Determining the Best Interests of the Child: Summary of State Laws:
Determining the Best Interests of the Child: Summary of State Laws
Series: State Statutes
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published: 2010
Current through March 2010
This brief introduction summarizes how States address this topic in statute. To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search.
Courts make a variety of decisions that affect children, including placement and custody determinations, safety and permanency planning, and proceedings for termination of parental rights. Whenever a court makes such a determination, it must weigh whether its decision will be in the "best interests" of the child.
All States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have statutes requiring that the child's best interests be considered whenever specified types of decisions are made regarding a child's custody, placement, or other critical life issues.
Best Interests Definition
Although there is no standard definition of "best interests of the child," the term generally refers to the deliberation that courts undertake when deciding what type of services, actions, and orders will best serve a child as well as who is best suited to take care of a child. "Best interests" determinations are generally made by considering a number of factors related to the circumstances of the child and the circumstances and capacity of the child's potential caregiver(s), with the child's ultimate safety and well-being as the paramount concern.
Guiding Principles of Best Interests Determinations
State statutes frequently reference overarching goals, purposes, and objectives that shape the analysis in making best interests determinations. The following are among the most frequently stated guiding principles:
The importance of family integrity and preference for avoiding removal of the child from his/her
home (approximately 24 States, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands)1
The health, safety, and/or protection of the child (16 States and the Northern Mariana Islands)2
The importance of timely permanency decisions (16 States and the U.S. Virgin Islands)3
The assurance that a child removed from his/her home will be given care, treatment, and guidance that will assist the child in developing into a self-sufficient adult (9 States, American Samoa, and Guam)4
Best Interests Factors
Approximately 16 States and the District of Columbia list in their statutes specific factors for courts to consider in making determinations regarding the best interests of the child.5 While the factors vary considerably from State to State, some factors commonly required include:
The emotional ties and relationships between the child and his or her parents, siblings, family and household members, or other caregivers (13 States and the District of Columbia)6
The capacity of the parents to provide a safe home and adequate food, clothing, and medical care (eight States)7
The mental and physical health needs of the child (five States and the District of Columbia)8
The mental and physical health of the parents (six States and the District of Columbia)9
The presence of domestic violence in the home (eight States)10
In six of these States and the District of Columbia, all the factors listed in the statute must be considered.11 For example, Illinois law provides a list of the factors that, within the context of the child's age and developmental needs, "shall be considered" in determining best interests. Similarly, the District of Columbia requires that courts consider each factor listed in its best interests statute in making such decisions. In the remaining eight States whose statutes list best interests factors, courts making best interests determinations are directed to consider all relevant factors, not only those specifically listed in the statute.12
Three States also list factor(s) that should not be considered in the best interests analysis. For example, Connecticut law states that the determination of the best interests of the child shall not be based on the consideration of the socioeconomic status of the birth parent or caregiver. Delaware prohibits courts from assuming that one parent, because of his or her sex, is better qualified than the other parent to act as a custodian or primary residential parent. Idaho does not permit discrimination on the basis of a parent's disability.
Statutes in the remaining 34 States, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands provide more general guidance and give more discretion to the courts to make best interests determinations.13 Under Alabama law, for example, courts are provided with a set of goals to "facilitate the care, protection, and discipline of children" who come within their jurisdiction. South Dakota law vests the court with discretion to determine "the suitable disposition of a child according to the least restrictive alternative available in keeping with the child's best interests and with due regard to the rights and interests of the parents, guardian, custodian, the public, and the State."
Other factors that courts commonly take into consideration in making best interests determinations include the following:
Federal and/or State Constitutional protections. For example, New Hampshire law provides that its processes related to reports of child abuse or neglect are to be carried out within a judicial framework that recognizes and enforces the constitutional and other rights of the parties involved. Pennsylvania's statute states that it shall be interpreted so as to provide a means through which parties are afforded a fair hearing and assured the recognition of their constitutional and legal rights.14
The importance of maintaining sibling and other close family bonds. For example, Alaska law notes the importance of frequent, regular, and reasonable visitation with parents and family members when a child has been removed from the home. Florida considers the love, affection, and other emotional ties between the child and his or her parents, siblings, and other relatives to be important in determining the manifest interests of the child.15
The child's wishes. Approximately 11 States and the District of Columbia require courts to consider the child's wishes when making a determination of best interests.16 In making this determination, the court will consider whether the child is of an age and level of maturity to express a reasonable preference.
To access the statutes for a specific State or territory, visit the State Statutes Search.
1 In Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The word approximately is used to stress the fact that States frequently amend their laws. This information is current as of March 2010. Back
2 In Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Back
3 In Alabama, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. Back
4 In Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia. Back
5 Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Back
6 Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia. Back
7 Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Back
8 Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Michigan, and Virginia. Back
9 Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia. Back
10 Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Back
11 Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Vermont, and Virginia. Back
12 Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Back
13 In Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Back
14 Other States that address the issue of parent and/or child rights within their best interests statutes include Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico. Back
15 Other States that address the importance of maintaining family and sibling relationships include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well at the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Back
16 Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine (when the child is age 12 or older), Massachusetts (when the child is age 12 or older), Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Back
This publication is a product of the State Statutes Series prepared by Child Welfare Information Gateway. While every attempt has been made to be as complete as possible, additional information on these topics may be in other sections of a State's code as well as agency regulations, case law, and informal practices and procedures.
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
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, October 14, 2011
Where is protection for myself or the children? Your federal and state taxes fund it. Letters of outrage to Washington DC & the NH Governor are the children's only voices
The following may all be published, printed, copied, or disseminated at the request of another alienated NH father
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." -Albert Einstein
When she filed for divorce I owed nothing but a small mortgage, and an SBA loan I got from FEMA in the 2006 mother’s day floods to repair the flooded basement.
My vehicles all were paid for. I put a $230,000 house addition on and didn’t affect the $1260/month mortgage. And so she took the Masters and PhD I made possible for her to obtain, met someone else, and filed for divorce. I didn’t contest the divorce, only her insistence that she was taking the house and more than 50% custody of the children. I even wrote an exactly equal parenting plan which she repeatedly has violated and obstructed as written and testified to by even her own family (See the notarized affidavits of her stepfather Darrell Martin). I didn’t break a single marriage vow, where is justice for myself and the children? So she started tormenting the children and they started pleading for protection and relief. They told family and then Sarah got a Restraining order by stalking me in Steve Jerge’s yard and then the children told Kathy Forbes Fisher who refused to let them even speak about why they wanted to live with their father, then GAL Jen Rackley who wrote a GAL report advocating equal parenting, and then changed it the next week DURING THE FINAL HEARING and admitted on the stand that she had no evidence to support her change of position, nor had she even investigated ANY of mine or the children’s complaints against Ms. Kenick’s repeated abuses both physical and emotional (See the children’s own pleas at the end of this email, as well as the notarized affidavit of Attorney Craig Donais quoted herein as well).
I’ve asked for nothing from the Courts except protection and enforcement of my 50% custody, protection of the children from their repeated pleas for help against repeated abuses including physical beatings, intentional sleep deprivation, threats to their persons and their possessions for pleading to live with their father, and protection of the Court from these ridiculous delays she has filed while trying to take my children and my home through divorce.
HR-7 is being pursued in the NH Legislature right now and the notarized affidavits and pleas of the children are already on the Governor’s desk, Speaker of the House O’Brien’s Desk, several legislators, and Senator Prescott’s desk.
Contact Governor Lynch:
Office of the Governor
State House
107 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2121
(603)271-7640 (fax)
Contact Speaker of the House O’Brien:
State House
107 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
Contact Administrative Judge: Hon. Edwin W. Kelly:
Circuit Court Administrative Office
45 Chenell Drive, Suite 2
Concord, NH 03301-8541
Phone: (603) 271-6418
NH CONSTITUTION
[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
[Art.] 35. [The Judiciary; Tenure of Office, etc.] It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.
[Art.] 38. [Social Virtues Inculcated.] A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them.
Marital Master Cross has a long history of such egregious decisions against the best interest of the children:
· [Art.] 73. [Tenure of Office To Be Expressed in Commissions; Judges to Hold Office During Good Behavior, etc.; Removal.] The tenure that all commissioned officers shall have by law in their offices shall be expressed in their respective commissions, and all judicial officers duly appointed, commissioned and sworn, shall hold their offices during good behavior except those for whom a different provision is made in this constitution. The governor with consent of the council may remove any commissioned officer for reasonable cause upon the address of both houses of the legislature, provided nevertheless that the cause for removal shall be stated fully and substantially in the address and shall not be a cause which is a sufficient ground for impeachment, and provided further that no officer shall be so removed unless he shall have had an opportunity to be heard in his defense by a joint committee of both houses of the legislature.
Just read the cases of Johnson v. Johnson, Puiia v Miner, Whelen v Emerson, Miller v. Todd, and now Kenick v Kenick:
1. He recommended an order holding a father in criminal contempt following a hearing that had been noticed as a civil contempt hearing, which order resulted in that father, who was representing himself and was the primary custodian of the parties' minor child, to be incarcerated for 10 weeks, in contravention of his right not to be deprived of liberty but by the judgment of his peers, as guaranteed by Part 1, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
2. He:
(a) Recommended a child support order in the absence of submission of the affidavits and child support guidelines worksheets necessary to its lawful determination under RSA 458-C, thereby basing said recommendation neither upon the guidelines set forth in RSA 458-C:4 nor upon some other basis supported by written findings pursuant to RSA 458-C:5;
(b) Recommended in said proposed order that child support be paid by the father, even though the father had primary physical custody of the parties' minor child and the mother's income was at least as great as that of the father;
(c) Recommended an order denying a motion to reconsider that support order when presented with evidence of these defects; and
(d) Subsequently recommended an order requiring the sale of the father's home in order to pay the arrearage in the child support determined on the basis of the support order so generated, resulting in the father and the minor child becoming homeless.
3. He:
(a) Refused to allow competent testimony or the admission into evidence of documentation critical to the determination of the medical needs of a minor child;
(b) Willfully misrepresented such of the medical needs of the minor child as were known to him;
(c) Recommended an order transferring parental medical decision-making authority respecting said minor child in the absence of any evidence of changed circumstances so justifying; and
(d) Held the father in contempt of court for seeking appropriate emergency medical attention for said minor child in circumstances in which he knew or should have known the father had no reasonable alternative.
4. Rather than recommend a new order to replace it, he instead refused to enforce an existing custody order that had been temporarily suspended, thereby allowing the mother to disregard the custodial rights of the father thereunder, and did not act upon a motion brought by the father against the mother to enforce his custodial rights under said existing order.
5. Following entry of an order precluding a father from taking his minor child out of school early and a subsequent order requiring the parties' minor child to undergo counseling, he recommended an order holding the father in contempt for violating the second order in circumstances in which his doing so would have caused him to violate the first order.
6. He followed a pattern, in an ongoing case before him, of recommending orders having the effect of gradually eroding one parent's custodial rights without proper pleadings having been filed by the other parent, without proper notice having been given, without hearings having been held, and without changed circumstances having arisen.
7. He recommended an order relating to parenting issues following a hearing that had been noticed as one to consider financial issues, but which on the day of the hearing, over the objection of one parent, had been changed to parenting issues raised at the hearing by the other parent, thereby depriving the objecting parent of adequate opportunity to prepare and of advance disclosure of the identity and expected testimony of the expert witnesses brought and called to testify by the other parent, which order, in addition to its adverse consequences to the objecting parent, terminated the physical custodial rights of the objecting parent's parents, who, notwithstanding that they were formal parties, had not been afforded the opportunity to testify, to present witnesses, or to cross-examine opposing witnesses at the hearing.
