One Story: Two Truths, Two Realities

Pull here. No, not like that; pull harder—just yank it! We’ve all heard phrases about tearing off a bandage, but few could truly grasp the effort needed to unveil the rotten layers of complexity within the family court systems. The piloted concept of 'family court' appeared benign yet, experience should have instigated the alarm for closer examination as due process, which is essential for ensuring justice, was lost to rules.

When rules replaced the guarantee of due process, it was inevitable that our children and families were sure to be plunged into a legal labyrinth of unjustified family rupture. Adding to the very alarming concept was relying on the unregulated, for-profit, industry interests of family legal service businesses.

Captive Hearts

The family courts legal labyrinth is an overly complex legal process. For a moment, imagine smashing together two contrasting images—a family and a labyrinth. Picture your family navigating a court system that implies friendliness but quickly turns life into twisting pathways, lined with thorny, flesh-tearing overgrowth. This happens to more than 3,000 of your neighbors every year. The vivid imagery captures how families become ensnared in NH family court system. Highlighting the volume of harm that's piercing the well-being of their family.

"How did our state get here?" "It's complicated." At least that is the narrative we are supposed to accept. So let's look from a higher level. The response was generally about the rising rate of couples separating and the state’s desire for convenience while elevating operational financial positions. Of course, federal grants and incentives had a lot to do with it, too. "Free money," often an incentive that triggers the question, "what's the catch?"

The concept of family court appeared to be an innovative solution. It reflected the spirit of providing expedient judicial services to couples and families while removing the intense formality found in civil and criminal courts of law. Sold as the convenient solution to allow couples to take care of necessary legal formalities, allowing them and their families to move on with life. "Family Court," the administrative court to meet the needs of contemporary society—beneath the surface lurked the labyrinth, excitedly waiting to exploit and profit from the critical lack of judicial formality. Heavily lobbied, legislatively enacted.

As citizens, we should "Never take the symbolism of Lady Justice for granted, an implied guarantee of court process and justice, personifying the demand that evidence should stand on its own merit without an artificial foundation based on speculation, whatsoever."

New Hampshire is both blessed and cursed with a highly educated population, too often to it's own detriment, as recent years have proven. There has been a runaway locomotive filled to capacity with far too many self-proclaimed experts who are arbitrators of knowing what's best, particularly within our state government and their reliance on for-profit expertise.

"Of the people, by the people, for the people," has mutated into a overt state system of control based on accolades, educational achievements, titles, and nepotism that reflects, "Of the hierarchy, by the hierarchy, for the hierarchy." It seems profoundly superficial given that some of the greatest influences and wisest people never valued any of these.

In short order, the reality of the administrative family court project began to reveal inefficiencies, financial dilemmas, injustices, and growing patterns that the court was operationally unsound—harm to our children and parents was diverting from the conceptualized family friendly court. "After a couple of years had passed, it became clear to families that they were being harmed by a system that had transformed into a network of for-profit businesses that specialized in the creation of family conflict, instead of resolving it."

Interestingly, the collaborations extended outside the courtroom, throwing the spotlight onto a wide selection of family legal service providers, their financial interests and self-serving motivations. Given the opportunity, these individual and business groups wouldn't hesitate to influence the continuance of the administrative family court system without concern or care for resulting harm of their efforts. Effectively silencing parents, parents speaking for their children, friends, neighbors and whole communities.

Early speculations were anchored in suspicions and acrimony. Litigants documented harm and collaborations of what can only be referred to as "targeted plans of attack on specific families." Moreover, the legislature would become embroiled in financial and judicial stakeholders efforts to bog down positive changes with subjective legislation, passing into law with words and actions that effectively have no meaning. Yet, when litigants continued year after year in court, our state turned blindly away from the resulting harm and the obvious victimization.

It appeared that the hierarchy clearly supported the administrative court narrative of prioritizing their own need for convenience and more resources. over our citizens and families. Meanwhile, the financially dependent family legal service industry providers, prioritized the ease of working collaboratively against one parent in an effort to maximize their per case profit goals.

"Here's a little secret, the targeting of one parent is financially lucrative for unlimited billing opportunities but, also for the state to maximize upon federal grant and incentive funding." Afterall, when a family court matter comes before the legislature, the process and procedures of committee hearings lack consistency. The committee chairs have a great amount of autonomy. The allotment of testimony time varies greatly from day to day, based on topic or witness. There is a culture of preferential treatment given to invitational participants and preferences to financial stakeholders expertise on any topic.

