Unbiased Reporting

What I post on this Blog does not mean I agree with the articles or disagree. I call it Unbiased Reporting!

Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly

Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly-ILLEGALLY Kidnapped and ILLEGALLY Adopted Out by the State of New Hampshire

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Parental Alienation: A Serious and Growing Problem in Family Law Cases

Parental Alienation: A Serious and Growing Problem in Family Law Cases

Contributor: Collins & Collins, P.C.
SUMMARY: Some of the issues facing parents involved in a divorce or paternity action involving child custody are not specific to New Mexico, but occur all over the United States. One such issue, which has become increasingly recognized by family law courts during the last 20 years, is the concept of parental alienation.
Parental alienation is generally discussed in the context of a
contested custody dispute, although elements of parental alienation can certainly be found in intact families. When the research about parental alienation first began being published, it focused on situations in which one parent sought to alienate the child from the other parent by doing things like preventing visitation between the child and the other parent and bad-mouthing the other parent to the child. Frequently, one parent would go so far as making false allegations in court to prevent the other parent from seeing the child.
Please see full article below for more information.

Doc Type:
Legal Article/Newsletter
Published: 8/31/2010


Parents, charged with killing daughter, allowed to see other children

Parents, charged with killing daughter, allowed to see other children
By Thomas J. Prohaska

Updated: August 31, 2010,

LOCKPORT -- A judge today refused to bar Nicole and Randy Colucci, accused of murder in the death of their 2-year-old daughter, from seeing their other children, who are in foster care.

This is sick. I know you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty but it doesn't work that way in abuse and neglect cases. A parent is presumed guilty period. Even when innocence is proven, they are still considered guilty.
These people are accused of killing one child, yet still get to see the other children. In NH children are kept from their parent's for "Neglect in the Future." NH DCYF caseworkers and Lawyer's believe they have psychic capabilities. They lose their children for false, frivolous accusations.Nothing even close to murder!

Doctor in child abuse trial refutes Shaken Baby Syndrome

August 31, 2010

Doctor in child abuse trial refutes Shaken Baby Syndrome

Published: 1:00 PM, 08/31/2010 Last updated: 1:00 PM, 08/31/2010

Author: Gilbert Soesbee
Source: The Newport Plain Talk

NEWPORT-A neurosurgeon called by the defense in the child abuse trial of a Jefferson City man in Cocke County Circuit Court said Monday that "Shaken Baby Syndrome" does not exist.

Clinical Neurosurgeon Dr. Ronald Uscinski, who was called as an expert witness on the fourth day of the trial by the attorney representing Joshua Isham Henegar, told the criminal court jury that Shaken Baby Syndrome, as it is currently diagnosed, "defies the laws of physics" and cannot occur.

For more details, please see the latest edition of The Newport Plain Talk.


Mosquito Report Parent’s Information Report In the interest of public integrity of the judicial branch of the United States of America

Please keep this going to others.


Mosquito Report Parent’s Information Report
In the interest of public integrity of the judicial branch of the United States of America
mosquitoreport@yahoo.com Mosquito Report Updated: March 3, 2010

Wise Old American Indian saying: Be like the mosquito small, fast, annoying, persistent, inflects pain, and swarms. Join us in building a swarm to bring back integrity and accountability to our justice system. Forward this report to everybody you know. Pick up your phone and pen and call your legislators. Let’s stop CHILD ABUSE FOR PROFIT.

James Madison Quote President of the United States (1809–1817)

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny" (James Madison, Federalist No. 48, Feb. 1, 1788).
What this means: Stop voting for attorneys entering legislative service. Our constitution clearly state a separation of power must be maintained with the executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is professional misconduct for practicing judicial members to seek legislative office. Look at the campaign funding and you will find a large portion coming from other legal professionals, this is called self promotion. To stop corruption of our laws by profit seeking self interests of judicial members the public must enforce the separation of power laws and impeach or have judicial members resign from the judicial branch. (This is the root cause of corruption.)

Thomas Paine video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA (Tea parties/public outcry!)


The Mosquito report represents the struggle and achievements of thousands of parents and organizations that have paved the way for changes in our family law system across the United States. Sadly many parents have taken their own lives for having no place to turn for help. We want to express our deepest regret to their families and friends for their loss. In addition our country has turned its back on our armed service personnel and their special needs at a stressful time. We pray that this report will aid in preventing this from happening in the future. The Mosquito report has been assembled to provide the resources needed to provide hope and support and gain access to children.
We thank each and every parent and organization for their input to this public effort. We thank everyone for the fight and sacrifices they have made. We want to show our armed service personal that we hear them. We want to give them our highest praise for protecting our way of life and our children’s rights to access both parents. We want to thank all parents for exposing Judicial Misconduct and Professional Misconduct of attorneys profiting and preying on parents struggle to access their children. We want to thank every citizen for taking the time to help make legislative changes that parents need. We want to thank each and every person who will join us making calls and writing letters for legislative change, you are not alone with your struggle, and here is the information parents need. Let us protect the future of our children and the American Family and STOPCHILD ABUSE FOR PROFIT. We seek to correct this wrong.
We want everybody to know how our government is allowing military personnel to return from deployment with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) without providing treatment. They have served our country with honor and many are returning to face family law issues. Studies are showing a high rate of suicides with our returning military personnel we seek to correct this wrong. It is time to put our troop’s needs first over money and profit. No child benefits when a parent takes their own life.
Table of Contents (in progress)

Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………….. 1
Mosquito Report Objective …………………………….………………….………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Separation of Power “The Problem” and how it relates to family law ……………….……………………………………………….…. 4
Your Children’s Rights and Presumption of Shared Parenting ….………………………………………………….……………………….. 5
Parental access to children (Your constitutional rights).…………….…..………………..…….…………………………………………..... 6
Economic Impact of joint custody ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
COURT TIMEFRAMES AND SUA SPONTE MOTIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) “Flight or Fight”………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Frye test ……………………….………………………………………………………. 9
Violence Against Woman Act (VAWA)……………………………………….................................................................................. 12
Bradley Amendment……………………......………………..…………………………………………………………………………..…………………….. 12
Federal Racketeering Violations being covered up………………….……………………………………………………………………………… 13
Demand a Trial by Jury……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………….. 13
Tape or Record All Hearings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
SAMPLE MOTION TO RECORD ALL HEARINGS (Modify to fit your case and if you use an attorney remove #1.)……… 14
Access to Justice……………………………….………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………. 15
Family Court Abuses of the Public …................................................................................................................................ 15
Know the “Enemy”……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..... 16
Document Racketeering…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
Sample Affidavit………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………........ 17
The Bigger Issue …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Domestic Violence and Escalation of your conflict………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Divorce information and Internet Links………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Supporting Reference Statutes Presumption of Shared Parenting…(Section break at page 21 number reset)………... 20
Parental rights a fundamental right………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2?
Case law …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2?
Reference Studies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2?