8. He recommended an order, without opportunity for objection or hearing, approving payment of guardian ad litem fees of $44,000 that encompassed activities beyond the scope of the guardian's legitimate duties and responsibilities and in disregard of the retainer agreement that had limited fees to $4,000.
9. In summary, it is evident to the general court that Marital Master Philip Cross has established a pattern of retaliatory, arbitrary, capricious and/or prejudiced adjudication; disregard of governing law and rules; disregard of the evidentiary record; and recommendation of conflicting orders, and orders disregarding the best interests, safety, and health of minor children of the parties appearing before him.
Below is a letter written from an attorney regarding gross injustices conducted from the bench by Marital Master Cross in 2007. The letter (which can be viewed at http://werme.8m.net/Fathers_Rights/David_Johnson/07_03_29_exec_counsel_let.pdf Shows a repetitive history of injustices by Marital Master Cross and further supports the assertion that he is bias and unfit to sit on the bench (over many years and many cases and in two Courts now).
The part of the video related to Cross is from 12 minutes and 15 seconds to 36 minutes and 7 seconds
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/housevideo/sessions/2011/2011-03-16pm.asx
From the March 31, 2011 Nashua Telegraph.
NH court overturns custody order - NashuaTelegraph.com
Source: nashuatelegraph.com
CONCORD - A Portsmouth Family Court Judge was wrong to award custody of two children to a New Hampshire woman who may have coached them to accuse their father of sexual abuse, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Gary Hicks, the high court ordered Portsmouth Family Division Judge Sharon DeVries to reconsider the case of James J. Miller and Janet S. Todd.
Miller, who now lives in New York, and Todd, who lives in New Hampshire, had struck up a relationship in 1999, after meeting online. They lived together for a time in both Michigan and New Hampshire, and had two daughters.
See the court's ruling below, or on the court's website: www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/index.htm
- Andrew Wolfe
SAME PORTSMOUTH FAMILY COURT AS MY OWN CASE
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________
Portsmouth Family Division No. 2009-806
IN THE MATTER OF JAMES J. MILLER AND JANET S. TODD
Argued: November 17, 2010 Opinion Issued: March 31, 2011
the trial court erred in awarding Todd parenting responsibility when she has “engaged in a sustained campaign to alienate the children from [him], and to interfere with his parenting rights, by making multiple accusations of sexual abuse.”
As we have recognized, “the obstruction by a custodial parent of visitation between a child and the noncustodial parent may, if continuous, constitute behavior so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to raise a strong possibility that the child will be harmed.” Webb v. Knudson, 133 N.H. 665, 673 (1990); see also In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 728 (2005).
the trial court engaged in an unsustainable exercise of discretion.
trial court’s determination as to custody apparently did not take into account actions of the wife and impact of wife’s repeated lawsuits on husband’s ability to maintain contact with his children).
the false allegations of abuse significantly interfered with Miller’s visitation and deprived him of any relationship with his children for years.
mother’s attempt to deprive child of opportunity to know and love father by interfering with father’s visitation is not in child’s best interest); Theisen v. Theisen, 405 N.W.2d 470, 474 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (mother created and maintained atmosphere of unwarranted suspicion and accusation regarding conduct of father toward children resulting in psychological damage); C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 879 So. 2d 1169, 1178 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (not in child’s best interests to be raised by a mother so bitterly opposed to child’s father).
See Theisen, 405 N.W.2d at 472 (mother’s repeated attempts to alienate the children from their father and her pattern of conduct, having existed over the years, is unlikely to change);
The trial court awarded custody to Todd primarily because the children have spent the majority of their lives with her and that is where they are most comfortable.
Miller was denied any contact with his children for over two years and had little opportunity to establish a home life with them between 2004 and 2009. This raises the question whether Todd has benefitted from her misbehavior.
it was clear the court failed to consider evidence that mother willfully interfered with father’s relationship with the children
We conclude that the award of parental rights and responsibilities must be vacated and the case remanded for reconsideration in light of this opinion. On remand, the trial court must consider the factors set forth in RSA 461-A, I(e)-(g) in determining the children’s best interests in this case. Also, the court should consider the applicability of the recent amendment to RSA 461-A:6, IV (Supp. 2010). It is within the trial court’s discretion to take into consideration any additional circumstances that may have occurred while this appeal was pending.
Public record from Kenick v Kenick (there are DOZENS more in Exhibit “H” which is also public record in Case 2008-DM-184):
1. “My son-in-law, Joseph Kenick has asked that I share my observations concerning the Court proceedings and also the Petitioner’s continued attempt to deny a fair settlement for the children as well as the properties. Joe had been able to let us enjoy our grandchildren by traveling to our home in Vermont, bringing the children on camping trips to Coleman State Park, and arranging birthdays and other family events. On numerous occasions Sarah has interfered with some of those plans. I traveled to the Courthouse on the 10th of September and again on the 28th of December to testify on behalf of the children. My observation was that on the September visit which was two separate days of testimony, that although Mr. Kenick had more than six witnesses available to testify, the Court only allowed him 25 minutes of time on the day that I was there. I was told by some of the other witnesses that they had been waiting for both days and never testified. I returned to the Courtroom on the 28th of December and again found that the Court gave Ms. Kenick’s attorney more than half of the time available. My wife and I have spent time alone with the Grandchildren and occasionally the conversation would drift to how things are going at home. On several occasions, they would talk about some abusive behavior in Sarah’s house. I was very upset with Sarah’s testimony in Court in that she misrepresented statements that I had made and told the GAL so, in hopes somebody would see the light. I thought the judicial system was supposed to be an unbiased and fair system in which differences could be resolved. All that I see in this matter is an unfair and hurtful injustice to two innocent children.”
2. In a notarized affidavit dated February 5, 2011 Darrell Martin, Ms. Kenick’s own Stepfather, wrote “On the 28th of December, 2011, I testified in the divorce proceedings between Joseph Kenick and Sarah Kenick (Prescott). After I finished, Sarah was called to give her version of my statements. During her testimony I heard her telling things that I felt were not the truth. I was very upset at the things that she said and I addressed the GAL about some of the statements that Sarah had made. I told her that Sarah was not completely telling the truth. I finished the conversation by saying that I had no reason to drive 8 hours in a snow storm to not tell the truth. I would be glad to explain my observation if anyone needs more information.”
3. Darrell Martin also testified on December 28, 2010 that Petitioner’s father Robert Prescott, who lives with her in Mr. Kenick’s home, struck Sarah’s mother so hard she required a metal plate to be surgically implanted in her jaw.
i. Mr. Prescott is the same person Marital Master Cross had to stop the proceedings in the December 2008 Emergency Custody Hearing Ms. Kenick created in her obstruction of shared custody, to inform him that if he couldn’t better control his temper he would be removed from the Courtroom.
ii. Mr. Prescott is also the same person young son Kenick claims has repeatedly struck the him for pleading to be relieved of Ms. Kenick’s custody and he told Dr. Tan in private this past April.
iii. Mr. Prescott is also the same person who assaulted Mr. Kenick’s van in the road with the children inside it at the failed attempt to create an altercation for a Restraining Order at the custody transfer on August 14, 2009 as stated in the notarized affidavit below.
4. In another notarized affidavit silenced witness wrote “On June 30, 2010 I attended a hearing to testify regarding what the children had stated to me were reasons for their repeated pleas for protection and relief from Ms. Kenick and her father. Yet Marital Master Cross allowed NONE of the eleven persons present to testify, including the children’s 100 year old Great Grandmother. On February 11, 2011 I again attended a hearing to testify on behalf of the children and again Marital Master Cross refused to allow Mr. Kenick to call ANY of his twelve witnesses to take the stand while again allowing Ms. Kenick’s lawyer to repeatedly stall the entire hearing. I am also one of the several persons Mr. Kenick took as witnesses to custody transfers following the August 14, 2009 incident in what the children describe as a prepared altercation where they were forced into outgrown shoes and clothing while Mr. Kenick waited outside the home, and then Ms. Kenick and her father followed them out the door and when Mr. Kenick wouldn’t engage in an argument, Ms. Kenick’s father flew into a rage and ran into the street shouting obscenities and banging on the van with the children inside it according to the children. I am also the recipient of the Cubscout related email Ms. Kenick instigated in February of this year for which she then had Mr. Kenick arrested and jailed overnight. I understand the prosecutor said in Court he had no prosecutable case and it was placed on file. As a mother, scoutleader, and NH taxpayer, I am appalled at the lack of justice or Due Process I’ve personally witnessed in this case in the Portsmouth Family Court.”
5. The owner of the property where Ms. Kenick stalked me to seek an altercation after her August 14, 2009 attempt failed, wrote “I had never met either Mr. or Mrs. Kenick before they became our neighbors when Joseph Kenick purchased the house next door in April 2002. In October 2009 my family and I asked Joseph Kenick III if he would take care of our fish and our mail while we were away in Aruba. Mr. Kenick agreed and my family and I subsequently went on vacation. Ms. Kenick had no legal right, reason, nor permission to be anywhere on our property. Yet according to the police report of November 11, 2009, Ms. Kenick therefore trespassed on our property in order to confront Mr. Kenick. As the homeowner, Ms. Kenick had neither permission nor any legal right to be present; I hope the above clarifies the events of November 11, 2009” (when Ms. Kenick obtained a Restraining Order). He continues “I have also personally witnessed the bias and injustice of Marital Master Cross and the Portsmouth Family Court system. I repeatedly took days off of work to attend Court sessions and testify to the above as well as Mr. Kenick’s character. On June 30, 2010 I was one of eleven witnesses who attended, yet Marital Master Cross refused to let these witnesses speak. On September 10, 2010 I was one of more than a dozen witnesses to attended, yet Marital Master Cross refused to allow any witnesses to speak on behalf of Mr. Kenick or the children until the final twenty five minutes of a six hour hearing. I was also one of a dozen witnesses who came to testify on behalf of Mr. Kenick on February 11, 2011, yet Marital Master Cross again refused to allow witnesses to take the stand. As a taxpayer, I am deeply troubled by the gross bias, wasted resources, and complete lack of Due Process I have now personally witnessed in this case. Apparently rulings are only granted to those who can afford a lawyer and justice does not exist.”
6. Another wrote “I am writing to you as a member of the public who recently witnessed Marital Master Cross on February 11, 2011, when he was presiding over the divorce hearing for Mr. & Mrs. Kenick. I left thinking it was nothing more than a kangaroo Court. Justices sitting on the bench should be fair and looking out for the welfare of the kids. From my own observations the only bench Marital Master Cross should be sitting on is a baseball bench. I took a day off of work without pay to testify for Mr. Kenick, because I have first hand knowledge of the complaints the children have made in repeatedly asking for relief from their mother’s custody. I could have understood not to be called, but when Marital Master Cross denied to hear any of Mr. Kenick’s witnesses, because Master Cross would let Ms. Kenick’s attorney ramble on for more than twenty minutes, is totally wrong and does not serve justice. For instance, Ms. Kenick’s attorney complained that she felt it was wrong for Mr. Kenick to go to the Stratham Police Station to pick up his children. Yet Ms. Kenick was the one who sought out Mr. Kenick to obtain a Restraining Order against him and the neighbor on whose property she did it was present to testify too and said he too was repeatedly denied even though he had attended several Court sessions. When Mr. Kenick would try to object to Ms. Kenick’s attorney’s long delay tactics, MM Cross would only say that he would have his chance to speak. When Mr. Kenick was able to speak he spoke for barely a minute before Ms. Kenick’s attorney would object and then would be allowed to shuffle papers and ramble on again so no witnesses were heard. Then Master Cross ended the day saying Mr. Kenick had the same amount of time to state his side and call his witnesses, and as I stated above no one was called despite twelve persons who sat in the Court room for the entire hearing. According to several persons present, this same injustice has been repeated by Marital Master Cross in this case time and time again. This is not a Court where both sides have a chance to present, but a kangaroo Court and Marital Master Cross should be removed from his position if the public is to have any confidence in the judicial system.”
