additional commentary by Rep. Timothy Horrigan; January 14, 2014
There was a little bit of controversy over this bill in the House, but it passed by a 205-98 vote before siling through the Senate virtually unopposed. It was finally signed into law by the Governor on June 11, 2014 without any amendments:
|
HB 1289 – AS INTRODUCED 2014 SESSION 14-2386 05/01 HOUSE BILL 1289 AN ACT relative to interference with custody. SPONSORS: Rep. Horrigan, Straf 6 COMMITTEE: Children and Family Law ANALYSIS This bill provides that a person may be guilty of interference with custody if the person removes a child from this state with the intent to detain or conceal the child from a state agency with protective supervision, legal custody, or guardianship of the child. |
|
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics. Matter
removed from current law appears [ Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type. 14-2386 05/01 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Fourteen AN ACT relative to interference with custody. Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened: 1 Interference with Custody. Amend RSA 633:4, I and II to read as follows: I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if such person knowingly takes from this state or entices away from this state any child under the age of 18, or causes any such child to be taken from this state or enticed away from this state, with the intent to detain or conceal such child from: (a) A parent, guardian or other person having lawful parental rights and responsibilities as described in RSA 461-A; or (b) An agency that has protective supervision or legal custody of the child under RSA 169-C or guardianship of the child under RSA 463. II. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person knowingly takes, entices away, detains or conceals any child under the age of 18, or causes any such child to be taken, enticed away, detained or concealed, with the intent to detain or conceal such child from: (a) A parent, guardian or other person having lawful parental rights and responsibilities as described in RSA 461-A; or (b) An agency that has protective supervision or legal custody of the child under RSA 169-C or guardianship of the child under RSA 463. 2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2015. |
There is some written testimony I prepared for a January 30, 2014 hearing. In between writing the testimony and giving my oral presentation, I discovered that Arnold Grodman actually was eventually indicted for Interference for Custody even after Justice Nadeau's January 6, 2010 decision. The Katz-Grodmans skipped my bill's hearing, which did not surprise me. They only sporadically showed up for their own hearings in 2011-2012. Even if they knew about the bill, they probably have more pressing issues to deal with. Petitioner Michael Brewster showed up and ranted for a long time. He is a regular visitor to the Children & Fanily law Commitete, who are used to him.
Testimony In Favor of House Bill 1289"AN ACT relative to interference with custody."Rep. Timothy Horrigan (Strafford 6); January 30, 2014 |
|
This case was inspired by one of the most complicated petitions filed during the Petitions & Redress Committee's two years of existence: House Petition 2, filed in 2011 by Elena Katz, Arnold Grodman, and their daughter. It is unclear whether or not Ms Katz and Mr Grodman were, ever have been, or currently are formally married. However, they have been together for many years and they are the parents of a daughter (born in 1991) with multiple medical and developmental issues. The petition was filed as part of a long-running legal dispute with the Timberline School District, the New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services and many other organizations and individuals. This dispute was basically about the daughter's education and care, although many other issues cropped up over the years. The Division of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) determined in 2006 that the daughter (then 15 years old) was being medically neglected, and she was sent briefly to the Brattleboro Retreat in Vermont, and to other residential care facilities, and eventually she was sent back home. In November 2007, the DCYF obtained a court order placing the daughter at Crotched Mountain in Greenfield, NH. Ms Katz and Mr Grodman took their daughter across the state line to Massachusetts, and they were eventually apprehended several months later in the summer of 2008. Ms Katz and Mr Grodman were both charged with Interference with Custody. Ms Katz accepted a plea bargain in May 2010, pleading guilty to Criminal Contempt of Court. (Her public defender was Attorney Shawn Sweeney, who is now a New Hampshire state representative.) Mr Grodman did not take a plea bargain, but Superior Court Justice Tina Nadeau issued an order dismissing the Interference with Custody charge on the grounds that the DCYF is not a person. (He did continue to face other charges.) When termination of parental rights is being contemplated, the DCYF typically assigns a case worker to formally act as a custodial parent. In this case, and probably many others like it, there was no intent to permanently separate the child from the parents. The DCYF was simply trying to make sure that a medically frail child received appropriate care. The Crotched Mountain placement was apparently intended to be temporary. This bill closes a loophole in the current Interference with Custody law. Although Ms Katz and Mr Grodman are loving parents who don't belong in prison, their misguided choice to take their child out of state without the DCYF's consent was a violation of the spirit of the Interference with Custody law, they endangered their child, and in my opinion their actions should have been illegal. Children who are under protective supervision or legal custody of the child (pursuant to RSA 169-c ) deserve the same protections as any other child. This bill also gives further protection to children who are under an agency's permanent guardianship (pursuant to RSA 463.) |
The following pair of committee reports appeared in the February 14, 2014 House Calendar, in advance of the February 19 session day. Dan Itse wrote the Minority report, and he echoes a strange phrase from the original Katz-Grodman petition, where they insisted on describing the Interference with Custody charges as "kidnapping charges against Elena Katz and Arnold Grodman using the divorce statutes despite the fact that Elena and Arnold have never been married."