Mosquito Report Objective
The objective of this report is to educate the public about peaceful alternatives to litigation and the traps set by profit seeking legal professionals. We seek to make fundamental legislative changes to our family law system across the United States. We seek both parties to control their anger towards the other parent and come to a reasonable settlement and preserve assets to benefit their children. The information in this report will help to avoid escalation of your issues by the legal profession. Remember the legal profession is a business and seeks to profit from your conflict. Let us state this again the legal profession is a business and seeks to profit from your conflict. Did you get the point they want your assets (money). We have assembled important information, case laws, and statutes and provided legal forms within this report. Our objective is to take the profit out of conflicts and aid the cost effective resolution of your dispute. We seek to preserve family assets for the benefit of your children. The Best Interest of your children is not to pay attorneys and experts seeking to profit from your conflict. We seek to expose the organized pattern of child abuse for profit with parental alienation tactics.
The negative economic (loss of money) impact to yourself and family assets will be great if you enter litigation. Avoid this at all costs your children need your assets not the legal profession. One of the largest causes for foreclosure and bankruptcy is divorce. You will be told by attorneys that you can sell everything you own to pay legal expenses to continue the conflict. Remember you have a choice to escalate the conflict or find a cost effective settlement path. Think of the needs of your children. How would your paying attorneys, court appointed experts, social workers benefit your children. We want to make this clear IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY BENEFIT YOUR CHILDREN. Science has proven absent neglect, abuse, abandonment children need both parents. Do not allow attorneys to twist normal conflicts into domestic violence or abuse. We seek to expose these attorneys and organizations extortion of the public, bring witnesses to meetings.
An attorney or organization might “suggest” the use of domestic violence as a tactic. Do not fall into this trap. They are creating a self servicing need for their services a “high conflict divorce or High conflict child custody battle” is the result. Abraham Lincoln Quoted: “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this.” (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President from 1861 until his assassination in April 1865) Attorneys will routinely not tell you that this tactic blocks mediation. Attorneys will not inform you that the use of this tactic will affect the earning potential of the accused for the rest of their lives. This tactic stops parties from talking creating a need for the additional services from the legal profession. This is a form of extortion under US Code. Make no mistake attorneys routinely plan to extort your assets with this tactic. The routine miss use of domestic violence funding by this tactic reduces resources needed for true victims of violence. Remember if you use this tactic for a divorce you are taking these resources away from these victims. Attorney’s business objective is to create a conflict from “custody battles”. Your focus must be to resolve your conflict with your opponent and not involve the children. Keep the children out of the conflict and provide the best possible solution you can that meets the needs of both parties. We seek to expose these organized extortion tactics to the United States Senate Judiciary Oversight committee for large scale investigation of abuses of the public interests. We seek to have Federal legislation past to Stop Child Abuse for Profit with a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.
Child abuse comes in many forms and what the legal profession is fighting to conceal is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). This form of child abuse exposes the legal system to huge liabilities. The simple fact is the legal profession routinely uses this tactic to start a child custody battle between parents to serve the self interest of the legal profession for profit. Fact the legal system’s pattern to prey on the basic instincts of parents to protect their children is exploited for profit. The legal system is preying on the parent child relationship to serve their interest of profit. Remember this you and your children are the prey of the legal profession. Without your conflict they make no money or have a job. We seek to expose how the legal profession singles out and suppresses Parental Alienation Syndrome target parents with the use of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP). We seek to expose how attorneys routinely make it too expensive to fight this tactic. We seek to establish a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting in the best interest of the children’s right to access both parents.
Stress and the child custody battle, the loss of a child is the most traumatic event any parent can experience. When judges routinely strip access of parents to children without due cause, it causes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Judges and lawyers that knowingly and willfully do this to promote the self interest of the legal profession are directly responsible for countless suicides and violent acts. Human basic instincts kick in when parents are denied access to their children. On one hand some people become violent and misplace their anger toward the other parent or children these acts serves the interest of the legal system. The fact is the judge and the lawyers are responsible. On the other hand The Center for Disease Control (CDC) studies has shown that parents and military service personnel are committing suicides at an increasing rate. These suicides do not serve the purpose of the court and create a huge liability to the courts for the neglect of the public interests. The best interest of the child is not served with the loss of a parent. We seek to require stress management counseling during family law matters and return of deployed troops.
Remember someone always gets hurt in a divorce or custody battle. Know if you are hurt or mad and seek revenge against your opponent do not involve the children. Do not drain financial resources to the legal profession that could be used to benefit yourself and your children. Think of the children and remember you once loved your opponent to the point of having a child in the first place. Any issues can be resolved without the involvement of litigation. Seek to preserve your assets from profit seeking legal professionals and protect your children’s rights to both parents. Know if you are fighting or fleeing (fight or flight). Calm down and take a breath. We seek to demand state provide mediation services outside the predatory practices of the legal profession.
Separation of power “ The Problem” and how it relates to family law
Stop voting for Attorneys to enter public office. Take a look at their campaign funding and you will find the legal profession self promote each other into office. The campaign funding trail demonstrates how this takes place it is available to the public (online) ask where in your state. Key committees on the state and federal level are controlled by judicial members (lawyers) effectively placing one class of Americans in control of our society. As of this date the Unite States Senate Judiciary oversight committee is made up of 19 members 13 are lawyers. Our form of government (federal and state levels) has three branches each service a control purpose. They are the executive branch (president’s and governor’s veto power), the legislative branch (Senate, House creates laws), judicial branch (enforcement of laws). Fact the Constitution of the United States clearly demands a separation of power. Many state’s Constitutions also demand a separation of power. The purpose was to provide a balance to the people. As we elect more members of the Judicial branch into the legislative branch the basic balance of our society becomes imbalanced. With no balances, corruption expands for lack of controls and oversight. It is common knowledge that attorneys do not prosecute each other for misconduct. Remember it is misconduct for an attorney not to report misconduct. The public has no resources to file proper successful grievances against attorneys and they know this. As misconduct rules become overlooked and the duty of the legal profession for self enforcement is neglected corruption expands. No self enforcement of judicial members truly exists to protect the public’s interests. The public must demand public oversight of the Attorney Grievance system with public workshops and clinics.
The above might sound like no big deal on the first glance but think about how it affects every aspect of our lives. We will focus on family laws. As an example in the state of Maryland we have a “gatekeeper” she is a delegate that practices family law and has become the “go to” person with family law matters in the general assembly. She also sits on the attorney grievance commission and has sat on listening events for the access to justice hearing events. She has presented Bills for the determination of child custody in Maryland. What she doesn’t want the public to know is that her co-counsel on a case has defended a child pornography defendant. This is a true conflict of interests first she makes her living from laws she is creating, second she associates with defenders of child pornography, third she accepted input to her Bill from the defender of child pornography, forth the Bill presented are not in the best interest of the public, third she is promoting the profit seeking interests of her profession over the public’s. During the access to justice hearings she listens to public outcry for mediation and to remove children from custody issues.
The impact of a single “gatekeeper” can block the interest of the public. As the example above shows a gatekeeper can also be anybody who “trashes” important information and prevents the decision maker from making a proper judgment on the issue. A simple way to test for gatekeepers is to send letters to your legislators, after a few days call the legislator to see if the letters have been received and presented to your legislator. If no letters have been received, you have a gatekeeper problem.
The enforcement of professional misconduct is the duty of the judicial branch. However it is a known fact that attorneys will not report misconduct on another attorney. The way to expose this is to simply bring two collaborating witnesses to an attorney’s office and inform the attorney of misconduct or a criminal act of another attorney. You must meet the threshold of “Probable Cause” with your information and documents. Remember it is the responsibility of the profession to enforce the rules of professional misconduct. Read your states rules of professional misconduct and document and expose it in the public’s interests. We are seeking public oversight of the Attorney Grievance process for the neglect of the professions responsibility to enforce misconduct.
Learn about free legal clinics, pro se projects and you law libraries in your state. Learn how to represent yourself in order to avoid litigation. Always interview attorneys for free do not pay a fee for the interview. The “right to counsel” is your right under the sixth and fourteenth amendment. If you cannot afford an attorney ask for accommodations and have one appointed. What you need to know is that you have the right to timely hearings (To be heard) so get to know the assignment office of the court. Attorneys will delay and schedule hearings so you have to pay additional fees. Keep your hearings within your needs not the needs of the attorney or courts profit seeking objective. Know the basic appeal period for your area.
If you enter litigation demand a trial by jury first thing and remember attorneys provide a service to you they work for you. Yes they have to make a living but do not sign retainers that allow them to charge for large blocks of time. Review the fee structure be carefully and negotiate items to make them reasonable. Most attorneys charge their hourly rate when they make copies; travel time, phone calls and research etc. document your dealings with them to protect yourself. Always provide a 1099 to them for tax purposes and get receipts for each payment you make. Read the rules of professional misconduct and expose any violations. A common tactic used to protect the legal profession is to discredit parents and suppress opposition with expensive litigation. Their objective is to get a list of assets quickly so they know how much they can strip with legal fees and associated experts. The pattern is to single out a parent and discredit them the main tool they use is your children. What I mean by this is the legal profession does not produce a product they provide a service. They provide a service that in many cases for something they have created. This is the very definition of extortion used to create a conflict for the increased fees for their services. We need to have more citizen based oversight of the judiciary branch and its members. Less than 1% of attorney grievances are prosecuted and a recent study shows that if a citizen files a law suit against a state or the government most are not even heard a violation of the victims civil rights.
Your Children’s Rights and Presumption of Shared Parenting
The most important issue is the Children. The children have a fundamental right to see both parents. The court uses the term “in the best interest of the children” as a smoke screen to promote parental alienation tactics to strip parents access to children. Protect your children from the legal system. Parental alienation will damage the children for the rest of their lives. We need every parent to keep the children out of their fight. What is said and what is practiced by the legal system are two separate things. It is becoming routine for facts about normal parental relationships to be twisted into domestic violence, spousal abuse, and child abuse these false accusations must be documented. Early statistics are showing that 80% of accusations are unfounded, or worse, planned and executed. The country of India has taken measures to remove domestic violence due to the fact of high level of abuses. “Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this.” (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President) When a false accusation plan is executed the sole purpose is to circumvent due process of law and gain control of custody of children and assets. This creates an unfair advantage, a violation of Rules of professional misconduct by the party that executed the plan. Courts will routinely overlook this misconduct due to the “political nature” of these cases. What happens in these cases is a parent is stripped of their access to their children (Parental Alienation Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Please seek to modify the determination of child custody and support a presumption of shared parenting in your state. Let’s keep our children away from the lawyers and legal system. Stop Child Abuse for Profit. President Abraham Lincoln warned of this in his quote:
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough." (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President)
Reasons for Support a Presumption of Shared Parenting
1. A custody decision should focus upon the U.S. constitutional custody rights and responsibilities of parents first and the unfitness of parents afterwards. The "Best interests of children" are typically served by encouraging and facilitating maximum involvement among both parents and children. Absent abuse neglect and abandonment the children deserve access to both parents.

2. Since courts currently award joint custody as it relates to the decision-making abilities of parents, the courts are rarely presented with a true and accurate picture due the contentiousness of divorces, the adversarial climate of family courts, and their historically biased custody rulings favoring a single parent (mothers) in 88% of cases.

3. Current law requires trial courts to make findings on requests for joint custody. Instead there should be a statutory presumption of joint physical custody. Trial courts should make findings on reasons for not awarding joint physical custody.

4. Where trial courts must determine custody under existing child custody factors, mothers receive sole physical custody in the overwhelming majority of cases. Fathers are required to separate motion separately for visitation (parenting time) in order to exercise their parental responsibilities.

5. Joint custody awards should not necessarily reflect the voluntary distribution of parental involvement in an intact household prior to divorce. The environment of a two-household, non-intact family will place new demands upon parents and children alike.

6. A joint physical custody award will practically guarantee a greater involvement of both parents in the lives and activities of their children. Typical visitation (parenting time) awards hamper the involvement of both parents in their child's development post divorce. Custody awards to unmarried mothers seldom involve adequate child visitation of fathers.

7. The definition of an unfit parent is easily defined by the U.S. constitution and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. This definition is limited to physical, psychological, or child abuse. If parental unfitness were to be defined by current Maryland domestic violence statutes, it would be so broad that few parents (married or otherwise) would be deemed fit to parent.

8. There are indeed times when joint physical/legal custody is not in the best interest of the children, but these times are the exceptions and involve actual physical, psychological, or child abuse.

9. These changes will dramatically reduce the documented bias of custody awards by state trial courts. Further it will reduce litigation and its associated costs. Further it will preserve the marital assets for the minor children.

10. These changes will encourage both parents to remain accessible to their children. Court discretion can be utilized to determine specific physical custody durations based upon circumstances. Presumption of 50/50 for physical custody.

11. MARYLAND CASE LAW: In Maryland there is case law already established Kimberly Boswell v. Robert G. Boswell (Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204, 721 A.2d 662(1998)) quoted from court clarifying the best interest standard:(b) in making a determination of legal and physical custody under this subtitle, the court shall give primary consideration to the best interest of the child. Reasonable maximum exposure to each parent is presumed to be in the best interest of the child. The Maryland Court of Appeals overruled this decision and stated as part of their decision, “We seek to clarify that only one standard is used in determining whether to restrict parental visitation in the presence of non-marital partners, bests interests of the child, but we also want to emphasize that when a court is engaging in a best interests analysis, reasonable maximum exposure to each parent is presumed to be in the best interests of the child.” (352 Md. 204, at 214.) This language was important as it was the first time a Maryland state court has mentioned any presumption towards both parents, at least in any published opinion.

Some have claimed that Boswell was really a case about gay rights, and only nominally discussed this issue of a presumption towards maximum reasonable exposure. For a time, it seemed that the courts were also treating Boswell in such a manner. However, we have recently found a 2007 Court of Special Appeals case applying Boswell. In Gordon v. Gordon (174 Md.App. 583, 923 A.2d 149 (Md.App., 2007).), the Court of Special Appeals took up the case of a father who was attempting to modify a custody order to have the time split 50-50. While the court ruled that 50-50 was not the meaning of maximum reasonable exposure, the court did report favorably on the presumption first articulated is Boswell and did not rule that this presumption was just dicta. Furthermore, the court noted that the custody arrangement currently in place for the Gordons afforded Mr. Gordon every other weekend from Thursday night through Monday morning and Wednesday morning through Thursday morning on alternate weeks. It should not go without noting that the one published case citing Boswell’s presumption language had a custody arrangement that was much more equitable than most.