7. Former NH AG Attorney Craig Donais wrote “I am an attorney admitted to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr. Kenick was very concerned about appearing Pro Se and retained me on a limited representation basis to sit beside him and advise him at the Final Hearing in his divorce on September 9, 2010 in the Portsmouth Family Court. I have not appeared for Mr. Kenick either prior to, or following the September 9, 2010 hearing. I understand from Mr. Kenick that the Guardian Ad Litem report was to be filed during the second week of August, but a report was not filed by GAL Jennifer Rackley until approximately a week before the scheduled hearing. In an unusual move, the GAL filed a modified report either during or immediately preceding the hearing, with substantially different allegations and information than was contained in the report from a week before. The report was not made available for review by Mr. Kenick prior to or at the hearing. Mr. Kenick requested that Marital Master Cross interview the children in camera, but he denied his request. During the hearing GAL Rackley was examined by the Respondent about her recommendations and in her testimony she indicated that she had no additional evidence to support her change of position from the report filed days earlier, nor had she investigated any of the incidents regarding abuses claimed by the children and the Respondent alleged against the Petitioner. It is my understanding that as a result of the information presented in this late GAL report that the Family Division modified the Respondent’s custody from the 50/50 shared custody arrangement which had been in effect since June 2008.”
· The Court and this public case file will also please note Respondent’s GAL related motion dated March 2010 requiring a Court order to deny GAL Rackley’s attempt to demand $140 an hour not to exceed $9000 when the Court’s February 6, 2010 order clearly stated $60 an hour not to exceed $1000 total.
8. Billie Jo Kangethe wrote a notarized affidavit dated February 14, 2011 stating “To Whom It May Concern, Joseph and Alexandra Kenick attend the Southern District YMCA Stratham after-school program on Mondays, Tuesdays, and every other Friday. They’re picked up by their father, Joe Kenick, on those afternoons between 3:30 and 4:30.” Which supports my Ex Parte plea to the Court and the Stratham Police Department for protection from Ms. Kenick’s repeated attempts to create an altercation in front of the children two days in a row this past January 25 & 26, 2011.
9. I now have in my possession a notarized affidavit dated September 20, 2011 which states “I am the assistant to the Sunday School Program at Christ Church in Exeter, NH. I have personally witnessed Sarah Kenick swear at a group of Sunday school children. I also have first hand knowledge regarding the Kenick children’s repeated plea for protection and relief from Ms. Kenick’s custody. Both children have repeatedly stated they have been hit by Ms. Kenick’s father who lives with her, punished, confined to their room, denied attendance at numerous events, all while begging for protection from Ms. Kenick’s custody. On February 11, 2011 I attended the Court hearing to testify to the above when Marital Master Cross refused to allow ANY of Mr. Kenick’s twelve witnesses to testify. Where is justice for the children when Ms. Kenick’s lawyer is allowed to stall the entire hearing and the judge refuses to accept notarized affidavits or hear testimony? I was told by more than one witness in the courtroom that day that several of them have attended two, three, or more hearings, and the same injustice in the Portsmouth Family Court; and a testament to Mr. Kenick’s character, and love as a father, that he has been able to endure such prolonged injustice. For the safety and emotional well-being, SOMEONE from the Court or the State should listen to the children and immediately grant their plea to live with their father.”
10. False allegations that their pleas to live with their father should be disregarded as Parent Alienation by their father is not only erroneous, but dangerous to the children according to the studies referenced below:
a. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2006). Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide (2nd edition). Reno, NV: NCJFCJ. EXCERPT from page 24: "The discredited "diagnosis" of "PAS" (or allegation of "parental alienation"), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children's behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be "alienated" have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children's responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children's other parent.
b. Walker, L. E., Brantley, K. L., & Rigsbee, J. A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Its Admissibility in the Family Court. Journal of Child Custody, 1(2), 47-74. ABSTRACT: Over the past three decades, a syndrome, titled Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), has been proposed to explain behaviors by a child who refuses to spend time with a parent and actually denigrates that parent within the context of a child custody dispute. The association of certain negative behaviors by one parent (called the 'alienator') towards the other parent (called the 'target parent') are said to be the cause of the child's (called 'alienated child') behavior. Although some mental health professionals and child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been quick to accept and admit PAS as evidence in these disputes, especially in those that have cross-complaints alleging family violence, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS exists or that the alienator's behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child's behavior towards the target parent. It is argued here that the PAS construct itself is flawed and its use by custody evaluators to justify placement with the rejected parent may result in more serious damage to the child who is taken away from the parent to whom the child has bonded. These authors suggest that the PAS argument has been accepted by some courts that seem almost eager to punish the so-called alienating parent without regard for the immediate or long-term impact on the child. PAS has had difficulty meeting Daubert or Frye admissibility standards in criminal courts.
c. Wood, C. L. (1994). The parental alienation syndrome: A dangerous aura of reliability. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 27, 1367-1415. Attorney Cheri Wood (1994) suggests that although Gardner 's self-published theories do not have any empirical grounding, they have been given a "dangerous and undeserved aura of reliability and trustworthiness" in the courtroom. Wood concludes that PAS should not be admissible in court for the following reasons: (1) because it has not gained acceptance among experts in the field, (2) because of difficulties in determining causation, and (3) because it endangers children.
d. The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence (formerly the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media) Approximately one in two marriages in the United States ends in divorce, affecting about a million children per year. About 10% of these divorces involve custody litigation. Some children are or become emotionally estranged from one or both parents during this process. The cause of this estrangement cannot be determined without an in depth understanding of the family's history and dynamics. Research has shown that the issues underlying parent attachment or estrangement are complex and do not lend themselves to easy answers. However, some child custody evaluators rely on simplistic "junk science" theories to explain the child's behavior and recommend "one size fits all" type solutions to force the child to divide their love 50-50 between their parents. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is one such theory. This unsophisticated, pseudoscientific theory explains a child's estrangement from one parent or allegations of abuse at the hands of one parent by blaming the other. The theory, developed by the late Richard A. Gardner, M.D., portrays the preferred parent as an evil "alienator" who is virtually solely responsible for turning a vulnerable child against their estranged parent. The simplistic solution is to separate the child from the parent they prefer and place them with the parent they reject or report as having abused them. Despite the fact that many of the assumptions underlying PAS theory have repeatedly been disproven scientifically. Although some mental health professionals and child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been quick to accept and admit PAS as evidence in these disputes, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS is a valid syndrome or that the so called "alienator's" behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child's behavior towards the target parent (Walker et al, 2005). In fact, the majority of mental health and legal experts who have studied the issue consider PAS theory to be both erroneous and dangerous to the children involved.
from http://unethicalattorney.blogs...
NH House investigating impeaching marital master - From The Website Of The Washington Examiner
Therapist_and_Mother 1 week ago
I share my viewpoints as a therapist with decades of experience and also as a mother and grandmother who has been irreparably harmed by longstanding maladministration of court rules and violations of the law by Marital Master Philip Cross. It would take many hours to fully explain how drastically Master
Cross has injured our family over the four plus years we have been in his court and also to explain the cases from other families we've found that have been similarly harmed. Thank you to the intrepid women and men of the legislature who voted to investigate marital master Philip Cross.
mother4justice 1 week ago
I am waiting patiently for the day "Master Cross" is removed from the court system. This is the man who, Without asking one question of the mother of a 6 yr old little boy, decides to allow the estranged father to take him to a country which does not abide by the Hague Child Abduction Act.
Retired_LE_Officer
I am a retired federal law enforcement officer with over thirty three years of service to our country on the front lines during both wartime and peacetime. I retired from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Dept. of Homeland Security in 2004. In all my long years as a federal law enforcement officer I have never seen, nor even imagined, as lawless an environment as the Portsmouth Family Division under Master Cross's dictatorial, unconstitutional and abusive rule. I write in support of HR7, a bill to investigate whether there are grounds to impeach Marital Master Phillip Cross.
It is my sincere hope and prayer for innocent children and families in our state that the legislature intervenes to stop the horribly destructive human and civil rights abuses that occur regularly at the Portsmouth Family Division by Marital Master Phillip Cross.
Master Cross's actions and rulings that are direct and extreme violations of the New Hampshire Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, established court rules, our rights to due process under the law, our civil rights, Case Law established by the Supreme Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The JCC, Administrative Judge of the Family Court and the Supreme Court have continually refused to protect the public from unconstitutional violations of our laws by Master Cross and continue to only try to protect him and themselves as if they feel they are above the law. The legislature is the only and last
option left for "we the people" for protection from Master Cross. The Judiciary has failed to protect citizens and police it's ranks. The legislature is the check and balance and is constitutionally empowered to do just that.
How is any of the above justice or in the best interest of the children?
Friends, please take a look at what is going on in N.H. Family Courts:
NH COURTS UNLAWFULLY REMOVE CHILDREN FROM FIT PARENTS: (THEY DID IT TO ME ON 2/11/11)
http://judicialchildabuse.blogspot.com/2011/10/nh-courts-unlawfully-remove-children.html
Your support is essential!
~fight injustice~
The Kenick children’s pleas and reasons therefore are listed below and are quotes directly from the GAL report and made public in motions I filed January 18, 2011 and February 8, 2011:
1. On Line 5 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report it states “the children have stated that Sarah lies and this she is nice in public, but not in the house.”
2. On Line 3 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report it states “Alexandra then went on to explain that her mother dressed her in such ill-fitting shoes for the trip that Joe had to buy Alexandra new shoes.”
3. On Page 6 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report it states fifteen year old Katelyn Jerge told the GAL “that on the day of the last Court date, she was babysitting son and daughter and that son told Katelyn that he hated his mother and daughter agreed with him. Katelyn stated that she asked the children why and son said it was because his mom was making it so he couldn’t go to his scouting events and he couldn’t see his dad at the scouting events. They both said they wanted to live with their dad. The GAL also asked if the children seemed upset when they made those statements and Katelyn stated that son seemed confident.”
4. On Page 10 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report it stated that Claire Denton said six year old daughter said “I know what you think,” and she looked behind her, “that my mom is really nice, and when we’re in a place like this, she’s really nice to me, but when we’re alone, she’s really mean.”
5. On Page 11 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report it states “Claire Denton stated that daughter said this one time she made me wear shoes that hurt my feet and when Claire Denton said maybe mommy didn’t know, daughter said it doesn’t matter, she made me wear them anyway.”
6. On Page 11 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report Claire Denton reported daughter said “this one time I couldn’t breathe” and when Claire asked what happened the child replied “well my shirt was too tight.”
7. On Page 11 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report Claire Denton reported that another classmate’s mother stated concerns when six year old daughter “asked to speak with me privately and said she doesn’t feel comfortable being alone with Sarah and that she wants to live with her dad.”
