Child deaths spark look at state’s child welfare system

Child deaths spark look at state’s child welfare system | www.daytondailynews.com:

Nearly half of all Ohio families whose children are placed in foster care are reunited in less than a year — a rate higher than in most states and well above the national average, a Dayton Daily News investigation has found.

Corruption in the child protection industry

Children Lost in the System-Part 4

The Broken Family Court System

Los Angeles Local News, Weather, and Traffic

Children Lost in the System-Part 3

Los Angeles Local News, Weather, and Traffic

This segment talks about the alleged abuser getting Custody. The Abuser can be the Father OR Mother.

Legislators Validate Complaints by Citizens in NH

DMVC Productions = Results: Legislators Validate Complaints by Citizens in NH:

Redress of Grievance Committee: Most complaints valid

The above article shows that "The panel held hours-long hearings during the legislative session on the complaints - most involving the family court system. Committee members determined that 20 of the 27 complaints were legitimate and pronounced seven unfounded."

The Family Court System and DCYF are out of control and out of touch.  Starting with the NH Family Court; parents are getting stuck with outrageous bills for Guadian Ad litem (GAL), even when the law states:

Vote for the people trying to protect your rights, people like Dennis Hogan the new County prosecutor whom we voted for over Walsh.  Also consider that LaFrance, worked under Walsh as his assistant and did nothing for these victims and several others. Vote for O'Brien and others like Kevin Avard on the redress of grievance panel who went out of their way to listen to complaints and who are trying to enforce accountability. The next time a family or someone else is injured in anyway due to the Judicial System and/or NH Bar Association's failure to hold Attorney's and Judges accountable to the public they are suppose to serve, it could be just someone else you don't know or it could be YOU. 

Read More:

RE: NH CACR 26 Must Pass

An E-mail I received:

Below came from my Aunt Lois (A Smart Lady)

One way NH amends its Constitution is through Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolutions which have been approved by both houses of the legislature for presentation to the voters in a general election. That's where CACR 26 came from. You'll find it on your ballot in November. Former Governor Merrill wrote a piece about it in a recent "Union Leader" in which he referred to Part 1, Article 37 of the NH Constitution, but he cited only the separation of powers section. The second section is a much stronger statement for checks and balances. The former gov also neglected to note that from 1784 to 1978 NH got along fine with the checks the legislature had on the judiciary. Members of the judicial branch lobbied and campaigned hard for the passage of the amendment that created Part II Article 73a in 1978. Since then they have made their own rules unchecked, and things have been getting worse and worse for people in the courts, both civil and criminal. So I did my reading and asking and thinking and this is what I figured out. I am building a more detailed piece, which I'll share with anyone who asks.  I think justice is a big deal, and I think there isn't much of it in NH for lots of people, and I think Article 73a is the enabler for their misery. I can't work on campaigns or phone banks or rallies this year; Mumcare is becoming increasingly restrictive, although she is doing very well for someone who'll turn 103 around Thanksgiving. So I started my own campaign on a very important issue, one I don't think will get much attention with all that's going on. I urge you to do some of your own research or take mine and take action. Here's what I'm thinking and saying to you. Please pass it along to NH voters you know, and vote "yes" on CACR 26 in November. Just remember, _this_ campaign isn't robo-calling you at suppertime :-}

CACR 26 Should Pass 

   In 1947 Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote that the basic function of any court is to judge a case on its merits. This legal terminology means that only two factors should influence any decision by any court: the law and the facts. Thus, the “…judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit,” a guaranteed right by Article 35 of the NH State Constitution, can disregard neither law nor facts but must examine the facts presented in light of both statutory and case law.

    New Hampshire has a problem: Part II Article 73a of our Constitution (passed in 1978) lets judges make their own rules. The rules the judges have made allow them to disregard any evidence, any laws, any decisions, and even the rules they, themselves, have made. Court records from all over NH show that judges have increasingly failed to consider applicable laws and decisions raised by parties in a case; they have refused to consider evidence submitted by litigants; and they have violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct and rules written specifically for the courts in which they serve.

   It is time to fix that problem. It is time to restore the system of checks and balances originating in  NH Constitution’s Article 37. It is time to vote “yes” on CACR 26 and change Part II Article 73a to provide a check on the judiciary’s ability to make its own rules and use them to apply laws and findings differently to different parties in cases in our civil and criminal courts.

Lois 

PETITION #30 grievance of Bethany Capen. (Report Filed 7/31/12)

PETITION #30 grievance of Bethany Capen. (Report Filed 7/31/12) | Kevin Avard for State Rep:

MAJORITY

Grievance Founded with Recommendations.

Committee Majority Findings:

The Redress of Grievances Committee heard testimony and reviewed documents supporting allegations of abuse by the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) toward the adoptive (foster care licensed) mother of a troubled child who (along with DCYF) understood might need expensive help in the future. The adoption was accompanied by DCYF assurances with the mother that such support would be forthcoming, if needed, from the agency. What the Committee finds is that when the child did indeed begin to show serious and expensive mental problems for which the normal sources of funding proved inadequate, and the only likely source of funding would be the federal government, a series of wrongful actions by DCYF took place including:  1. Repeatedly pressuring the Petitioner to surrender the child into the custody of the state by threats that if she did not do so she would be accused of abuse and neglect; 2. Misrepresenting to a probate court judge the legal definition of child neglect for the purpose of gaining state custody of the child; 3. Withholding even to this day hearings officer ordered documents to which the mother had a right in making her case; 4. Initiating contact with Petitioner’s place of employment to effectively terminate her employment; 5. Holding email conversations between employees looking for grounds to deny Petitioner her foster care license admitting they had none, and; 6. Withholding her license without cause, without notification, and by devious means and otherwise discriminatory treatment of a qualified foster care provider.  The Committee also finds that the Petitioner’s written requests for review to the ombudsman and later to the Commissioner of HHS from months ago and longer remain unanswered.

Recommendations:

The Committee agrees that because of the injuries sustained by the mother to her reputation, her financial well being and her family relationship; and because the laws of the state on various levels have been abrogated, and may be so systemically as supported by previous petitions, an investigation into this case would be wise. The inability of the Redress of Grievances Committee to gain even the most general information from DCYF without resorting to the use of subpoena powers, coupled with the problems associated with the statutorily required provision of information in this case, unfortunately invites the question of the possibility that the Division is involved in activities it does not want to have reviewed. As in previous reports this Committee believes the time has come for a government oversight committee of the House so that questions like this can be quickly and effectively reviewed and that public trust in our agencies be maintained. Aside from that approach to oversight the Committee recommends legislation making any ombudsman’s office operate out of the Legislature and not the agencies themselves.  Vote 9-2.

Rep. Robert Willette for the Majority of the Committee.