Parental Access to Children
Listed below is a section of case law that has been established in support of constitutional right to have access to your children. These cases have established parental rights from a constitutional stand point. However be aware that state appointed judges will violate your rights to add expense to your conflict and meet their funding requirements. The family court system is basically a divorce industry that preys on one parent’s anger for profit. The objective of the court is to strip one parent’s access to their children. Remember this fact a system has been developed to exploit your parental instincts and take your money.
Do not fall into the trap of allowing legal professionals to exploit your parental instincts to protect and nurture your children. Both parties have these instincts. The best way for both parties to win is to allow equal access to children when possible. Absent abuse neglect and abandonment this should be in the form of joint physical and legal custody. It has been proven that parents that pay child support that have access continue to pay. Use mediators to establish fair child support payments for both parents using you state’s child support guidelines. Again do not allow legal professionals to exploit your parental instincts to protect and nurture your children. Fight for the presumption of shared parenting and seek the best interest of your children is to have access to both parents and preserve family assets.
We seek to expose how the legal profession uses parental access to promote the need for their services. When a judge demonstrates their prejudice and strips a parent of access with no cause, it is judicial misconduct. When a judge abuses their discretion and strips a parent of access to their children, it is judicial misconduct. What these court actions do is promote the need for legal services. The judges are aiding attorneys to collect fees for their services. What needs to be proven is simply that two or more judges or attorneys are involved and you have a racketeering charge which is a US Code violation. To establish this show how the courts striped you of your access to your children without any proof being presented. Demonstrate how you informed your attorney. Lastly demonstrate how the courts routinely have ex parti communications with attorneys without your presence.
The simple fact is judges will abuse their discretion and demonstrate prejudice to obtain their objectives. Their first objective is to extract the maximum assets from the at risk family. The second objective is to obtain child support enforcement funding. This latter objective requires that one party is subjected to child support. This is accomplished by creating a conflict over your children. The conflict as outlined earlier creates a need for legal services. What happens is one parent is given control of the assets and the sense that they are in control. The fact is the courts have control and are aiding lawyers to extort funds from your family. The other parent is at a disadvantage because they need access to assets to obtain adequate legal representation. This tactic is the routine pattern. The system will isolate and suppress one parent that does not have the means to obtain legal representation. Do not make this mistake this is vengeful and in no way benefits your children. Remember this simple fact you loved the person to the point of having a child with them they deserve to see the child. The support they can provide to you and aid the child cannot be measured in dollars. Do not make this mistake. Attorneys and judges will tell you we can get this or that but in the end it is your children that have lost. Your children need the support of both loving parents willing to protect them from the legal system.
Economic Impact of joint custody
Many Studies have been conducted on the positive economic benefits to the child of joint custody and we ask you to research this subject on the World Wide Web and not depend on individuals who make their living from Family law. We ask that you review the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the Fatherhood Initiative programs and the various foundations that are now funding and promoting the strong positive impact of fathers in the best interest of the children of America. We need to stress that both parents are needed to help the children develop. These programs express the need to help low income families and father to obtain the training they need to be the best parents they can be. We have attached two reprinted articles that outline the truth about economic impact of custody. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL article included below “The Myth of Deadbeat Dads” outlines percentages of mothers and fathers payments of child support. The Washington Times article “Child-support-law amendment comes to attention of Hill” outlines how custody becomes an incentive to pay child support. This article also shows the negative economic impact of driving child support payers into the underground economy. Reports of statistics of parents with joint custody pay their child support obligations at a much higher rate providing a reduction in Child-support enforcement.
Keep in mind that both parents should provide for the children. However the legal system destroys the earning potential with the systematic abuse of domestic violence laws. This abuse of domestic violence laws is called “abuse excuse” this is a legal trap to create high conflict child custody and divorce cases. The minute one party accuses the other party the long term earning potentials will be damages to the accused party. In no way can this be “in the best interest of the children”. Long term income damage will have long term impact on your family. Do not allow abused person programs or attorneys to suggest the use of the “abuse excuse” tactic for a divorce absent abuse, neglect and abandonment. Keep your divorce simple and low conflict to save money for your children. Keep your hurt and anger under control to keep the assets in the family.
To expand on the negative economic impact you just need to look deeply at how the justice system of the United States has removed resource from our productive citizens. The negative economic impact to the dysfunctional family with child custody and divorce conflicts is common knowledge. Everybody has heard the stories how the attorneys strip all the assets including housing from parents. Remember your attorney has NO financial obligation to you. They just want to make profit from your conflict. We call any service industry that doesn’t produce anything a parasitic industry. Any service industry that creates a demand for their services is in violation of federal racketeering laws defined under US. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 96§ 1961. Do not allow attorneys off the record suggestions to increase their fees. Document their off record suggestions with videos, collaborating witnesses or detailed letters. As these parasitic industries grow our society will not be able to support their greed.

The most important thing to know is the timeframe for filing court documents. The court will hold to these technical timeframes to meet the needs of the courts business. KNOW THE TIMEFRAMES REQUIRED BY COURT RULES. The bad news is the court will allow lawyer’s to violate time frames with Sua Sponte motions to meet the needs of the courts business. These motions are used to protect the interest of the courts over the interest of the public. The courts have the power to conceal information with sealed records as a tactic to protect the business of the courts. So remember just because you filed something in a timely manner does not mean the court will accept it or act on it they might even seal it. You need to get you side on court record in a timely manner is the bottom line. What the courts do with the information is another issue. Objecting to information entered into record is very important and you attorney must do this in a timely manner. Expose the candor and lies quickly.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) “Flight or Fight”
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can be triggered by the loss of access to your children. Please learn about this disorder at http://www.ptsdalliance.org. This can be a life threatening disorder and can affect people in various ways.
The legal system has developed a system that preys on your basic parenting instincts. What they do is exploit a parent’s anger toward the other parent. This takes the form of a custody battle over the children. No consideration is given to the rights of the children to see both parents. Absent abuse, neglect and abandonment every child deserves both parents. As a parent we have all heard the stories of parents going “nuts” and killing their children and families. These are the stories that the media love to report on and are relatively very few. These cases serve the interest of the court to create a bias. These violent cases with media exposure create the fear and ultimately the bias the courts exploit for profit. This is one form of the “fight” we ask that if you intend to fight expose the injustice of the predatory practices of the judicial system. Hold the judges and lawyers accountable for their criminal actions by documenting them and filing proper criminal charges.
It is normal to get angry or depressed when you are removed from your children. Parental Alienation is one of the most traumatic experiences any person can endure. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) affects many parents at this point. As parents become depressed several things can happen. First when good parents are backed up against a wall some fight back with force. There is a book called “Kill the Attorneys” and a sad fact is many people are turning their anger towards biased judges. This has become a problem for this movement because judges are being targeted and killed. What seems to be happening is people are starting to take the time to plan military style assaults with diversions and escape routes to execute their violent plans. These tactics take time to plan and this level of anger is a direct result of parents having no place to turn for justice. Depressed parents are targeting and holding judges and attorneys accountable with violent actions. Sadly these violent acts service the interest of the courts with negative media coverage. These violent acts are due to legal professionals ignoring civil rights of parents in the first place.
As harsh legislation against parent’s rights is starting to be passed into law many parents are holding attorneys and judges accountable. The attorneys and judges motive is simple protect their profit making industry and cover up their wrong doing. These sworn legal professionals strip families of resources and place financial burdens on parents to meet federal funding requirements. We need to get to the root of the problem and use the pen and change legislation to take the profit out of these predatory practices. The issue is committees of the legislative bodies of our government are controlled by attorneys this is a true conflict of interest. This conflict of interest is not enforced to protect the interest of the public but neglected by the judicial branch. Judicial neglect to enforce conflict of interest laws to preserve the self interest of profit. Remember they are exploiting your parent child relationship for their profit.
The Second PTSD issue that doesn’t get the media’s attention is how many parents use “flight” to escape these legal attacks for profit. The CDC studies show how parents are committing suicide at an alarming rate. The studies show men have a higher success rate at committing suicide. These suicides are a direct result of predatory practices and place a negative economic impact on our society. The justice system has built in controls to protect them from being accused. These controls take the form of publicly funded social programs or crisis centers. Depression is a very powerful emotion and victims sometimes seek help from these programs. The truth is parents seeking help from social programs for their depression are labeled. They later find the very organization they went for help from are used against them in a court of law. This sometimes triggers a negative response and the person now feels they have no place to turn and they commit suicide. The legal system always terms their victims as unstable or mentally unstable for the media. These simple examples outline how when parents have no place to turn for justice their emotions kick in and becomes basic instincts of fight or flight. The trigger the legal profession doesn’t what you to know about is the following section. Parental alienation is currently being suppressed in legislation by legal professionals and abused person funded organizations.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Frye test
Avoid this behavior the long term damage to your children cannot be repaired. The basic trust between child and parents should remain intact for both parents. It is the child’s right to have this trust of both parents. Use the Frye test information below to get your state to establish case law for PAS. Stop this form of child abuse.
What is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)? This is the definition of PAS as described by R.A. Gardner: http://www.paskids.com/ "The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent." (Excerpted from: Gardner, R.A. (1998) The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Second Edition, Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc.)
Be aware that the legal profession is trying to discredit this syndrome so they can continue to profit from your children. The best interest of your children is to have access to both parents. The courts and associated experts and social workers are defending their interests of profiting from your conflict. Their past actions expose them to huge liabilities for this form of child abuse. Make no mistake the judicial system will retaliate to defend against this liability. Get involved and use the Frye test to defeat the legal profession to protect your children and future children. In Maryland our Maryland law has only marginally addressed the issue in the case of Barton v. Hirshberg 137 Md.App. 1, 767 A.2d 874 Md.App., 2001. Courts outside of Maryland have reviewed the issue in greater detail and case law established listed below. The following websites will provide some insight to this complex issue:
Frye v Gardner in the Family Courts (Part 1)
Frye v Gardner in the Family Courts (Part 2)
Jayne A. Major, Ph.D., Executive Director Telephone: (310) 823-7846
Stop Parental Alienation of Children Fax: (310) 388-0700
Breakthrough Parenting Services, Inc. Email: jaynemajor@gmail.com
12405 Venice Boulevard, #172, Los Angeles, CA 90066 (Map)

Court Frye test Rulings Relevant to Parental Alienation for the UNITED STATES (2 States)
The Frye Test is the standard by which a court can determine whether a scientific contribution has gained enough general acceptances in the scientific community to be admissible in a court of law. The Frye Test criteria for admissibility were applied to The Parental Alienation Syndrome in the following cases:
· Kilgore v. Boyd, 13th Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, FL., Case No. 94-7573, 733 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) Jan 30, 2001.
o Boyd v. Kilgore, 773 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Prohibition Denied)
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.
· Bates v. Bates 18th Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, IL Case No. 99D958, Jan 17, 2002.
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.[excerpt]
Court Rulings relevant to Parental Alienation (22 States)
· Berry v. Berry, Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, AL, Case No. DR-96-761.01. Jan 06, 2001

· Pearson v. Pearson, Sup Ct. of AK., No. S-8973, No. 5297, 5 P.3d 239; 2000 Alas. Lexis 69. July 7, 2000.

