Remember Child Custody is About the Children – Not As a Weapon of Divorce — Modern Weapons
Okay, here is the scoop. I am a product of divorce and I have had a divorce. My mother’s divorce was brutal for my brother and I. My older sister was from an earlier marriage and divorce. According to all involved, that divorce was none to civil either. To my mother’s defense, her second divorce was not due to her. My father is the one that used us to his ends. Their divorce lasted five long years.
My brother and I went back and forth as my father demanded. My mother never prevented him from seeing us. She was between a rock and a hard place. She had no choice. If she did not then my father would have called foul and we would have been taken away from her. My father held all the cards. He had all the money and the lawyers. He paid child support when he felt like it and my mother had to deal with it.
My mother made barely enough for the four of us. It became so bad that we were sent to live with relatives, until my mother could get things together financially. My father agreed only if he could contact us whenever he felt like it, no exceptions. He would call early mornings on weekends, late night of weekdays, showed up unannounced, would send for us when my mother had planned to do something with us. Anything that he could do that hurt and punished my mother, he would do.
As a child I knew that something was wrong but all that my mother would do is shake her head and say that my father loved us very much. She refused to follow my father’s lead. Whenever he took us, she would always put a good spin on it. Each time my father did something, he would wait for my mother’s response. If no response then he would buy or do something outrageous.
That is how we had the first high tech stereo in our neighborhood, a working microscope, a television in each of our rooms, a computer, scientific calculator, expensive clothes, trips outside of the US, and so much more. I knew that it might not be the nicest thing in the world to take the gifts, but the excitement of having brand new items before everyone else was more than we could bear.
I remember the love for my father and my mother and just wishing that things would stop being so painful.
When the divorce was final, I saw a different person in my mother, one that was happy and free. I saw her try new things and throw off my father’s rules. I saw my father try and fail to recapture my mother’s pain.
When I saw these things I vowed never to forget them. When I got married, I believed that I would be married forever. That did not happen.
I was scared because my husband was just like my father. Things were made worse because we had a child together. I indeed did remember. I went looking for the best lawyer that I could afford without making my husband suspicious. It took me about three months but I knew that I had to be prepared. Before I signed the lawyer’s retainer, I gave my marriage one last chance. My husband’s response was to leave me at home without transportation and no money for three days.
I survived by my wits and signed the papers to start divorce. I remembered my past, and I refused to paint my daughter’s father as the bad guy. When he would try to use her in a power play, I would remove her to an objective party. I set rules that he would break and then I would talk with him offline. I never maligned him in front of her.
Staying calm was very difficult but I knew that he would only turn around and use it against me with our child. I knew that she would be confused enough. I worked very hard in making sure that she would not be hurt. Yes, I wanted to be free of my abusive husband, but my daughter was always number one. Work, family and friends were second to my daughter.
Everything that I did, I did with her in mind. When he requested to visit with her, I let him but I stayed nearby in the neighbor or followed close behind. When he made his late night calls, he got my answering machine. When he would drop by unannounced, I let him see her except if it was real late. If he showed up at the sitter’s house I would leave work to be there to watch what was going on.
Was it hard?? Hell yes, but my daughter was always worth any pain that I endured.
It took six months for our divorce to become final. I won sole custody. How? I let him be the idiot that I knew he could be. I documented everything he said, did, or went. I wrote down when he paid his child support and then when he bounced the checks. I saved everything that he sent me good and bad. When the time came, I showed them to the lawyer, who showed the judge. That’s how I won.
When I hear about friends and family facing divorce, I cry. Both sides have forgotten that the most important thing is the children. Yes, we all deserve to be happy but not at the expensive of our children. They are what matters the most, always. No exceptions. Your child did not ask to be here anymore than you did. You are responsible for their happiness until they can make their own happiness.
As adults, we forget what it means to be a child. We forget what it feels like to have no say and no recourse. As adults, we need to remember that our children are children, not weapons of divorce. We may be having a difficult time but the children are having their world torn apart into millions of pieces.
Divorce changes their life’s, and affects them well into adulthood. What you do, say, and how you handle things will stay with them forever.
Yes, it is very difficult to remain calm and not retaliate, but that is what you must do. The freedom that you will feel is the gift to yourself but it must be delayed until after the divorce is final. Remember, your children depend on you to show them the right way to handle situations. Remember their happiness depends on you and what you do.
