, the no contact provisions shall not be deemed to prevent contact between counsel when both parties are represented.
1.24 Pleading Requirements:

A. All pleadings and the appearance and withdrawal of counsel shall be signed by the attorney of record or an associate or by a pro se party. Names, addresses, New Hampshire Bar identification numbers, and telephone numbers shall be typed or stamped beneath all signatures on papers to be filed or served. No attorney or pro se party will be heard until an appearance is properly filed.

B. The signature of an attorney, or a party under oath, constitutes a certificate that the pleading has been read by the person signing the document; that to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not filed for delay. If a pleading is not signed, or is signed with an intent to defeat this rule, it may be stricken and the action may proceed as though the pleading had not been filed.

C. No exhibits shall be attached to pleadings unless necessary to support an affidavit.

D. If either party changes attorneys during the pendency of the action, the name of the new attorney shall be entered on the docket. Whenever the attorney of a party withdraws an appearance, and no other appearance is entered, the Clerk shall notify the party by mail of such withdrawal. If the party fails to appear by himself or attorney by a date fixed by the court, the Court may take such action as justice may require.
1.25 Discovery:

A. General. Unless specified in another section of these rules, these discovery rules apply in all family division case types. The Court, in its discretion, may limit or expand the scope of discovery in any case as justice requires.

B. Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things; permission to enter upon land or other property for inspection and other purposes; physical or mental examinations; and requests for admission. Unless the Court orders otherwise, or unless otherwise provided in these rules, the frequency of use of these methods is not limited.

C. Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise ordered, parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

D. Expert Witnesses.

(1) Within thirty (30) days of a request by the opposing party, or in accordance with an order of the Court, a party shall be required to supply a Disclosure of Expert Witness(es) as defined under Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence, which document shall:

(a) identify each person, including any party, whom the party expects to call as an expert witness at trial;

(b) provide a brief summary of the expert's education and experience relevant to the expert’s area of expertise;

(c) state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify; and

(d) state a summary of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.

The party shall attach to the disclosure a copy of any expert report relating to such expert.

(2) A party may discover facts known or opinions held by an expert, who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.

(3) Unless manifest injustice would result, (i) the Court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under subdivisions 1.25 D (1) and 1.25 D (2) of this rule, and (ii) with respect and with respect to discovery obtained under subdivision 1.25 (D) (2), the Court shall require the party seeking discovery to pay the other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.

E. Written Interrogatories.

(1) General. Any party may serve written interrogatories upon any other party, by mail or delivery by hand.

The parties may agree to transmit interrogatories electronically or by computer disk, enabling the answering party to provide answers directly after each separate question using the party's available word processing technology.

Interrogatories may include any topic not subject to privilege. Furthermore, it is not grounds for refusal to answer a question that the testimony would be inadmissible at the hearing, if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and does not violate any privilege.

(2) Notice. The party requesting the interrogatories shall provide the other party with notice of the obligation to answer the interrogatories within thirty (30) days. The notice shall be at the top of the first page and printed in capital, typewritten letters or in ten-point, bold-face print. The form of the notice shall be as follows:

Notice: These interrogatories are propounded in accordance with Family Division Rule 1.25. You must answer each question separately and fully in writing and under oath. You must return the original and one copy of your answers within thirty (30) days of the date you received them to the party or attorney who served them upon you. If you object to any question, you must note your objection and state the reason for your objection. If you fail to return your answers within thirty (30) days, the party who served them upon you may inform the court, and the Court shall make such orders as justice requires, including the entry of a conditional default against you.
Interrogatories may be served at any time after service of the action.

(3) Copies. The party serving the interrogatories shall furnish the answering party with an original and two copies. The interrogatories shall be arranged so that after each separate question space will be provided to enable the answering party to respond.

(4) Answers. Interrogatories shall be answered in writing under oath by the party upon whom served, if an individual, or, if a public or private corporation, a partnership or association, by an officer or agent who shall furnish all information available to the party.