· Chambers v. Chambers, Ct of App of AR, Div 2; 2000 Ark App. LEXIS 476, June 21, 2000.

· Coursey v. Superior Court (Coursey), 194 Cal.App.3d 147,239 Cal.Rptr. 365 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., Aug 18, 1987.

· John W. v. Phillip W., 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 899; 1996.

· Valerie Edlund v. Gregory Hales, 66 Cal. App 4th 1454; 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671.

· Oosterhaus v. Short, District Court, County of Boulder (CO), Case No. 85DR1737-Div III.
· Case v. Richardson, 1996 WL 434281 (Conn. Super.,Jul 16, 1996).
· Metza v. Metza, Sup. Court of Connecticut, Jud. Dist. of Fairfield, at Bridgeport,
1998 Conn. Super. Lexis 2727 (1998).
· Schutz v. Schutz, 522 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3rd Dist. Ct. App. 1988).
· Blosser v. Blosser, 707 So. 2d 778; 1998 Fla. App. Case No. 96-03534.
· Tucker v. Greenberg, 674 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
· Berg-Perlow v. Perlow, 15th Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Fl.,Case no. CD98-1285-FC. Mar 15, 2000.
o An exceptionally strong family court decision in which five experts testified to the diagnosis of PAS.
· Loten v. Ryan, 15th Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, FL., Case No. CD 93-6567 FA. Dec 11,2000.
· Kilgore v. Boyd, 13th Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, FL., Case No. 94-7573, 733 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) Jan 30, 2001.
o Boyd v. Kilgore, 773 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Prohibition Denied)
o Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.
· McDonald v. McDonald, 9th Judicial Circuit Court, Orange County, FL. Case No. D-R90-11079, Feb 20, 1001.
· Blackshear v. Blackshear, Hillsborough County, FL 13th Jud. Circuit: 95-08436.
· In re Violetta 210 III.App.3d 521, 568 N.E2d 1345, 154 III.Dec. 896(Ill.App. I Dist Mar 07, 1991).
· In re Marriage of Divelbiss v. Divelbiss, No. 2-98-0999 2nd District, Ill.(Appeal from Circ Crt of Du Page Cty No. 93-D-559) Oct 22, 1999.
YouTube - Videos from this email


New_Hampshire_Family_Division - 1 reference result
Family New Hampshire
Research your Genealogy Locally Free on MyHeritage.com
New Hampshire Genealogy
1) Search for Your Family Members 2) Build
your Complete Family Tree!
New Divide
All About New Divide New Divide in One Site!
Sponsored Results
New Hampshire Family Division
New Hampshire Judicial Branch Family Division (simply Family Division ) operates ten courts in three counties in the U.S. state of New Hampshire that deal with matters impacting families. The Family Division has courts in Grafton, Rockingham and Sullivan Counties which have jurisdiction to hear cases involving cases divorce, parenting disputes, child support, domestic violence, guardianships, termination of parental rights, abuse and neglect cases, children in need of supervision, delinquencies, and some adoptions.
The Family Division is viewed with considerable public scrutiny and is often considered corrupt, gender biased again litigants and deemed to act to promote family breakup and excess litigation. Doing so is not considered by many to be in the "best interests" of children and believed to be done in order to maximize the inflow of federal Title IV-D incentive monetary funds into the state.

Many efforts are underway to reform the family courts which are referred to as "family eating machines". Unfortunately, however, recent efforts such as "The Citizens Commission on the Courts" and the 2004 Report from "The Commission on Child Support and Child Custody Related Issues" (available here: www.cbelow.org/Child Support Commission Final Report 12-1-04.pdf), along with its minority report have been ignored by the state and no action has been taken. For a thorough analysis on what's wrong with our family courts, see also "Taken Into Custody: The War against Fathers, Marriage and the Family," by Stephen Baskerville. See also the reports of the NH Commission on the Status of men downloadable from www.nh.gov/csm.

During the operations of the Citizen's Commission on NH State Courts, "listening sessions" were held around the state. Since this was to be a "CITIZEN'S" commission, it could be assumed that public input would affect the bulk of the commissions' recommendations. This was not to be the case, in a court dominated commission. The issues MOST complained about were almost totally ignored. Issues mentioned by only one person were often the subject of recommendations.

PUBLIC INPUT TO THE SUPREME COURT’S CITIZEN’S COMMISSION ON NH STATE COURTS Compiled by Commission member Paul M. Clements and included as an addendum to the final report.

This Commission was created to gauge public perceptions of the courts in NH, and to receive and formulate recommendations to address their concerns. To that end, the commission held twenty-two “Listening Sessions” in eleven locations around the state. It also distributed surveys and invited contact by email and letter from interested persons. The following represents the criticisms and concerns of the people who responded. In tabulating those responses, people testifying at more than one listening session, or submitting more than one survey, were only counted on the first instance, as far as possible.

71 persons spoke at listening sessions, not including multiple appearances. 67 surveys were returned. (Duplicates eliminated) 56 emails were received. TOTAL CONTACTS: 194

Complaints/concerns involving the Family Courts: 96 Complaints/concerns involving all other courts: 33<> Probate court: 5 <> District court: 12 <> Supreme court: 5 <> Superior court: 10 <> Part time courts: 1 <> Persons expressing a negative perception of the courts: 103


Expense of going to court: 79 <>Bias against fathers: 74 <> Suspicion of corruption/criminal acts: 40 <> Allegations of Denial of Rights/Denial of Due Process: 36 <> Profiteering (to benefit courts, lawyers, & others): 23 <> Problems with delays and scheduling: 23 <> Problems with false complaints of domestic violence: 21<> Ineffectiveness of the Committee on Judicial Conduct: 21 <> (NOTE: None of the above issues were addressed by the final report) Filing delays/staff shortages: 7 <> Judicial Activism (legislating from the bench): 6 <> Lack of training for GAL’s: 6 <> Lack of security: 5 <> Need for technical updates: 5 <> Need for assistance for pro-se litigants: 4 <> Bias against women: 3 <> Need for “Restorative Justice” programs: 2 <> More use of Mediation: 2 <>

One response for each of the following: Orientation for jurors; Lack of training for judges;

Bias favoring cities and towns;
Treatment programs for drug offenders;
Access/input to Grand Juries;
Concern about life tenure for judges; Treatment of mental illness programs in prison; Additional funding for indigent defense;
Sentencing of sex offenders;
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); Alternatives for juvenile offenders;
Need for case managers;
MINORITY REPORT FAMILY LAW RESEARCH COMMITTEE Supreme Court Citizens’ Commission on NH State Courts Paul Clements (NOTE: The members of this commission were invited to submit "minority reports", and Paul M.Clements, member of the Family Law Research Sub-committee submitted the following. Upon doing so, a rule was created requiring ten co-signors for recognition of the report. Only two other members agreed to co-sign, and this report was not included in the commissions final report.) The Supreme Courts’ “Citizens Commission on NH State Courts” was created by Chief Justice John Broderick because of the escalating complaints about the NH court system. Far from being a “Citizen’s” commission, the one hundred and five member group was composed of one third judges and lawyers, and dozens more court hangers-on. There are retired judges, members of the committee on judicial conduct, the executive director of the Judicial Council, court clerks, members of the public defenders office, the Legal aid society, law school professors, the past and present Attorneys-General, law enforcement officers, and others closely connected to the courts. In sum, over 70% of the commission were closely connected to the courts. Members of the general public are in decidedly short supply. As might be expected, the 70% majority seemed more intent in growing the courts’ size, budget, and influence, than in creating real reforms in the way the courts operate, to better serve the public.

Nowhere was this judicial bias more evident than in the Family Law Research (sub) Committee. The Commission was charged with reviewing the reports of several committees which preceded it. One of those reports, issued by the Family Law Task Force, was issued at about the same time as the report of the Commission to Study Child Support and Custody Issues. However, THAT report was not on the list to be studied. Neither was the report by the Commission on the Status of Men. Is it just coincidental that both reports strongly recommended a rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody? The oversight was corrected, and both reports were eventually posted on the Citizen’s Commission web site for review, along with the report of the National Probate Judges College, which also recommended a rebuttable presumption of shared physical custody. It should be noted that the report of the Task Force on Family Law strongly reinforced the idea that shared custody was in the best interests of the children, although the task force stopped short of actually recommending such a presumption.

Individual members of the Family Law Research Committee were charged with condensing the recommendations of each of the reports suggested for study. The judge reporting back on the Child Support and Custody Commission failed to mention their recommendation regarding shared custody. That oversight was brought to his attention, and although he promised to submit a revised report, the shared custody recommendation was omitted once again.

The Citizen’s Commission held “Listening Sessions” at several locations around the state to obtain feedback from the general public. Complaints about the family courts outnumbered complaints about all other courts COMBINED by a ratio of 5:1. Chief among those complaints was the inequity in custody decisions, which were said to favor primary maternal custody in an overwhelming majority of cases. Indeed, statistics from the Department of Vital Statistics indicate that mothers are awarded primary custody in seventy five percent of all cases, while fathers are awarded custody in only 10 – 15% of cases. Complaints about the unfairness of child support orders closely followed the complaints about custody. The nature of those complaints notwithstanding, the family law research committee failed to recommend any of the suggestions from previous commissions regarding either custody or child support. Their actions beg the question, “If the objective of the commission was to make the courts more equitable, just, and user friendly, why not address the concerns most often voiced by the “consumers” of court services?” Instead of taking those complaints seriously, the commission was told that the nature and number of those complaints was due to the “superior organization” of the fathers’ groups, who “rallied the troops” to come out and testify. The obvious obverse observation, that those who are favored by the courts failed to complain because they had no reason to complain, was overlooked. Furthermore, the commission made no plan or attempt to tabulate the public input from the listening sessions and court surveys, until this writer recommended such action, and volunteered to do the work involved. Otherwise, no-one reading the commissions report would know if the commission had addressed any of the public’s concerns.

Instead of addressing “consumer” complaints, the family law research committee chose, instead to focus on recommendations which would increase the size of the court system, add multiple layers of bureaucracy, require the hiring of large numbers of new personnel, and dramatically increase the courts’ budget, without addressing the underlying reasons for re-litigation and conflict. Finding money for all the above was a prime concern. It was suggested that the courts already had a funding source available, in the form of payments from the child support collection agency, amounting to in excess of two million dollars per year. Committee members first tried to deny the existence of those payments, then, simply resorted to ignoring them. One must wonder what becomes of that two million dollars, if it’s not available to fund new court programs. When the legality of those payments, from an executive branch agency to the judicial branch, in violation of the Constitutional mandate for Separation of Powers, was questioned, the question was deferred to the legislature.

