North West Evening Mail | News | ‘Shocking delays’ at family court:
THE family court in Barrow and South Lakeland is guilty of “shocking delays” in care cases that cause misery to parents and children, a study has revealed
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
Monday, January 16, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Retained Bill Recommendation Overturned on the Floor of House-NH
Retained Bill Recommendation Overturned on the Floor of House
Should accused parents have a right to see all evidence being used against them in decisions in Family Courts? A 12-1 Child and Family Law Committee recommendation to kill a bill guaranteeing that a parent accused of wrong doing before the Family Courts will in all cases have access to all evidence for and against them, including third party evidence in the possession of state agencies, was overturned on the floor of the New Hampshire House this past Wednesday. This may be the beginning of the end of the abuse of parent's right based on the subjective, frequently abusive, and arbitrarily applied "best interests of the child."
The bill, HB 415, was brought in by this Representative last year because in at least two clear cases before the Family Court fathers had been denied access to the evidence against them. One was an alleged sealed envelope accusation that seriously affected a father's custody and diminished to a miniscule amount the time he would be able to see his daughter. The other was the withholding of exculpatory evidence that would have benefited a falsely accused father and rebuffed efforts to separate him from his daughters. The fathers in both cases had apparently requested the information repeatedly and were denied it.
Witnesses from the Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) were reported to have told the Child and Family Law Committee that all a father had to do was go to court and the court could decide whether it was in the best interests of the child to have the fathers denied their natural and Constitutional rights to all such materials. An attorney who handles many such cases said that he had never seen the courts go against the wishes of DCYF in such a case. In a ringing repudiation of the Committee's decision a significant majority of the House, who clearly believed that parent's rights must carry at least as much weight as those of children, passed this much needed legislation and sent it on for review by the Constitutional Law and Statutory Review Committee.
NH State Representative Paul Ingbretson
Chairman of the Legislative Redress Grievance Committee
Should accused parents have a right to see all evidence being used against them in decisions in Family Courts? A 12-1 Child and Family Law Committee recommendation to kill a bill guaranteeing that a parent accused of wrong doing before the Family Courts will in all cases have access to all evidence for and against them, including third party evidence in the possession of state agencies, was overturned on the floor of the New Hampshire House this past Wednesday. This may be the beginning of the end of the abuse of parent's right based on the subjective, frequently abusive, and arbitrarily applied "best interests of the child."
The bill, HB 415, was brought in by this Representative last year because in at least two clear cases before the Family Court fathers had been denied access to the evidence against them. One was an alleged sealed envelope accusation that seriously affected a father's custody and diminished to a miniscule amount the time he would be able to see his daughter. The other was the withholding of exculpatory evidence that would have benefited a falsely accused father and rebuffed efforts to separate him from his daughters. The fathers in both cases had apparently requested the information repeatedly and were denied it.
Witnesses from the Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) were reported to have told the Child and Family Law Committee that all a father had to do was go to court and the court could decide whether it was in the best interests of the child to have the fathers denied their natural and Constitutional rights to all such materials. An attorney who handles many such cases said that he had never seen the courts go against the wishes of DCYF in such a case. In a ringing repudiation of the Committee's decision a significant majority of the House, who clearly believed that parent's rights must carry at least as much weight as those of children, passed this much needed legislation and sent it on for review by the Constitutional Law and Statutory Review Committee.
NH State Representative Paul Ingbretson
Chairman of the Legislative Redress Grievance Committee
NH families are losing their homes thanks to mortgage and foreclosure fraud
Dear Unhappy Grammy,
This may be a bit off topic but it's a very important matter: NH families are losing their homes thanks to mortgage and foreclosure fraud. Robosigners, MERs issues, problems with the chain of mortgage are some of the issues that end up causing NH families stress and the loss of the roof over their heads. There is a particular business entity who has been under the Massachusetts Attorney General's scrutiny for illegal foreclosure: Harmon Law Offices has been selling many homes in NH, RI and in MA. And although the Massachusetts Attorney General is scrutinizing Harmon's "practices," people of NH are getting responses from the NH Attorney General's office that "this matter is not within our jurisdiction" when requesting help to prevent the illegal foreclosure of their home in NH.