Each question shall be answered separately, fully and responsively, such that the final document shall have each interrogatory immediately followed by its answer.

The party served with interrogatories shall provide the original and one copy of the answers, by mail or delivery in hand, to the party requesting them within thirty (30) days of receipt of the interrogatories. If, in any interrogatory, a copy of a paper or document is requested, only one copy need be included with the answers. If the copy is a report of an expert witness or a treating physician, it shall be the exact copy of the entire report or reports rendered by him, and the answering party shall certify that the existence of other reports of that expert, either written or oral, are unknown to the answering party and, if such become later known or available, the answering party shall serve them promptly on the requesting party.

(5) Extension of Deadlines. The parties may extend interrogatory deadlines by written agreement, provided any such extension is not inconsistent with discovery orders of the Court.

(6) Objections, Motions to Compel, Motions to Strike. If a party objects to any questions, that party may either answer the question by stating it is improper or may, within twenty (20) days after the service of interrogatories, move to strike any question, setting out the specific grounds of objection. The answering party shall make timely answer, however, to all questions to which that party does not object. All other interrogatories shall nonetheless be answered within the thirty days allowed, or within such time as the Court directs.

The party requesting the interrogatories who receives a response that one or more questions are improper, may within twenty (20) days, move to compel answer(s) to the question(s), and, if the motion is granted, the question(s) shall be answered within such time as the Court directs.

If a party, who is served with interrogatories requesting copies of papers, objects to furnishing them, that party may either state with specificity the reasons for non-compliance or invite the party seeking the copies to inspect and copy the papers at a designated time and place. The party seeking a copy of a paper which is not provided may within twenty (20) days of receipt of the answers file a motion seeking compliance.

Motions to strike interrogatories or to compel more specific answers shall include a statement summarizing the nature of the action and shall include the text of the questions and answers, if any, objected to.

When objections are made to interrogatories or requests for admissions, before there is any hearing regarding the objections, counsel for the parties shall attempt in good faith to settle the objections. It shall be the responsibility of counsel for the objecting party to initiate such attempt and to notify the Clerk if the objections are settled. If, following such conference, counsel are unable to settle objections, counsel for the objecting party shall notify the Clerk and request a hearing.

Where an objection to an interrogatory has been withdrawn or has been overruled by the Court, the answer to the interrogatory shall be provided within ten (10) days.

(7) Frivolous Motions. If the Court finds that a motion, which is made pursuant to this rule, was made frivolously or for the purpose of delay or was necessitated by action of the adverse party that was frivolous or taken for the purpose of delay, the Court may order the offending party to pay the amount of reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the other party in making or resisting the motion.

(8) Limitations on Number of Interrogatories. A party may file more than one set of interrogatories to an adverse party, but the total number of interrogatories shall not exceed fifty (50), unless the Court otherwise orders for good cause shown after the proposed additional interrogatories have been filed. In determining what constitutes an interrogatory for the purpose of applying this limitation in number, it is intended that each question be counted separately, whether it is subsidiary or incidental to or dependent upon or included in another question, and however the questions may be grouped, combined or arranged.

The other party shall have the same privileges in answering written interrogatories as the deponent in the taking of a deposition.

(9) Supplementation of Responses. If a party, who has furnished answers to interrogatories, thereafter obtains information which renders such answers incomplete or inaccurate, amended answers shall be served in accordance with Family Division Rule 1.25 J.

(10) Use of Interrogatories. Interrogatories and answers may be used at the hearing to the same extent as depositions. If less than all of the interrogatories and answers are marked or read into evidence by a party, an adverse party may read into evidence any other of the interrogatories and answers or parts necessary for a fair understanding of the parts read into evidence.

Neither the interrogatories nor the answers need be filed with the Clerk unless the Court so directs.