Perhaps, citizens who often go to great lengths to testify, including missing pay, using vacation time, and transportation costs; should avoid testifying all together unless they can reference their interpersonal relationship to a litany of financial stakeholders. Sadly, these glaringly obvious professional lapses in upholding constitutionality and sworn duties inspired Kelley Potenza to introduce bills this year that address some of these deficiencies. Review her bills here: https://gc.nh.gov/house/members/member.aspx?pid=10726

Financial stakeholders from any industry have been elevated to the level of being the only experts. This shift takes precedence over fundamental rights such as "the guaranteed right of due process," "standards of do no harm," and the very premise of "providing expedient judicial services to all citizens." This trend only grew bolder and more entrenched over the years. Subverting the the rights of children and parents, while subjecting them to even more artificially created ways to monetize the family unit.

A deep dive into historical evidence and actions reveal strategic legislation, timelines and NH Supreme Court opinions that uncover an awareness that worked to conceal the behind the scenes efforts of calculated manipulation. Efforts to address this and the one sided control have been met with significant resistance and irrelevant attempts at acknowledgment.

As the family friendly and expedient family court was transformed into a legal labyrinth of harm, it seemed clear the only beneficiaries of the concept is the unregulated and unaccountable independent proprietors, contractors and a dedicated collaborative of family legal services. All of them vying for their slice of each incoming family. This steadfast agenda in NH, will once again make history with it's creative application of the live free or die motto - where a contemporary breed of opportunist from within your own communities, who compromise themselves to have a dependent financial interest in the category of commodities: families with children.

It is indisputable that technology has aided in creating this absence of guaranteed individual freedom under the guise of user friendly justice. "Just because you have access to financial prediction algorithms, doesn't mean they are appropriate for everything." Especially when it impacts our constitutional freedoms and rights. Right now, you are probably thinking "no way", while your friends, neighbors and family are nodding in agreement or slowly streaming tears, in feelings of being heard or vindicated. "Just wait, there’s more."

The family legal services industry is increasingly populated by individuals and organizations that prioritize profit over the welfare of children and parents. These legal profiteers often contribute to a troubling trend: the commodification and warehousing of families. By treating the separation of children from their parents as a transaction rather than a deeply impactful life change, they undermine the very foundations of support and care that families need during difficult times. Our citizens and taxpayers, need look no further than the YDC Sununu Center scandals and victims restitution fund. Every individual trial we learn more about the missing guardrails and accountabilities in favor of contract immunity and profits.

Engaging in such practices requires a shocking level of moral compromise and collaborations. It takes a unique kind of individual integrity—one shrouded in deceit and plausible deniability—to place a monetary value on the harm inducing separation of families, all the while sidestepping due process and disregarding the rights that every individual is entitled too.

Real-life experiences reveal how this rat race for profit harms not only parents but also the most vulnerable members of our society, our children. And by default, it impacts the next generation, as their parents lives were hi-jacked and robbed of their one opportunity for a childhood. Advocates are well informed and prioritize the well-being of children and families over a lifetime. New Hampshire is beyond overdue for us to demand change, holding accountable those who profit from the pain and suffering of others.

“What about the best interest?” Best interests terminology has been the source of many legislative spats in New Hampshire. A seemingly clear intent yet, conveniently ambiguous. The terms’ intent and interpretation have a wide breadth of discretion based on individual interpretation, goals and personality-not to mention in a place where due process and evidence is conveniently absent. In a phrase like ‘best interest’ there is an array of possible individual ethical considerations from different viewpoints. If your personal ethics align with altruism, the view is rooted in ethical responsibility and empathy. The monarchist would more likely prioritize a child’s role within a larger societal purpose, completely overlooking the child’s well-being, stability and emotional needs. Meanwhile profit-driven ethics view the commodification of children and families as being absent of child welfare – “STOP! This sounds very familiar.” “Yeah, it sure does.”

Family court cases consistently seem to be placed on unnecessarily long resolution track, wasting precious years of family time in about 20% of all cases each year [between 9,000 to 12,000 citizens (including children) each year on average]. Interestingly, the family court chosen representees often share they have "a successful program where 80% of couples are satisfied with family court; conveniently ignoring the fact that nearly 70% of that 80%, never set foot in court." "Do you remember the tale of the turtle and the scorpion?" "Un-huh, it’s here."