HB 1289, relative to interference with custody.MAJORITY:
OUGHT TO PASS.
|
|
Rep. Deanna S Rollo for the Majority of Children
and Family Law. This bill addresses a problem recognized by a
court decision. In this decision the court stated an agency with
custody of a child is not a person or guardian. The bill expands
the protection afforded parents and guardians to a state agency
with legal custody or guardianship of a child. |
|
Rep. Daniel C Itse for the Minority of Children and Family Law. When interference with custody was passed it was intended to deal solely with custody between parents in a divorce. Extending it to apply to state agencies elevates state agencies parental status. This is a dangerous practice. |
The Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hear the bill at 10am on Tuesday, Match 25, 2014, which was the same time the full House of Representatives met. This was the day the House voted on a Medicaid Expansion bill, SB 413 "AN ACT relative to access to health insurance coverage." I rushed through my testimony, because I didn't want to miss any crucial votes. The Tea Party types tried all sorts of parliamentary manuvers, but the only recorded vote I missed was a highly unusual Division Vote on the Consent Calendar. (The Consent Calendar passed 282-9.)
Testimony In Favor of House Bill 1289"AN ACT relative to interference with custody."
Senate Judiciary Committee Rep. Timothy Horrigan (Strafford 6); January 30, 2014 |
|
I served on the now-defunct House Petitions & Redress Committee in 2011-2012. This bill was inspired by an especially complicated petition: House Petition 2, filed in 2011 by Elena Katz, Arnold Grodman, and their daughter. Ms Katz and Mr Grodman are Danville, NH couple who are the parents of a daughter (born in 1991) with multiple medical and developmental issues. The petition was filed as part of a long-running legal dispute with the Timberline School District, the New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services and many other organizations and individuals. This dispute was mostly about the daughter's education and care. The Division of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) determined in 2006 that the daughter (then 15 years old) was being medically neglected, and she was sent briefly to the Brattleboro Retreat in Vermont, and then to other residential care facilities, and eventually she was sent back home. In November 2007, the DCYF obtained a court order placing the daughter at Crotched Mountain in Greenfield, NH. Ms Katz and Mr Grodman took their daughter across the state line to Massachusetts, and they were taken into custody several months later in the summer of 2008.
Ms Katz and Mr Grodman were both charged with Interference with Custody. Ms Katz accepted a plea bargain, pleading guilty to Criminal Contempt of Court. Mr Grodman did not take a plea bargain, but Superior Court Justice Tina Nadeau issued an order dismissing the Interference with Custody charge on the grounds that the DCYF is not a person. (He did continue to face other charges, and the state even filed at least one more Interference with Custody charge.)
When termination of parental rights is being contemplated, the DCYF typically assigns a case worker to formally act as a custodial parent. In this case, there was no intent to permanently separate the child from the parents. The DCYF was simply trying to make sure that a medically frail child received appropriate care. The Crotched Mountain placement was apparently intended to be temporary.
This bill closes a loophole in the current Interference with Custody law. Although Ms Katz and Mr Grodman are loving parents who don't belong in prison, their misguided choice to take their child out of state without the DCYF's consent was a violation of the spirit of the Interference with Custody law, they endangered their child, and in my opinion their actions should have been illegal. Children who are under protective supervision or legal custody of the child (pursuant to RSA 169-c) deserve the same protections as any other child. This bill also gives further protection to children who are under an agency's permanent guardianship (pursuant to RSA 463.) |
See Also:
2011 House Petition 2: the Katz-Grodman Petition (which inspired this bill)
|
|