(11) Failure to Answer. If the party, upon whom interrogatories have been served, fails to answer the interrogatories within thirty (30) days, unless written objection to the answering of the interrogatories is filed within that period, such failure will result in a conditional default being entered by the Clerk upon motion being filed indicating such failure to answer. The party failing to answer shall receive notice of the conditional default. The conditional default shall be vacated if the defaulted party answers the interrogatories within ten (10) days of receiving notice and moves to strike the conditional default. If the defaulted party fails to move to strike the conditional default within ten (10) days of receiving notice, the adverse party may move to have a default judgment entered and damages assessed. If, upon review of an affidavit of damages, the Court determines that it does not provide a sufficient basis for determining damages, the Court may, upon its own motion, order a hearing.

F. Request for Admissions

(1) Any party may ask the other to admit certain facts or the genuineness of documents or signatures by submitting a request for admissions with the court. If the request for admissions seeks the admission of the genuineness of documents or signatures, the documents and/or signatures shall be attached to the request. Copies of the complete request as filed with the court shall be delivered by mail or in hand to the other party.

(2) Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall be considered to be admitted unless within 30 days after delivery of the request to the other party, the other party files with the clerk and delivers a copy by mail or in hand to the party requesting such admission, or to that party’s attorney, either a sworn denial or a written objection on the ground of privilege or that the request is otherwise improper. If an objection is made to part of a request, the remainder shall be answered within the time limit. When good faith requires that a party qualify an answer, or deny only part of the matter, the party shall specify so much of the answer as is true, or qualify or deny the remainder.

G. Depositions.

Notice shall be provided to any person whose deposition is requested. Twenty (20) days notice is considered reasonable in all cases, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

Every notice of a deposition to be taken within the State shall contain the name of the stenographer/professional proposed to record the testimony.

When a statute requires formal notice of the taking of depositions to be given to the adverse party, it may be given to such party or the party's attorney of record. Notices given pursuant to this rule may be given by mail or by service in hand. See RSA 517 et seq.

The questions and answers shall be taken in shorthand or other form of verbatim reporting approved by the Court and transcribed by a competent stenographer/professional agreed upon by the parties or their attorneys. In the absence of such agreement, the stenographer/professional shall be designated by the Court. Failure to object in writing to a stenographer in advance of the taking of a deposition shall be deemed agreement to the stenographer/professional recording the testimony.

No deposition, as transcribed, shall be changed or altered, but any alleged errors may be set forth in a separate document attached to the original and copies.

Upon motion, the Court may order the filing of depositions, and, upon failure to comply with such order, the Court may take such action as justice may require.

The signature of a person outside the State, acting as an officer legally empowered to take depositions or affidavits, with an appropriate seal affixed, where one is required, to the certificate of an oath administered by him in the taking of affidavits or depositions, will be prima facie evidence of this person’s authority.

The person being deposed shall ordinarily be required to answer all questions not subject to privilege or excused by the statute relating to depositions, and it is not grounds for refusal to answer a particular question that the testimony would be inadmissible at the trial if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and does not violate any privilege.

If any person being deposed refuses to answer any question asked in the deposition, the party asking the question may request an order of the Court compelling an answer. If the motion is granted, and if the Court finds that the refusal was without substantial justification or was frivolous or unreasonable, the Court may, and ordinarily will, require the person deposed and the party or attorney advising the refusal, or either of them, to pay the examining or requesting party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including reasonable attorneys fees. If the motion is denied and if the Court finds that the motion was made without substantial justification or was frivolous or unreasonable, the Court may, and ordinarily will, require the examining party or the attorney advising the motion, or both of them, to pay to the witness the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including reasonable attorneys fees.

H. Use of Videotape Depositions.

The Court, within its discretion, may allow the use of videotape depositions that have been taken by agreement; and provided further that, if the parties cannot reach such an agreement, the Court may, in its discretion, order the taking and/or use of such depositions. At the commencement of the videotape deposition, counsel representing the person deposed should state whose deposition it is, what case it is being taken for, where it is being taken, who the lawyers are that will be asking the questions, and the date and the time of the deposition. Care should be taken to have the witnesses speak slowly and distinctly and that papers be readily available for reference without undue delay and unnecessary noise. Counsel and witnesses shall comport themselves at all times as if they were actually in the courtroom.