How is my daughter? Well she had the chance to be a kid. She is a happy, well adjusted child, with her life ahead of her. She remembers little of the divorce because I refused to involve her in the tug of war. I made it clear the “war” was not to be about her. I kept it between my husband and I.
Today there are many, many places to go for help in a divorce. Remember that when you go looking for a lawyer, look for one that is willing to give you advise, and is willing to take what evidence you have. Most importantly, look for one who has your child’s happiness as top priority.
I have written a couple of articles/ad about a group that might be very useful if you are involved in a divorce. They have a wealth of information that will help you to keep your child out of your war with your spouse. They even have ways to help you when your other half brings your child into the “war”. They explain about the rights of everyone involved, including grandparents.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Bond set for accused child killer, Stepmother
Bond set for accused child killer : News : ConnectMidMichigan.com
A bond has been set for a step-mother accused of sexually abusing and killing a MidMichigan two year old.
Renee King has been charged in the death of two year old Lily Furneaux.
At first, a judge set no bond but has changed that to a million dollar bond.
Lily died in November of last year.
Lily's biological mother, Lauren Furneaux of Metamora, is raising money to help fight child abuse.
Renee King's next court date is February 7th.
A bond has been set for a step-mother accused of sexually abusing and killing a MidMichigan two year old.
Renee King has been charged in the death of two year old Lily Furneaux.
At first, a judge set no bond but has changed that to a million dollar bond.
Lily died in November of last year.
Lily's biological mother, Lauren Furneaux of Metamora, is raising money to help fight child abuse.
Renee King's next court date is February 7th.
N.C. goofs, must repay feds - State - NewsObserver.com
N.C. goofs, must repay feds - State - NewsObserver.com
The state owes the federal government more than $541,000 for improperly reporting how much it paid for birth control drugs under the Medicaid program.
According to a federal audit of the Medicaid family planning program, the state underreported how much it had received in drug company rebates. The federal government pays most of the state's Medicaid costs, and because the rebates were reported inaccurately, the federal government paid too much.
The state Department of Health and Human Services acknowledged that it made mistakes. In a December letter, DHHS secretary Lanier Cansler agreed to the repayment and said the problem uncovered in the audit would be fixed.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/01/959692/nc-goofs-must-repay-feds.html#ixzz1Ci5FeZIg
The state owes the federal government more than $541,000 for improperly reporting how much it paid for birth control drugs under the Medicaid program.
According to a federal audit of the Medicaid family planning program, the state underreported how much it had received in drug company rebates. The federal government pays most of the state's Medicaid costs, and because the rebates were reported inaccurately, the federal government paid too much.
The state Department of Health and Human Services acknowledged that it made mistakes. In a December letter, DHHS secretary Lanier Cansler agreed to the repayment and said the problem uncovered in the audit would be fixed.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/01/959692/nc-goofs-must-repay-feds.html#ixzz1Ci5FeZIg
Monday, January 31, 2011
Death of foster child ruled as homicide
Death of foster child ruled as homicide
Death of foster child ruled as homicide
Inquest sparks calls for changes to Social Services
BY BARB PACHOLIK AND KARIN YESKE, SASKATCHEWAN NEWS NETWORK; REGINA LEADER-POST JANUARY 31, 2011
-The grandmother of a three-year-old boy who died in foster care is making a tearful plea that his death result in changes so other families are spared from such a tragedy.
"One dies so many will live," said the woman, who cannot be identified under a publication ban.
"This was a preventable death. We pray for all the children in care. This inquest took place to prevent this from happening to other children."
A coroner's jury late Friday night deemed the death of the little boy a homicide.
Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Death+foster+child+ruled+homicide/4195120/story.html#ixzz1CfmGkPYD
Death of foster child ruled as homicide
Inquest sparks calls for changes to Social Services
BY BARB PACHOLIK AND KARIN YESKE, SASKATCHEWAN NEWS NETWORK; REGINA LEADER-POST JANUARY 31, 2011
-The grandmother of a three-year-old boy who died in foster care is making a tearful plea that his death result in changes so other families are spared from such a tragedy.
"One dies so many will live," said the woman, who cannot be identified under a publication ban.
"This was a preventable death. We pray for all the children in care. This inquest took place to prevent this from happening to other children."
A coroner's jury late Friday night deemed the death of the little boy a homicide.
Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Death+foster+child+ruled+homicide/4195120/story.html#ixzz1CfmGkPYD
My 14 year foster care hell
My 14 year foster care hell - Community - lep.co.uk
Published on Mon Jan 31 08:42:34 GMT 2011
A desperate teenage mother is calling for an overhaul of social services after speaking out about her 14 year foster care hell.
Preston-born Lyndsey Keenan, 18, says she has been “shipped” from home to home and town to town, often into abusive households, since she was taken into care when she was four years old.
She has lived with 22 families in towns and cities around the country, including London, Bournemouth, Worthing, Seaford, the Isle of Wight and various towns in the south, despite national guidelines urging authorities to keep cared-for children close to home.
She was even split from her two younger brothers who were adopted by a family in Bristol because she claims social workers said it would be “unlikely” a family would adopt all three of them.
She hasn’t seen her siblings for more than 10 years.
Now 18 and able to speak legally about her plight, she says she has been “abandoned” by social services to care for her son Lex, one, who is blind and suffers severe disabilities.
The teenager, who lives in West Sussex, more than 200 miles from her birth home, says more needs to be done to protect vulnerable children.
She said: “Thousands of people like me are slipping through the cracks of the system and we are left with nothing and no proper homes.
“It is no wonder people think that people in care are all mess ups.
“We’re being left to fend for ourselves and being dumped anywhere they can find.
“My whole life has been horrible to be honest and nobody cares and now I’m left totally alone with a sick child. It shouldn’t be like this.”
Lyndsey and her two brothers were taken from their natural mother, who had drinking problems, in 1996 and were placed with Lancashire County Council’s social services.
The siblings were initially placed with a foster family in Preston before her brothers were adopted.
Lyndsey remembers: “I didn’t really know what was happening, I was too young, but I remember being held back at the door as they took my brothers off in a taxi. I knew I would probably never see them again. I felt so alone.”
Lyndsey was moved to other foster homes and respite centres in the area before going to live with a family in the Isle of Wight.
Growing up she struggled to settle or make permanent relationships as social workers moved her to various short and long-term placements. Her foster carers included Jewish families, American couples, devout Catholics and Italian immigrants – none from mixed-race backgrounds like her.
During one placement, Lyndsey and two other children were quickly removed from a home after the father was investigated for allegedly sexually abusing children. Lyndsey was not involved.
She was removed from another placement when a family member of her foster carer spat in her face because of her race. She was taken from another home because her carer was an alcoholic, she says.
When she was five-years-old, she claims she was locked in her room at another home, hit and forced to sleep in her own urine if she wet the bed.
“I used to have nightmares every night,” she said. “I was terrified.”
Lyndsey claims one family tried to adopt her but social services denied their application because they planned to move to America.
“I became really shy,” Lyndsey said. “I didn’t want to come out of my shell and make friends again because I knew that come a few weeks or months I’d have to do it all again. It has a real effect on how you see yourself and it got to the point that I couldn’t take any more. I couldn’t take the moving any more. I couldn’t be let down again.”
She now lives in her own flat in West Sussex, with her 10-month-old son Lex. The tot was born with 90% sight loss and pituitary gland problems, which has left him with missing fingers and complex learning problems.
She said: “He has a lot of problems. I’m all alone hundreds of miles from where I’m from – I feel totally isolated.
“The system shouldn’t be allowed to do this to people.
A spokesperson for Lancashire County Council’s social services said they were aware of Lyndsey’s case and confirmed she had been placed with numerous families.
Faith Mann, Lancashire County Council’s director for targeted and early intervention services for children and young people, said: “It saddens me to hear of a young person who has experienced problems during their time in care.
“We try to achieve stability for children, but there are sometimes factors beyond our control such as placement breakdown and the young person’s own wishes which make this difficult. Procedures have been updated in the past 20 years. The county council’s performance in placement stability was recently rated as good.”
Published on Mon Jan 31 08:42:34 GMT 2011
A desperate teenage mother is calling for an overhaul of social services after speaking out about her 14 year foster care hell.
Preston-born Lyndsey Keenan, 18, says she has been “shipped” from home to home and town to town, often into abusive households, since she was taken into care when she was four years old.
She has lived with 22 families in towns and cities around the country, including London, Bournemouth, Worthing, Seaford, the Isle of Wight and various towns in the south, despite national guidelines urging authorities to keep cared-for children close to home.
She was even split from her two younger brothers who were adopted by a family in Bristol because she claims social workers said it would be “unlikely” a family would adopt all three of them.
