Crazy things are going on in Concord that needs your attention. Currently, there are several bills that would dramatically change the practice of family law in New Hampshire, and not for the better. A group of disgruntled litigants are attempting for the third time to remove a distinguished marital master from the bench. Finally, Governor Lynch’s proposed budget eliminates the guardian ad litem fund and appointed counsel for parents in abuse and neglect cases, a proposal that would be disastrous for the overburdened court system and children they protect.  

Pending Legislation

 

The New Hampshire family court system is not perfect and I am sure that there is room for improvement. Unlike other areas of the law, which are black and white, the grey nature of family law requires the vesting of discretion within the court to allow a result based on the unique facts of each case. However, the legislature seems intent on radical change that removes discretion from the courts, and mandates certain outcomes.

  • HB 587 proposes that no fault divorces be granted only to couples who do not have children under the age of 18. Instead, divorcing couples with minor children must prove one of the fault grounds, such as adultery, extreme cruelty, endangerment of health or reason, habitual drunkenness, or abandonment. Though the aim may be to keep families together by requiring a person seeking a divorce to prove fault, the end result would be increased litigation, expense and animosity in cases involving children. Such a result is in no one’s best interests.
  • HB 538 would require the family division to report a vast amount of information to the state registrar about parental rights and responsibilities matters. The bill proposes that the court must report statistics on every temporary or permanent order on parental rights and responsibilities, including tallying whether mothers or fathers were awarded decision making and residential responsibility. The bill also requires the Supreme Court to implement standards of practice and oversight of GALs. This bill creates an extreme amount of work for an all ready underfunded court system, and duplicates oversight and discipline provided by the GAL Board. In today’s tough times, it’s the least important thing on the plate.
  •  HB 563 would discard the current child support calculations and set child support to either the net income multiplied by the applicable percentage or the foster care reimbursement rates, whichever is less. Where to start with what is wrong with this bill? It drastically reduces all child support rates by basing child support on net income instead of gross income and tying child support to the foster care reimbursement rates. For example, the most that any obligor would ever have to pay for a child age 0 to 5 would be $474. That amount does not even cover daycare for one child, let alone diapers, formula, clothing, food and shelter.

If you have comments or concerns about these bills, contact your legislature to make your voice heard. You can find the contact information for your representative or senator on the state website.  

 

Impeachment of Master Cross

 

For three years, family court litigants David Johnson and Michael Puia have waged a public war against Marital Master Philip Cross through the legislature. Despite the legislature’s vote against the Bill of Address seeking to remove Master Cross from the bench, Rep Itse has sponsored a house resolution seeking to direct the the house judiciary committee "to investigate whether grounds exist to impeach marital master Phillip Cross and/or any justice of the New Hampshire superior court."

 

Such a maneuver is a dangerous, slippery slope for the legislature. In its 235 year history, the State of New Hampshire has impeached two judges. Impeachment is reserved for the most serious of offenses, defined by the Constitution as "bribery, corruption, malpractice or maladministration."  The nature of the allegations enumerated in the resolution cannot on its face be characterized as one of these four acts.

 

Instead, the allegations evidence unhappy litigants who do not understand the court system. Therein is the slippery slope. If every litigant who received an adverse decision were able to bring their grievance to the legislature and initiate impeachment proceedings, the State of New Hampshire would have no judges left. Master Cross alone heard over 6,000 cases last year. Add in the 90 plus judges and masters across the state, and the legislature would have their hands full.

 

The hearing before the Resolution Committee on this matter will occur at the Legislative Office Building, 30 North State Street, Concord, on Tuesday, the 22nd, @ 3:30pm.

 

State Budget

 

Governor Lynch has proposed a budget that eliminates both the GAL Fund and assigned counsel for parents accused of abuse and neglect. This proposed change would go into effect on July 1, 2011.