Several of the newly sought programs are well intentioned, and could prove beneficial. However, there was exhibited some reluctance to do away with the status quo. Although complaints of gender bias were foremost in the “listening sessions”, precautions against continuing the bias were dismissed out of hand. Mediation, as a method of forestalling conflict and court appearances is a good idea. But the committee balked at the idea of making it mandatory for all parties. They want, instead, to allow one party to opt out of bargaining in good faith by playing the domestic violence card. An unsupported accusation against the other party, a tactic currently in common practice, would throw the case back to the court for decision by a judge or marital master. The same criticism holds true for the parties’ cooperative development of “parenting plans”. When the court is known to be biased, to a statistically provable degree, why bargain away entitlements, monetary advantages, property, and custody? In response to a discerned need to provide for unrepresented “pro-se” litigants, the employment of “case managers” was recommended by the committee. The case manager would provide legal information and guidance to the pro-se litigant. But in each case, mediation, parenting plans, and case management, the committee is recommending that ONLY current court employees with a minimum of five years experience be employed. That’s like drawing water from a contaminated well. The courts have demonstrated gender bias at all levels; to require that new positions are filled by “old” employees would only continue the biases.

Another common complaint heard at the “listening sessions” concerned illegal and discriminatory actions by the presiding judges and marital masters, in support of an obviously gender biased agenda. Speakers told of decisions made on the basis of hearsay evidence, proven perjury being allowed, legitimate motions being denied a hearing, testimony and witnesses not being allowed, false reports submitted by lawyers and GAL’s being accepted without challenge, alteration of transcripts, and decisions which were in violation of state and federal law. It was suggested that the Committee on Judicial Conduct was not performing the function intended, discipline of members of the court. Indeed, it was suggested that the committee sees its function as protecting the judges from complaints, rather than protecting the litigants. However, suggestions for changes as to how the committee operates were ridiculed. Once again, the concerns of the “consumers” were ignored.

In sum, we have a commission, appointed by the courts, composed largely of members and friends of the courts, reviewing the reports from previous court appointed commissions, acting to protect the image of the courts without making any substantial changes to the status quo. Rather than address the legitimate concerns of the public, they propose expansion of a corrupt and biased system. They propose window dressing and band-aid measures to re-assure the public that the court system is functioning in its best interests, while maintaining and increasing their own profitability. They ignore obvious flaws in the court system, institutionalized violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct, in order to protect the political agendas of special interest groups. Had there been any REAL interest in reforming the courts to make them more responsive to the ideals of justice and service to the public, they would have focused more closely on the complaints of litigants. It was a cruel joke to call this a “Citizen’s Commission”. The suggestions below would have addressed some of the citizens’ concerns, but, unfortunately, they will not be found in the commission’s final report. The citizen’s voices were not heard, their concerns will not be addressed.


1: There should be a rebuttable presumption, operative from the first appearance, that shared custody is in the best interests of the children following a divorce, and that both parents deserve equal consideration from the courts. The court should actively promote shared custody in keeping with that presumption. In any case where shared custody is NOT ordered, the decision must be defended by written findings of fact.
2: The courts should support a change in the child support guidelines, from an “income shares” method of calculation, to a “cost shares” method, including a calculation of actual parenting time spent with the children.
3: The court should renounce the “Cooperative Agreement” which provides for payments to the court from the child support collection agency, and promotes the abuse of support orders to enhance state and court revenues.
4: The court should support and promote a Constitutional amendment to remove the Committee on Judicial Conduct from the authority of the courts.
5: Programs providing for mediation, cooperative formulation of parenting plans, and child impact seminars should be required to provide information that is balanced and unbiased. Such programs should be made mandatory, allowing for exceptions only in cases where substantive evidence can show that an exception is warranted. Every exception must be noted in written findings of fact.
6: Training of court personnel on the issue of domestic violence should present a balanced perspective, free of gender bias, and based on verifiable facts.
State courts by cities, towns, and unincorporated places
External links
Official Website
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors ( Disclaimer)
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Last updated on Tuesday September 30, 2008 at 01:27:03 PDT (GMT -0700)
View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation
Search another word or see New_Hampshire_Family_Division on Dictionary | Thesaurus


Happy Birthday Isabella Brooke Knightly! D.O.B. August 31, 2005 Nashua, NH

Happy Birthday Isabella Brooke Knightly! D.O.B. August 31, 2005 Nashua, NH

Happy birthday sweet Princess. I wish your REAL family could be with you on this very special day. Had you not been stolen from us and placed with stranger's on October 3rd, 2005,you would be here with us.
We were told you have your Mommy's attitude. I hope you do. I hope your being treated as if you were a real daughter to the stranger's raising you, even though no-one can love you as much as we do.
I pray you haven't been abused and you're happy. I can't wait for the day you realize the stranger's are NOT your parent's. I can't wait for you to hear the truth, knowing the lies the stranger's will tell you, because that's what foster stranger's do. But it's not all their fault. They've been fed lies by the people who stole you. They just wanted a baby. Any baby. They didn't care where that baby came from or that the baby was taken from her parent's illegally. They put their name on a list and DCYF was glad to oblige. Some day you will know the whole truth. Some day you will learn all about the fraud used by Nashua DCYF in the kidnapping of Nashua children and the money they made off your kidnapping.
You have four new cousin's. Some day you'll get to meet them. Twin boy's and two girl's. But no-one can take your place.
We took care of your Mommy while she was pregnant with you, because the Doctor's didn't care whether she lived or died. They didn't even care about you, until after you were born. All they cared about was taking you from your Mother. A healthy little baby girl. There was money to be made.
All your Mommy wanted was a healthy baby girl, which would mean a new life, for both you and her. A life filled with love and happiness. She wanted to alway's be there for you. To take care of your every need. She was on the right track until you were stolen. That's what happen's when DCYF is pushed into parent's live's. They go ever the edge and can no longer function. They give up, knowing that no matter what they do, their child won't be returned. That's how it is in NH. Kids are NEVER returned. That's what happened to your Mommy. The life that she planned for you was put on hold. Thank God she has finally regained her strength to overcome the pain and all the obstacles which were thrown at her. She has a new life, but never stop's loving or thinking about you. Her little Princess. Some day you WILL come home! Then your birthday will be celebrated with you instead of without you. We won't have to celebrate your birth with just a picture.We'll be able to celebrate the precious gift God has given us. Our little Princess Isabella!
Your entire family is wishing you a Happy and Safe Birthday! You will alway's be our Princess!
Love ALWAY's, Mommy, Daddy,Grammie, Grampie and your entire REAL FAMILY!
The Family Who Gave You Life!!!!!!

Monday, August 30, 2010

DCFS Adoptions


Small Justice - U.S. Courts Harm Children


NH Statistics of Children in Foster Care in 2005


Proof that NH DCYF takes more white children than other races.

In NH the ethnicity statistic's of children removed and placed in foster care in 2005 are as follows:

American Indian-1%
2 or more races-3%

Statistics show that minorities are overrepresented in the foster care system in all states.-Not NH-More white children are removed

Native American numbers on rise in North Dakota foster care system
Statistics show that minorities are overrepresented in the foster care system in all states.

In NH the percentage is higher for white children removed and placed in Foster care

By: Andi Murphy, INFORUM

Statistics show that minorities are overrepresented in the foster care system in all states.

The most recent Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System report shows that Caucasian children represent 40 percent of all foster children. African-American children make up 31 percent, Hispanic children 20 percent, and Native American children about 2 percent.


North Dakota take updated approach to Foster Care-State aims to keep families together

Published August 30 2010
North Dakota takes updated approach to foster care
State aims to keep families together
North Dakota is at the forefront of a new trend in the way foster care is administered: Don’t put children in foster care.
By: Andi Murphy, INFORUM

Gary Wolsky of The Village

Native American numbers on rise in North Dakota foster care system
North Dakota is at the forefront of a new trend in the way foster care is administered: Don’t put children in foster care.


Baby LK Report For August 29th 2010


Foster Parents; Did you know? CPS and relative placements. Part 4 of 4

Foster Parents; Did you know? CPS and relative placements. Part 4 of 4
August 30th, 2010 11:08 am ET

CPS Relative placements. Part 4 of 4

We were telling you a story taken from our files of a grandmother who was seeking relative placement for her grandchildren who had been missing.. If you missed the beginning, go back and read the other three parts;

Now as promised the rest of the story;

remember, the other state in which this grandmother resides continued to work towards this placement; they did what our state should have done. They completed the background check on this grandmother and home inspection, highly recommending this placement, etc. CPS in AZ ignored their recommendations and adopted the children to another party.
The social worker of the person hoping to adopt the children informed this person that the grandmother would not raise her grandchildren, she would see to it, a close friend of the social worker reported this to the grandmother.
Bottom line, even though CPS knew of this grandmother's qualifications and her efforts to meet the requirements, a non-relative adopted the children right out from under her.
Relative placement?

The reason we are sharing this story; You see, your examiner is a witness that relative placements only happen if CPS wants them to happen, or if the relatives have the price of justice. CPS bypasses state statutes, or changes rules as they need them changed.

Remember; "lady justice wears a price tag on her sleeve"

Possibly, there are facts that we were not aware of in play here, even though every step we took was in accordance to the proper methods, according to our state statutes CPS chose to ignore Statutes (rules)we the people are required to follow rule

This is just one example; our files are full of them, we do not always win.

Have a comment, go to the comment section of this article, We welcome you opinions. If you have a subject that you would like to see covered make a comment, we will see it and we will cover that subject for you.

If you need help call 877-FPA-CHILD FPLS nfpcar.org we are here to help you. fplegalsolutions@gmail.com


Foster Parents; Did you know? CPS and relative placements. Part 3 of 4

Foster Parents; Did you know? CPS and relative placements. Part 3 of 4
August 30th, 2010 10:59 am ET

CPS Relative placements. Part 3 of 4

In this series, we continue in our examination of a controversial subject; relative placements.
Part of a state statute, (relevancy), so that you see the provisions for relative placements;

1) The department shall expedite the completion of the home study, and any other administrative procedures so that the child is placed with a relative as soon as possible after the caregiver is identified.
2) The department shall, provide monetary assistance and additional support services.
3) Monetary assistance and support services. A payment of $1,000 the initial placement of a Child. http://www.childwelare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/state/index.cfm
This concept; even though there are no on going payments made to the relatives for adopting this child (ren) under the adoption process these payments are called, as in the case of foster parents, reimbursements however, there are monthly maintenance payments.

Question; who do these benefits assist?

So once again, we have followed the money offered for caring for this/these unfortunate most precious of all God's gifts, children who through no fault of their own are implanted into the foster care system, interesting.

We stated at the beginning of this series that your examiner has witnessed this procedure in person. Please allow us to tell you a short story (from our files); one of the persons we advocated for a grandmother, this one sticks out blatantly because it took place right here in our home state, Arizona.

