Legally Kidnapped
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
Friday, January 7, 2011
CPS-DHS does not want you to know this information.
Legally Kidnapped: CPS-DHS does not want you to know this information.
CPS/DCYF steal children from the families they believe won't fight back. DON'T be one of those families! DON'T let them into your homes without a warrant. Make sure you see and read the warrant. DON'T sign anything. DON'T offer any information AND DON'T answer any question's without YOUR Lawyer present!!
CPS/DCYF steal children from the families they believe won't fight back. DON'T be one of those families! DON'T let them into your homes without a warrant. Make sure you see and read the warrant. DON'T sign anything. DON'T offer any information AND DON'T answer any question's without YOUR Lawyer present!!
Thursday, January 6, 2011
NH Attorney Jaye Rancourt an Unethical Attorney: January 13, 2011 - NH Legislative Public Input session scheduled on 11:00 HB 81, public members of the guardian ad litem board and 1:15 HB 52, modification of parental rights and responsibilities
NH Attorney Jaye Rancourt an Unethical Attorney: January 13, 2011 - NH Legislative Public Input session scheduled on 11:00 HB 81, public members of the guardian ad litem board and 1:15 HB 52, modification of parental rights and responsibilities
There is a scheduled NH Legislative Public Input session coming up on two important 2011 Bills.
Public Input on these two bills has been scheduled for next Thursday January 13 at the Concord LOB Room 206. If you are unable to attend, please provide written testimony on each of these topics to the Children & Family Law Committee at CFL@leg.state.nh.us
The two bills can be viewed at the following links:
1:15 HB 52 modification of parental rights and responsibilities
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB0052.html
11:00 HB 81 public members of the guardian ad litem board.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB0081.html
Posted by Fighting Back at 4:14 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Google Buzz
Labels: guardian ad litem board, House Bills, New Hampshire, NH, Parental Rights
There is a scheduled NH Legislative Public Input session coming up on two important 2011 Bills.
Public Input on these two bills has been scheduled for next Thursday January 13 at the Concord LOB Room 206. If you are unable to attend, please provide written testimony on each of these topics to the Children & Family Law Committee at CFL@leg.state.nh.us
The two bills can be viewed at the following links:
1:15 HB 52 modification of parental rights and responsibilities
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB0052.html
11:00 HB 81 public members of the guardian ad litem board.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB0081.html
Posted by Fighting Back at 4:14 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Google Buzz
Labels: guardian ad litem board, House Bills, New Hampshire, NH, Parental Rights
System Suck Marcia Robinson Lowry from Children's Right's attack's Richard Wexler
All Opinions Are Local - Taking toys from foster kids won't fix D.C. child services
By Marcia Robinson Lowry, New York
In light of the difficult decisions reflected in the budget amendments passed last month by the D.C. Council, it is particularly important to ensure that the discussion of budget cuts affecting vulnerable children and families is as accurate as possible.
In his Dec. 26 Local Opinions column, “Sacred cows in D.C.’s child services budget,” Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, seemed to disregard the core value of any child welfare system — that children deserve to be raised in families — and suggested that money could be saved by cutting payments to foster families who care for abused and neglected children.
Comment from Richard Wexler
It’s always fascinating when Marcia Lowry starts debating Marcia Lowry. It was Marcia Lowry’s own report which found that DC pays its foster parents *more* than they need to cover almost every conceivable expense, including every toy, every game, every movie ticket and every amusement park ride (Think I’m kidding? Read Marcia’s “technical report” accompanying the study which explains the calculations. It’s available here: http://bit.ly/fvyts7 then check the table in the main report http://bit.ly/hL7aAf to see how DC compares.)
Indeed, the basic foster care payment in DC is $10,428 per year for younger children $11,280 per year for teenagers, again according to Marcia’s own report. And that’s tax free.
Marcia apparently believes that if foster parents don’t get that much they’ll stop buying toys for their foster children. I happen to think more highly of foster parents. I think most really aren’t in it for the money. So the real question is this, Marcia: Do you really think that the only way a foster parent will give a foster child “a few small pleasures of childhood” is if the government pays them to do it? Would you want *your* child placed with someone who would demand government reimbursement for buying that child a teddy bear? Or a sanitary napkin?
I’m not making that last example up. Check out the comments following my original op ed, (http://wapo.st/gPEmgK) and you’ll find one from a foster parent with a six-figure income, plus her husband’s income, who complains that the more than $45,000 per year she received tax free to care for four foster teenagers wasn’t enough to pay for things like sanitary napkins.
Overpaying foster parents attracts more such foster parents and fewer of the kind we all want – the kind who understand that if you really care about a child, if you are engaging in an act of charity and love, it’s worth it to dip into your own pocket, just a little. Foster parents like the one who wrote this for the Los Angeles Times: http://lat.ms/6QRj3
As for pitting birth parents, relatives and foster parents against each other, that’s Marcia Lowry’s specialty. Her settlements in Michigan and Georgia led those states to cut help for low income families and programs to keep families together in order to fund hiring binges for child abuse investigators and foster care workers.
And Marcia has been silent about the fact that DC takes away children at rates far higher than many cities, including cities that do a far better job of keeping children safe.