She hasn’t seen her siblings for more than 10 years.
Now 18 and able to speak legally about her plight, she says she has been “abandoned” by social services to care for her son Lex, one, who is blind and suffers severe disabilities.
The teenager, who lives in West Sussex, more than 200 miles from her birth home, says more needs to be done to protect vulnerable children.
She said: “Thousands of people like me are slipping through the cracks of the system and we are left with nothing and no proper homes.
“It is no wonder people think that people in care are all mess ups.
“We’re being left to fend for ourselves and being dumped anywhere they can find.
“My whole life has been horrible to be honest and nobody cares and now I’m left totally alone with a sick child. It shouldn’t be like this.”
Lyndsey and her two brothers were taken from their natural mother, who had drinking problems, in 1996 and were placed with Lancashire County Council’s social services.
The siblings were initially placed with a foster family in Preston before her brothers were adopted.
Lyndsey remembers: “I didn’t really know what was happening, I was too young, but I remember being held back at the door as they took my brothers off in a taxi. I knew I would probably never see them again. I felt so alone.”
Lyndsey was moved to other foster homes and respite centres in the area before going to live with a family in the Isle of Wight.
Growing up she struggled to settle or make permanent relationships as social workers moved her to various short and long-term placements. Her foster carers included Jewish families, American couples, devout Catholics and Italian immigrants – none from mixed-race backgrounds like her.
During one placement, Lyndsey and two other children were quickly removed from a home after the father was investigated for allegedly sexually abusing children. Lyndsey was not involved.
She was removed from another placement when a family member of her foster carer spat in her face because of her race. She was taken from another home because her carer was an alcoholic, she says.
When she was five-years-old, she claims she was locked in her room at another home, hit and forced to sleep in her own urine if she wet the bed.
“I used to have nightmares every night,” she said. “I was terrified.”
Lyndsey claims one family tried to adopt her but social services denied their application because they planned to move to America.
“I became really shy,” Lyndsey said. “I didn’t want to come out of my shell and make friends again because I knew that come a few weeks or months I’d have to do it all again. It has a real effect on how you see yourself and it got to the point that I couldn’t take any more. I couldn’t take the moving any more. I couldn’t be let down again.”
She now lives in her own flat in West Sussex, with her 10-month-old son Lex. The tot was born with 90% sight loss and pituitary gland problems, which has left him with missing fingers and complex learning problems.
She said: “He has a lot of problems. I’m all alone hundreds of miles from where I’m from – I feel totally isolated.
“The system shouldn’t be allowed to do this to people.
A spokesperson for Lancashire County Council’s social services said they were aware of Lyndsey’s case and confirmed she had been placed with numerous families.
Faith Mann, Lancashire County Council’s director for targeted and early intervention services for children and young people, said: “It saddens me to hear of a young person who has experienced problems during their time in care.
“We try to achieve stability for children, but there are sometimes factors beyond our control such as placement breakdown and the young person’s own wishes which make this difficult. Procedures have been updated in the past 20 years. The county council’s performance in placement stability was recently rated as good.”
Courthouse News Service-Court OKs Overhaul of City's Foster Care System
Courthouse News Service
Court OKs Overhaul of City's Foster Care System
By CHRIS FRY
ShareThis
(CN) - The Baltimore Social Services Department cannot overturn a 23-year-old ruling that laid out reforms for the city's foster care system, and a 2009 settlement it reached after reports of neglect and mistreatment cropped up again, the 4th Circuit ruled.
A class of foster children had sued the department, as well as several other city and state foster care officials, 26 years ago, claiming civil rights abuses in the system had stemmed from bureaucratic mismanagement. The latest ruling in the case, released Jan. 26, notes that the class children in foster care were allegedly "suffering physical abuse, sexual abuse, medical neglect and otherwise being subjected to dangerous living conditions."
Shortly after the case was filed, the court issued an injunction setting out substantial improvements to be implemented in the Baltimore foster care system. In 2002, the class found that social services officials had been fudging the data to suggest compliance with the court's decree. When the department began using its offices as emergency shelters for needy children, the class discovered "disturbing conditions, with children sleeping on the floor, unable to shower or change clothes, and subsisting on a diet of fast food."
A federal judge was set to approve a new settlement in June 2009, but the city officials claimed that a new Supreme Court ruling "changed the law in a way that deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the 1988 decree," according to the 4th Circuit.