8. while aiding the child in cleaning his room was recently found a letter from nine year old son to Kathy Forbes Fisher dated November 15, 2010 which states “Dear Ms. Fisher, Hi, thanks very much NOT for being the worst counselor ever. You made us write letters we didn’t want to write. You don’t go on our side you go on mom’s side. And speaking of mom, be a counselor for her! We don’t need it, she needs double counseling. P.S. I’m not having a bad day. I want to live with my dad and here are some examples: Mom makes us miss everything she can. You make us write letters we don’t want to . Dad doesn’t make us miss things we want to go to, but since we can’t see him all the time we don’t get to go to half the things.”
9. On Line 15 of the Respondent’s January 18, 2011 motion which is also public record it states the calls the children asked to make to Kathy Forbes Fisher and the GAL Attorney Jen Rackley which Jen Rackley wrote as 12/4/10 (Saturday) Joseph left a message at 5:56 PM stating “I was very cross about being ripped out of the Christmas Parade at Exeter. I would like to live with my father.” Referencing Ms. Kenick’s insistence that the child could not march in the annual event with his Cubscout group, only so she and her father could leave him with a babysitter and daughter at a friends house while they abandoned both children. Son called on 12/5/10 (Sunday) at 10:14 AM stating “I was upset I was put to bed late last night so I could be woken up early so I’d be exhausted for my father. That’s another reason why I want to come live with him.” Referencing Petitioner’s cruel and repeated sleep deprivation of both children. At 10:25 AM daughter left a message stating “I was very upset and very cross that I had to miss the parade last night. I would like to live with my father.”
Below is the email I sent to Leah Estes dated 5/15/11 pleading with her to just speak with son and daughter alone after nine year old son said he was hit with a bat for pleading to live with his father:
Thanks Leah. My only phone number is 686-9976. For monetary reasons I cancelled the landline months ago.
If son's complaint is a fantasy then there is nothing more I can do for him. I only ask you to please interview both children in your professional capacity and ascertain if there is truth to their now numerous complaints of physical violence against them as well as threats made to their persons and their possessions which both children have claimed repeatedly in asking for protection to myself ever since Joseph claims he was brutally beaten in July 2009, then their grandparents since the our August 2009 vacation together, then Kathy Forbes Fisher since January 2010 who said it wasn't her place to let the children even speak of such things, then Jen Rackley who said she didn't investigate even a single "specific" instance, and then anyone who would listen to them as already reported in part in the September 1, 2010 GAL report and many others since, including Ms. Kenick's own parents, persons at the church Ms. Kenick attends, the children's own words of sleep deprivation in the phone calls to the GAL made from my cell phone on December 4 just minutes prior to the Saturday evening custody transfer, and again on December 5th just minutes after the Sunday morning custody transfer, and others. Please note too when the children said these things. In the September 1, 2010 GAL report, they talked to Katie Jerge ALONE while her father and I were at Court and therefore can't possibly be accused of having any influence. Alexandra talked to Claire Denton at Ms. Kenick's home where I can't possibly be accused of having any influence. Please note too the line where Claire states "daughter looked behind her". She certainly wasn't worried her father was going to find out and punish her and I encourage anyone who is interested in the truth to ask why the children have never once shown the least fear of their father, and only Ms. Kenick and Mr. Prescott. Why do they plead in public and private for permission to "live with their father" even when their father isn't there to protect them and hasn't seen them nor had any contact for days or even weeks?
I personally witnessed Mr. Prescott's insane attack on our minivan in the street during the August 14th custody transfer so I know the children didn't make that up. You'll have to ask them about their claims that they were forced into certain clothing and shoes immediately before that because I have no first-hand knowledge of what Ms. Kenick and her father did or did not do to the children, then, or at any other time, and only know what the children have chosen to speak of in repeatedly pleading for protection and relief.
I was not present at the campground when son was beaten, I only found out a week later when I hugged him and he winced then told me the story explaining the many Band-Aids and puncture wounds on his back barely half an inch from his spine. NOTE: (There are photos of his injuries in exhibit “I” of public case file 2008-DM-185).
I have never had to take either child to the Emergency Room ever in my custody either before or since Ms. Kenick filed for divorce May 1, 2008. There was an emergency room trip by Ms. Kenick when son was a baby and I was at work in Boston so I can't say what happened beyond I was told son "hit a wall" in the custody of Sarah and/or her father, and poor son required stitches in his forehead.
So I am very concerned by attempts to dismiss son's complaint and ask only that you interview the children in private, assure them that you have the power to protect them if warranted, and then investigate their claims since the only ones who can actually tell you what happened and by whom is the children themselves.
Please also speak with Greg Schwartz, before you just file it as old or unfounded and subject the children to weeks or months more of what the children already claim is a series of repeated abuses for which they have pleaded for someone, anyone, to hear them and provide the protection and relief they have pleaded for to counselors, the GAL, private journals, classmates, classmates mothers, friends, and family hoping someone would not just silence them or leave them to further punishment for stating what they themselves say they have been subjected to.
Thank you,
Joe Kenick III
Below is what I wrote to the kids counselor Kathy Forbes Fisher earlier this year (she was repeatedly rejected by both the Portsmouth and Brentwood Family Courts until Ms. Kenick stalked me on Steve Jerge’s property to obtain a Restraining Order against me November 11, 2009):
“When I went to see Leah Estes at NH DCYF she said that GAL Jen Rackley was on vacation so she had not spoken to her, but that she had spoken to you and that you had told her it happened a long time ago and for her not to speak with Joseph himself regarding the child’s complaint to Dr. Tan – in private and without myself or anyone else present with him – that Sarah’s father Robert Prescott hit that little boy with a bat. I then pleaded repeatedly with DCYF to just interview the children about that allegation and the other abuses they claim they have endured (as written in a notarized affidavit by Sarah’s own family), and even Dr. Greg Schwartz said he called DCYF repeatedly and they failed/refused to call him back, and that he spoke about it to you advocating that DCYF speak with Joseph about his claims that Robert Prescott hit him with a bat and Dr. Schwartz said that you said you were the child expert and you disagreed.
YOUR actions are even rejected by a majority of your peers as exhibited below:
a. some child custody evaluators rely on simplistic "junk science" theories to explain the child's behavior and recommend "one size fits all" type solutions to force the child to divide their love 50-50 between their parents. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is one such theory. The simplistic solution is to separate the child from the parent they prefer and place them with the parent they reject or report as having abused them. In fact, the majority of mental health and legal experts who have studied the issue consider PAS theory to be both erroneous and dangerous to the children involved.
b. PAS construct itself is flawed and its use by custody evaluators to justify placement with the rejected parent may result in more serious damage to the child who is taken away from the parent to whom the child has bonded.
c. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children's responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children's other parent.
Respectfully,
Joseph Kenick III”
NO ONE FROM DCYF EVEN SPOKE TO SON!
To Kathy Forbes Fisher my ten year old son wrote the following November 15, 2010 and was subsequently further punished for it:
2) While aiding the child in cleaning his room was recently found a letter from nine year old son to Kathy Forbes Fisher dated November 15, 2010 which states “Dear Ms. Fisher, Hi, thanks very much NOT for being the worst counselor ever. You made us write letters we didn’t want to write. You don’t go on our side you go on mom’s side. And speaking of mom, be a counselor for her! We don’t need it, she needs double counseling. P.S. I’m not having a bad day. I want to live with my dad and here are some examples: Mom makes us miss everything she can. You make us write letters we don’t want to . Dad doesn’t make us miss things we want to go to, but since we can’t see him all the time we don’t get to go to half the things.”
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." -Albert Einstein
When she filed for divorce I owed nothing but a small mortgage, and an SBA loan I got from FEMA in the 2006 mother’s day floods to repair the flooded basement.
My vehicles all were paid for. I put a $230,000 house addition on and didn’t affect the $1260/month mortgage. And so she took the Masters and PhD I made possible for her to obtain, met someone else, and filed for divorce. I didn’t contest the divorce, only her insistence that she was taking the house and more than 50% custody of the children. I even wrote an exactly equal parenting plan which she repeatedly has violated and obstructed as written and testified to by even her own family (See the notarized affidavits of her stepfather Darrell Martin). I didn’t break a single marriage vow, where is justice for myself and the children? So she started tormenting the children and they started pleading for protection and relief. They told family and then Sarah got a Restraining order by stalking me in Steve Jerge’s yard and then the children told Kathy Forbes Fisher who refused to let them even speak about why they wanted to live with their father, then GAL Jen Rackley who wrote a GAL report advocating equal parenting, and then changed it the next week DURING THE FINAL HEARING and admitted on the stand that she had no evidence to support her change of position, nor had she even investigated ANY of mine or the children’s complaints against Ms. Kenick’s repeated abuses both physical and emotional (See the children’s own pleas at the end of this email, as well as the notarized affidavit of Attorney Craig Donais quoted herein as well).
I’ve asked for nothing from the Courts except protection and enforcement of my 50% custody, protection of the children from their repeated pleas for help against repeated abuses including physical beatings, intentional sleep deprivation, threats to their persons and their possessions for pleading to live with their father, and protection of the Court from these ridiculous delays she has filed while trying to take my children and my home through divorce.
HR-7 is being pursued in the NH Legislature right now and the notarized affidavits and pleas of the children are already on the Governor’s desk, Speaker of the House O’Brien’s Desk, several legislators, and Senator Prescott’s desk.
Contact Governor Lynch:
Office of the Governor
State House
107 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2121
(603)271-7640 (fax)
Contact Speaker of the House O’Brien:
State House
107 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
Contact Administrative Judge: Hon. Edwin W. Kelly:
Circuit Court Administrative Office
45 Chenell Drive, Suite 2
Concord, NH 03301-8541
Phone: (603) 271-6418
NH CONSTITUTION
[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.
[Art.] 35. [The Judiciary; Tenure of Office, etc.] It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.
[Art.] 38. [Social Virtues Inculcated.] A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them.
Marital Master Cross has a long history of such egregious decisions against the best interest of the children:
· [Art.] 73. [Tenure of Office To Be Expressed in Commissions; Judges to Hold Office During Good Behavior, etc.; Removal.] The tenure that all commissioned officers shall have by law in their offices shall be expressed in their respective commissions, and all judicial officers duly appointed, commissioned and sworn, shall hold their offices during good behavior except those for whom a different provision is made in this constitution. The governor with consent of the council may remove any commissioned officer for reasonable cause upon the address of both houses of the legislature, provided nevertheless that the cause for removal shall be stated fully and substantially in the address and shall not be a cause which is a sufficient ground for impeachment, and provided further that no officer shall be so removed unless he shall have had an opportunity to be heard in his defense by a joint committee of both houses of the legislature.
Just read the cases of Johnson v. Johnson, Puiia v Miner, Whelen v Emerson, Miller v. Todd, and now Kenick v Kenick:
1. He recommended an order holding a father in criminal contempt following a hearing that had been noticed as a civil contempt hearing, which order resulted in that father, who was representing himself and was the primary custodian of the parties' minor child, to be incarcerated for 10 weeks, in contravention of his right not to be deprived of liberty but by the judgment of his peers, as guaranteed by Part 1, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution.
2. He:
(a) Recommended a child support order in the absence of submission of the affidavits and child support guidelines worksheets necessary to its lawful determination under RSA 458-C, thereby basing said recommendation neither upon the guidelines set forth in RSA 458-C:4 nor upon some other basis supported by written findings pursuant to RSA 458-C:5;
(b) Recommended in said proposed order that child support be paid by the father, even though the father had primary physical custody of the parties' minor child and the mother's income was at least as great as that of the father;
(c) Recommended an order denying a motion to reconsider that support order when presented with evidence of these defects; and
(d) Subsequently recommended an order requiring the sale of the father's home in order to pay the arrearage in the child support determined on the basis of the support order so generated, resulting in the father and the minor child becoming homeless.
