Does it Make Sense to Intervene in Child Custody Cases in New Hampshire?

contempt-of-court[1]Evidently NOT. It makes no more sense to intervene than it does to even try to fight for justice in the NH Family Courts.

I have been fighting for visitation rights with my granddaughter since 2007. In 2009 I was granted Grandparent Visitation after being allowed to Intervene and testify in my daughter's custody case, where her estranged husband is the custodial parent. Still no visitation due to the custodial parent's refusal to follow Court orders and never held in contempt.

Since the first Court hearing in 2008, the case was transferred to another town. Now, a different Marital Master. A Marital Master we are hoping can see through all the lies the Father and his Lawyer told.

I have not been allowed to speak at any of these hearing's, nor was I allowed to even sit with the non-custodial parent. Even though I was sent notices in the mail to be at the hearings as an Intervener, I am still treated like a court onlooker. So what sense does it make to Intervene in NH?

Hearing after hearing, just sitting there, listening to all the lies. And then not allowed to speak up and tell the truth. Truth some people wouldn't tell if it hit them in the face.

My daughter without a Lawyer and I, denied the right to represent her.Why should I attend a Court hearing as an Intervener and never be allowed to speak? I guess NH Family Court's have no clue on what it means to Intervene. Maybe ALL NH Lawyer's should go back to School and learn the Law. The Law we are ALL supposed to abide by. Not just us peons! To intervene means absolutely NOTHING in the NH Family Courts!

Shelby County judge charged with violating impartiality court rule in child custody case

MEMPHIS, Tennessee — The Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct has filed formal charges against a Shelby County circuit court judge.

Tseal_1___Converted_[1]he board stated in a complaint that Judge Kay Robilio violated judicial rules of impartiality by doing her own investigation into a child custody case before her court last year.

The Commercial Appeal ( ) reported the complaint involved Robilio going to the home of one of the parties.

"Judge Robilio undertook an independent investigation of the conditions present at the residence of the father by making a personal visit to the residence of the father, inspecting the home of the father and later utilizing her personal observations in making rulings and referring to matters concerning the parenting issues," chief disciplinary counsel Tim DiScenza said in the six-page complaint.

The complaint did not identify the couple.

"A judge must not independently investigate facts in a case and must consider only the evidence presented," according to the filing compiled by a three-member investigative panel.

Robilio has 30 days to respond to the charges.

The newspaper could not reach the judge or her attorney for comment on Monday.

The Board of Judicial Conduct was formerly known as the Court of the Judiciary. It has authority to reprimand judges and remove them from office if deemed necessary.

Legal observers said that if the facts are substantiated in this case, a public reprimand would be the most likely outcome. A reprimand is a letter that details the panel's finding of judicial misconduct. It explains why such conduct is wrong or discredits the judiciary.

Robilio, 72, became a Circuit Court judge in 1990. She has served as president for the Tennessee Lawyers Association for Women and for the Memphis Association for Women Attorneys.

Robilio also has been on the Tennessee Bar Association Board of Governors.

She was formerly a City Court Judge, a city prosecutor and a private attorney.

Information from: The Commercial Appeal,


A version of this column originally appeared in

Social worker’s Facebook brags about getting children put into care

A SOCIAL worker has posted Facebook messages bragging about removing three children from their parents.

Three boys aged four, seven and nine were taken into care following a private court hearing in Chelmsford Crown Court on May 9.

Within minutes of the court hearing, Siobhan Condon, said to be a senior Basildon social worker based at Ely House had commented on her Facebook page about the case.

She said: “Just experienced His Honour Judge [sic] give parents a massive rollicking. It was an amazing and extraordinary moment in my career.”

She added: “So the day is complete. Its so powerful to know that three children’s lives have just massively changed for the better and now they are safe and protected from and now have every hope for the future.”

The outspoken comments on a confidential matter have left the children’s parents distraught.

Their 39-year-old father said: “On the same day as the court case we found she had put all this on Facebook. The site was public until we complained to Essex County Council then they contacted Facebook and the page was suspended.

“I want it in the open and I want an apology.”

An Essex County Council spokeman said: “Essex County Council has apologised to the family for what has happened. We take this matter extremely seriously. This is unacceptable and appropriate action will be taken.”

Social worker's Facebook brags about getting children put into care


MMR causes autism, proven in Italian court case

mmr-vaccine[1](NaturalNews) For many years the tales from ravaged moms and dads have actually been strangely similar. A young, bright child treated with MMR, has minor side effects such as high temperature and being off food, and then establishes the disabling impairment of autism.