If any problem arises as to the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence, this should be handled in the same manner as written interrogatories.

A party objecting to a question asked of, or an answer given by, a witness whose testimony is being taken by videotape shall provide the court at the pretrial conference with a transcript of the videotape proceedings that is sufficient to enable the Court to act upon the objection before the hearing, or the objection shall be deemed waived.

I. Limits on Discovery. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the Court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:

(1) that the discovery not be had;

(2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;

(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;

(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters;

(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the Court;

(6) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the Court;

(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; and

(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the Court.


If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the Court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.

J. Supplementation of Responses. A party who has responded to a request for discovery with a response that was complete when made is under a continuing duty to supplement responses to include information thereafter acquired, as follows:

(1) A party is under a duty to supplement responses concerning any question regarding the identity:

(a) and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters; and

(b) of each person expected to be called as an expert witness, the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and the substance of the testimony.

(2) A party is under a duty to amend a prior response if it is known that the response:

(a) was incorrect when made; or

(b) though correct when made, is no longer true.

K. Discovery Deadlines. The discovery dates established at a scheduling conference or other hearing are Court orders and may not be extended by the parties without written permission of the Court.

L. Abuse of Discovery. The Court, in its discretion, may sanction any party including through the use of fees and costs, for abusing the discovery process.
1.26 Motions:

A. Parties may not address written communications directly to the judge. All requests shall be by properly filed motion with certification of delivery of a copy of the motion to the other party, unless jointly filed. No exhibits shall be attached to motions unless necessary to support an affidavit.

B. The court will not hear any motion based upon facts unless the facts are verified by affidavit, or are already contained in the court record. No exhibits shall be attached to motions unless necessary to support an affidavit. The same rule will be applied as to all facts relied upon in objections to any motions.

C. Any party filing a motion shall certify to the court that a good faith attempt has been made to obtain concurrence in the relief sought, except in the case of dispositive motions, motions for contempt or sanctions, or comparable motions where it can be reasonably assumed that the party or counsel will be unable to obtain concurrence.

D. Motions to which all parties assent or concur will be ruled upon as court time permits.

E. Motions that are not assented to will be held for 10 days from the filing date of the motion to allow other parties time to respond, unless justice requires an earlier Court ruling.

F. Motions to Reconsider: A motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall be filed within ten (10) days of the date on the Clerk’s written notice of the order or decision, which shall be mailed by the Clerk on the date of the notice. The motion shall state, with particular clarity, points of law or fact that the Court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the motion as the movant desires to present; but the motion shall not exceed ten (10) pages. A hearing on the motion shall not be permitted except by order of the Court.

No answer to a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall be required unless ordered by the Court, but any answer or objection must be filed within ten (10) days of notification of the motion.

If a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief is granted, the court may schedule a further hearing.

The filing of a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall not stay any order of the Court unless, upon specific written request, the Court has ordered such a stay.
1.27 Continuances:

A. Except for the initial hearing in a case or for an emergency hearing, hearing dates are generally selected by agreement of the parties and the court. Therefore, motions to continue will usually be denied, except for good cause shown. The Court may condition the granting of a motion to continue on a requirement that the moving party obtain a date and time agreeable to all other parties and the court.

B. For hearings scheduled by the court without input from the parties, motions to continue shall be filed within ten (10) days from the date of the mailing of the notice of a hearing.

C. Any motion to continue filed by counsel shall contain a certification that the client has been notified of the reasons for the continuance, has assented to the motion, and has been forwarded a copy of the motion.