3. He:
(a) Refused to allow competent testimony or the admission into evidence of documentation critical to the determination of the medical needs of a minor child;
(b) Willfully misrepresented such of the medical needs of the minor child as were known to him;
(c) Recommended an order transferring parental medical decision-making authority respecting said minor child in the absence of any evidence of changed circumstances so justifying; and
(d) Held the father in contempt of court for seeking appropriate emergency medical attention for said minor child in circumstances in which he knew or should have known the father had no reasonable alternative.
4. Rather than recommend a new order to replace it, he instead refused to enforce an existing custody order that had been temporarily suspended, thereby allowing the mother to disregard the custodial rights of the father thereunder, and did not act upon a motion brought by the father against the mother to enforce his custodial rights under said existing order.
5. Following entry of an order precluding a father from taking his minor child out of school early and a subsequent order requiring the parties' minor child to undergo counseling, he recommended an order holding the father in contempt for violating the second order in circumstances in which his doing so would have caused him to violate the first order.
6. He followed a pattern, in an ongoing case before him, of recommending orders having the effect of gradually eroding one parent's custodial rights without proper pleadings having been filed by the other parent, without proper notice having been given, without hearings having been held, and without changed circumstances having arisen.
7. He recommended an order relating to parenting issues following a hearing that had been noticed as one to consider financial issues, but which on the day of the hearing, over the objection of one parent, had been changed to parenting issues raised at the hearing by the other parent, thereby depriving the objecting parent of adequate opportunity to prepare and of advance disclosure of the identity and expected testimony of the expert witnesses brought and called to testify by the other parent, which order, in addition to its adverse consequences to the objecting parent, terminated the physical custodial rights of the objecting parent's parents, who, notwithstanding that they were formal parties, had not been afforded the opportunity to testify, to present witnesses, or to cross-examine opposing witnesses at the hearing.
8. He recommended an order, without opportunity for objection or hearing, approving payment of guardian ad litem fees of $44,000 that encompassed activities beyond the scope of the guardian's legitimate duties and responsibilities and in disregard of the retainer agreement that had limited fees to $4,000.
9. In summary, it is evident to the general court that Marital Master Philip Cross has established a pattern of retaliatory, arbitrary, capricious and/or prejudiced adjudication; disregard of governing law and rules; disregard of the evidentiary record; and recommendation of conflicting orders, and orders disregarding the best interests, safety, and health of minor children of the parties appearing before him.
Below is a letter written from an attorney regarding gross injustices conducted from the bench by Marital Master Cross in 2007. The letter (which can be viewed at http://werme.8m.net/Fathers_Rights/David_Johnson/07_03_29_exec_counsel_let.pdf Shows a repetitive history of injustices by Marital Master Cross and further supports the assertion that he is bias and unfit to sit on the bench (over many years and many cases and in two Courts now).
The part of the video related to Cross is from 12 minutes and 15 seconds to 36 minutes and 7 seconds
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/housevideo/sessions/2011/2011-03-16pm.asx
From the March 31, 2011 Nashua Telegraph.
NH court overturns custody order - NashuaTelegraph.com
Source: nashuatelegraph.com
CONCORD - A Portsmouth Family Court Judge was wrong to award custody of two children to a New Hampshire woman who may have coached them to accuse their father of sexual abuse, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Gary Hicks, the high court ordered Portsmouth Family Division Judge Sharon DeVries to reconsider the case of James J. Miller and Janet S. Todd.
Miller, who now lives in New York, and Todd, who lives in New Hampshire, had struck up a relationship in 1999, after meeting online. They lived together for a time in both Michigan and New Hampshire, and had two daughters.
See the court's ruling below, or on the court's website: www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/index.htm
- Andrew Wolfe
SAME PORTSMOUTH FAMILY COURT AS MY OWN CASE
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________
Portsmouth Family Division No. 2009-806
IN THE MATTER OF JAMES J. MILLER AND JANET S. TODD
Argued: November 17, 2010 Opinion Issued: March 31, 2011
the trial court erred in awarding Todd parenting responsibility when she has “engaged in a sustained campaign to alienate the children from [him], and to interfere with his parenting rights, by making multiple accusations of sexual abuse.”
As we have recognized, “the obstruction by a custodial parent of visitation between a child and the noncustodial parent may, if continuous, constitute behavior so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to raise a strong possibility that the child will be harmed.” Webb v. Knudson, 133 N.H. 665, 673 (1990); see also In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek, 151 N.H. 722, 728 (2005).
the trial court engaged in an unsustainable exercise of discretion.
trial court’s determination as to custody apparently did not take into account actions of the wife and impact of wife’s repeated lawsuits on husband’s ability to maintain contact with his children).
the false allegations of abuse significantly interfered with Miller’s visitation and deprived him of any relationship with his children for years.
mother’s attempt to deprive child of opportunity to know and love father by interfering with father’s visitation is not in child’s best interest); Theisen v. Theisen, 405 N.W.2d 470, 474 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) (mother created and maintained atmosphere of unwarranted suspicion and accusation regarding conduct of father toward children resulting in psychological damage); C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 879 So. 2d 1169, 1178 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (not in child’s best interests to be raised by a mother so bitterly opposed to child’s father).
See Theisen, 405 N.W.2d at 472 (mother’s repeated attempts to alienate the children from their father and her pattern of conduct, having existed over the years, is unlikely to change);
The trial court awarded custody to Todd primarily because the children have spent the majority of their lives with her and that is where they are most comfortable.
Miller was denied any contact with his children for over two years and had little opportunity to establish a home life with them between 2004 and 2009. This raises the question whether Todd has benefitted from her misbehavior.
it was clear the court failed to consider evidence that mother willfully interfered with father’s relationship with the children
We conclude that the award of parental rights and responsibilities must be vacated and the case remanded for reconsideration in light of this opinion. On remand, the trial court must consider the factors set forth in RSA 461-A, I(e)-(g) in determining the children’s best interests in this case. Also, the court should consider the applicability of the recent amendment to RSA 461-A:6, IV (Supp. 2010). It is within the trial court’s discretion to take into consideration any additional circumstances that may have occurred while this appeal was pending.
Public record from Kenick v Kenick (there are DOZENS more in Exhibit “H” which is also public record in Case 2008-DM-184):
1. “My son-in-law, Joseph Kenick has asked that I share my observations concerning the Court proceedings and also the Petitioner’s continued attempt to deny a fair settlement for the children as well as the properties. Joe had been able to let us enjoy our grandchildren by traveling to our home in Vermont, bringing the children on camping trips to Coleman State Park, and arranging birthdays and other family events. On numerous occasions Sarah has interfered with some of those plans. I traveled to the Courthouse on the 10th of September and again on the 28th of December to testify on behalf of the children. My observation was that on the September visit which was two separate days of testimony, that although Mr. Kenick had more than six witnesses available to testify, the Court only allowed him 25 minutes of time on the day that I was there. I was told by some of the other witnesses that they had been waiting for both days and never testified. I returned to the Courtroom on the 28th of December and again found that the Court gave Ms. Kenick’s attorney more than half of the time available. My wife and I have spent time alone with the Grandchildren and occasionally the conversation would drift to how things are going at home. On several occasions, they would talk about some abusive behavior in Sarah’s house. I was very upset with Sarah’s testimony in Court in that she misrepresented statements that I had made and told the GAL so, in hopes somebody would see the light. I thought the judicial system was supposed to be an unbiased and fair system in which differences could be resolved. All that I see in this matter is an unfair and hurtful injustice to two innocent children.”
2. In a notarized affidavit dated February 5, 2011 Darrell Martin, Ms. Kenick’s own Stepfather, wrote “On the 28th of December, 2011, I testified in the divorce proceedings between Joseph Kenick and Sarah Kenick (Prescott). After I finished, Sarah was called to give her version of my statements. During her testimony I heard her telling things that I felt were not the truth. I was very upset at the things that she said and I addressed the GAL about some of the statements that Sarah had made. I told her that Sarah was not completely telling the truth. I finished the conversation by saying that I had no reason to drive 8 hours in a snow storm to not tell the truth. I would be glad to explain my observation if anyone needs more information.”
3. Darrell Martin also testified on December 28, 2010 that Petitioner’s father Robert Prescott, who lives with her in Mr. Kenick’s home, struck Sarah’s mother so hard she required a metal plate to be surgically implanted in her jaw.
i. Mr. Prescott is the same person Marital Master Cross had to stop the proceedings in the December 2008 Emergency Custody Hearing Ms. Kenick created in her obstruction of shared custody, to inform him that if he couldn’t better control his temper he would be removed from the Courtroom.
ii. Mr. Prescott is also the same person young son Kenick claims has repeatedly struck the him for pleading to be relieved of Ms. Kenick’s custody and he told Dr. Tan in private this past April.
iii. Mr. Prescott is also the same person who assaulted Mr. Kenick’s van in the road with the children inside it at the failed attempt to create an altercation for a Restraining Order at the custody transfer on August 14, 2009 as stated in the notarized affidavit below.
4. In another notarized affidavit silenced witness wrote “On June 30, 2010 I attended a hearing to testify regarding what the children had stated to me were reasons for their repeated pleas for protection and relief from Ms. Kenick and her father. Yet Marital Master Cross allowed NONE of the eleven persons present to testify, including the children’s 100 year old Great Grandmother. On February 11, 2011 I again attended a hearing to testify on behalf of the children and again Marital Master Cross refused to allow Mr. Kenick to call ANY of his twelve witnesses to take the stand while again allowing Ms. Kenick’s lawyer to repeatedly stall the entire hearing. I am also one of the several persons Mr. Kenick took as witnesses to custody transfers following the August 14, 2009 incident in what the children describe as a prepared altercation where they were forced into outgrown shoes and clothing while Mr. Kenick waited outside the home, and then Ms. Kenick and her father followed them out the door and when Mr. Kenick wouldn’t engage in an argument, Ms. Kenick’s father flew into a rage and ran into the street shouting obscenities and banging on the van with the children inside it according to the children. I am also the recipient of the Cubscout related email Ms. Kenick instigated in February of this year for which she then had Mr. Kenick arrested and jailed overnight. I understand the prosecutor said in Court he had no prosecutable case and it was placed on file. As a mother, scoutleader, and NH taxpayer, I am appalled at the lack of justice or Due Process I’ve personally witnessed in this case in the Portsmouth Family Court.”
5. The owner of the property where Ms. Kenick stalked me to seek an altercation after her August 14, 2009 attempt failed, wrote “I had never met either Mr. or Mrs. Kenick before they became our neighbors when Joseph Kenick purchased the house next door in April 2002. In October 2009 my family and I asked Joseph Kenick III if he would take care of our fish and our mail while we were away in Aruba. Mr. Kenick agreed and my family and I subsequently went on vacation. Ms. Kenick had no legal right, reason, nor permission to be anywhere on our property. Yet according to the police report of November 11, 2009, Ms. Kenick therefore trespassed on our property in order to confront Mr. Kenick. As the homeowner, Ms. Kenick had neither permission nor any legal right to be present; I hope the above clarifies the events of November 11, 2009” (when Ms. Kenick obtained a Restraining Order). He continues “I have also personally witnessed the bias and injustice of Marital Master Cross and the Portsmouth Family Court system. I repeatedly took days off of work to attend Court sessions and testify to the above as well as Mr. Kenick’s character. On June 30, 2010 I was one of eleven witnesses who attended, yet Marital Master Cross refused to let these witnesses speak. On September 10, 2010 I was one of more than a dozen witnesses to attended, yet Marital Master Cross refused to allow any witnesses to speak on behalf of Mr. Kenick or the children until the final twenty five minutes of a six hour hearing. I was also one of a dozen witnesses who came to testify on behalf of Mr. Kenick on February 11, 2011, yet Marital Master Cross again refused to allow witnesses to take the stand. As a taxpayer, I am deeply troubled by the gross bias, wasted resources, and complete lack of Due Process I have now personally witnessed in this case. Apparently rulings are only granted to those who can afford a lawyer and justice does not exist.”