A grandparent located her grandchildren hidden for months by an estranged parent, her dauhter in law. Informed of this by her son this mother started procedures for relative placement of her grandchildren. Frightened by the fact that her grandchildren were about to be adopted out of the Foster Care System. Ths father wanted his mother to raise his children.
After our office had been contacted we immediately informed her of the necessary steps for her to take to have the children placed with her, by way of relative placement. We informed her of the things that would be required in the home. Requirements such as having enough bedrooms to accommodate the children, safety issues for the home, a good school system, etc.
This grandmother made immediate alterations to her life, including locating a larger home, and a better paying job, to accommodate the children's needs, at the same time we were informing CPS of the situation.
Want to hear the rest of the story, go on to part 4.


Relatives who take in children cut foster care costs in Berks-Relative Placement Cheaper than Foster Care

Originally Published: 8/30/2010

Relatives who take in children cut foster care costs in Berks
It costs less to counsel families who take in children than to finance years of foster care
By Holly Herman
Reading Eagle

Reading Eagle: Tim Leedy
Judge Mary Ann Campbell
This is the second in a two-part series.

Contact Holly Herman: 610-478-6291 or hherman@readingeagle.com.


Sunday, August 29, 2010

CHRIS POWELL: If governor must testify, so must DCF

CHRIS POWELL: If governor must testify, so must DCF
Published: Sunday, August 29, 2010

Once again Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families has become an easy target. In July Torrington police found five young children living in squalor and excrement at an apartment with their father passed out drunk.

The police telephoned the DCF’s emergency line, were kept on hold for a half hour, took the children to a hospital, and eventually were told by DCF to give the children to their mother. Two days later the parents were arrested on charges of risk of injury and the children were taken away.

The department had already gone to court to seek custody of the children but maybe there were reasons for DCF case workers to think that the mother could handle things for the time being. After all, almost half the children in Connecticut are growing up without fathers in their home, a situation that probably should be the legal definition of child neglect when a single parent cannot support them financially, and public policy is fine with that. Connecticut is full of unmarried, unskilled, hapless women who are presumed able to raise five or more kids.

But the Torrington case was so bad that it seemed to require an explanation, so the General Assembly’s Human Services Committee called a hearing the other day in the name of getting one, only for the committee’s co-chairman, Sen. Paul R. Doyle, D-Wethersfield, to announce that no one would be allowed to ask about the Torrington case particularly, just about general DCF policies and procedures, lest the privacy of the Torrington kids be invaded.

Suddenly it was as if Connecticut was back in the mid-1980s, when newspapers started reporting DCF horror stories with alarming frequency, as kids were killed or maimed and the department denied and covered up in the name of protecting the children’s privacy, when of course the only protection meant and achieved was for the department itself.

Even its critics might acknowledge that DCF has come a long way since then, if in part because it was put under federal court supervision. The department is much more forthcoming about its troubles and mistakes, and measures of its performance are much improved, even if DCF still is the scapegoat for so much of the social disintegration that is caused by federal and state welfare policy over which the department has no control.

But this improvement is not enough, and Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, was right to denounce the Human Services Committee hearing as a cover-up and to walk out of it. “One reason why DCF remains such a dysfunctional agency,” Meyer fumed, “is that we’re not allowed to get to the bottom of things.”

DCF may not be quite as dysfunctional as Meyer thinks, but if, because of law and policy, even the legislature itself, the representative of the whole people, the maker of the law and the appropriator of funds, cannot determine what happened somewhere in the government, then that part of government is out of control, beyond accountability, and not really part of the government at all.

The privacy rationale offered by Senator Doyle and by DCF itself for foreclosing public inquiry about the Torrington case remains as bogus as it was 25 years ago. For not only are the children in the case too young — under 6 — to understand the proceedings or publicity, but their privacy was lost upon the arrest of their parents, arrests and criminal prosecutions thankfully still being public regardless of the consequences.

So if he is re-elected in November, Meyer should introduce legislation to require everything about DCF to be public in all respects from the start. This may result in disclosure of unfounded allegations or suspicions, as when a child turns up at a hospital emergency room with a gash on his forehead and the hospital has to summon the police or DCF to determine whether he really ran into a pole while chasing a football or whether his father beat him. But neither the news media nor the neighbors are likely to be interested in that stuff until there are arrests or DCF seeks custody.

Otherwise, as the Torrington case shows, the agency will be beyond accountability in the most crucial respects, the only such agency of state government. Six years ago the General Assembly refused to accept any limit to its authority to investigate state government when Gov. John G. Rowland tried to dodge a subpoena from the legislature’s impeachment committee. The legislature took that issue to the state Supreme Court and won. If even a governor must testify about his conduct of office, so must a DCF commissioner or case worker. This is an urgent matter of the most basic democracy.

Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Conn.

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of middletownpress.com.
Richard Wexler wrote on Aug 28, 2010 4:22 PM:
" Mr. Powell’s call for total transparency is one with which my organization strongly agrees. We also support expanding the current experiment in open court hearings in these cases in Middletown statewide and making it permanent. The reasons why this will benefit all Connecticut children are discussed in our Due Process Agenda on our website here: http://bit.ly/cnDQCe

But the only thing as bad as DCF’s stonewalling is Ed Meyer’s grandstanding.

He says DCF’s secrecy is why the Legislature hasn’t improved the agency – as if they have no control over whether DCF discusses specific cases or not.

But, as Mr. Powell points out, if the legislature really wants DCF to talk about individual cases they can do what lawmakers do – make a law. Several states have laws letting their child welfare agencies comment on individual cases when information already has been made public.

Instead, legislators like Meyer preen and posture – and terrify caseworkers into foster-care panic. You can bet they’re now rushing to tear apart more families needlessly,

One news account says DCF claims to have removed 2,300 children in 2009. If so, that rate of child removal still is above the national average, and far above the rate in systems that are, relatively speaking, models for keeping children safe.

And now it will only get worse, as caseworkers, afraid of being on the front page or in a legislator’s line of fire, rush to tear apart even more families needlessly. The alternative to leaving children with “unmarried, unskilled, hapless women” is consigning them to the vastly worse fate of foster care. Two studies of more than 15,000 typical cases found that, even when there had been actual maltreatment, the children left in their own homes typically fared better even than the comparably-maltreated children placed in foster care. It makes far more sense – and by the way, costs less to taxpayers – to give mothers the help and the skills they need.

Not only do such foster care panics do enormous harm to the children needlessly taken, they also overload caseworkers so they are more likely to miss children in real danger. That’s almost always the real reason for horror stories like the Torrington case. Foster care panics make all children less safe. Too bad that’s less important to Ed Meyer than grabbing himself another headline.

Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
http://www.nccpr.org "


In Memory: These children died In the government’s care in the name of “safety”

In Memory: These children died In the government’s care in the name of “safety”
Posted by: Forever on: October 5, 2007
In: child abuse | child death | cps | domestic violence | education | family | foster care | government | love | missing child | social services | system failure

These children were killed or died AFTER they were taken into CPS’s custody for allegations of abuse/neglect against their caretakers at their natural home.

There are two parts of this list that get me the most in a shuddering chills kind of way -
First, is how many times i roll the scroll ball in the middle of my mouse to scroll through the whole list… it keeps going and going and going;
Second, I can’t imagine how bad it has to have been for a child who is removed from their home and placed in a foster home to commit suicide at age 12; how many 12 year olds commit suicide?
One is too many.
1.. Genesis Acosta-Garcia, Las Vegas Nevada, three months old, November 19, 2005, septic shock

2.. Travis C Adams, Salem Oregon, August 8 2000, December 16 2002, wandered into creek
3.. Kayla Y Allen, Richlands North Carolina, November 10 1995 – August 24 2003, poison

4.. Martin Lee Anderson, Panama City Florida, fourteen years old, January 6 2006, beating/sickle cell

5.. Richard L (Ricky) Aragon, Albuquerque New Mexico, January 24 1991 – April 12 1993, battered
6.. Shirley Arciszewski, Charlotte North Carolina, April 19 1992 – September 11 2004, restraint
7.. Miguel Humberto Arias-Baca, Westminster Colorado, two years old, February 2 1999, battered
8.. Ian August, Sevier Desert Utah, June 21 1988 – July 13, 2002, exhaustion
9.. Denzel Bailey, Los Angeles California, eleven months old, April 2001, malnutrition
10.. Jeffrey Baldwin, Toronto Ontario, December 20 1996 – November 30 2002, malnutrition/pneumonia
11.. Casey Paul Barrow, West Valley Utah, eighteen months old, October 22, 2003, battered

12.. Anthony Bars, Indiana, four years old, January 20 2004, starvation, battered

13.. Shelly Bash, Midland Michigan, eight years old, March 2005, transplant rejection

14.. Nadine Catherine Beaulieu, Dauphin Manitoba, twenty three months old, February 1996, battered
15.. Teddy Bellingham, Smiths Falls Ontario, sixteen years old, August 1992, beaten

16.. Jerome Bennett, Oshawa Ontario, fifteen years old, February 3 2006, homicide

17.. Maria Bennett, Lancaster Ohio, two years old, October 23, 2002, battered
18.. Modesto Blanco, Lubbock Texas, twenty two months old, March 2 2002,battered

19.. Christian Blewitt né sik, Halesowen England, three years old, December 2002, poison/battered
20.. Deondre Bondieumaitre, Florida, sixteen months old, April 16 2003,battered

21.. Timothy Boss, Remsen Iowa, ten years old, February 23 2000, battered
22.. Alex Boucher, New Port Richey Florida, January 25 1997 – September 25 2000, asphyxiation
23.. Ashley Boyd, LaFayette Georgia, twelve years old, December 13 2005, hit by car / suicide
24.. Kerry Brooks, Los Angeles California, nine years old, February 10 2001, suicide
25.. Talitha Brooks, Colorado, one year old, July 1998, heatstroke

26.. Amira Brown, Reading Pennsylvania, twelve years old, September 4 2005, battered / restraint
27.. Diminiqua Bryant, Dothan Alabama, two years old, May 1999, battered
28.. Scott Buckle, Swansea Wales, twelve years old, February 6 2005, hanging
29.. Latasha Bush, Manvel Texas, January 2 1987 – February 28 2002, restraint

30.. Michael Buxton, Miami Oklahoma, five years old, July 5 1998, battered
31.. Eduardo Calzada, Bakersfield California, three months old, March 2004, battered

32.. Chris Campbell, Toledo Iowa, thirteen years old, November 2, 1997, restraint

33.. Gladys Campbell, Philadelphia/New Jersey, two years old, ca 1988
34.. Edith Campos, Tucson Arizona, fifteen years old, February 4 1998, restraint

35.. Latasha Cannon, Boston Massachusetts, seventeen years old, April 2001, slashed throat
36.. Mario Cano, Chula Vista California, sixteen years old, April 27 1984, untreated blood clot

