NH Non Fatal Strangulation - Law RSA 631 - Already Loses Affect - It's the variables that should concern you.

1/ 7/11 --- 1st Arrest 46 year old male assaulted 22 year-old daughter bail $25,000 increased due to past
Assault record to $40,000

Lt. Cunha quoted "The display of increased aggression . . . is a warning sign.”
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-manchester/first-person-arrested-under-new-strangulation-law

2/21/11 --- 2nd Arrest 20 year old male assaulted 17 years-old girlfriend bail $5000 decrease of 20,000 in
Less than 45 days.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/909767-196/nashua-man-choked-girlfriend-police-claim.html

2ND ARREST variable in the fine ??? 20 year-old male is the County Attorney's son, special treatment or another indication of a failing judicial system that is bias and does not treat the public equally?

Truth thought for the day.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. -Mohandas Gandhi

Seriously here again do NOT GET CAUGHT UP IN THE RHETORIC

Check out this article and let’s talk about a complete "waste of time" this session with legislators enacting laws that are already on the books!

For example:
HB 1585 relative to enforcement of orders regarding parenting plans, which would establish an expedited hearing process for motions to enforce parenting plans.  Essentially the parents are seeking more timely intervention in the cases where the custodial parent is non-compliant with court ordered visitation rights...so they say

Hello Stephens you’re a lawyer right?? Missed the facts again no wonder you're not practicing.

1st there is this thing called an "Ex Parta Motion" for relief = done or made at the instance

2nd NH RSA 461-A:11 Modification of Parental Rights and Responsibilities. –

I. The court may issue an order modifying a permanent order concerning parental rights and responsibilities under any of the following circumstances:

....

(b) If the court finds repeated, intentional, and unwarranted interference by a parent with the residential responsibilities of the other parent, the court may order a change in the parental rights and responsibilities without the necessity of showing harm to the child, if the court determines that such change would be in accordance with the best interests of the child.

coupled /or with

NH RSA 461-A:4-a Judicial Enforcement of Parenting Plan. – Any motion for contempt or enforcement of an order regarding an approved parenting plan under this chapter, if filed by a parent, shall be reviewed by the court within 30 days.

Source. 2006, 251:1, eff. Aug. 4, 2006.

Common sense applies here ... possibly, heres a novel idea have the courts actually do their jobs and instead of sending a lack lustrous program like DHHS/DCYF down the parents back, (one that has again failed the federal audit) if one parent was suppose to have visitation start fining the person not doing what they are suppose to do!  Maybe then the courts could open up to 5 days a week and get up to date with their computer systems. 

The administrative offices of these courts in NH could also get their act together and apply some structure across the board so that hearings are actually done consistently across the board in all areas of the State.  Just a thought ...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

On Valentine's Day, Monday February 14, 2011 at 11:00 am, Mothers of Lost Children will hold a press conference in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave SW, Washington DC. They are protesting the enormous expenditure of tax dollars to help ex-prisoners and known abusers connect with their children, and the heartbreak for mothers and children when this funding is misused and misapplied. A vigil and speakout by mothers and chlild victims will be held at the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW on Sunday February 13 from 2:00 to 4:00 pm.

During the past two decades, mothers have been losing custody of their children (even nursing infants) in increasing numbers to fathers who are convicted or identified batterers, child molesters, drug addicts, gang-bangers and felons. Family courts force children into the custody of abusive fathers at alarming rates, allowing these men to continue controlling and abusing their victims.  Research shows that 70% of batterers who ask for custody get it. Safe mothers who left the abusers in order to protect their children are frequently labeled "unfriendly" and are inappropriately ordered to supervised visitation or denied all contact with their children.

"The reason, in part," says Karen Anderson, Executive Director of California Protective Parents Association, "lies in a misguided and dangerous objective of the Fatherhood Initiative to give fathers access to their children regardless of the risk they pose."  'The goal is to have former prisoners paying child support and reconnecting with their children as soon as possible,' (Washington Post June 21, 2010.) 

"It's crazy to believe that allowing violent men to care for children is a good idea.  Vulnerable children should not be used as guinea pigs to try to rehabilitate criminals," says Anderson.     

The National Fatherhood Initiative website states in 15 years it has "ensured that two million more children are living with their fathers".  The Leadership Council research indicates 58,000 children are placed with abusers every year. These statistics may be connected.  

"Thousands of former prisoners and identified abusers have also discovered that if they get custody, they can receive child support instead of paying it." says Ms. Anderson. "It's a batterers' and molesters' paradise. Federally-funded supervised visitation centers are meant to protect children during visits with potentially dangerous fathers. Instead, family courts order safe mothers to see their children under supervision, which means the children aren't able to tell their mothers about abuse by their fathers. That way the Fatherhood Initiative goals are met to access even more federal funds."    

During this time of deep fiscal crisis, when children are hungry and parents are penniless, $500,000,000.00 dollars designated to increase marriage and promote ex-prisoners to reconnect with and often harm children is doubly offensive. 

Mothers of Lost Children call for a Congressional investigation into the failure of family courts to protect children and potential fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars. 

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=im7hdldab&et=1104423551469&s=8941&e=001Af2KIs9iay-xpJMdE7UGgzfXHrlMBgDHZszYhHx3NgMcwB0zp3uAwayu62s5_6tv9NKhWcOftNkmdw4JRoWj399Rp2TXF1WRh6ZlTGVYso0wwDGZeFW6G2u6HYnHHU-wFQX5gp3ESSs=

California pushes away from "Confidentiality Clause" When will NH "Stand up"??

State legislator pushes for historic public access to juvenile dependency courts statewide

By Karen de Sá

kdesa@mercurynews.com

Posted: 02/02/2011 03:57:38 PM PST

Updated: 02/02/2011 03:57:39 PM PST

Marking a dramatic shift in the scrutiny of how California protects its most vulnerable children, the courts overseeing the state's vast foster care system would be open to the public for the first time since 1961, under legislation now working its way through the state Assembly.

Proponents, including the state's most influential juvenile court judges, say the exposure will improve performance by allowing outsiders to view and evaluate the quality of proceedings in the courts that decide the fate of more than 58,000 children in foster care last year who were removed from their homes following allegations of abuse and neglect. The change would bring California in line with a growing number of states nationwide that have opened their courts and found no reason to return to confidentiality standards.