Thankfully Rep. Timothy Comerford has stepped up to the plate and helped a NH resident who was being illegally foreclosed upon by Harmon Law Offices. Please post this very informative YOU TUBE video from King Cast, which explains how a NH resident gets to keep her home after all of the foreclosure fraud dished out by Harmon Law Offices and the lender.
Chris King's First Amendment Page: KingCast and Mortgage Movies
If anyone else is having mortgage fraud or foreclosure fraud issues, please respond to this blog post and please include your email with your response. Families in NH and MA want to offer some guidance regarding this matter! And, we want to collect the information from this blog and bring it to the attention of the NH Attorney General's office. And, if the NH attorney general still claims that it's not within their jurisdiction, then we'll take it elsewhere! Thank you for posting this~On behalf of NH Victims of Foreclosure Fraud.
This may be a bit off topic but it's a very important matter: NH families are losing their homes thanks to mortgage and foreclosure fraud. Robosigners, MERs issues, problems with the chain of mortgage are some of the issues that end up causing NH families stress and the loss of the roof over their heads. There is a particular business entity who has been under the Massachusetts Attorney General's scrutiny for illegal foreclosure: Harmon Law Offices has been selling many homes in NH, RI and in MA. And although the Massachusetts Attorney General is scrutinizing Harmon's "practices," people of NH are getting responses from the NH Attorney General's office that "this matter is not within our jurisdiction" when requesting help to prevent the illegal foreclosure of their home in NH.
Thankfully Rep. Timothy Comerford has stepped up to the plate and helped a NH resident who was being illegally foreclosed upon by Harmon Law Offices. Please post this very informative YOU TUBE video from King Cast, which explains how a NH resident gets to keep her home after all of the foreclosure fraud dished out by Harmon Law Offices and the lender.
Chris King's First Amendment Page: KingCast and Mortgage Movies
If anyone else is having mortgage fraud or foreclosure fraud issues, please respond to this blog post and please include your email with your response. Families in NH and MA want to offer some guidance regarding this matter! And, we want to collect the information from this blog and bring it to the attention of the NH Attorney General's office. And, if the NH attorney general still claims that it's not within their jurisdiction, then we'll take it elsewhere! Thank you for posting this~On behalf of NH Victims of Foreclosure Fraud.
Accusation's From the Lying Director of the Nashua, NH Methadone Program
The Document above is a Nashua DCYF Contact Log, dated 6/27/06. It was a Face to Face contact between DCYF Lawyer Kate McClure and caseworker Anna Salvatore.
I was accused of being in the lobby of Healthy Steps Methadone Program in Nashua, by the lying Director, accused of passing information against Healthy Steps, being disruptive and telling the patient's not to go in because Healthy Steps is DCYFs silent partner in the stealing of babies.
I guess when I parked in front of the Hospital one morning, while my daughter retrieved her supposedly missing record's, missing for almost six month's, Janice must have seen my bumper sticker's which did say Healthy Steps was DCYFs Silent partner. I guess the truth hurt's.
I was finally allowed into the courtroom after filing a motion to intervene and was accused of the above accusation. I spoke up and asked, "There are camera's outside the hospital and Healthy Steps aren't there? So where's the tape?" No answer of course.
Janice is the same person who tried to take my daughter under her wing. Who tried to strain mine and my daughter's close relationship, telling me to stop making appointment's for my sick daughter. Telling me to let her make them herself and then at the next meeting with her, Janice stated she made appointment's for my daughter. Two faced don't you think?
This is also the same woman who used to go in and see my daughter in the hospital several times for dehydration because she was so sick her whole pregnancy. Accusing her of doing a bad bag. Doing a bad bag when she couldn't even walk to go get a bag. Wheeled into the hospital in a wheelchair each morning, vomiting non-stop.
This is the same person who reported to DCYF that I am a closet drinker and I swap pills with my daughter's. I don't drink and I didn't drink then and as for swapping pill's, I don't even take pill's and never did. The only time I ever took ANY kind of medication was for surgery. Even then I only took them at bedtime and cut the pill in half because I wanted to feel like myself. Not some drugged up zombie. EVERYONE knows how I feel about drug's and alcohol and I don't condone their use by ANYONE!
This is also the same woman who goes behind her patient's back's and tell's all. Is that what a Counselor or Director is supposed to do? I don't think so. Is it even legal for her to turn over every piece of documentation on a patient to the court? False documentation at that, which include false positive drug test's. Isn't she only supposed to state the patient is in the program? It's quite clear why she turned on my daughter. Because my daughter wouldn't go against the other patient's in the program and she couldn't break the close relationship we shared.