In tough times, everyone has to sacrifice. Is it really too much to ask that DC foster parents accept a little less than $10,000 per year, tax free, to take in a foster child?
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
http://www.nccpr.org
Posted by: rwexlernccpr | January 6, 2011
By Marcia Robinson Lowry, New York
In light of the difficult decisions reflected in the budget amendments passed last month by the D.C. Council, it is particularly important to ensure that the discussion of budget cuts affecting vulnerable children and families is as accurate as possible.
In his Dec. 26 Local Opinions column, “Sacred cows in D.C.’s child services budget,” Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, seemed to disregard the core value of any child welfare system — that children deserve to be raised in families — and suggested that money could be saved by cutting payments to foster families who care for abused and neglected children.
Comment from Richard Wexler
It’s always fascinating when Marcia Lowry starts debating Marcia Lowry. It was Marcia Lowry’s own report which found that DC pays its foster parents *more* than they need to cover almost every conceivable expense, including every toy, every game, every movie ticket and every amusement park ride (Think I’m kidding? Read Marcia’s “technical report” accompanying the study which explains the calculations. It’s available here: http://bit.ly/fvyts7 then check the table in the main report http://bit.ly/hL7aAf to see how DC compares.)
Indeed, the basic foster care payment in DC is $10,428 per year for younger children $11,280 per year for teenagers, again according to Marcia’s own report. And that’s tax free.
Marcia apparently believes that if foster parents don’t get that much they’ll stop buying toys for their foster children. I happen to think more highly of foster parents. I think most really aren’t in it for the money. So the real question is this, Marcia: Do you really think that the only way a foster parent will give a foster child “a few small pleasures of childhood” is if the government pays them to do it? Would you want *your* child placed with someone who would demand government reimbursement for buying that child a teddy bear? Or a sanitary napkin?
I’m not making that last example up. Check out the comments following my original op ed, (http://wapo.st/gPEmgK) and you’ll find one from a foster parent with a six-figure income, plus her husband’s income, who complains that the more than $45,000 per year she received tax free to care for four foster teenagers wasn’t enough to pay for things like sanitary napkins.
Overpaying foster parents attracts more such foster parents and fewer of the kind we all want – the kind who understand that if you really care about a child, if you are engaging in an act of charity and love, it’s worth it to dip into your own pocket, just a little. Foster parents like the one who wrote this for the Los Angeles Times: http://lat.ms/6QRj3
As for pitting birth parents, relatives and foster parents against each other, that’s Marcia Lowry’s specialty. Her settlements in Michigan and Georgia led those states to cut help for low income families and programs to keep families together in order to fund hiring binges for child abuse investigators and foster care workers.
And Marcia has been silent about the fact that DC takes away children at rates far higher than many cities, including cities that do a far better job of keeping children safe.
In tough times, everyone has to sacrifice. Is it really too much to ask that DC foster parents accept a little less than $10,000 per year, tax free, to take in a foster child?
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
http://www.nccpr.org
Posted by: rwexlernccpr | January 6, 2011
Defend Yourself? The Pro-Se Problem
Defend Yourself?
Do you Know Your State Statutes? Do you Know Court Proceedings? Whether you seek legal advice OR defend yourself, doing your homework and answering the above questions are vital.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Pro Se Problem
This mid-week Tips & Tactics will give you some insight into problems pro se people are running into and also show that pro se people are winning ... more and more!
Going to court without a lawyer is more common than you might imagine. There is a definite trend in the U.S. for more people to fight without lawyers.
Do you Know Your State Statutes? Do you Know Court Proceedings? Whether you seek legal advice OR defend yourself, doing your homework and answering the above questions are vital.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Pro Se Problem
This mid-week Tips & Tactics will give you some insight into problems pro se people are running into and also show that pro se people are winning ... more and more!
Going to court without a lawyer is more common than you might imagine. There is a definite trend in the U.S. for more people to fight without lawyers.
Texas Health and Human Services Commission Public Meeting
Health and Human Services Commission - Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Regional Advisory Committee - Region 3 Fort Worth Service Area
Texas Health and Human Services
AGENDA:
Council on Children and Families
Jan. 7, 2011
9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Meeting Site:
John H. Winters Building
Public Hearing Room 125
701 W. 51st St.
Austin
Welcome and Introductions
Review and Discussion of Council’s First Year of Work
Discussion of Implementation Options for Council’s Initial Strategic Priorities<
Public Comment
Discussion on Future Priorities
Identification of Next Steps
Adjournment
Contact: Sherri Hammack, Lead Support Staff for Council on Children and Families, Health and Human Services Commission, 1106 Clayton Ln, Suite 225E, Austin, 512-420-2858, sherri.hammack@hhsc.state.tx.us.
This meeting is open to the public. No reservations are required and there is no cost to attend this meeting.
People with disabilities who wish to attend the meeting and require auxiliary aids or services should contact Cassandra Marx at 512-420-2857 at least 72 hours before the meeting so appropriate arrangements can be made.