D. A motion to continue based upon the unavailability of a material witness must be supported by an affidavit containing the name of the material witness, the anticipated content of the testimony, what has been done to procure the attendance of the witness, including the date the request was initially made of the witness to testify, and a statement that the adverse party will not admit to the facts without the presence of the witness. The same rule shall apply with regard to the unavailability of a material document or other evidence.

E. Priority of Scheduling. Where a hearing has been scheduled in one case prior to the scheduling of another hearing, the case scheduled first shall take priority over the subsequently scheduled cases, except as follows:

(1) to accommodate a subsequently scheduled case involving a jury trial in state or federal court, or argument before the New Hampshire Supreme Court or any federal appellate court;

(2) to comply with the hearing requirements of RSA 169-B, C, or D;

(3) to comply with the hearing requirements of RSA 173-B; or

(4) if unusual circumstances cause the respective Courts to agree that an order of precedence other than the above shall take place.
1.28 Offers of Proof:

A. When making an offer of proof, an attorney represents to the Court that the witness or document which is the subject of the offer has been examined by the attorney and the attorney reasonably believes, taking into account all that is known about the case, that the evidence is not false, is admissible through a witness who could testify under oath to establish the point for which it is offered, and is not offered for a frivolous purpose. In an ex parte proceeding, the attorney also represents that any offer of proof has been accompanied by a sworn statement of all material facts known to the attorney which will enable the Court to make an informed decision of the issues presented.

B. When the Court exercises discretion to receive evidence by offers of proof, the following procedure shall be employed:

(1) an offer of proof as to the testimony of a witness shall be received only if that witness is in the courtroom at the time of the offer, and that witness would testify to the same information under oath if asked;

(2) any witness whose testimony is presented by offer of proof may be cross-examined by the opposing party, subject to the discretion of the Court; and

(3) where credibility is challenged, or for any purpose in the Court’s discretion, the Court may question the witness or require the witness’ proof be presented from the witness stand.

C. If evidence could have been accepted by the Court without the necessity of testimony under oath from a witness for its introduction, for example when the parties have agreed, that evidence may also be received by offer of proof without the presence of the witness in court.

D. Requests for restraining orders against any person should not be presented by offers of proof.
1.29 Regulation of Media and Other Coverage in the Courtroom:

A. The Court should generally permit the media to photograph, record and broadcast all courtroom proceedings that are open to the public. The Court may limit electronic media coverage if there is a substantial likelihood of harm to any person or other harmful consequence. Except as specifically provided in this rule, or by order of the Court, no person shall within the courtroom take any photograph, make any recording, or make any broadcast by radio, television or other means in the course of any proceeding.

B. Official court reporters and authorized recorders, are not prohibited by section (A) of this rule from making voice recordings for the sole purpose of discharging their official duties.

C. Proposed Limitations on Coverage by the Electronic Media. Any party to a court proceeding – or any other interested person – shall notify the court at the inception of a matter, or as soon as practicable, if that person intends to ask the Court to limit electronic media coverage of any proceeding that is open to the public. Failure to notify the court in a timely fashion may be sufficient grounds for the denial of such a request. In the event of such a request, the Court shall either deny the request or issue an order notifying the parties to the proceeding and all other interested persons that such a limitation has been requested, establish deadlines for the filing of written objections by parties and interested persons, and order an evidentiary hearing during which all interested persons will be heard. The same procedure for notice and hearing shall be utilized in the event that the Court sua sponte proposes a limitation on coverage by the electronic media. A copy of the Court's order shall, in addition to being incorporated in the case docket, be sent to the Associated Press, which will disseminate the Court's order to its members and inform them of upcoming deadlines/hearing.

D. Advance Notice of Requests for Coverage. Any requests to bring cameras, broadcasting equipment and recording devices into a New Hampshire courtroom for coverage of any court proceedings shall be made as far in advance as practicable. If no objection to the requested electronic coverage is received by the court, coverage shall be permitted in compliance with this rule. If an objection is made, the media will be so advised and the court will conduct an evidentiary hearing during which all interested parties will be heard to determine whether, and to what extent, coverage by the electronic media or still photography will be limited. This rule and procedures also apply to all court procedures conducted outside the courtroom or the court facility.