This is also the same woman who testified in court the methadone given to my daughter in labor didn't have time to reach her baby, so the morphine wouldn't have had time either. That's odd, because the baby was NEVER tested for Methadone!
Now I know why there are so many people out there who hold their problems in, instead of talking to their Counselor's, which causes so much harm in the long run. You can blame Counselors like this one who don't take their patient's rights seriously.
Bogus Foreclosure: NH State Rep helps apparently slam Harmon foreclosure mill
Off Topic, but extremely important to our families!
NH DCYF Try's to Contact Austin's Honduran Father in Mexico
My grandson Austin's FICTITIOUS Father's right's were terminated on 9/25/07. The document's are provided below.
Notice how Austin's Birth Certificate states his father was born in Honduras on November 26, 1969.
Also notice on the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights, Austin's father's date of Birth was listed as January 23, 1980. A man eleven years younger than Austin's REAL Father.
Also notice on the accompanying DCYF Contact log, DCYF would be trying to contact Austin's Bio Father, by publication in Mexico. Now why would DCYF try to contact a man from Honduras in Mexico?
Are they that stupid? Do I even have to ask that question? What was their ulterior motive? I can tell you what their ulterior motive was. They knew Austin's father was in Honduras, but didn't want him to respond, making it that much easier to terminate both his and Austin's Mother's rights. Their Federal incentive would be allotted all the sooner. Even after the caseworker was told this man was NOT Austin's father, the caseworker responded with, "Oh well. No big deal. It doesn't matter." There you go father's. According to DCYF your rights don't matter. How many more father's have had their rights terminated ILLEGALLY in NH? A few more that I know of personally, not to mention my granddaughter Isabella's father also, where DCYF pulled some fictitious man's name out of thin air and denied her REAL father a paternity test and custody, stating he had NO standing to fight for his daughter.
DCYF was in possession of Austin's birth certificate, his REAL father's address in Honduras, his SS number AND his phone number.
So doesn't this make the ILLEGAL adoption's of both Austin and Isabella Null and Void? Isn't that the way the Law is SUPPOSED to work? So when does it begin?
Notice how Austin's Birth Certificate states his father was born in Honduras on November 26, 1969.
Also notice on the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights, Austin's father's date of Birth was listed as January 23, 1980. A man eleven years younger than Austin's REAL Father.
Also notice on the accompanying DCYF Contact log, DCYF would be trying to contact Austin's Bio Father, by publication in Mexico. Now why would DCYF try to contact a man from Honduras in Mexico?
Are they that stupid? Do I even have to ask that question? What was their ulterior motive? I can tell you what their ulterior motive was. They knew Austin's father was in Honduras, but didn't want him to respond, making it that much easier to terminate both his and Austin's Mother's rights. Their Federal incentive would be allotted all the sooner. Even after the caseworker was told this man was NOT Austin's father, the caseworker responded with, "Oh well. No big deal. It doesn't matter." There you go father's. According to DCYF your rights don't matter. How many more father's have had their rights terminated ILLEGALLY in NH? A few more that I know of personally, not to mention my granddaughter Isabella's father also, where DCYF pulled some fictitious man's name out of thin air and denied her REAL father a paternity test and custody, stating he had NO standing to fight for his daughter.
DCYF was in possession of Austin's birth certificate, his REAL father's address in Honduras, his SS number AND his phone number.
So doesn't this make the ILLEGAL adoption's of both Austin and Isabella Null and Void? Isn't that the way the Law is SUPPOSED to work? So when does it begin?
Due process
Due process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.
Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges - instead of legislators - may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.
Due process is not used in contemporary English law, though two similar concepts are natural justice (which generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types of private bodies like trade unions) and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others.[1] However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American conception of due process, which, as explained below, presently contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.[2]
Due process developed from clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England. When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England, but did become incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.
Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects individual persons from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.
Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges - instead of legislators - may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.
Due process is not used in contemporary English law, though two similar concepts are natural justice (which generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types of private bodies like trade unions) and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others.[1] However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American conception of due process, which, as explained below, presently contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.[2]
Due process developed from clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England. When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England, but did become incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)