37.. Joshua K Causey, Detroit Michigan, March 21 1998 – March 18 2003, battered
38.. Sherry Charlie, British Columbia, nineteen months old, September 4 2002, battered

39.. Sarah Angelina Chavez, Alhambra California, two years old, October 11 2005, battered
40.. Felix Chen, Bloomington Indiana, August 27 1997 – April 1 2004, treatment withheld
41.. Sky Colon Cherevez, Paterson New Jersey, three months old, August 6, 1998, battered
42.. Tiffany H Clair, Fort Worth Texas, September 6 1985 – May 4 2001, heroin
43.. Brian Clark, New Jersey, three years old, January 2002, untreated pneumonia

44.. Angelic Clary, Bakersfield California, three months old September 14 2003
45.. Roshelle Clayborn, San Antonio Texas, sixteen years old, August 18 1997, restraint

46.. Casey Collier, Westminster Colorado, seventeen years old, December 21 1993, restraint
47.. Desiree Collins, Los Angeles California, fourteen years old, February 10 2002, gunshot
48.. Nicholas Contreras, Queen Creek Arizona, January 15 1982 – March 2 1998, untreated infection

49.. Adrianna Cram, Veracruz Mexico (US supervision), August 25 2000 – June 13 2005
50.. Christopher Henry Cryderman, Springfield Missouri, July 27 2004 – November 22 2004, untreated infection
51.. Dirk D Dalton, Clarkston Washington, June 7 1989 – May 1 1994, battered
52.. Arieale Daniels, Naples Florida, fifteen years old, 1999, car crash
53.. Tajuana Davidson, Phoenix Arizona, three years old, November 3 1993, battered

54.. China Marie Davis, Phoenix Arizona, March 23 1991 – October 31 1993, battered

55.. Sabrina Elizabeth Day, Charlotte North Carolina, July 4 1984 – February 10 2000, restraint

56.. Tyler Jospeh DeLeon, Stevens County Washington, January 13 1998 – January 13 2005, dehydration
57.. Kameron Justin Demery, Long Beach California, two years old, October 14 1996, battered
58.. Connre Dixon, Ridgefield Township Onio eleven years old, October 18, 2004, stabbing
59.. Mark Draheim, Orefield Pennsylvania, October 10 1984 – December 11 1998, restraint

60.. Charmaria Drake, Cleveland Ohio, twenty months old, March 13 2003, battered
61.. Stephanie Duffield, Manvel Texas, July 14 1984 – February 11 2001, restraint

62.. Willie Lawrence Durden III, Citrus County Florida, seventeen years old, October 2005, unknown/died in cell

63.. Brian Edgar, Overland Park Kansas, nine years old, December 30 2002, asphyxiation

64.. William Edgar, Peterborough Ontario, thirteen years old, March 1999, restraint
65.. Tiffany Eilders, Rancho Cucamonga California, fourteen weeks old, December 7 2005, battered

66.. Kayla Erlandson, King County Washington, two years old, April 1991, battered
67.. Luke Evans, Lowell Indiana, sixteen months old, November 30 2001, malnutrition/battered
68.. Roberta (Berta) Evers, Bayfield Colorado, six years old, June 13 1998, restraint

69.. Sara Eyerman, California, twenty months old, ca 1986, untreated pneumonia

70.. Miranda Finn, Lake Butler Florida, nine years old, January 25 2006, traffic accident
71.. Laura Fleming, Palmdale California, October 11 2004 – November 21 2004, cause unknown

72.. Sarah Jane Forrester, Woodlawn Maryland, October 30 1985 – found May 13 1999, battered and stabbed
73.. Kameryn Fountain, Bibb County Georgia, two months old, November 20 2005, unknown cause

74.. Henry Gallop, Boston Massachusetts, two years old, 1987, poison
75.. Alexander Ganadonegro, Albuquerque New Mexico, March 10 1998, February 4 1999, battered
76.. Christening (Mikie) Garcia, Ingram Texas, twelve years old, December 4 2005, restraint
77.. Dylan George, Fremont California, April 16 2002 – October 4 2004, battered
78.. Corese Goldman, Chicago Illinois, two years old, 1995, drowning
79.. Mollie Gonzales, Jefferson County Colorado, ten years old, November 18 2002, drug overdose

80.. Julio Gonzalez, Glendale California, May 10 1995 – December 29 1996, battered
81.. Elizabeth (Lizzy) Goodwin, Coeur d’Alene Idaho, March 22 1996 – October 22 2002, drowning
82.. Anthony Green, Brownwood Texas, fifteen years old, May 12 1991, restraint
83.. Sabrina Green, New York City, nine years old, November 8 1997, burned and battered
84.. Lamar D Greene, Jacksonville Florida, sixteen years old, 2001, car crash
85.. Corey Greer, Treasure Island Florida, four months old, ca 1985, dehydration
86.. Gage Guillen, Boston Massachusetts, three years old, 1995, strangulation
87.. Darvell Gulley, Lincoln Nebraska, thirteen years old, April 27 2002, restraint
88.. Savannah Brianna Marie Hall, Prince George British Columbia, September 9 1997 – January 21 2001, malnutrition/restraint

89.. Latiana Hamilton, Jacksonville Florida, seventeen months old,July 18 2001, drowning
90.. Mykeeda Hampton, District of Columbia, two years old, August 1997, battered

91.. Kelly M Hancock, Malden Massachusetts, November 6 1985 – July 18 2000, stabbed
92.. Laura Hanson, West Palm Beach Florida, May 17 1981 – November 19 1998, restraint
93.. Jerrell Hardiman, La Porte Indiana, four years old, October ca 1993, exposure
94.. Diane Harris, Seguin Texas, seventeen years old, April 11 1990, restraint
95.. Jessica Albina Hagmann, Prince William County Virginia, two years old, August 11 2003, smothered
96.. Letia Harrison, Akron Ohio, October 23 1999 – September 19 2002, baked in attic
97.. Jordan Heikamp, Toronto Ontario, May 19 1997 – June 23 1997, starvation
98.. Eric Hernandez, Cedar Hill Texas, January 6 1999 – March 7 1999, suffocation
99.. Zachary Higier, Massachusetts, May 24 2000 – August 15 2002, battered
100.. Dwight Hill, Tucson Arizona, four months old, November 16 2005, cause unknown
101.. Nina Victoria Hilt né¥ Vika Bazhenova, Manassas Virginia, thirty three months old, July 2 2005, battered

102.. Steven A Hoffa, Des Moines Iowa, February 4 1993 – May 18 1996, battered
103.. Richard (Ricky) Holland, Williamston Michigan, September 8 1997 – July 2005, battered
104.. Michael Anthony Hughes, Choctaw Oklahoma, March 21 1988 – September 12 1994, kidnap/missing
105.. Joseph (Joey) Huot, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, two years old, January 27 1988, battered
106.. Dion Jack, Sproat Lake British Columbia, six years old, March 1 2006, untreated seizure
107.. Walter Jackson, Chicago Illinois, ten months old, August 9 2005, battered
108.. Dominic James, Springfield Missouri, June 4 2000 – August 21 2002, battered
109.. Billie-Jo Jenkins, Hastings East Sussex England, thirteen years old, February 1997, battered
110.. Demetrius Jeffries, Crockett Texas, seventeen years old, August 26 1997, strangulation
111.. Dontel Jeffers, Boston Massachusetts, four years old, March 6 2005, battered
112.. Stephanie Jobin, Brampton Ontario, thirteen years old, June 21 1998, restraint
113.. Aaron Johnson, Boston Massachusetts, fifteen months old, 1987, poison
114.. Xolani Nkosi Johnson, Cape town South Africa, twelve years old, June 2 2001, AIDS
115.. Elijah James Johnson, Los Angeles California, three years old,May 10 1999, scalded
116.. Lorenzo Johnson, Queen Creek Arizona, 17 years old – June 27, 1994, drowned during escape
117.. Quartrina K (Snappy) Johnson, Pikesville Maryland, December 25 1988-July 20 2004, beaten and choked
118.. Christal Jones, New York City (Vermont ward), May 24 1984 – January 3 2001, suffocation
119.. David L Jones, Chicago Illinois, April 15 1992 – March 7 1998, battered
120.. Dennis Jurgens né Serry Sherwood, White Bear Lake Minnesota, three years old, April 11 1965, battered
121.. Marissa (Shorty) Karp, Pompano Beach Florida, December 6 1985 – August 19 2002, gunshot
122.. David Ryan Keeley, New Haven Connecticut, six years old, August 12 1998, battered
123.. Ashley Keen, Lake Butler Florida, thirteen years old, January 25 2006, traffic accident
124.. Cassandra Killpack, Springville Utah, November 29 1997 – June 9 2002, water therapy
125.. Ahmad King né ‘awls, Alma Georgia, three years old, January 24 2006, homicide
126.. Heather Michell Kish, Berlin Township Michigan, September 15 1987 – found October 6 2002, murdered
127.. Noah Knapp, Marysville Washington, six years old, May 30 2005, automobile collision
128.. Zaire Knott, Newark New Jersey, September 16 2005 – October 20 2005, cause unknown
129.. Anatoli Kolenda, Westfield Massachusetts, May 20 1991 – October 20 2002, stabbing
130.. Yana Kolenda, Westfield Massachusetts, December 31 1990 – October 20 2002, stabbing
131.. Anthony Lamb, Lake Butler Florida, twenty months old, January 25 2006, traffic accident
132.. Keisha Shardae Lane, Hagerstown Maryland, fifteen years old, August 17 2005, gunshot
133.. Shawn Lawrence né ndy Mohler, Shelton Washington, ten years old, October 9 1999, drowning

134.. Brittany Legler, Millcreek Pennsylvania, fifteen years old, May 9 2004, battered
135.. Jacob Lindorff, Franklin Township New Jersey, five years old December 14 2001, battered
136.. Christian Liz, New York City, three weeks old, November 29 2004, suffocation
137.. James Lonnee, Guelph/Hamilton Ontario, sixteen years old, September 7 1996, beaten by cellmate
138.. Gregory Love, Florida, twenty three months old, April 2005, head injury
139.. Nikki Lutke, Cheyenne Wyoming, five years old, August 28 2003, drowning
140.. Zachary James Lyons, Winston-Salem North Carolina, January 24 1992 – October 8 1996, battered