The judge disagreed, ruling to enter the 2009 settlement, and the federal appeals panel in Richmond, Va., affirmed the decision on appeal.
Judge Allyson Duncan, on behalf of the court's three-judge panel, wrote that the city officials did not prove that a footnote of the Supreme Court ruling created "a significant change in the law."
"Given that Footnote 6 did not address either the actual statute upon which the judgment in the case was based or the court's continuing authority to enforce it, such a holding would require a significant logical leap unsupported by the footnote's sparse language," Duncan wrote.
Court OKs Overhaul of City's Foster Care System
By CHRIS FRY
ShareThis
(CN) - The Baltimore Social Services Department cannot overturn a 23-year-old ruling that laid out reforms for the city's foster care system, and a 2009 settlement it reached after reports of neglect and mistreatment cropped up again, the 4th Circuit ruled.
A class of foster children had sued the department, as well as several other city and state foster care officials, 26 years ago, claiming civil rights abuses in the system had stemmed from bureaucratic mismanagement. The latest ruling in the case, released Jan. 26, notes that the class children in foster care were allegedly "suffering physical abuse, sexual abuse, medical neglect and otherwise being subjected to dangerous living conditions."
Shortly after the case was filed, the court issued an injunction setting out substantial improvements to be implemented in the Baltimore foster care system. In 2002, the class found that social services officials had been fudging the data to suggest compliance with the court's decree. When the department began using its offices as emergency shelters for needy children, the class discovered "disturbing conditions, with children sleeping on the floor, unable to shower or change clothes, and subsisting on a diet of fast food."
A federal judge was set to approve a new settlement in June 2009, but the city officials claimed that a new Supreme Court ruling "changed the law in a way that deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the 1988 decree," according to the 4th Circuit.
The judge disagreed, ruling to enter the 2009 settlement, and the federal appeals panel in Richmond, Va., affirmed the decision on appeal.
Judge Allyson Duncan, on behalf of the court's three-judge panel, wrote that the city officials did not prove that a footnote of the Supreme Court ruling created "a significant change in the law."
"Given that Footnote 6 did not address either the actual statute upon which the judgment in the case was based or the court's continuing authority to enforce it, such a holding would require a significant logical leap unsupported by the footnote's sparse language," Duncan wrote.
N.H. HOUSE BILL 395 AN ACT establishing a child protection study committee.
BillText
NH General Court Bill Status Search Roll Call Votes Statutes Contact Us
HB 395 – AS INTRODUCED
2011 SESSION
11-0546
05/10
HOUSE BILL 395
AN ACT establishing a child protection study committee.
SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Sorg, Graf 3; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock�3; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9
COMMITTEE: Children and Family Law
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes a child protection study committee to audit the performance and finances of the judicial branch family division, the division of children youth and families, the division of child support services, the guardian ad litem board, child advocacy centers, and the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
11-0546
05/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT establishing a child protection study committee.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Subdivision; Child Protection Study Committee. Amend RSA 169-C by inserting after section 39-i the following new subdivision.
Child Protection Study Committee
169-C:39-j Child Protection Study Committee Established.
I. There is established a child protection study committee to audit the performance and finances of the judicial branch family division, the division of children youth and families, the division of child support services, the guardian ad litem board, and child advocacy centers.
II.(a) The voting members of the committee shall be as follows:
(1) Six members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, none of whom shall be an officer of the court.
(2) Three members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate, none of whom shall be an officer of the court.
(b) The non-voting members of the committee shall be as follows:
(1) Two members who are family law attorneys, appointed by the governor to advise the committee.
(2) Two members who are medical professionals, appointed by the governor to advise the committee.
(3) Two members who are child psychologists or psychiatrists, appointed by the governor to advise the committee.
(c) Legislative members of the committee shall receive mileage at the legislative rate when attending to the duties of the committee.
III. The duties of the committee shall be as follows:
(a) To audit the following activities and characteristics of the judicial branch family division:
(1) The acquisition and disposition of Title IV funds.
(2) The acquisition and disposition of state funds.
(3) The acquisition and disposition of fines and fees.
(4) The appeal of judicial decisions to superior courts to determine if there are any anomalies in frequency attributed to any court or judge.
(5) The disposition of complaints to the judicial conduct committee.
(6) Adherence to the rules of the court, particularly rules of evidence.
(7) Adherence to the laws of the state, particularly in the calculation of child support.