 

Currently, the GAL Fund works as follows: The court assigns a Guardian ad Litem to a case to represent the best interests of a child. These cases include divorce, parenting petitions, termination of parental rights, guardianships and other family matters. In the event that one or both of the litigants qualifies under certain income guidelines, the court orders that the qualifying parent’s portion of the payment owed to the GAL will go through the GAL fund. The parties are then required to contact the Office of Cost Containment and set up a payment schedule. Services rendered by GALs through the GAL fund are not free, and the parents must pay back the funds.

In abuse and neglect cases, the Division of Children, Youth and Families files a petition against a parent alleging that a child is abused or neglected. A possible consequence of an abuse or neglect petition can be the filing of a petition to terminate a parent’s parental rights. Parental rights are constitutional rights, similar to a defendant charged in a criminal case. Additionally, assigned counsel is subject to reimbursement from the parents. In other words, a parent does not get a free attorney, and may have to pay back some or all of the funds.

 

The results of the Governor’s proposed cuts would be disastrous. Eliminating the GAL fund would deny access to the court system to low income families. Judges would be unable to make informed decisions regarding custody of children without the services of a guardian ad litem, and children would be put in harm’s way. In abuse and neglect cases, a flood of litigants who are unfamiliar with the court system and the law will wash through and muddy an all ready overburdened court. Then, eventually, when a parent who has not been afforded counsel has their constitutional right to parent terminated will win an appeal on those grounds and children who need permanent homes will continue to live in limbo.

 

I get that the state is looking to eliminate entitlement programs, but these programs are not free and are about access to justice and the protection of constitutional rights. Instead of eliminating the programs, the state should implement a better system to insure that more parents are paying into the system as they have been court ordered to do.

 

Please write to Governor Lynch, and tell him how his proposed budget affects your family.

I came across a great article titled Bankruptcy – What You Need to Know. Divorce and bankruptcy are often intertwined, and the decision about whether one party or both parties should seek a bankruptcy before or after the divorce is a decision that should be reached with the advice of an experienced bankruptcy attorney. This article provides basic concepts of Chapter 7 or Chapter 13, which are the types of bankruptcy most often used by consumers.

For more bankruptcy and divorce reading, see the following:

Married Filing an Individual Bankruptcy: How Does this Affect my Spouse? by Attorney Christine Wilson on the Los Angeles Bankruptcy Law Monitor

Should I get a divorce before or after bankruptcy? by Attorney Bryan Fears on the Texas Bankruptcy Blog

Bankruptcy During Divorce posted on Lawyers.com

On January 1, 2011, two pieces of legislation will go into effect modifying some aspects of the child support guidelines.

Allowable daycare expenses

 

The child support guidelines allow for a credit to a parent who pays daycare expenses that are “work-related”. Currently, allowable daycare expenses are capped at up to no more than an annual total of $5,000 for one child, $9,000 for 2 children, and $12,000 for 3 or more children. For one child, the cap translates to about $416 per month. HB 1993 expands the definition of “work-related” to include daycare required for a parent’s education and training. In addition, the new law will remove the cap on allowable expenses, allowing a parent to claim all work-related daycare in the guidelines calculations.

 

Self-support reserve

 

Child support orders require that the obligor be left with a self-support reserve, i.e. a sum of money that the obligor will have to support him or her before paying out child support. Currently, the self-support reserve is $903 per month. On January 1, 2010, HB 1216 increases the self-support reserve to $1,038 per month.

My blog posts are usually topical – focusing on one subject at a time such as relocation or guardian ad litems. Today I am going in a different direction though, as I have a couple of items to post about. My post is inspired by the wonderful blog at the Massachusetts Divorce Law Monitor by Attorney Nancy Van Tine, who always posts an interesting mix of food for thought. So here goes:

  • Remember that the New Hampshire courts are closed on Thursday, December 23rd and Friday, December 24th for a furlough day and for the Christmas holiday.
  • Holidays can be a stressful time when trying to coordinate who will be present during holiday celebrations. I love the post by Deeshaw Philyaw titled If You Invite His Ex-Wife to Thanksgiving Dinner. It is based on the children’s book, If You Give a Pig a Party by Laura Numeroff.