Texas Health and Human Services
AGENDA:
Council on Children and Families
Jan. 7, 2011
9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Meeting Site:
John H. Winters Building
Public Hearing Room 125
701 W. 51st St.
Austin
Welcome and Introductions
Review and Discussion of Council’s First Year of Work
Discussion of Implementation Options for Council’s Initial Strategic Priorities<
Public Comment
Discussion on Future Priorities
Identification of Next Steps
Adjournment
Contact: Sherri Hammack, Lead Support Staff for Council on Children and Families, Health and Human Services Commission, 1106 Clayton Ln, Suite 225E, Austin, 512-420-2858, sherri.hammack@hhsc.state.tx.us.
This meeting is open to the public. No reservations are required and there is no cost to attend this meeting.
People with disabilities who wish to attend the meeting and require auxiliary aids or services should contact Cassandra Marx at 512-420-2857 at least 72 hours before the meeting so appropriate arrangements can be made.
The Truth Bites "NH": Matt Barrington from the NH Department of Health and Human Services - the Reimbursment Unit (RU) - Falsification in Offical Matters or Simply Untrained in ethics?
The Truth Bites "NH": Matt Barrington from the NH Department of Health and Human Services - the Reimbursment Unit (RU) - Falsification in Offical Matters or Simply Untrained in ethics?
The following matter developed in Nashua District Court (11/09) when a defendant signed a consented to order to reimburse the state for services that their child allegedly received, and agreed to have their pay garnished, through pay roll deducted based on the statement of Matt Barrington that there was an existing past due order.
The Defendant was finally able to review their file in the District Court (2/10), it showed there were no existing orders. And upon review of the law under NH RSA 169-C:27 I (c), the right to recover was for 279 weeks NOT 627 that the defendant signed for. Moreover, that the federal government had paid 75% another party to the case had been paying on the account for several years and none of this was disclosed on the bill of $22,000 in fact evidence showed that both divorced parents were being charged for the exact same bill. And that one party's attorney was paid for for two years actually against the law, but signed by Judge Bamberger for the non-accused for parent.
Meanwhile DHHS through their reimbursement department, did not attach the defendants pay and then went to court to hold the defendant in contempt.
On 11/18/10 Judge Leary held the defendant in contempt but stated the defendant was correct about the reimbursements department right to a limited recovery time.
Here's the catch, the order of contempt does not state the $$$ dollar amount or indicate how long restitution is for. The defendant put in a motion to correct the defect and the answer was still uniforming - so the defendant moved to appeal to the Superior Court. The clerk of court never signed the order so instead of 30 days to appeal all the discrepancy's and being over charged not just in weeks but by 75% (due to TANF and other grant applications against it), and an additional undisclosed party's payments. The right to recovery is questionable because the case was sent over by a marital master. Under the rules for marital master 12-14 there was suppose to be a show cause hearing there was not and etc.
In any case the matter is part of the civil case in the post of 1/5/11.
THE REAL ISSUE: Matt Barrington sent a letter to the DEFENDANTS place of work on 12/7/11 and attached the order of 11/09., to attach their pay and Identified the collection as a child support regional procedure. To be paid after the defendants real child support was paid in the first instance.
Falsification in an Official Matter or ........ you tell us your thoughts feel free to do so anonymously.
The following matter developed in Nashua District Court (11/09) when a defendant signed a consented to order to reimburse the state for services that their child allegedly received, and agreed to have their pay garnished, through pay roll deducted based on the statement of Matt Barrington that there was an existing past due order.
The Defendant was finally able to review their file in the District Court (2/10), it showed there were no existing orders. And upon review of the law under NH RSA 169-C:27 I (c), the right to recover was for 279 weeks NOT 627 that the defendant signed for. Moreover, that the federal government had paid 75% another party to the case had been paying on the account for several years and none of this was disclosed on the bill of $22,000 in fact evidence showed that both divorced parents were being charged for the exact same bill. And that one party's attorney was paid for for two years actually against the law, but signed by Judge Bamberger for the non-accused for parent.
Meanwhile DHHS through their reimbursement department, did not attach the defendants pay and then went to court to hold the defendant in contempt.
On 11/18/10 Judge Leary held the defendant in contempt but stated the defendant was correct about the reimbursements department right to a limited recovery time.
Here's the catch, the order of contempt does not state the $$$ dollar amount or indicate how long restitution is for. The defendant put in a motion to correct the defect and the answer was still uniforming - so the defendant moved to appeal to the Superior Court. The clerk of court never signed the order so instead of 30 days to appeal all the discrepancy's and being over charged not just in weeks but by 75% (due to TANF and other grant applications against it), and an additional undisclosed party's payments. The right to recovery is questionable because the case was sent over by a marital master. Under the rules for marital master 12-14 there was suppose to be a show cause hearing there was not and etc.
In any case the matter is part of the civil case in the post of 1/5/11.
THE REAL ISSUE: Matt Barrington sent a letter to the DEFENDANTS place of work on 12/7/11 and attached the order of 11/09., to attach their pay and Identified the collection as a child support regional procedure. To be paid after the defendants real child support was paid in the first instance.
Falsification in an Official Matter or ........ you tell us your thoughts feel free to do so anonymously.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)