E. Pool Coverage. The Court retains discretion to limit the number of still cameras and the amount of video equipment in the courtroom at one time and may require the media to arrange for pool coverage. The court will allow reasonable time prior to a proceeding for the media to set up pool coverage for television, radio and still photographers providing broadcast quality sound and video.

(1) It is the responsibility of the news media to contact the court Clerk in advance of a proceeding to determine if pool coverage will be required. If the Court has determined that pool coverage will be required, it is the sole responsibility of the media, with assistance as needed from the court Clerk, to determine which news outlet will serve as the “pool.” Disputes about pool coverage will not be resolved by the Court. Access may be curtailed if pool agreements cannot be reached.

(2) In the event of multiple requests for media coverage, because scheduling renders a pool agreement impractical, the court Clerk retains the discretion to rotate media representatives into and out of the courtroom.

F. Live Feed. Except for good cause shown, requests for live coverage should be made at least five (5) days in advance of a proceeding.

G. Exhibits. For purposes of this rule, access to exhibits will be at the discretion of the Court. The Court retains the discretion to make one “media” copy of each exhibit available in the court Clerk’s office.

H. Equipment. Exact locations for all video and still cameras, and audio equipment within the courtroom will be determined by the Court. Movement in the courtroom is prohibited, unless specifically approved by the Court.

(1) Placement of microphones in the courtroom will be determined by the presiding judge. An effort should be made to facilitate broadcast quality sound. All microphones placed in the courtroom will be wireless.

(2) Video and photographic equipment must be of professional quality with minimal noise so as not to disrupt the proceedings; flash equipment and other supplemental lighting or sound equipment is prohibited unless otherwise approved by the presiding judge.

I. Restrictions. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the following standing orders shall govern:

(1) No flash or other lighting devices will be used.

(2) Set up and dismantling of equipment is prohibited when court is in session.

(3) No camera movement during court session.

(4) No cameras permitted behind the defense table.

(5) Broadcast equipment will be positioned so that there will be no audio recording of conferences between attorney and client or among counsel and the presiding judge at the bench. Any such recording is prohibited.

(6) Photographers and videographers must remain a reasonable distance from parties, counsel tables, alleged victims, witnesses and families unless the trial participant voluntarily approaches the camera position.

(7) All reporters and photographers will abide by the directions of the court officers at all times.

(8) Broadcast or print interviews will not be permitted inside the courtroom before or after a proceeding.

(9) Photographers, videographers and technical support staff covering a proceeding shall avoid activity that might distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings.

(10) Appropriate dress is required.

Comment

As the New Hampshire Supreme Court stated in Petition of WMUR Channel 9, 148 N.H. 644 (2002), a presiding judge should permit the media to photograph, record and broadcast all courtroom proceedings that are open to the public. A judge may limit electronic media coverage if there is a substantial likelihood of harm to any person or other harmful consequences. Closure of proceedings to the electronic media, however, should occur only if four requirements are met:

(1) Closure advances an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced;

(2) The closure ordered is no broader than necessary to protect that interest;

(3) The judge considers reasonable alternatives to closing the proceedings; and

(4) The judge makes particularized findings to support the closure on the record.

It is the presiding judge's responsibility to ensure that trials are conducted in a fair and impartial manner, free from undue pressures and outside influences. Similarly, the presiding judge has a responsibility to the public and the press to provide reasonable access to judicial proceedings. Above all, trials must be conducted in an atmosphere of dignity and decorum.

