Roberge, others helped defeat custody bill in NH
September 11, 2006
|
Posted by ANCPR
Roberge, others helped defeat custody bill
Jeff Creteau, Amherst
Â
Â
Currently, shared parenting or joint custody is only awarded in 16 percent of divorce cases. According to studies by the American Psychological Association, “A major advantage of joint custody may be its ability to address the high rate of current father absence subsequent to divorce. Joint custody has been correlated with increased father involvement.â€
Another benefit is that there is “decreased re-litigation†with shared parenting, and less conflict between spouses in general.
Legitimate research overwhelmingly confirms that 50/50 joint physical custody is the arrangement that is in the child’s best interest.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy and criminality. By contrast, children whose fathers are involved in raising them do better in school, are less likely to get in trouble with the law, and are more likely to be better parents themselves.
Thus, research proves what common sense would suggest. Shared parenting results in greater father involvement, more financial support, less litigation and happier children.
Recently, a bill was introduced in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and the Senate. The bill was called HB 529. The House overwhelmingly supported it.
This bill would have required the family courts in this state to treat each parent in an equal and comparable manner. This bill would have also required the family courts to make detailed findings on the record of the evidence it relied upon to separate the children from one of their parents.
Doesn’t the Constitution require everyone to be treated equally? It does, unfortunately the family court system in this state does not treat everyone equally.
State Sen. Sheila Roberge, R-Bedford, with Sens. Bob Odell, Joe Foster, D-Nashua, and David Gottesman, D-Nashua, and along with several other senators, were instrumental in defeating the bill as originally introduced.
I believe that these senators are not beholden to the citizens of this state, but are more beholden to special interest groups, namely lawyers and lobbyists, who by the way, were the number one financial contributors in all four senators’ 2004 campaigns. I have also seen several letters of support for Sen. Roberge in The (Milford) Cabinet and other papers. One letter to The Cabinet in support of Sen. Roberge came from family law attorney/former state Rep. Margy Halliburton (“She’ll vote for Sen. Sheila Roberge in GOP primary.â€) Readers should know that Ms. Halliburton personally opposed HB 539 and testified to both the House and Senate that it should not be passed.
A letter to the Bedford Bulletin written by Yvonne Nanasi was titled, “Snider does not know Roberge.†Ms. Nanasi was registered as a lobbyist with the state as early as last year.
Lawyers and the senators that they support do not want constitutional parenting protections because it would severally limit the lawyers, and the senators who are lawyers, their main means of income. Family law litigation is big business and industry in this state.
As the aforementioned studies indicate, joint physical custody means less litigation, less litigation means less income for the divorce industry. Less income for lawyers also means less money to contribute to the politicians who support their interests. Remember, lawyers and lobbyists were the main financial campaign contributors to all four senators in 2004.
The lawyers will tell you that they know what is in the best interest of children in this state. I believe that the citizens of this state do not need or want lawyers to tell them what is in the best interest of the children of this state, nor do I believe that the citizens of this state want senators who pander to special interest groups and have agendas to be elected again.
Would I characterize these senators as anti-constitution and/or anti-family? Let the record speak for itself.
I do not think there is any doubt that the voters of this state would agree that HB 529 would have immensely improved our society. While the voters of this state have many important issues to contend with in an election, I do not believe there is a more important issue than protecting the future of our children.
As Pope John Paul once said, “so goes the children, so goes the world.â€
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Categories: News
|
Leave a reply
It’s time that fathers look to the source of their problems with child support and custody. It is time for women to realize that someone is making a fool of them. They are being used by state governments to KEEP FEDERAL MONEY FLOWING to their states. The following are some of the reasons given for not making child support payments more equal in New Hampshire. If you read the fiscal note to the end it is also about the extra work the state will have to do. Nothing about children.
HB 1580 FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to the child support formula.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Health and Human Services and Judicial Branch state this bill, as amended by the House (Amendment #2006-0985h), will increase state expenditures and may decrease state revenue by an indeterminable amount in FY 2007 and each year thereafter. This bill will have no fiscal impact on county and local revenue or expenditures.
For sure, it seems that maybe the States are making a Fool OFthe United (not) States.
From material encouraging research for the PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH ON ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES, as prepared by the Service Delivery and Organization of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) of the United Kingdom, 6 Feb 06, (available at http://www.sdo.lshtm.ac.uk/word/brief_calls_pt154.doc , information may be found presenting well known (Psych 101 stuff) that
“There is evidence that delays in [relief can] lead to increased severity and prolonged distress and this can lead to those in work losing their jobs, and to those out of work having difficulty finding the motivation to find work.â€
With this as a backdrop or source of inspiration, I came up with a great idea. . . . Let’s create an organization for purposes of creating “prolonged distress.†Upon determining one stressor, let’s use this to trigger instillation of further stressors for ruining/denigrating/spoiling/toying/playing-with lives of important family members and families of critical need to endearing children and await the well known (high probability) outcome by which to trigger and release further stressors. Say, let’s champion this under banner of “Health and Welfare†or “Health and Human Services.â€
Further, let’s recruit and reward vindictive MADD facilitators with encouragements for lending even greater stresses into the lives of too easily identified loving parents and extended families of endearing need to lovely children.
For some of us, it doesn’t get any more “obvious.â€
With repose similar to that of the States used for teen DARE slogans, a new DAD slogan for benefit of all members and generations — “This is your State(s) on the Federal Dole.â€
Just say NO.
Stop the Addiction(s)!
– just adad
If in fact certain “surrogates†of the states making (for a temporary fix of their $$ addictions) may in fact lack representation – consider the following:
“During the crises leading to the Revolution, quarrels about representation caused a reconsideration of relations among property, taxation, and voting. Americans insisted that Parliament lacked the authority to tax unrepresented subjects.”
See the writing “Suffrage – A History of Voting Rights” as posted by Election Reforms on Feb 25, 2005, available at http://electionreforms.blogspot.com/2005/02/history-of-sufferage.html .
– just adad
{“Lawyers and the senators that they support do not want constitutional parenting protections because it would severally limit the lawyers, and the senators who are lawyers, their main means of income. Family law litigation is big business and industry in this state.
As the aforementioned studies indicate, joint physical custody means less litigation, less litigation means less income for the divorce industry. Less income for lawyers also means less money to contribute to the politicians who support their interests. Remember, lawyers and lobbyists were the main financial campaign contributors to all four senators in 2004.”}
That really says it all doesn’t it? These criminals have painted themselves into a corner with the “best interests of children†argument, in order to justify their crimes of treason against the American People. They will feel compelled to stand behind that outrageous lie in order to save themselves from the inevitable consequences they face.
God have mercy on their twisted souls. I doubt that the victims, of the years of relentless persecution, will find it in themselves to show them any.
Kevin Merck
Merck, thank goodness you’re a Mav Merick for inspiration, patriotism and courage.
With sincerity of respect and thankfulness, Walter