NH House committee advances plans to impeach judges for their decisions in domestic relations cases; 4th time in 5 years NH judges threatened with removal from office over custody or divorce case decisions

July 25th, 2012 by Bill Raftery Leave a reply »

I’ve mentioned the numerous impeachment efforts made against state court judges over the last 2 years for their decisions, including an effort in New Hampshire (HR 7 of 2011) that targeted the entire bench of the main trial court (Superior).

Now comes word that the New Hampshire House’s Redress of Grievances Committee, a committee that according to the Concord Monitor was revived in 2011 after a century in disuse, has voted to recommend impeachment against severalĀ  judges, one of whom is retired, because of their rulings in custody cases.

Petition 45, filed by GOP state Senate candidate Joshua Youssef alleges misconduct on the part of three judges, two martial masters, and a guardian ad litem as part of a custody dispute. According to the Concord Monitor, Youssef testified alone and was the sole witness; the judges and others against whom the petition had been lodged declined to appear. Moreover only those portions of the court file provided by Youssef were considered (the article notes other portions were less favorable towards Youssef).

The 8-2 vote on the Youssef complaint comes only days after the same committee voted 9-1 to investigate for impeachment a retired judge. Petition 11 was filed by another father in another custody case who disagreed with the judge’s determinations as it pertained to custody and visitation. The judge has subsequently retired. That petition was advanced on a 9-1 vote.

This marks the 4th time in the last 5 years the NH House has attempted to remove a judge or judicial-branch official from office because of their rulings in custody or divorce proceedings. Prior efforts included HR 7, noted above, as well as attempts in 2010 and 2006 (detailed here).

12 comments

  1. anon says:

    Good! This one sided hearing type sort of BS has to sto. Good for NH!

  2. Watch it live says:

    You can watch youssef’s live testimony at http://www.judicialchildabuse.com and youtube.com/gatecitychroniclesnh

  3. Paul Clements says:

    It’s about time these rogue judges and marital masters were reined in. And it’s not just in NH.
    MA is one of the most corrupt states, but ALL states are guilty. It’s been said that a dead fish rots from the head down. The court corruption begins with federal law which provides payments to each state for the collection of child support. Furthermore, each state is required to have a “cooperative agreement”, or “interagency agreement” in place which provides for payments to the court from the child support collection agency.
    The payments to the state run from the tens to the hundreds of millions of dollars, and the payments to the court are in the millions to tens of millions per year. Most, if not all, of the collection agencies are within the Executive branch, while the court, of course, are the judicial branch. That means that the payments violate the Separation of Powers mandate in most state Constitutions. They also violate state bribery statutes. In order for that money to change hands, SOMEONE has to be the non-custodial parent, hence, the PAYOR. The politically correct payor is the father. Although decades of study and reams of reports have shown shared physical custody to be the best alternative for children of divorce, that fact is over-ridden by the greed of the courts.

  4. The four Judges recommended for Impeachment are just a few of the many in NH that should be impeached, who’ve acted unethically in Family Court cases.
    We have the Judge who sit’s in on Criminal cases, as well as Family Court cases, at the same time, for the same parent’s. Conflict of Interest? You bet it is! We have the Family Court Judge who removes children due to “proven” false report’s, relying on Hearsay. Hearsay which was ruled on in CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON
    SUPREME COURT RULES 9-0
    ON MARCH 8, 2004, SUPREME COURT RULES THAT HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN CHILD ABUSE/NEGLECT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. PARENTS HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONT THEIR ACCUSER UNDER THE 6TH AMENDMENT.
    Then we have the Probate Court Judge who lies in his decision to a father, stating he never received an affidavit of paternity from the Mother, but the affidavit is in an objection brief from the AG’s office. Four day’s after receiving the affidavit the Judge grant’s adoption of the mans child to Foster stranger’s, denying him the right to paternity testing and custody after Terminating a fictitious mans rights. The same Judge terminates another fictitious mans rights to the cousin of the other child, having ALL information on the man, yet terminates the rights of another man, eleven year’s younger with the same name and looking for a man from Honduras in Mexico? Or what about the retired Probate Judge who falsify’s the decision in a Termination of Parental Right’s case, who states the OPPOSITE of testimony and proof given at the TPR and denies the parent’s rights to her child due to HIS false statement’s? And what about the Family Court Judge who order’s a parent into a program that doesn’t exist in NH? The Judge who refuses to dismiss charges against a parent after all criminal charges are dropped due to newfound evidence? Evidence which is NEVER admitted into Family Court because of 73-A?
    Several Judges in NH need to go.If they won’t respect their duty and the people of NH, why should we respect their unethical antic’s?

  5. Greg Brede says:

    This information is of great significance, if you have been following this topic for the past two plus years. It originated by a NH citizen that was wronged by the Family Court and could prove it. The problem was that his complaint to the JCC fell on deaf ears because the complaint was against them. Needless to say these actors ruled that they did no wrong.

    This persistent individual read the NH Construction, became a historian on Article 31 and 32 and advocated for its recognition, something not done since around 1875. The previous NH House Leadership under the Majority Leadership of the Democratic party strongly opposed recognizing all facets of the NH Constitution and thus the right for The People to have a Redress of Grievance was politically ignored.