Whilst the mainstream medical profession reject the link in between autism and the triple shot of measles, mumps and rubella, there have been numerous who have actually argued to the contrary. Data reveal the boosts in autism correlate alarmingly with the intro and uptake of the MMR vaccine. And Now in an Italian court, there has been a spots ruling for a child whose parents claim that his autism was caused by MMR.

The parents of Valentino Bocca have actually been granted 112,000 Euro to be paid by the Italian ministry of wellness. It was later discovered that he was suffering from an unpleasant bowel condition that is typical in autistic children. With an adjusted diet of no wheat or milk, he was able to sleep but the autism symptoms continued, and even at the age of 9, he still does not speak.

The case featured 3 expert witnesses that concurred that "barring preexisting conditions there was an affordable scientific possibility that the MMR stab had actually triggered Valantino's condition." Judge Lucio Ardigo agreed that it was "conclusively established" that Valentino had actually suffered from an "autistic disorder connected with medium cognitive delay" and his illness, was connected to receiving the shot. The Italian shot has the exact same components as the one made use of in the UK and US.

Evidence in court of the link in between MMR and autism, but will this be rejected by the UK and US?
In the US over 5000 households are understood to the mainstream media as thinking that the MMR shot has actually caused autism in their children, and the genuine figure could be much greater. Court rulings against the MMR include a 90,000 GBP (Great British Pound) payout for mental retardation to a boy called Robert Fletcher, and a $1.5 million payout for Hannah Poling who got MMR and 6 various other vaccinations in one day then developed autism.

It is small security to the households of children who have actually suffered autism as an outcome of these vaccines, that there might be a flicker of light at the end of the tunnel. The powerful means in which the government in both the United States and Europe have pushed for vaccination with MMR, has left numerous parents believing they have no option, in spite of the shot being voluntary.

With this ruling, there is now a legal precedent in Italy that could trigger an opening in the floodgates. Numerous parents will be wanting to obtain their rightful compensation against the governments that have actually conspired in among the greatest medical cover-ups of all time. A cover-up that has actually cost jobs, the suffering of children and the lives of their moms and dads.

Sources for this article include

About the author:
D Holt has written over 200 articles in the field of alternative health and is currently involved in research in the UK into the mechanisms involved in healing due to meditation, hypnosis and spiritual healers and techniques. Previous work has included investigations into effects of meditation on addiction, the effects of sulfites on the digestive system and the use of tartrazine and other additives in the restaurant industry. new blog is now available at or follow on twitter @sacredmeditate

A version of this column originally appeared in

Court battle ‘destroys family’

Picture: Lincoln Baker/ The West Australian

Picture: Lincoln Baker/ The West Australian

A mother whose 10-year-old son was taken into State care more than two years ago says she has been denied contact with him despite the application for him to be taken from her being thrown away.

The Department for Child Protection lost a Children's Court case in August when it got the boy to be put in care until he turned 18 however the mom states she still could not see him.

Now the Supreme Court has actually upheld the Children's Court's termination of the DCP's application and thrown out the magistrate's order to keep the boy in "provisional care and security" pending a final Family Court parenting order.

Supreme Court Justice Michael Buss stated the boy was taken into provisional care more than 2 years ago and it had actually been seven months because the Children's Court chose he did not need protection.

"This long delay had actually postponed a determination in the Family Court as to whom the child must deal with," he stated.

"Two years in the life of a child, who was aged eight when first taken into care, is a very long time.

"Circumstances could so substantially alter over such a time that the appellant's claims to be met again with her child might have been negatively had an effect on.".

Justice Buss' appeal judgment last week reveals that though the Children's Court ruled the boy was not in need of defense, the magistrate bought he stay in "provisional care and security" till the Family Court decision.

The mother's appeal to the Supreme Court tested this order.

Justice Buss discovered the magistrate erred in putting a condition on his dismissal of the application to have actually the boy put in care.

He found the magistrate's order implied the boy had to remain in provisional care subject to an event that might never occur.

The mother said she had not had contact with her son for more than a year and feared the separation may have irrevocably harmed their relationship. "This court battle has actually ruined and decimated an entire family," she stated. "He's been with a lot in his short life and his innocence had been ruined.".

She stated her son was removed on false accusations.
Justice Buss stated DCP arguments to validate the magistrate's order lacked merit.