(8) The frequency with which guardians ad litem exceed the scope of their appointment without action by the court and without opportunity for objection by the parties.
(9) The frequency with which unlicensed guardians ad litem are assigned by the court and any patterns thereto.
(10) Any related matter identified by the committee.
(b) To audit the following activities and characteristics of the department of health and human services, division of children youth and families:
(1) The acquisition and disposition of Title IV funds.
(2) The acquisition and disposition of state funds.
(3) Adherence to the rules of the department of health and human services.
(4) Adherence to the laws of the state.
(5) The frequency with which reports are investigated.
(6) The frequency with which investigations are determined founded.
(7) The frequency with which children removed from the home are placed with family members.
(8) The frequency with which children removed from the home are reunited with their families.
(9) The frequency with which children removed from the home are adopted.
10) The frequency with which investigations utilize child advocacy centers.
(11) Any related matter identified by the committee.
(c) To audit the following activities and characteristics of the department of health and human services, division of child support services:
(1) The receipt and disposition of monies held on account for children.
(2) Any related matter identified by the committee.
(d) To audit the following activities and characteristics of the guardian ad litem board:
(1) The frequency with which complaints are made to the guardian ad litem board.
(2) The disposition of complaints made to the guardian ad litem board.
(3) The qualifications and licensing of guardians ad litem.
(4) Any related matter identified by the committee.
(e) To audit the following activities and characteristics of child advocacy centers:
(1) The frequency with which child advocacy centers find exculpatory evidence.
(2) The frequency with which child advocacy centers record interviews.
(3) The frequency with which child advocacy centers provide interview results to defendants.
(4) The frequency with which child advocacy centers deny interview results to defendants.
(5) Any related matter identified by the committee.
(f) To audit the following activities and characteristics of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation:
(1) All funds received by the foundation.
(2) All funds expended by the foundation.
(g) To receive any petitions, including petitions of redress, referred to the committee by the speaker of the house of representatives.
IV.(a) For the purpose of undertaking such study and investigation, the committee is authorized to compel by subpoena the attendance and giving of testimony by any person, and the committee is further authorized to compel the production of such things as it deems necessary. Such testimony may be taken under oath, either in the form of interrogatory, deposition, or by oral testimony at a hearing. For purposes of this section, “things” includes, without limitation, books, records, correspondence, electronic mail, logs, journals, memoranda, papers, documents, writings, reproductions, recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations from which information can be obtained, tangible objects, and other things of any kind.
(b) The authority of the committee may be exercised by the committee chairperson or by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee. Subpoenas or interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the signature of the chairperson or any member so designated by the chairperson, and may be served by any person designated by the chairperson.
V. The members of the committee shall elect a chairperson from among the voting members. The first meeting of the committee shall be called by the first-named house member. The first meeting of the committee shall be held within 45 days of the effective date of this section. Seven members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.
VI.(a) Beginning November 1, 2011 and each November 1 thereafter, the committee shall make an annual report of its activities and findings to the speaker of the house of representatives, the senate president, the governor, and the state library.
(b) The report shall include any recommendations for proposed legislation including legislation relative to the duties and organization of the judicial branch family division, the division of children youth and families, the child support division, the guardian ad litem board, and child advocacy centers.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
© 2006 New Hampshire House of Representatives,
107 North Main Street, Concord, New Hampshire, 03301, (603) 271-3661
NH General Court Bill Status Search Roll Call Votes Statutes Contact Us
HB 395 – AS INTRODUCED
2011 SESSION
11-0546
05/10
HOUSE BILL 395
AN ACT establishing a child protection study committee.
SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Sorg, Graf 3; Rep. Baldasaro, Rock�3; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9
COMMITTEE: Children and Family Law
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes a child protection study committee to audit the performance and finances of the judicial branch family division, the division of children youth and families, the division of child support services, the guardian ad litem board, child advocacy centers, and the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
11-0546
05/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT establishing a child protection study committee.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Subdivision; Child Protection Study Committee. Amend RSA 169-C by inserting after section 39-i the following new subdivision.
Child Protection Study Committee
169-C:39-j Child Protection Study Committee Established.
I. There is established a child protection study committee to audit the performance and finances of the judicial branch family division, the division of children youth and families, the division of child support services, the guardian ad litem board, and child advocacy centers.
II.(a) The voting members of the committee shall be as follows:
(1) Six members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, none of whom shall be an officer of the court.