    Momentum was gaining for the Redress process in early 2010 and Redress hearings were being heard by a select few Republican House Reps outside of what is now become the House Redress of Greivance Committee. With the election, the Republicans won the House and Senate Majority and after Speaker O’Brien was elected Speaker of the House over Rep Chandler, Bill created the Redress of Greivance Committee.

    In 2012 , The People of NH obtained a method to bring their grievance (mostly from the Judicial Branch) to the Legislative Branch. The media is reluctant to objectively inform the NH citizens of what is historically unfolding. Many others are not as shy. The atrocities being exposed and founded in the Legislation are setting a precedence for Judicial Court Reform.

    This process does not cost the taxpayers any money as the House Reps work for $100 per year plus mileage. Their efforts are greatly appreciated by many. Thank-You Paul, Kevin, Stella, Dan, George, Harry and Bob for you commitment. The Democratic members vote the party line to oppose nearly every Greivance presented.

    The JCC is what is costing the tax payers money. You might call the Redress process cheap justice from an objective body and not expensive just us by those protecting their status quo.

  6. It’s about time! In the NH Family Court System the Judges, G.A.L.s, Therapists, visitation centers, and Attorneys make huge money from preventing shared parenting. All this is at the expense of the taxpayers, the families, the court budget, and the children.

    The Marital Masters get paid through Federal Social Security Title IV-D funding. Not only is it a conflict of interest, but illegal as they are parties to the case. Ask yourselves this… If you got paid to enforce support form a non custodial parent, would you award 50/50 custody in divorce cases? Then ask yourselves this… If you were profiting from all of this, would you even consider appointing G.A.L.s who recommend shared parenting?

    Because of the fact that it’s extremely easy to to observe the extreme bias and deceit in a G.A.L report, the Judges and Marital Masters allow hearsay evidence and refuse proof that the G.A.L.s are lying (no rules of evidence statute in the NH Family Court). In my particular case, the court is protecting a sealed secret envelope containing discriminating hearsay evidence against myself -submitted by a corrupt G.A.L. who was caught lying by several witnesses, and a State Representative. As a result, my two sons have been kidnapped away to the State of Florida and are being held for ransom by the NH Family Division who thinks the matching kickbacks they receive from all of our Title IV-D Social Security monies for each dollar of the the $10′s of thousands they ordered in child support that they strip form my paycheck each year is not enough ransom money for me to be a parent to my boys. They ordered me to pay a retainer fee to another corrupt Attorney (G.A.L.) so they can lead me along into thinking that they have the power to decide whether I am suitable enough to be allowed to parent, see, or even hear from my own children.

  7. casey says:

    I’ve never seen such goings on in this state for family law. Having been in this area of law in other states for 40+ years, domestic in NH has terrible sense of justice. GAL’s think “drug use in the home is fine” cause they think teenagers won’t smell it – get real people. You are supposed to be helping the children!

  8. Donald Lawrence says:

    My feeling is that 50/50 custodianship should be the place to start, not a direction to work towards. When there’s no abuses ie, sexual, drug, alcohol, or physical. Emotional or mental abuse is nearly impossible to diagnose or prove. N.H. Family Court Judges, and so-called experts that appear as willing participants in the railroading of decent, nurturing, and loving parents out the lives of their children should be held accountable. Accountability begins with monitary admonishment. Nothing like a direct hit in the wallet to get the often ignored issues addressed.

  9. sarah says:

    NH judges i no myself there is one in plymouth family divison who is very biased. no matter what my x does threatens me and my son, with GAL and mediators they know how my x is along with DCYF they do nothing to him the judge does nothing to him. so he just walks being abusive and threating. not see his son for 6 month one time then a yr another the judge still allows my son to go with him even when my son is afraid of his dad and says he will runaway and that his dad hits him. they do nothing i try to protect my son. It seems no matter what i do nothing gets done i wrote letters to the judicial conduct committee i know others that have also wrote about this judge they do nothing. my son is going to be just like the child on wmur get beating from his father noone does nothing Guardian ad litem, the mediator, prior DCYF and now DCYF still do nothing the judge isnt doing nothing. so my son can go to his dad and get beat even my son dr is concerned for his safety judge doesnt care if a dr is concerned then they should terminate his rights. i need prayers for my son he will need to see his dad again when i dont know waiting for the order from the judge. It sucks i cant do nothing.

  10. Frieda Southall says:

    Isn’t it astounding how even after so many failures, foul ups and misjudgements, President Obama’s people are still so cocksure of their ability to find the pulse of the American people? Wouldn’t any group of fairly intelligent people start to question their assumptions by now? n nI too saw Mr. Plouffe on Fox News Sunday, and Rep. Paul Ryan who followed him. The contrast between a phony, superficial political maneuverer and a hard-working, sincere, well-informed leader couldn’t have been clearer. One needn’t agree with every one of Mr. Ryan’s positions to see that painting him as a villain will be a very difficult task, even for such well-practiced liars.

  11. We are a bunch of volunteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with useful info to work on. You have done a formidable activity and our entire group will be thankful to you.

  12. Don B says:

    Judge Jennifer Lemire (Marital Master) made a ruling on March 21, 2014 that puts a 7 month old at risk without even looking at evidence provided!!!