Stay safe and warm and have a very, merry Christmas!

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) went into effect on December 1, 2010 in New Hampshire. Following the lead of 46 other states, the UCCJEA replaces the old UCCJA, which is still the law in Massachusetts and Vermont. The act affects almost every case that involves parental rights and responsibilities, including divorce, parenting petitions, child abuse and neglect, guardianships of minors, termination of parental rights, and domestic violence petitions where minor children are involved.   

 

Important points about the new law:

  • Requires that once the “home state” of the child has been determined, and child custody orders have been issued, that state has “exclusive continuing jurisdiction” for so long as the child or either parent reside there.
  • Eliminates the confusing “best interests” standard included in the UCCJA, which some courts interpreted as a mandate to consider best interests factors over and above jurisdictional matters.
  • Adds enforcement tools including a role for public authorities, such as prosecutors, to enforce custody orders and the ability for the court to issue a emergency relief such as a warrant to take possession of a child should the court be concerned that the parent with control over the child may flee.

The new law brings about a slew of new and revised forms. For petitioners, forms such as a Petition for Divorce, Petition for Guardianship over Minor, or a Domestic Violence Petition have been modified to include required information. For respondents, the court has developed a separate form titled a UCCJEA Affidavit to complete in response to an initial petition.

 

Navigating the requirements of the UCCJEA can be overwhelming for those involved in cases of parenting rights and responsibilities. It is important to retain competent legal counsel to assist you. Contact Crusco Law Office, PLLC for more information.

Back in September 2009, the so-called New Hampshire homeschooling case (In the Matter of Martin Kurowski and Brenda Voydatch) grabbed national headlines when the court ordered the parties’ child to attend public school instead of continuing with home schooling. Home school supporters decried the decision, arguing that the order trampled the mother’s constitutional rights to raise and educate her child as she saw fit. The problem with that line of thinking is that it fails to acknowledge that the child has two parents, not one. As an equal decision maker, the father has rights too. When the parents could not agree on matters of education and religion, the family court decided.

The case is currently on appeal at the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and headed to oral arguments on January 6, 2011 at 9:00 am. The parties have submitted their briefs, including an Amicus Curiae brief from the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).  

The mother, through her attorney John Simmons, filed an appeal and brief with the New Hampshire Supreme Court, asking the court to consider the following questions:

 

  • Whether the trial court erred in modifying a parenting plan, to order a home schooled child to attend public school, by considering the “best interests of the child”, where none of the statutory circumstances permitting modification, as set forth in RSA 461-A:11, were present, and the court made such finding.
  •  Whether the trial court erroneously concluded that it was in the best interests of a home-schooled child to be sent to public school where the court’s decision was based on its own definition of the purpose of education that was unsupported by RSA 461-A:6,I or by any other law.
  •  Whether the trial court’s decision should be reversed because it committed plain error in relying on the opinion testimony of a guardian ad litem who was not qualified as an expert and who’s opinion was not based on a rational perception within the meaning of Rule 701 of the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence.
  • Whether the trial court’s order that a home schooled child attend public school to expose her to diverse points of view was erroneous because it violated the fundamental parental right to control a child’s education guaranteed by the United States Constitution, where the evidence showed that the child was already getting a superior education and the State’s purported goal could be achieved by a less restrictive means.
  •  Whether the trial court’s order that a home schooled child attend public school because she was too rigid in her religious beliefs was erroneous because it interfered with the child’s right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • Whether the trial court’s order that a home schooled child attend public school should be reversed because it relief on the testimony of a guardian ad litem who was biased against the religion practiced by the child and her mother.

The father, through his attorney Joshua Gordon, submitted a reply brief. HSLDA submitted an amicus curiae brief. Stay tuned for a blog post reviewing the arguments and briefs.