(2) Three members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate, none of whom shall be an officer of the court.
(b) The non-voting members of the committee shall be as follows:
(1) Two members who are family law attorneys, appointed by the governor to advise the committee.
(2) Two members who are medical professionals, appointed by the governor to advise the committee.
(3) Two members who are child psychologists or psychiatrists, appointed by the governor to advise the committee.
(c) Legislative members of the committee shall receive mileage at the legislative rate when attending to the duties of the committee.
III. The duties of the committee shall be as follows:
(a) To audit the following activities and characteristics of the judicial branch family division:
(1) The acquisition and disposition of Title IV funds.
(2) The acquisition and disposition of state funds.
(3) The acquisition and disposition of fines and fees.
(4) The appeal of judicial decisions to superior courts to determine if there are any anomalies in frequency attributed to any court or judge.
(5) The disposition of complaints to the judicial conduct committee.
(6) Adherence to the rules of the court, particularly rules of evidence.
(7) Adherence to the laws of the state, particularly in the calculation of child support.
(8) The frequency with which guardians ad litem exceed the scope of their appointment without action by the court and without opportunity for objection by the parties.
(9) The frequency with which unlicensed guardians ad litem are assigned by the court and any patterns thereto.
(10) Any related matter identified by the committee.
(b) To audit the following activities and characteristics of the department of health and human services, division of children youth and families:
(1) The acquisition and disposition of Title IV funds.
(2) The acquisition and disposition of state funds.
(3) Adherence to the rules of the department of health and human services.
(4) Adherence to the laws of the state.
(5) The frequency with which reports are investigated.
(6) The frequency with which investigations are determined founded.
(7) The frequency with which children removed from the home are placed with family members.
(8) The frequency with which children removed from the home are reunited with their families.
(9) The frequency with which children removed from the home are adopted.
10) The frequency with which investigations utilize child advocacy centers.
(11) Any related matter identified by the committee.
(c) To audit the following activities and characteristics of the department of health and human services, division of child support services:
(1) The receipt and disposition of monies held on account for children.
(2) Any related matter identified by the committee.
(d) To audit the following activities and characteristics of the guardian ad litem board:
(1) The frequency with which complaints are made to the guardian ad litem board.
(2) The disposition of complaints made to the guardian ad litem board.
(3) The qualifications and licensing of guardians ad litem.
(4) Any related matter identified by the committee.
(e) To audit the following activities and characteristics of child advocacy centers:
(1) The frequency with which child advocacy centers find exculpatory evidence.
(2) The frequency with which child advocacy centers record interviews.
(3) The frequency with which child advocacy centers provide interview results to defendants.
(4) The frequency with which child advocacy centers deny interview results to defendants.
(5) Any related matter identified by the committee.
(f) To audit the following activities and characteristics of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation:
(1) All funds received by the foundation.
(2) All funds expended by the foundation.
(g) To receive any petitions, including petitions of redress, referred to the committee by the speaker of the house of representatives.
IV.(a) For the purpose of undertaking such study and investigation, the committee is authorized to compel by subpoena the attendance and giving of testimony by any person, and the committee is further authorized to compel the production of such things as it deems necessary. Such testimony may be taken under oath, either in the form of interrogatory, deposition, or by oral testimony at a hearing. For purposes of this section, “things” includes, without limitation, books, records, correspondence, electronic mail, logs, journals, memoranda, papers, documents, writings, reproductions, recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations from which information can be obtained, tangible objects, and other things of any kind.
(b) The authority of the committee may be exercised by the committee chairperson or by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee. Subpoenas or interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the signature of the chairperson or any member so designated by the chairperson, and may be served by any person designated by the chairperson.
V. The members of the committee shall elect a chairperson from among the voting members. The first meeting of the committee shall be called by the first-named house member. The first meeting of the committee shall be held within 45 days of the effective date of this section. Seven members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.
VI.(a) Beginning November 1, 2011 and each November 1 thereafter, the committee shall make an annual report of its activities and findings to the speaker of the house of representatives, the senate president, the governor, and the state library.
(b) The report shall include any recommendations for proposed legislation including legislation relative to the duties and organization of the judicial branch family division, the division of children youth and families, the child support division, the guardian ad litem board, and child advocacy centers.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
© 2006 New Hampshire House of Representatives,
107 North Main Street, Concord, New Hampshire, 03301, (603) 271-3661
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)