6. Another wrote “I am writing to you as a member of the public who recently witnessed Marital Master Cross on February 11, 2011, when he was presiding over the divorce hearing for Mr. & Mrs. Kenick. I left thinking it was nothing more than a kangaroo Court. Justices sitting on the bench should be fair and looking out for the welfare of the kids. From my own observations the only bench Marital Master Cross should be sitting on is a baseball bench. I took a day off of work without pay to testify for Mr. Kenick, because I have first hand knowledge of the complaints the children have made in repeatedly asking for relief from their mother’s custody. I could have understood not to be called, but when Marital Master Cross denied to hear any of Mr. Kenick’s witnesses, because Master Cross would let Ms. Kenick’s attorney ramble on for more than twenty minutes, is totally wrong and does not serve justice. For instance, Ms. Kenick’s attorney complained that she felt it was wrong for Mr. Kenick to go to the Stratham Police Station to pick up his children. Yet Ms. Kenick was the one who sought out Mr. Kenick to obtain a Restraining Order against him and the neighbor on whose property she did it was present to testify too and said he too was repeatedly denied even though he had attended several Court sessions. When Mr. Kenick would try to object to Ms. Kenick’s attorney’s long delay tactics, MM Cross would only say that he would have his chance to speak. When Mr. Kenick was able to speak he spoke for barely a minute before Ms. Kenick’s attorney would object and then would be allowed to shuffle papers and ramble on again so no witnesses were heard. Then Master Cross ended the day saying Mr. Kenick had the same amount of time to state his side and call his witnesses, and as I stated above no one was called despite twelve persons who sat in the Court room for the entire hearing. According to several persons present, this same injustice has been repeated by Marital Master Cross in this case time and time again. This is not a Court where both sides have a chance to present, but a kangaroo Court and Marital Master Cross should be removed from his position if the public is to have any confidence in the judicial system.”
7. Former NH AG Attorney Craig Donais wrote “I am an attorney admitted to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr. Kenick was very concerned about appearing Pro Se and retained me on a limited representation basis to sit beside him and advise him at the Final Hearing in his divorce on September 9, 2010 in the Portsmouth Family Court. I have not appeared for Mr. Kenick either prior to, or following the September 9, 2010 hearing. I understand from Mr. Kenick that the Guardian Ad Litem report was to be filed during the second week of August, but a report was not filed by GAL Jennifer Rackley until approximately a week before the scheduled hearing. In an unusual move, the GAL filed a modified report either during or immediately preceding the hearing, with substantially different allegations and information than was contained in the report from a week before. The report was not made available for review by Mr. Kenick prior to or at the hearing. Mr. Kenick requested that Marital Master Cross interview the children in camera, but he denied his request. During the hearing GAL Rackley was examined by the Respondent about her recommendations and in her testimony she indicated that she had no additional evidence to support her change of position from the report filed days earlier, nor had she investigated any of the incidents regarding abuses claimed by the children and the Respondent alleged against the Petitioner. It is my understanding that as a result of the information presented in this late GAL report that the Family Division modified the Respondent’s custody from the 50/50 shared custody arrangement which had been in effect since June 2008.”
· The Court and this public case file will also please note Respondent’s GAL related motion dated March 2010 requiring a Court order to deny GAL Rackley’s attempt to demand $140 an hour not to exceed $9000 when the Court’s February 6, 2010 order clearly stated $60 an hour not to exceed $1000 total.
8. Billie Jo Kangethe wrote a notarized affidavit dated February 14, 2011 stating “To Whom It May Concern, Joseph and Alexandra Kenick attend the Southern District YMCA Stratham after-school program on Mondays, Tuesdays, and every other Friday. They’re picked up by their father, Joe Kenick, on those afternoons between 3:30 and 4:30.” Which supports my Ex Parte plea to the Court and the Stratham Police Department for protection from Ms. Kenick’s repeated attempts to create an altercation in front of the children two days in a row this past January 25 & 26, 2011.
9. I now have in my possession a notarized affidavit dated September 20, 2011 which states “I am the assistant to the Sunday School Program at Christ Church in Exeter, NH. I have personally witnessed Sarah Kenick swear at a group of Sunday school children. I also have first hand knowledge regarding the Kenick children’s repeated plea for protection and relief from Ms. Kenick’s custody. Both children have repeatedly stated they have been hit by Ms. Kenick’s father who lives with her, punished, confined to their room, denied attendance at numerous events, all while begging for protection from Ms. Kenick’s custody. On February 11, 2011 I attended the Court hearing to testify to the above when Marital Master Cross refused to allow ANY of Mr. Kenick’s twelve witnesses to testify. Where is justice for the children when Ms. Kenick’s lawyer is allowed to stall the entire hearing and the judge refuses to accept notarized affidavits or hear testimony? I was told by more than one witness in the courtroom that day that several of them have attended two, three, or more hearings, and the same injustice in the Portsmouth Family Court; and a testament to Mr. Kenick’s character, and love as a father, that he has been able to endure such prolonged injustice. For the safety and emotional well-being, SOMEONE from the Court or the State should listen to the children and immediately grant their plea to live with their father.”
10. False allegations that their pleas to live with their father should be disregarded as Parent Alienation by their father is not only erroneous, but dangerous to the children according to the studies referenced below:
a. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2006). Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide (2nd edition). Reno, NV: NCJFCJ. EXCERPT from page 24: "The discredited "diagnosis" of "PAS" (or allegation of "parental alienation"), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children's behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be "alienated" have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children's responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children's other parent.
b. Walker, L. E., Brantley, K. L., & Rigsbee, J. A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Its Admissibility in the Family Court. Journal of Child Custody, 1(2), 47-74. ABSTRACT: Over the past three decades, a syndrome, titled Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), has been proposed to explain behaviors by a child who refuses to spend time with a parent and actually denigrates that parent within the context of a child custody dispute. The association of certain negative behaviors by one parent (called the 'alienator') towards the other parent (called the 'target parent') are said to be the cause of the child's (called 'alienated child') behavior. Although some mental health professionals and child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been quick to accept and admit PAS as evidence in these disputes, especially in those that have cross-complaints alleging family violence, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS exists or that the alienator's behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child's behavior towards the target parent. It is argued here that the PAS construct itself is flawed and its use by custody evaluators to justify placement with the rejected parent may result in more serious damage to the child who is taken away from the parent to whom the child has bonded. These authors suggest that the PAS argument has been accepted by some courts that seem almost eager to punish the so-called alienating parent without regard for the immediate or long-term impact on the child. PAS has had difficulty meeting Daubert or Frye admissibility standards in criminal courts.
c. Wood, C. L. (1994). The parental alienation syndrome: A dangerous aura of reliability. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 27, 1367-1415. Attorney Cheri Wood (1994) suggests that although Gardner 's self-published theories do not have any empirical grounding, they have been given a "dangerous and undeserved aura of reliability and trustworthiness" in the courtroom. Wood concludes that PAS should not be admissible in court for the following reasons: (1) because it has not gained acceptance among experts in the field, (2) because of difficulties in determining causation, and (3) because it endangers children.
d. The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence (formerly the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media) Approximately one in two marriages in the United States ends in divorce, affecting about a million children per year. About 10% of these divorces involve custody litigation. Some children are or become emotionally estranged from one or both parents during this process. The cause of this estrangement cannot be determined without an in depth understanding of the family's history and dynamics. Research has shown that the issues underlying parent attachment or estrangement are complex and do not lend themselves to easy answers. However, some child custody evaluators rely on simplistic "junk science" theories to explain the child's behavior and recommend "one size fits all" type solutions to force the child to divide their love 50-50 between their parents. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is one such theory. This unsophisticated, pseudoscientific theory explains a child's estrangement from one parent or allegations of abuse at the hands of one parent by blaming the other. The theory, developed by the late Richard A. Gardner, M.D., portrays the preferred parent as an evil "alienator" who is virtually solely responsible for turning a vulnerable child against their estranged parent. The simplistic solution is to separate the child from the parent they prefer and place them with the parent they reject or report as having abused them. Despite the fact that many of the assumptions underlying PAS theory have repeatedly been disproven scientifically. Although some mental health professionals and child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been quick to accept and admit PAS as evidence in these disputes, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS is a valid syndrome or that the so called "alienator's" behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child's behavior towards the target parent (Walker et al, 2005). In fact, the majority of mental health and legal experts who have studied the issue consider PAS theory to be both erroneous and dangerous to the children involved.
from http://unethicalattorney.blogs...
NH House investigating impeaching marital master - From The Website Of The Washington Examiner
Therapist_and_Mother 1 week ago
I share my viewpoints as a therapist with decades of experience and also as a mother and grandmother who has been irreparably harmed by longstanding maladministration of court rules and violations of the law by Marital Master Philip Cross. It would take many hours to fully explain how drastically Master
Cross has injured our family over the four plus years we have been in his court and also to explain the cases from other families we've found that have been similarly harmed. Thank you to the intrepid women and men of the legislature who voted to investigate marital master Philip Cross.
mother4justice 1 week ago
I am waiting patiently for the day "Master Cross" is removed from the court system. This is the man who, Without asking one question of the mother of a 6 yr old little boy, decides to allow the estranged father to take him to a country which does not abide by the Hague Child Abduction Act.
Retired_LE_Officer
I am a retired federal law enforcement officer with over thirty three years of service to our country on the front lines during both wartime and peacetime. I retired from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Dept. of Homeland Security in 2004. In all my long years as a federal law enforcement officer I have never seen, nor even imagined, as lawless an environment as the Portsmouth Family Division under Master Cross's dictatorial, unconstitutional and abusive rule. I write in support of HR7, a bill to investigate whether there are grounds to impeach Marital Master Phillip Cross.
It is my sincere hope and prayer for innocent children and families in our state that the legislature intervenes to stop the horribly destructive human and civil rights abuses that occur regularly at the Portsmouth Family Division by Marital Master Phillip Cross.
Master Cross's actions and rulings that are direct and extreme violations of the New Hampshire Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, established court rules, our rights to due process under the law, our civil rights, Case Law established by the Supreme Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The JCC, Administrative Judge of the Family Court and the Supreme Court have continually refused to protect the public from unconstitutional violations of our laws by Master Cross and continue to only try to protect him and themselves as if they feel they are above the law. The legislature is the only and last
option left for "we the people" for protection from Master Cross. The Judiciary has failed to protect citizens and police it's ranks. The legislature is the check and balance and is constitutionally empowered to do just that.
How is any of the above justice or in the best interest of the children?
Friends, please take a look at what is going on in N.H. Family Courts:
NH COURTS UNLAWFULLY REMOVE CHILDREN FROM FIT PARENTS: (THEY DID IT TO ME ON 2/11/11)
http://judicialchildabuse.blogspot.com/2011/10/nh-courts-unlawfully-remove-children.html
Your support is essential!