As a divorce attorney, my job does not often focus on the healing or grieving aspect of the divorce process. My roll focuses on giving legal advice and representing my clients to help them achieve their goals for their case. For those cases that must be litigated, I spend a lot of time during the course of a case, sometimes years, getting to know a client and helping them get through the legal process. Eventually the court case will end though, and it will be time for the party to move on emotionally as well. But how?

While procrastinating on Facebook the other day, I came across a link to an article called Newly Divorced? Don’t Forget to Grieve written by high school classmate of mine, Mary Darling Montero. Mary is a psychotherapist in San Jose, California who specializes in relationships and life transitions.  Mary offers great advice to help grieve a relationship and move on.

Mary writes that the end of a relationship can often look similar to the grief stages an end-of-life loss might have. She explains them as follows:

• Denial– We don’t believe or accept that the relationship is over. If we initiated the split, we might feel ambivalent; we might believe that maybe our significant other is capable of change, after all. If the split was not our decision, we might believe that it’s only temporary, that our significant other will realize that he or she made a mistake, and that reconciliation is possible. Denial can also be a general feeling of not believing that a relationship is over, even if we know that reconciliation isn’t likely.

• Anger– We’re, well, angry. We’re angry at the other person or we’re angry at ourselves. We might be angry about what we perceive as wasted time, or how the other person is handling the relationship breakup. This stage can also be exacerbated and prolonged as we deal with legal issues related to divorce or child custody/support.

• Bargaining– We might try to bargain with a higher power ("I’ll never do such and such again if you bring him back to me") or literal bargaining with our ex ("I’ll never do such and such again if you come back"). This could also be figurative bargaining ("I’ll change this and that about my lifestyle and she’ll come back when she realizes I’ve changed").

• Depression– We understand that the relationship is over, and we face the reality that we have lost not only our significant other, but also the dreams attached to the relationship. Oftentimes the dreams are the hardest aspect of a relationship to let go.

• Acceptance– We acknowledge that the relationship is over and begin to feel that we are capable of dealing with it, healing from it, and moving forward.

Most importantly, Mary notes that the grieving process at the end of a relationship will affect the couple’s children. Stay tuned into their feelings, she says, and do not pressure them to get over it quickly. Mary advises to trust your support system, try writing a journal to come to grips with your feelings, and make sure that you are taking care of yourself (eating, sleeping, exercising).

So, while your attorney will be a very important part of your divorce, so too is the professional that can help with the grieving process and emotional healing of the breakup. If you need help in the New Hampshire area, feel free to call Crusco Law Office, PLLC for a referral.

 

Though domestic violence is a year round problem, the holidays bring about a spike in domestic abuse. Whether the increase is due to holiday party alcohol and drug use, money pressure, or tense family get-togethers, the holiday season between Thanksgiving and New Year’s is an especially dangerous time for victims of domestic violence.

If you are a victim of domestic violence, it is important to have a safety plan in place and seek help. Robert Mues’s Ohio Family Law Blog recently posted excellent suggestions that should be included in a safety plan:

    • Keep an extra set of car keys hidden somewhere that your husband doesn’t know about. Abusers often trap their wives by preventing their leaving.

    • Entrust one friend with your story who will let you come to them in an emergency. This should preferably be a person your husband doesn’t know.

    • If you have a cell phone, keep it with you (and charged) whenever he is around.

    • If you can, sleep in separate rooms and keep the door locked.

    • Some abusers have patterns; if you suspect your husband will be violent, leave the house.

    • Keep extra clothes for your kids and yourself at a neighbor’s house or in the trunk of your car.

    • Always keep a full tank of gas.

    • If there are firearms, try to get them out of the house; or at the very least, keep the ammunition in a separate place.

    • Never argue with your husband when he is under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

    • Keep some money in a place where your husband can’t find it.

    • Have a get-away plan in place.

    • ALWAYS TELL YOUR ATTORNEY!