Cue in the two main requirements for a profitable case. One, a family with preferably several children, the more children the longer they can drag your parenting case – all the way until your youngest ages out. And two, the misuse of the ‘absent parent’ label in the family courts. The use of this label is often overshadowed by terms like primary parent and custody but, the experiences parents have explained are of devastatingly inexcusable treatment. Case after case the family court has switched up primary parents as often as changing out socks —"the absent parent" is not random, gender specific, nor rare. However, unlike grabbing a new pair of socks, parents are the only pair for their children.

Whether together or apart, children have an acute understanding of who their parents truly are and they know them better than anyone, including the strangers of family court. Similarly, parents possess a deeper insight into their children than anyone else can. Now, take a moment to visualize a metaphorical labyrinth entwined with flesh piercing vines; navigating through this maze would undoubtedly shred a pair of socks. Think about how children observe the toll this labyrinth takes on their families—on their parents and siblings—due to the complexities of the family court system. Often creating the illusion of an absent parent— stripped of so much, that the children can clearly see the disparity in their living conditions yet, the parent does not actually meet the definition of absent parent.

“What else aren’t we aware of?” For one, the family court service model no longer exists to serve low-income families because it was unsustainable. Now, they prefer higher income earners, especially if there are a lot of assets. We know because we discovered advertisements boasting about the specialized service.

Of course, we also must maintain an awareness that not all legal service providers subscribe to or participate in the venomous pursuit to commodify parents and children. There are some fantastically wonderful family legal services providers out there..... somewhere..... probably having coffee together.

Much like the tale of the turtle and the scorpion, the family court's sting lies in its very nature—or in this case, its man-made design. By the time a parent realizes that things are unraveling in the opposite direction of what’s in the best interest of the child or themselves, their parenting has been adjusted to accommodate the maze. Nefarious tactics and intimidation are synonymous with the family legal service practices. Parents find themselves trapped in a cycle of costly hearings for rights that should not have been diminished without due process.

Interestingly, the Administrative Law Judges [ALJ's] can only write recommendations. NH law dictates that a Judge [Officer of the State] is required to review and certify each recommendation for proper applications of evidence and law. However, testimony as far back as 2007, confirm that the Judges do not do that as a standard practice. Again, for their convenience and lack of resources. Regardless, that was and is the state statute. Let's take a look:

"490-D:9 Recommendations of Marital Masters. – All recommendations of marital masters shall be signed by a judge. The judge signing such recommendations shall certify that he or she has read the recommendations and agrees that the marital master has applied the correct legal standard to the facts determined by the marital master."

"Yep, that's definitely what it says." "Interesting, so are all the family court orders since 2005, actually valid?" This is a very poignant observation. So much so, it also reiterates the NH Supreme Court opinion of 2007 that mentions the lack of judicial enforceability of administrative court orders, without a Judge's review and certification–rendering rubber stamping pointless.

Perhaps a little clarification would be appropriate about now. A hallmark of keeping the public confused over the years has been based in the terminology changes. So let's do a quick review. Administrative Law Judge [ALJ], Marital Master, Referee, Special Master, Family Master, yada, yada, yada... all the same. Family Court, Administrative Law Court, Domestic Relations Court, Child Support Court, Probate Court, Circuit Court, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera... yep, all the same. If changes in terminology isn't confusing enough, the use of a specific title or term is determined by who is speaking, the venue or the audience. Neat tricks, huh?

The New Hampshire administrative family court system reveals two narratives, two truths, and two realities. Yet, it is the venomous scorpion that has sole ownership over them. The scorpion’s calculated diplomacy and inevitable sting demonstrate complete control over both narratives, truths, and realities, as it acts according to its very nature. Likewise, those ensnared within the family court system discover they have no means to halt the scorpion, as standard practices like "due process," "prevention," and "do no harm" serve as mere suggestions in this environment.

This obvious power imbalance highlights the duality and systemic flaws within the New Hampshire administrative family court, where harm is strategically orchestrated before individuals even enter into a hearing, leaving the family at the mercy of manipulated and predatory practices. In the middle of the pond, the water rising around them, the turtle says, "Just remember scorpion, your deception and sting seals both our fates from the poison of your own nature." Two truths, two realities, one narrative.

We greatly value your support. Your generous donation allows us to continue this important work. Thank you on behalf of our dedicated team of volunteers.

DONATE TODAY! HELP RESTORE DUE PROCESS

Republish our articles under Creative Common License. CC Licensing Rights and Terms. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/