~fight injustice~
The Kenick children’s pleas and reasons therefore are listed below and are quotes directly from the GAL report and made public in motions I filed January 18, 2011 and February 8, 2011:
1. On Line 5 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report it states “the children have stated that Sarah lies and this she is nice in public, but not in the house.”
2. On Line 3 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report it states “Alexandra then went on to explain that her mother dressed her in such ill-fitting shoes for the trip that Joe had to buy Alexandra new shoes.”
3. On Page 6 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report it states fifteen year old Katelyn Jerge told the GAL “that on the day of the last Court date, she was babysitting son and daughter and that son told Katelyn that he hated his mother and daughter agreed with him. Katelyn stated that she asked the children why and son said it was because his mom was making it so he couldn’t go to his scouting events and he couldn’t see his dad at the scouting events. They both said they wanted to live with their dad. The GAL also asked if the children seemed upset when they made those statements and Katelyn stated that son seemed confident.”
4. On Page 10 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report it stated that Claire Denton said six year old daughter said “I know what you think,” and she looked behind her, “that my mom is really nice, and when we’re in a place like this, she’s really nice to me, but when we’re alone, she’s really mean.”
5. On Page 11 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report it states “Claire Denton stated that daughter said this one time she made me wear shoes that hurt my feet and when Claire Denton said maybe mommy didn’t know, daughter said it doesn’t matter, she made me wear them anyway.”
6. On Page 11 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report Claire Denton reported daughter said “this one time I couldn’t breathe” and when Claire asked what happened the child replied “well my shirt was too tight.”
7. On Page 11 of the GAL’s 9/1/10 report Claire Denton reported that another classmate’s mother stated concerns when six year old daughter “asked to speak with me privately and said she doesn’t feel comfortable being alone with Sarah and that she wants to live with her dad.”
8. while aiding the child in cleaning his room was recently found a letter from nine year old son to Kathy Forbes Fisher dated November 15, 2010 which states “Dear Ms. Fisher, Hi, thanks very much NOT for being the worst counselor ever. You made us write letters we didn’t want to write. You don’t go on our side you go on mom’s side. And speaking of mom, be a counselor for her! We don’t need it, she needs double counseling. P.S. I’m not having a bad day. I want to live with my dad and here are some examples: Mom makes us miss everything she can. You make us write letters we don’t want to . Dad doesn’t make us miss things we want to go to, but since we can’t see him all the time we don’t get to go to half the things.”
9. On Line 15 of the Respondent’s January 18, 2011 motion which is also public record it states the calls the children asked to make to Kathy Forbes Fisher and the GAL Attorney Jen Rackley which Jen Rackley wrote as 12/4/10 (Saturday) Joseph left a message at 5:56 PM stating “I was very cross about being ripped out of the Christmas Parade at Exeter. I would like to live with my father.” Referencing Ms. Kenick’s insistence that the child could not march in the annual event with his Cubscout group, only so she and her father could leave him with a babysitter and daughter at a friends house while they abandoned both children. Son called on 12/5/10 (Sunday) at 10:14 AM stating “I was upset I was put to bed late last night so I could be woken up early so I’d be exhausted for my father. That’s another reason why I want to come live with him.” Referencing Petitioner’s cruel and repeated sleep deprivation of both children. At 10:25 AM daughter left a message stating “I was very upset and very cross that I had to miss the parade last night. I would like to live with my father.”
Below is the email I sent to Leah Estes dated 5/15/11 pleading with her to just speak with son and daughter alone after nine year old son said he was hit with a bat for pleading to live with his father:
Thanks Leah. My only phone number is 686-9976. For monetary reasons I cancelled the landline months ago.
If son's complaint is a fantasy then there is nothing more I can do for him. I only ask you to please interview both children in your professional capacity and ascertain if there is truth to their now numerous complaints of physical violence against them as well as threats made to their persons and their possessions which both children have claimed repeatedly in asking for protection to myself ever since Joseph claims he was brutally beaten in July 2009, then their grandparents since the our August 2009 vacation together, then Kathy Forbes Fisher since January 2010 who said it wasn't her place to let the children even speak of such things, then Jen Rackley who said she didn't investigate even a single "specific" instance, and then anyone who would listen to them as already reported in part in the September 1, 2010 GAL report and many others since, including Ms. Kenick's own parents, persons at the church Ms. Kenick attends, the children's own words of sleep deprivation in the phone calls to the GAL made from my cell phone on December 4 just minutes prior to the Saturday evening custody transfer, and again on December 5th just minutes after the Sunday morning custody transfer, and others. Please note too when the children said these things. In the September 1, 2010 GAL report, they talked to Katie Jerge ALONE while her father and I were at Court and therefore can't possibly be accused of having any influence. Alexandra talked to Claire Denton at Ms. Kenick's home where I can't possibly be accused of having any influence. Please note too the line where Claire states "daughter looked behind her". She certainly wasn't worried her father was going to find out and punish her and I encourage anyone who is interested in the truth to ask why the children have never once shown the least fear of their father, and only Ms. Kenick and Mr. Prescott. Why do they plead in public and private for permission to "live with their father" even when their father isn't there to protect them and hasn't seen them nor had any contact for days or even weeks?
I personally witnessed Mr. Prescott's insane attack on our minivan in the street during the August 14th custody transfer so I know the children didn't make that up. You'll have to ask them about their claims that they were forced into certain clothing and shoes immediately before that because I have no first-hand knowledge of what Ms. Kenick and her father did or did not do to the children, then, or at any other time, and only know what the children have chosen to speak of in repeatedly pleading for protection and relief.
I was not present at the campground when son was beaten, I only found out a week later when I hugged him and he winced then told me the story explaining the many Band-Aids and puncture wounds on his back barely half an inch from his spine. NOTE: (There are photos of his injuries in exhibit “I” of public case file 2008-DM-185).
I have never had to take either child to the Emergency Room ever in my custody either before or since Ms. Kenick filed for divorce May 1, 2008. There was an emergency room trip by Ms. Kenick when son was a baby and I was at work in Boston so I can't say what happened beyond I was told son "hit a wall" in the custody of Sarah and/or her father, and poor son required stitches in his forehead.
So I am very concerned by attempts to dismiss son's complaint and ask only that you interview the children in private, assure them that you have the power to protect them if warranted, and then investigate their claims since the only ones who can actually tell you what happened and by whom is the children themselves.
Please also speak with Greg Schwartz, before you just file it as old or unfounded and subject the children to weeks or months more of what the children already claim is a series of repeated abuses for which they have pleaded for someone, anyone, to hear them and provide the protection and relief they have pleaded for to counselors, the GAL, private journals, classmates, classmates mothers, friends, and family hoping someone would not just silence them or leave them to further punishment for stating what they themselves say they have been subjected to.
Thank you,
Joe Kenick III
Below is what I wrote to the kids counselor Kathy Forbes Fisher earlier this year (she was repeatedly rejected by both the Portsmouth and Brentwood Family Courts until Ms. Kenick stalked me on Steve Jerge’s property to obtain a Restraining Order against me November 11, 2009):
“When I went to see Leah Estes at NH DCYF she said that GAL Jen Rackley was on vacation so she had not spoken to her, but that she had spoken to you and that you had told her it happened a long time ago and for her not to speak with Joseph himself regarding the child’s complaint to Dr. Tan – in private and without myself or anyone else present with him – that Sarah’s father Robert Prescott hit that little boy with a bat. I then pleaded repeatedly with DCYF to just interview the children about that allegation and the other abuses they claim they have endured (as written in a notarized affidavit by Sarah’s own family), and even Dr. Greg Schwartz said he called DCYF repeatedly and they failed/refused to call him back, and that he spoke about it to you advocating that DCYF speak with Joseph about his claims that Robert Prescott hit him with a bat and Dr. Schwartz said that you said you were the child expert and you disagreed.
YOUR actions are even rejected by a majority of your peers as exhibited below:
a. some child custody evaluators rely on simplistic "junk science" theories to explain the child's behavior and recommend "one size fits all" type solutions to force the child to divide their love 50-50 between their parents. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is one such theory. The simplistic solution is to separate the child from the parent they prefer and place them with the parent they reject or report as having abused them. In fact, the majority of mental health and legal experts who have studied the issue consider PAS theory to be both erroneous and dangerous to the children involved.
b. PAS construct itself is flawed and its use by custody evaluators to justify placement with the rejected parent may result in more serious damage to the child who is taken away from the parent to whom the child has bonded.
c. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children's responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children's other parent.
Respectfully,
Joseph Kenick III”
NO ONE FROM DCYF EVEN SPOKE TO SON!
To Kathy Forbes Fisher my ten year old son wrote the following November 15, 2010 and was subsequently further punished for it:
2) While aiding the child in cleaning his room was recently found a letter from nine year old son to Kathy Forbes Fisher dated November 15, 2010 which states “Dear Ms. Fisher, Hi, thanks very much NOT for being the worst counselor ever. You made us write letters we didn’t want to write. You don’t go on our side you go on mom’s side. And speaking of mom, be a counselor for her! We don’t need it, she needs double counseling. P.S. I’m not having a bad day. I want to live with my dad and here are some examples: Mom makes us miss everything she can. You make us write letters we don’t want to . Dad doesn’t make us miss things we want to go to, but since we can’t see him all the time we don’t get to go to half the things.”
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Members of Congress Host Child Welfare Summit
Members of Congress Host Child Welfare Summit | The Children's Monitor:
Yesterday Representatives Danny Davis (D-IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), and Karen Bass (D-CA) hosted a summit on child welfare at the CapitolVisitorsCenterin WashingtonDC. The summit, Increasing Permanency for African American Children Involved in the Child Welfare System, addressed issues affecting children of color in the child welfare system, and in particular African American children being over-represented compared to their representation in the general child population.
Yesterday Representatives Danny Davis (D-IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), and Karen Bass (D-CA) hosted a summit on child welfare at the CapitolVisitorsCenterin WashingtonDC. The summit, Increasing Permanency for African American Children Involved in the Child Welfare System, addressed issues affecting children of color in the child welfare system, and in particular African American children being over-represented compared to their representation in the general child population.
California Telling 12 Year Olds It’s Okay to have Sex Without Parent’s Knowledge
California Telling 12 Year Olds It’s Okay to have Sex Without Parent’s Knowledge | Godfather Politics:
California has long held the reputation as being one of the most sexually permissive states in the union. Between the huge gay communities, nude bike rides through towns, nude beaches and history of liberal sexual protests, areas of the state are hot beds for hedonism and promiscuity.
Read more:
California has long held the reputation as being one of the most sexually permissive states in the union. Between the huge gay communities, nude bike rides through towns, nude beaches and history of liberal sexual protests, areas of the state are hot beds for hedonism and promiscuity.
Read more:
Unethical New Hampshire Judges AND Lawyers-Revised
I was recently requested to post an expose on my blog, See: STOP Judicial Child Abuse: Marital Master Philip Cross - Destroying Children - Destroying Families - Destroying Lives, which I was happy to do, but felt a need to cover more than just the abuses of Marital Masters. Many of the Judges in New Hampshire aren't any better. Granted, I'm not saying ALL Judges, but MANY. My family alone is living proof of the injustices and abuse aimed at New Hampshire families.
