Systemic Fabrication of the "Absent Parent" Status by BCSS through the NH Family Courts

​

1.   Intentional Fabrication and Strategic Targeting

In 20% of NH cases, BCSS use judicial branch association to establish child support orders to construct a desired narrative that flips parenting and falsely label one parent as 'absent'—often the primary caregiver and custodial parent—is targeted, particular when that primary parent and children are happy, doing well, safe and content. This is not a mere administrative oversight but a systematic strategy designed to:

• Justify parent absence and initiate enforcement actions like wage garnishments, license suspensions, and asset seizures that enforces a child support order against the primary parent—without concern for a child's safety and wellness, being left with the unconcerned parent or other unfamiliar parties. Use of coerced compliance while withholding child access.

• Allow the state to strive and maintain control over the child and parent for maximum financial gain until the child turns 18.

• Prolong litigation to increase court and enforcement fees, enable service providers to maximize their billing opportunities, trap families in a protracted case cycle without redress or due process.

 

2.   Incremental Hearings and De Facto "Artificial Absence"

The process often involves repeated, short hearings—30 minutes or less—where the family court gradually strips away parenting time, assets, and rights. These hearings serve to:

• Erode the parent’s relationship with the child by denying or limiting access.

• Create a paper trail where a parent is consistently labeled as "non-cooperative" or "absent," even if they are actively involved, very engaged and bonded with their children.

• Permanently establish the parent as absent on paper, even when factual circumstances prove otherwise—all a court and agency fabrication.

• To check off the requirements of Title IV grants and incentives on paper, without respect, care or integrity to uphold the best interest of parents and children.

 

3.   Targeting the Primary Caregiver

The primary caregiver—nurturing parent—is specifically targeted under this strategy, with the underlying goal of:

• Controlling the parent and child's environment until the child reaches 18.

• Maximizing agency relevance through creating child support scenarios and maximizes the use of government assistance programs artificially.

• Undermining the parent’s custody rights while maintaining the appearance of legal compliance.

This targeting is often justified by allegations of non-cooperation or unresponsiveness, which are typically fabricated and exaggerated to justify additional hearings and enforcement actions. 

 

4.   Use of Hearings and Intentional Hurdles to Wear Down Parent

The process involves complex paths of unwarranted hearings that:

• Are conducted without required reviews, focusing on procedural hurdles and financial goals, rather than the parents and child's best interests.

• The parent is subjected to tactics designed to wear down the targeted parent, forcing concessions or compliance through intimidation and financial pressure and withholding access to children.

• Prolong the case unnecessarily, leading to a high-conflict environment where the parent is pushed into compliance out of exhaustive financial necessity or the parent is put in the position as a absent parent by artificial allegations, case doctoring and without merit or substance.

• The court and agencies rely heavily on the NH state statutes that remove due process and evidence from court proceedings—allowing cases to easily be manipulated to meet Title IV grant and incentive requirements.

​

5.   Financial Exploitation and Due Process Violations

This manipulation involves a systematic violation of due process:

• Falsification or exaggeration of facts to justify enforcement actions.

• Denial of meaningful or required hearings or any relevant opportunity to contest allegations with redress—often a parent does not discover redress until well after the harm has occurred.

• Use of the fabricated "absent parent" status allows enforcements to carryout without due process.

• It is the 'absent parent' or false 'family needs' creation which allow BCSS and other agencies to meet funding requirements

• It is the 'absent parent' or false 'family needs' creation which allow agencies to pursue parents financially, seize assets, garnish wages, and license suspensions without adequate evidence or due process.

• Deliberate obfuscation of evidence—BCSS and court personnel ignore and suppress any evidence that contradicts the fabricated narrative.

 

6.   Impact on the Targeted Parent and Child

• The targeted parent, too often the primary caregiver, faces unwarranted financial hardship, loss of assets, and denial of custody or visitation rights.

• The child is trapped in an unstable and uncertain family situation, while the system controls both the parent and the child's resources.

• The system business model is based on taking resources and wealth from families to enrich family legal services providers who maintain the system, while keeping revenue flow for contracts and contractors.

• The best interests of the child and parents are not prioritized as required; instead, the relevance and best interests of the BCSS is paramount, using the administrative family court to trigger Title IV-D and other Title IV initiatives.

• The process creates a high-conflict, adversarial environment, which is artificially sustained by systemic manipulation rather than genuine dispute or neglect. Perhaps, this is why BCSS child support cannot be paid in person—anger—over harming parents and children for revenue.

 

Summary

Overall, BCSS and the executive branch administrative family court have established a two-decade pattern of manipulating the family legal services process by fabricating or exaggerating the absence of a parent—particularly the primary caregiver—through incremental, procedural hearings and administrative actions designed to:

• Undermine the parent’s rights and relationship with the child.

• Separate and divide healthy families, resulting in life-long harm to both parent and child, denying natural healthy families, interaction and parenting of one’s children.

• Maximize financial extraction via enforcement of child support, fees, and asset seizures.

• Maintain systemic control over the child until adulthood—for the benefit of government funding and other financial interests.

This systemic strategy violates due process rights, suppresses evidence, and perpetuates unnecessary conflict under the guise of legal compliance, all while prioritizing financial gain over the child's best interests.