141.. Shaquella Mance, Belton South Carolina, seven months old, March 27 2005, battered
142.. Elizabeth Mann, Lake Butler Florida, fifteen years old, January 25 2006, traffic accident
143.. Heaven Mann, Lake Butler Florida, three years old, January 25 2006, traffic accident
144.. Johnny Mann, Lake Butler Florida, thirteen years old, January 25 2006, traffic accident
145.. Cynthia Nicole (Nicki) Mann, Lake Butler Florida, fifteen years old, January 25 2006, traffic accident
146.. Logan Marr, Chelsea Maine, October 14 1995 – January 31 2001, asphyxiation
147.. Stephanie Martinez, Pueblo Colorado, five years old, December 31 2001, untreated burns
148.. Tiffany Laverne Mason, Folsom California, June 11 1986 – August 9 2001, battered
149.. Viktor Alexander Matthey né – Sergeyevich Tulimov, Hunterdon County New Jersey, six years old, October 31 2000, hypothermia
150.. Dominic Matz, Osawatomie Kansas, July 6 2002 – February 15 2004, treatment withheld
151.. Jamie Mayne, Atascadero California, March 24 1995 – February 10 2000, battered
152.. Kristal Mayon-Ceniceros, Chula Vista California, sixteen years old, February 5 1999, restraint
153.. Emily Ann Mays, Tucson Arizona, sixteen months old, August 24 2005, battered
154.. Andrew McClain, Bridgeport Connecticut, December 6 1986 – March 22 1998, restraint
155.. Cory Bradley McLaughlin, North Carolina, four years old, July 4 1997, battered
156.. Jerry McLaurin, Brownwood Texas, fourteen years old, November 2 1999, restraint
157.. Maria Mendoza, Katy Texas, fourteen years old, October 12 2002,restraint
158.. Caleb Jerome Merchant, Edmonton Alberta, thirteen months old, November 26, 2005, battered
159.. Denis Merryman né .ritsky, Harford County Maryland, eight years old, January 2005, starvation
160.. Jacob Miller, Georgia, twenty two months old, November 20 1997, battered
161.. Clayton Miracle, Georgia, three years old, August 11 1993, battered
162.. Hanna Denise Montessori, Santa Ana California, March 16 1988 – January 19 2004, homicide/head-injury
163.. Alfredo Montez, Auburndale Florida, two years old, July 1 2002, battered
164.. Zachary Moran, Charlotte North Carolina, fourteen months old, August 8 2003, battered
165.. Christina Morlan, Scott County Iowa, September 3 2003 – November 30 2003, unknown
166.. Carlyle Mullins, Nashville Tennessee, five years old, May 27 2005, battered
167.. Cedrick Napoleon, Killeen Texas, June 26 1987 – March 7 2002, restraint
168.. Candace Newmaker né¥ C Tiara Elmore, Colorado, November 19 1989 – April 19 2000, re-birth asphyxiation
169.. Jonathan Nichol, Cook County Illinois, two years old, June 16 1995, drowning
170.. Trevor Nolan, Mono County California, five years old, April 12 1997, treatment withheld
171.. Sierra Odom, Arlington Texas, three years old, August 11 2005, battered
172.. Keron Owens, Walterboro South Carolina, three years old, January 19 1992, battered
173.. Sean Paddock né ?ord, Johnston County North Carolina, four years old, February 26 2006, battered
174.. Omar Paisley, Miami Florida, seventeen years old, June 2003, untreated appendicitis
175.. Terrell Parker, Buffalo New York, two years old, 2003, battered
176.. Travis Parker, Cleveland Georgia, thirteen years old, April 21 2005, restraint
177.. Alex Pavlis, Schaumburg Illinois, six years old, December 19 2003, battered
178.. Dawn Renay Perry, Manvel Texas, sixteen years old, April 10 1993, restraint
179.. Angellica Pesante, Seneca County New York, four years old, April 18 1997, battered
180.. Terrell Peterson, Atlanta Georgia, five years old, January 16 1998, battered
181.. Cynteria Phillips, Miami Florida, December 10 1986 – August 14 2000, rape/murder
182.. Marguerite Pierre, West Orange New Jersey, five years old, December 2005, poison
183.. Emporia Pirtle, Indiana, six years old, November 11 1996, battered
184.. Jason Plischkowsky, Southampton England, May 25 1985 – December 19 1986, head injury
185.. Huntly Tamati Pokaia, New Zealand, three years old
186.. David Polreis, Greeley Colorado, two years old, February 6 1996, battered
187.. Maryah Ponce, Rialto California, December 5 1997 – June 29 2001, baked in car
188.. Constance S Porter, Kearney Missouri, July 20 1998 – February 12 2001, battered
189.. Dakota Denzel Prince-Smith, Lancaster California, five years old, July 8 2003, baked in car

190.. Nehamiah Nate Prince-Smith, Lancaster California, three years old, July 8 2003, baked in car
191.. Karen Quill, St Louis Saskatchewan, twenty months old,September 13 1997, internal injuries
192.. Rodrigo Armando Rameriez Jr, Victorville California, eighteen months old, July 6 2001, drowning
193.. Stephanie Ramos, New York City, eight years old, July 9 2005,dumped in garbage can
194.. Bobby Jo Randolph, Houston Texas, seventeen years old, September 26 1996, asphyxiation
195.. Jacquelyn Reah, Grand Rapids Michigan, ten years old, November 27 2004, runaway / hit by car
196.. Latayna Reese, Bradenton Florida, fifteen years old, April 1996
197.. Caprice Reid, New York City, four years old, June 1997, starved and battered
198.. Jonathan Reid, Gardena California, nine years old, June 9 1997treatment withheld

199.. Matthew Reid, Welland Ontario, three years old, December 15 2005, suffocation
200.. Dustin Rhodes, Litchfield Park Arizona, nine years old, August 13 2003, battered
201.. Eric Roberts, Keene Texas, June 16 1979 – February 22 1996, restraint
202.. Ana Rogers, Sparks Nevada, four months old, July 2005, pre-existing injury
203.. Genevieve “Genny” Rojas, Chula Vista California, four years old, July 21 1995, starvation, scalded
204.. Paola Rosales, Milton Ontario, fourteen years old, July 3 2001, suicide
205.. Kyle Anthony Ross, Massachusetts, September 7 1995 – June 9 2001, rottweiler
206.. Marlon Santos, Worcester Massachusetts, five months old, November 5 1998, missing
207.. Andres E Saragos, Warm Springs Oregon, August 5 1995 – July 13 2000, baked in car
208.. Gina M Score, Plankinton South Dakota, May 7 1985 – July 21 1999, baked by boot camp
209.. Caprice Scott, Florida, infant, 1999, mother in foster care
210.. Ryan Scott, Sheffield Lake Ohio, two years old, March 27 1998, battered
211.. Krystal Scurry, Aiken County South Carolina, February 1989 – November 2 1991, rape/murder
212.. Andrew (Andy) Setzer, California, April 27 1995 – August 2 1999, battered
213.. Ariel Shaw, Bibb County Georgia, nineteen months old, January 26 2000, battered
214.. Vivan Uk Sheppard, Jacksonville Florida, eight months old, May 15 1999, suffocation
215.. Joseph H Shriver, Pennsylvania, March 2 1997 – October 5 1997, battered
216.. Quincey L Simmons, Omaha Nebraska, August 21 1997 – March 24 2001, battered
217.. Christopher Simpson, Michigan, seven years old, November 14 1998, fire
218.. Jordan Simpson Howell Morrison II, Howell Michigan, five years old, November 14 1998, fire
219.. Nicole Simpson , Michigan, seven years old, November 14 1998, fire

220.. Devin A Slade, Milwaukee Wisconsin, October 23 2000 – June 19 2001, asphyxiation
221.. John Smith, Fishersgate England, four years old, December 24 1999, battered and bitten
222.. Mikinah Smith, Cincinnati Ohio, one year old, March 18 2003, battered
223.. Tristan Sovern, Greensboro North Carolina, sixteen years old, March 4 1998, restraint
224.. Jushai Spurgeon, North Las Vegas Nevada, fourteen months old, April 3 2005, scalding

225.. LeRon St John, Detroit Michigan, fifteen years old, March 1 2003, untreated tuberculosis
226.. Lloyd Stamp, Edmonton Alberta, seventeen years old, September 29, 2005, suicide
227.. Tommy Stacey, Carmichael California, three months old, January 3 2005, SIDS
228.. Elizabeth (Lisa) Steinberg né¥ Launders, New York City, May 14 1981 – November 4 1987, battered
229.. Yasmin Taylor, Paterson New Jersey, seven months old, May 8 1994, virus
230.. Lakeysha Tharp, Irmo South Carolina, six months old, April 7 2004, asphyxiation
231.. Adam Michael Thimyan, Riverview Florida, October 2 1986 – April 3 2004, gunshot
232.. Timithy Thomas, Banner Elk North Carolina, nine years old, March 11 1999, restraint
233.. Liam Thompson né “mitry S Ishlankulov, Columbus Ohio, October 3 1999 – October 3 2002, scalding
234.. Michael Tinning, Schenectady New York, two years old, March 2 1981, asphyxiation
235.. Kelly Ann Tozer, Egg Harbor City New Jersey, eighteen months old, July 30 2005, drowning
236.. Patrick Trauffler, Phoenix Arizona, six weeks old, February 18 2003, battered
237.. Demetrius Tyler, Johnson City Tennessee, six months old, November 10 2004, drowning
238.. Tyler Vanpopering, Southgate Michigan, September 23 2003 – April 14 2004, battered
239.. Jacqueline Venay, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, six years old, September 21 1998, battered
240.. George Walker III, DeKalb County Georgia, ten months old, November 7, 2002, choking
241.. Michelle Walton, Boston Massachusetts, October 6 1994, asphyxiation
242.. Erickyzha Warner, Utica New York, July 19 2002 – May 31, 2004, untreated burns
243.. Shane Devell Washington, Fresno California, fifteen months old, circa 1996, drowning
244.. Evan Watkins, Las Vegas Nevada, twenty one months old, July 11 1996, battered
245.. Devin Wilder, Cleveland Ohio, July 29 1998 – April 21 2001, battered
246.. Dominic J Williams, Saint Louis Missouri, June 8 1987 – June 3 2004,strangulation
247.. Andrew Wilson, Owensboro Kentucky, three years old, August 7 2005, drowning
248.. Lorenzo J Wilson, Seattle Washington, January 29 2004 – October 22 2004, battered
249.. Rilya Wilson, Florida, born September 29 1996, disappeared 2001
250.. Michael Spencer Wiltsie, Silver Springs Florida, September 18 1987 – February 5, 2000, restraint
251.. Jimmy Allan Wood, Adams County Colorado, fourteen years old, November 13 2002, drug overdose
252.. Jonnie Wood, Springdale Arkansas, eight years old, August 13 2005, drowning
253.. Braxton D Wooden, Missouri, May 15 1997 – June 2 2005, gunshot
254.. Donte L Woods, West Palm Beach Florida, February 25 1986 – May 27 2002, gunshot
255.. Thomas (T J) Wright, Providence Rhode Island, three years old, October 31 2004, battered
256.. Willie Wright, San Antonio Texas, fourteen years old, March 4 2000, restraint
257.. Rufus Manzie Young Jr, Michigan, four years old, April 6 2003, battered