     

In addition to contacting an attorney, the following are some of the resources available to victims of domestic violence in New Hampshire:

New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

            DV Hotline: 1-866-644-3574

            Sexual Assault Hotline: 1-800-277-5570

YWCA Crisis Service, Manchester, NH

            Crisis Line: 603-668-2299

Bridges: Domestic & Sexual Violence Support, Nashua, NH

            Crisis Line: 603-883-3044

Rape and Domestic Violence Crisis Center, Concord, NH

Domestic Violence: 1-866-644-3574
Sexual Assault: 1-800-277-5570

 

The Merrimack Family Division is almost here! The Judicial Branch posted the following announcements on its website:

The Hillsborough South marital department will be closed to the public except for emergency filings from Monday, December 6 through Thursday, December 9. The closing will allow staff uninterrupted time to process cases in preparation for the reopening of the department on Friday December 10th as part of the Merrimack Family Division.

The Merrimack Family Division will serve the towns of Merrimack, Bedford and Litchfield. In addition, the Hillsborough South Superior Court docket, one of the last courts to make the transition into the Family Division, will transfer over to the Merrimack Family Division. The courthouse is located on Baboosic Lake Road in Merrimack, New Hampshire.

 

The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently issued an opinion In the Matter of Patricia Martin and Michael Martin on the issues of relocation and language in the parenting plan requiring either party to seek neutral third party assistance in resolving disputes prior to filing with the court.  

Neutral Third Party Requirement

 

The court form standard parenting plans include language under the “methods for resolving disputes” paragraph that require parents to seek assistance in resolving disputes before heading to court. Specifically, the standard language reads:

In the future, if the parents have a disagreement about parenting issues, the parents shall try to work it out in the best interest of the child(ren). If the parents are unable to work out the disagreement, they shall seek the help of a neutral third party to assist them. Only if the parents are unable to work out the disagreement after seeking third party assistance will they ask the court to decide the issue.

On appeal, the mother argued that the court use of the word “shall” interferes with the parties’ rights to access the courts to resolve disputes. The court disagreed and stated that while the New Hampshire Constitution “provides that all citizens have a right to the redress of their actionable injuries … the article does not prohibit all impairments of the right of access to the courts.” In fact,  reasonable restrictions for the filing of lawsuits do not automatically violate the constitutional guarantee to speedy justice.

 

            The court reasoned that the third party assistance provision did not impinge on the mother’s rights because, as the court stated: “It imposes no specific requirement that the assistance of a neutral third party must be of any particular nature or duration or even that the third party must have actually provided assistance. It permits either party to seek judicial relief, as long as that party demonstrates that the parents first sought the assistance of a neutral third party.”

 

            In practice, the discussion in the Martin case is something to keep in mind when entering into a parenting plan. If you do not want to restrict yourself or the other parent in such a way, you need to find alternative language to agree upon or persuade the court to order. Also, if you all ready have this language in your parenting plan, you are required to seek out some manner of neutral third party assistance to try to resolve the dispute before you may file. If you do not, your petition may be dissmissed until you comply with the requirement.

 

Relocation

 

Relocation is a hot topic these days. Families, often for jobs, are on the move. New Hampshire law provides that a parent seeking permission to relocate bears the initial burden of demonstrating that the relocation is for a legitimate purpose and that the proposed location is reasonable in light of that purpose. Should the moving party meet that burden, the other parent must prove that the proposed relocation is not in the best interests of the children. The trial court had denied the mother’s request to relocate, finding that the mother’s purpose for moving was to

avoid ongoing interaction with the father and to “get away from [him].”

 

On appeal the mother argued that the statutory term “legitimate” means she only need demonstrate a “subjectively legitimate reason” for relocating and that the proposed relocation must only be objectively reasonable in light of that purpose. The court never answered whether this proposed interpretation of the statutory word “legitimate” was proper because the mother’s argument failed even under her own proposed interpretation. Even if the court accepted the mother’s definition of “legitimate” as a subjective determination, upon the facts of the case, she could not prevail because the trial court had found that the move was not a legitimate purpose, a legal conclusion that she did not challenge.

 

What does this mean? The court left the discussion of the meaning of a legitimate purpose for another day.