There will be no Petitions & Redress Committee during the 2015-2016 legislative biennium, but five petitions were introduced anyway at the beginning the 2015 session.
Four petitions were sponsored by Rep. Dan Itse (R-Fremont.) On February 4, 2015 he moved to have them referred to the Committee on Family Law. The full House rejected this proposal by a vote of 212-135. Itse also led an effort to have the Petitions & Redress Committee revived under the name of the Government Oversight & Audit Committee. In addition to hearing petitions, the proposed committee would deal with all performance audits. The House rejected that idea too, not just once but twice.
The Holder Petition
The Ralph Holder case is a sad one. He has some very legitimate grievances but he does himself no favors by indiscriminately maligning just about anyone and everyone involved in any way with his complicated and endless divorce and child-custody case. This has also become an employment-law case thanks to some happenings at his workplace.
I am not sure what Rep. Itse and Mr. Holder actually meant to say when they suggested this remedy: "No person can be required to appear the court without an attorney, and if an attorney is required the hearing must be rescheduled." Clearly there is an uncorrected drafting error of some sort in there. Evidently, the first half of the sentence is missing a preposition and the second half of the sentence creates an infinite loop whereby every hearing would have to be rescheduled until the end of time.
|
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE TO: The Honorable House of Representatives |
|
Your Petitioner, Representative Itse, on behalf of Mr. Ralph Holder, hereinafter presents the following summary of his grievance against the State of New Hampshire, the circuit court family division, and the appointed guardian ad litem, and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to Articled 31. and 32 of the New Hampshire Constitution to bring about redress: Grievance based on violations of Ralph Holder's rights involving: a child's school placement based upon race; the denial of access to guardian ad htem records; the denial of legal counsel on the day of the hearing; the guardian ad litem's failure to inform the petitioner that a recommended counselor was not certified and that the guardian ad litem had a conflict of interest in recommending the counselor; and the denial of an opportunity to confront witnesses, in violation of part 1 article 15 of the New Hampshire constitution. |
|
Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the House of Representatives consider this proposed remedy: Amend the laws of the State such that:
Respectfully submitted by Petitioner Representative Itse on behalf of Ralph Holder. |
The Katrina H. Petition & The Rondeau Petition
I don't know anything about these two cases beyond what little is in the petition.
I almost wish the House had referred them to a committee, so Rep. Itse could have explained what had actually been decided and which statutory criteria had actually been violated. Termination of parental rights is an extreme last step which should never (and would never) happen without a long series of hearings. It shouldn't happen after a single "ex parte" hearing. But, "denial" of parental rights can mean lots of things other than termination, many of which could very legitimately happen after a single ex parte hearing.
An "ex parte" motion is one which is heard before the other party can be notified. They are often used in family-law cases by one parent when there is an (alleged) emergency created by the other parent's (alleged) bad behavior. The Circuit Court of the State of New Hampshire- Family Division's Rule 2.9.B states:
Ex Parte. Subject to the provisions of RSA 458:16 and RSA 461-A:9, an emergency order may be granted without written or oral notice to the other party or attorney only if it clearly appears to the Court from specific facts shown by sworn statement or by the verified petition that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage shall result to the applicant, the children, or the marital estate before the other party or attorney can be heard. If the other party is represented or has filed an appearance, normally no relief will be granted without notice to the other party and an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte order may be requested by motion of the petitioner/attorney prior to service of the petition. A hearing shall be scheduled within thirty (30) days of the issuance of an ex parte order. In addition, the party against whom the orders are issued may file a written request with the court for a hearing on such orders, which hearing shall be held no later than five (5) days after the request is received.