In Petition of WMUR Channel 9, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held, among other things, that the presiding judge can limit electronic media coverage if there is a substantial likelihood of harm to any person or other harmful consequences. The Supreme Court required that trial court orders restricting coverage be: (1) based on clearly articulated findings of fact; (2) made after an evidentiary hearing during which all interested parties are entitled to be heard; (3) drawn narrowly to address a particular problem; and (4) imposed only when no other practical alternative is available.
1.30 Access To Confidential Records – Fees And Notice: Any person or entity not otherwise entitled to access may file a motion or petition to gain access to:

A. A financial affidavit filed pursuant to Family Division Rule 2.16 and kept confidential under RSA 458:15-b, I, or RSA 461-A:3.

B. Any other sealed or confidential court record. See Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121 (1992).

Filing Fee: There shall be no filing fee for such a motion or petition.

Notice: In open cases, the person filing such a motion shall provide the parties to the proceeding with notice of the motion by first class mail to the last mail addresses on file with the Clerk. In closed cases, the Court shall order that the petitioner notify the parties of the petition to grant access by certified mail to the last known address of each party, return receipt requested, restricted delivery, signed by the addressee only, unless the Court expressly determines that another method of service is necessary in the circumstances.
1.31 Appeals to the Supreme Court:

A. When a question of law is to be transferred after a decision on the merits, all appeals shall be deemed waived and final judgment shall be entered on the thirty-first (31st) day from the date on the Clerk's written notice that the Court has made the decision on the merits, unless the party aggrieved enters a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court within thirty days from the date on the Clerk's written notice of the Court's decision that aggrieves the party, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7, and mails the number of copies provided for by the rules of the Supreme Court to its Clerk. The Court shall not grant any requests for extensions of time to file an appeal document in the Supreme Court or requests for late entry of an appeal document in the Supreme Court; such requests shall be filed with the Supreme Court. See Supreme Court Rule 21(6).

B. Whenever any question of law is to be transferred by interlocutory appeal from a ruling or by interlocutory transfer without ruling, counsel shall prepare and file with the Clerk of the family division the interlocutory appeal statement or interlocutory transfer statement pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 8 and Supreme Court Rule 9, and after the Court has signed the statement, counsel shall mail the number of copies provided for by the rules of the Supreme Court to its Clerk.

New Hampshire Statutes - Table of Contents-FRAUD

New Hampshire Statutes - Table of Contents
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 638: FRAUD

Section 638:1 Forgery.
Section 638:2 Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writings.
Section 638:3 Tampering With Public or Private Records.
Section 638:4 Issuing Bad Checks.
Section 638:5 Fraudulent Use of Credit Card.
Section 638:5-a Fraudulent Communications Paraphernalia.
Section 638:6 Deceptive Business Practices.
Section 638:6-a Dealing in Counterfeit Recordings.
Section 638:6-b Dealing in Counterfeit Goods.
Section 638:7 Commercial Bribery.
Section 638:8 Sports Bribery.
Section 638:9 Fraud on Creditors.
Section 638:10 Frauds on Depositors.
Section 638:11 Misapplication of Property.
Section 638:12 Fraudulent Execution of Documents.
Section 638:13 Use and Possession of Slugs.
Section 638:14 Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process.
Section 638:15 Fraud on the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program.
Section 638:15-a False Academic Documentation.
Section 638:16 Computer Crime; Definitions.
Section 638:17 Computer Related Offenses.
Section 638:18 Computer Crime Penalties.
Section 638:19 Venue.
Section 638:20 Insurance Fraud.
Section 638:21 Definitions.
Section 638:22 Criminal Acts Involving Cloned Phones and Telephone Cloning Paraphernalia; Possession or Use.
Section 638:23 Criminal Acts Involving Cloned Phones and Telephone Cloning Paraphernalia; Traffic and Manufacture; Exclusions.
Section 638:24 Restitution; Civil Action; Forfeiture.
Section 638:25 Definitions.
Section 638:26 Identity Fraud.
Section 638:27 Venue.
Section 638:28 Definitions.
Section 638:29 Use of Scanning Device or Reencoder to Defraud Prohibited.