A DCYF Lawyer relayed a false report to Judge James Leary at my youngest daughters preliminary abuse and neglect hearing on 9/26/05. The false reporter called DCYF on 9/14/05 against my oldest daughter, because she refused to drive her to Kohl's in Nashua to shoplift. The report was proven false the same day, in which the assessment worker told my daughter the case was closed. The DCYF Lawyer failed to tell Judge Leary it was already proven false and subsequently told him the abuse happened in my home. My daughter was not allowed to speak, though she did blurt it was a lie. Because of the false report my husband and I were never allowed placement of our granddaughter. Other relatives contacted Nashua DCYF Supervisor Tracey Gubbins and requested placement, but were told,"Relative placement is not an option. Isabella is going into foster care, period." Needless to say, the crackhead false reporter was never prosecuted. Judge Leary, without proof of wrongdoing, placed our granddaughter in foster care.
We have not been allowed the court CD from this hearing or other's where DCYF and other's have perjured themselves. Denied by Judge Leary and Judge Bamberger after filing several motions.
In December 2005, Judge Edward Tenney court-ordered Isabella's mother out of a program and subsequently court-ordered her into a program that was non-existent in New Hampshire due to cut's made by then Commissioner John Stevens. How could a parent possibly comply with a court-ordered program that didn't exist? She couldn't. She was then denied placement into a program in Ma. by her caseworker, knowing full well if she couldn't comply, she would lose her daughter for good, which is exactly what happened.
Court on 3/29/06, Judge Leary sat on the bench and took the word of my daughter's lying caseworker who told him my daughter was in non-compliance. Again, no proof.
My daughter tried to get new evidence proving innocence admitted into court, because her court-appointed puppet of the court refused to file a motion to admit the evidence. Judge Leary refused, yet he was the one who failed to order the file in the first place.
Judge Leary and Judge Thomas Bamberger denied my daughter the right of firing her court-appointed puppet, stating she could do a better job herself. She told them having him for a Lawyer, there was no way she would ever get her daughter back. He even tried to withdraw, knowing himself he was useless. She was denied all three times she submitted motions to the court. The puppet denied her the right of copies of her file, claiming the state doesn't pay him enough and they would be too expensive. He also refused her the right to look through her file and told her he has more important clients than she was. He refused to file ALL motions and appeals requested of him and also failed to subpoena any witnesses to speak in her behalf, even though he was given a list of favorable witnesses. When asked why he didn't fight, he replied,"because the court is my boss."
Judge Bamberger also sat on the bench during a criminal charge against both daughter's at the same time as the abuse and neglect hearings. Isn't that a conflict of interest? Why didn't he recuse himself? He told both girls it didn't matter if their children were taken illegally. They had thirty day's to file an appeal after the Adjudicatory hearings. Was that their fault when both their court-appointed puppets refused?
After my oldest daughters charges were dropped in criminal court for child endangerment, Judge LaFrancois refused to drop the charges against her in her abuse and neglect case and refused to admit her evidence proving innocence. Her children were still not returned.
Retired Judge Raymond Cloutier made false statement's in his decision terminating my daughter's rights of her daughter. He wrote the opposite of both oral testimony and evidence admitted into court. A Supreme Court appeal proved futile. The Supreme Court Justices stated he made no error's! Did they even read through the transcript and go through the proof? Evidently not. If they did, they didn't want to go against their own, but they should have, seeing as Judge Cloutier is now suing the state of NH for more pension money.
Judge Raymond Cloutier again, terminated my oldest daughter's rights. He refused to use new cut off rates of alcohol consumption even though she was way under the new rates. We were refused placement of our grandson, even though we basically raised him, due to the slander we suffered by DCYF.
Judge James Patten denied us custody of both children. When he asked the DCYF Lawyer how my youngest daughter could be charged with abuse and neglect when she never took her daughter home from the hospital, the DCYF Lawyer state, "Neglect". Judge Patten asked, "Neglect?" The lawyer replied,"Yes Neglect. Neglect in the future. We believe she'll neglect her in the future." Judge Patten stated, "Oh okay, neglect in the future."
Judge Patten or Judge Cloutier terminated the rights of fictitious men as the father's of both grandchildren. We're not sure if it was just one Judge or both that were in on this miscarriage of justice.
My youngest daughter filed an affidavit of paternity with the court after the fictitious mans rights were terminated. Four days later Judge Patten granted the adoption of her daughter to the foster strangers. When the REAL father was contacted by me, he filed a motion to challenge the adoption and filed for paternity testing, before the one year limit to challenge. Judge Patten denied his motions twice, stating he never received the affidavit filed by my daughter. It's quite strange, but the AG's office included the affidavit in an objection brief they filed. So if they had it, you know dam right well Judge Patten received it.
I forgot to mention, Judge Patten granted the adoption of my granddaughter while an injunction appeal was pending. Unlawful? You're dam right it was!
My grandsons father's rights were never terminated either, even though his birth certificate contained all information on his father. They had his phone number, his address, his SS number, but was NEVER contacted. When we told the DCYF caseworker they had the wrong man, she said, "Oh well, no big deal. It doesn't matter." An e-mail from DCYF Lorraine Bartlett stated my grandson's name head been changed, before any adoption took place, compliment's of Judge Patten again!
Both of my grandchildren were illegally adopted thank's to Judges, Lawyer's and DCYF who are only into stealing our children for the "almighty dollar." Well I should say, my granddaughter was illegally adopted. We have no idea about my grandson. For all we know he could be still be in limbo at St. Charles Childrens Home at a cost to the state of $300.00 per day. So as you can see, it's not just father's being screwed over by NH Court's. It's ALL of us.
So there you have it and I'm sure there are many more unethical Judges and Lawyer's in New Hampshire. If anyone would like their stories of abuse by NH DCYF, their unethical Lawyer's and Judges, let me know. I would be happy to post. We must all stand together and fight the injustices aimed at families!
A DCYF Lawyer relayed a false report to Judge James Leary at my youngest daughters preliminary abuse and neglect hearing on 9/26/05. The false reporter called DCYF on 9/14/05 against my oldest daughter, because she refused to drive her to Kohl's in Nashua to shoplift. The report was proven false the same day, in which the assessment worker told my daughter the case was closed. The DCYF Lawyer failed to tell Judge Leary it was already proven false and subsequently told him the abuse happened in my home. My daughter was not allowed to speak, though she did blurt it was a lie. Because of the false report my husband and I were never allowed placement of our granddaughter. Other relatives contacted Nashua DCYF Supervisor Tracey Gubbins and requested placement, but were told,"Relative placement is not an option. Isabella is going into foster care, period." Needless to say, the crackhead false reporter was never prosecuted. Judge Leary, without proof of wrongdoing, placed our granddaughter in foster care.
We have not been allowed the court CD from this hearing or other's where DCYF and other's have perjured themselves. Denied by Judge Leary and Judge Bamberger after filing several motions.
In December 2005, Judge Edward Tenney court-ordered Isabella's mother out of a program and subsequently court-ordered her into a program that was non-existent in New Hampshire due to cut's made by then Commissioner John Stevens. How could a parent possibly comply with a court-ordered program that didn't exist? She couldn't. She was then denied placement into a program in Ma. by her caseworker, knowing full well if she couldn't comply, she would lose her daughter for good, which is exactly what happened.
Court on 3/29/06, Judge Leary sat on the bench and took the word of my daughter's lying caseworker who told him my daughter was in non-compliance. Again, no proof.
My daughter tried to get new evidence proving innocence admitted into court, because her court-appointed puppet of the court refused to file a motion to admit the evidence. Judge Leary refused, yet he was the one who failed to order the file in the first place.
Judge Leary and Judge Thomas Bamberger denied my daughter the right of firing her court-appointed puppet, stating she could do a better job herself. She told them having him for a Lawyer, there was no way she would ever get her daughter back. He even tried to withdraw, knowing himself he was useless. She was denied all three times she submitted motions to the court. The puppet denied her the right of copies of her file, claiming the state doesn't pay him enough and they would be too expensive. He also refused her the right to look through her file and told her he has more important clients than she was. He refused to file ALL motions and appeals requested of him and also failed to subpoena any witnesses to speak in her behalf, even though he was given a list of favorable witnesses. When asked why he didn't fight, he replied,"because the court is my boss."
Judge Bamberger also sat on the bench during a criminal charge against both daughter's at the same time as the abuse and neglect hearings. Isn't that a conflict of interest? Why didn't he recuse himself? He told both girls it didn't matter if their children were taken illegally. They had thirty day's to file an appeal after the Adjudicatory hearings. Was that their fault when both their court-appointed puppets refused?
After my oldest daughters charges were dropped in criminal court for child endangerment, Judge LaFrancois refused to drop the charges against her in her abuse and neglect case and refused to admit her evidence proving innocence. Her children were still not returned.
Retired Judge Raymond Cloutier made false statement's in his decision terminating my daughter's rights of her daughter. He wrote the opposite of both oral testimony and evidence admitted into court. A Supreme Court appeal proved futile. The Supreme Court Justices stated he made no error's! Did they even read through the transcript and go through the proof? Evidently not. If they did, they didn't want to go against their own, but they should have, seeing as Judge Cloutier is now suing the state of NH for more pension money.
Judge Raymond Cloutier again, terminated my oldest daughter's rights. He refused to use new cut off rates of alcohol consumption even though she was way under the new rates. We were refused placement of our grandson, even though we basically raised him, due to the slander we suffered by DCYF.
Judge James Patten denied us custody of both children. When he asked the DCYF Lawyer how my youngest daughter could be charged with abuse and neglect when she never took her daughter home from the hospital, the DCYF Lawyer state, "Neglect". Judge Patten asked, "Neglect?" The lawyer replied,"Yes Neglect. Neglect in the future. We believe she'll neglect her in the future." Judge Patten stated, "Oh okay, neglect in the future."
Judge Patten or Judge Cloutier terminated the rights of fictitious men as the father's of both grandchildren. We're not sure if it was just one Judge or both that were in on this miscarriage of justice.
My youngest daughter filed an affidavit of paternity with the court after the fictitious mans rights were terminated. Four days later Judge Patten granted the adoption of her daughter to the foster strangers. When the REAL father was contacted by me, he filed a motion to challenge the adoption and filed for paternity testing, before the one year limit to challenge. Judge Patten denied his motions twice, stating he never received the affidavit filed by my daughter. It's quite strange, but the AG's office included the affidavit in an objection brief they filed. So if they had it, you know dam right well Judge Patten received it.
I forgot to mention, Judge Patten granted the adoption of my granddaughter while an injunction appeal was pending. Unlawful? You're dam right it was!
My grandsons father's rights were never terminated either, even though his birth certificate contained all information on his father. They had his phone number, his address, his SS number, but was NEVER contacted. When we told the DCYF caseworker they had the wrong man, she said, "Oh well, no big deal. It doesn't matter." An e-mail from DCYF Lorraine Bartlett stated my grandson's name head been changed, before any adoption took place, compliment's of Judge Patten again!
Both of my grandchildren were illegally adopted thank's to Judges, Lawyer's and DCYF who are only into stealing our children for the "almighty dollar." Well I should say, my granddaughter was illegally adopted. We have no idea about my grandson. For all we know he could be still be in limbo at St. Charles Childrens Home at a cost to the state of $300.00 per day. So as you can see, it's not just father's being screwed over by NH Court's. It's ALL of us.
So there you have it and I'm sure there are many more unethical Judges and Lawyer's in New Hampshire. If anyone would like their stories of abuse by NH DCYF, their unethical Lawyer's and Judges, let me know. I would be happy to post. We must all stand together and fight the injustices aimed at families!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)