|
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE TO: The Honorable House of Representatives |
|
Your Petitioner, Representative Daniel Itse, on behalf of Katrina H., hereinafter presents the following summary of her grievance against the State of New Hampshire and the circuit court family division and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 of the New Hampshire Constitution to bring about redress: Grievance based on Katrina H.'s assertion that she was wrongfully denied her parental rights following an exparte hearing that did not meet statutory criteria. |
|
Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the House of Representatives consider this proposed remedy:
Respectfully submitted by Petitioner Representative Itse on behalf of Katrina H. |
|
|
|
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE TO; The Honorable House of Representatives |
|
Your Petitioner, Representative Daniel Itse, on behalf of Mr. Kevin Rondeau, hereinafter presents the following summary of his grievance against the State of New Hampshire and the circuit court family division and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 of the New Hampshire Constitution to hring about redress: Grievance based on Kevin Rondeau's assertion that he was wrongfully denied his parental rights following an exparte hearing that did not meet statutory criteria. |
|
Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the House, of Representatives consider this proposed remedy:
Respectfully submitted by Petitioner Representative Itse on behalf of Kevin Rondeau. |
The Sanborn Petition
This is a repeat of Mr. Sanborn's 2013 petition. His divorce and child-custody case went badly. The two named marital masters are no longer in office. One of Mr. Sanborn's two children is now a 22-year-old adult, although the younger one is only 14:
|
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE TO: The Honorable House of Representatives |
|
Your Petitioner, Representative Itse on behalf of Timothy Sanborn and for the citizens of New Hampshire who may likewise be affected, hereinafter presents the following summary of his grievances involving Marital Master Fishman, and Marital Master Cross and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to said Articles 31 and 32 to bring about redress: Grievance involving:
|
|
Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the House of Representatives consider this proposed remedy:
Respectfully Submitted by Petitioner Representative Daniel C. Itse on Behalf of Timothy Sanborn and the citizens of New Hampshire. |
|
See Also:
|
The Moynihan Petition
This last petition was filed by Rep. Bob Luther (R-Laconia) on behalf of Ann Marie Moynihan, who is a party to a strange and very complicated divorce case. I have studied some of the documents from Ms. Moynihan's voluminous case files. The lengthy and dramatic summary in the petition is accurate, judging from what I have read. I think many of her complaints have merit, although I don't see any grounds for impeaching the judge. Unlike Rep. Itse, Rep. Luther has not taken this petition to the floor of the House.
|
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE TO: The Honorable House of Representatives |
|
Your Petitioner, Representative Luther, on behalf of Ann Marie Moynihan, hereinafter presents the following summary of her grievances involving the 10th Circuit Court Family Division in Brentwood and invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable House of Representatives pursuant to said Articles 31 and 32 to bring about redress; Grievance involving the 10th Circuit Court Family Division for failing to act in the best interest of the children and causing financial devastation by issuing an order that the children were to remain in Hampstead, thereby denying the mother the right to relocate in order to return to work and restructure her finances although the relocation would not change the amount of time the children spent with their father; causing the mother to become a displaced homemaker under RSA 275-D, holding the mother in contempt for spending the summer in Gilford despite an email from her explaining the temporary nature of their stay and on the basis of where she and the children slept on specific nights; failing to recuse himself so her certified financial planner, the Judge's own business associate in private practice could testify; failing to recuse himself after granting the Guardian ad Litem's motion to withdraw due to "multiple ethical problems during the course of this case"; by finding of contempt denying the mother the ability to make day-to-day decisions that met the needs of the children and were neither in the best interest of the children nor in accordance with her financial plan; dismissing a stalking order against the father, after the father admitted stalking, on the grounds that he was creating evidence for a contempt hearing; ordering shared parenting as a sanction for perceived (not actual) contempt despite opposition by the Guardian ad Litem and contrary to the Judge's own findings of fact granted; endangering the welfare of the children; issuing an order suspending the mother's parenting time with her son based on evidence that did not meet the requisite burden of proof; causing the mother and her son to be wrongfully and illegally estranged for 2 years causing harm to the son that has left the father and son estranged; requiring the mother to pay child support based on imputed income and finding a displaced homemaker voluntarily unemployed after denying her the opportunity to return to the workforce and displacing her and the children despite her income below the minimum self-support reserve; finding of contempt for non-payment of child support after he displaced her, imputed her with income and after she exhausted all her resources to remain in compliance with his orders, gave up her own housing to comply and all her rental units went vacant prohibiting her from restructuring her finances so she could continue to invest in real estate, resume and develop her career in accordance with her financial plan in a matter prolonged for over 6 years which forced her and the children to flee 3 homes and causing substantial financial harm. |
|
Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the House of Representatives consider the proposed remedy:
|
Official Petitions & Redress committee page (not much to see here)
|
|
