So, my previous post, the two Right To Knows for demanding the DCYF Organization Chart as well as the DCYF and Child Advocacy Centers’ Ethics Complaint forms, was setting the stage for this.
I don’t think I have to write much narrative in this post as in the previous one. I think the Background section of this third RTK says it well. You know, the part that goes boom! And additional emphasis this time around:
Right to Know demand per RSA 91-A: Ethics Complaint form
[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive…The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government…
Background:
In order to hold such “officers of government are their substitutes and agents”, there are incidents of outright lawbreaking and incidents of ethics complaints by which normal citizens are held responsible to use to “at all times” keep such people “accountable to them.
During the June 22, 2023 meeting in which I brought <my Granddaughter> to the Laconia CAC, I was brought into a “pre-interview meeting” before the CAC, DCYF, and the Laconia Police Detective interviewed <my Granddaughter>. It’s purpose was to inform me what the format was to be and that I had to give my consent in allowing the interview to proceed.
And while THEY (Amy Fortin and Laurie Grant) know what I’m talking about, I will tell you all that in the second line of the form said “legal parent / legal guardian“. The time frame for this was just after I had to go up North and get her but before the final orders by the Judge had come out. What DCYF and the CAC personnel wanted me to do was to sign that consent document while I wasn’t (and still am not) her parent and that I wasn’t (and still not) her legal guardian) simply to “move on” to “do their mission”. But there I was, in the CAC conferenceroom being the proverbial stick-in-the-mud and stickler for details for such purpose.
The more they became agitated about “you HAVE TO SIGN IT”, the more amused I became – and the more disgusted I became that these people are charging parents for malfeasance of the Law yet seem to be just dandy in drawing me into a legal trap – and operating contra the Law themselves. Is this the normal standard operating procedure for DCYF? For the Child Advocacy Center(s) I do need to look into this even more.
Questions upon question but back to today’s business of making this RTK public:
I refused to sign as it was immediately clear that I was legally unable to sign such a document. I was told that I MUST sign it or “we cannot proceed to do our job”. My numerous responses were to the effect that I refuse to sign a document that would put me into legal jeopardy.
When I got up to leave, in disgust that Agents of the Government (Amy Fortin and Laurie Grant) were demanding that I break the Law simply to make their jobs easier, Amy Fortin called her office to “find a loophole in order to continue”.
Demand:
Pursuant to the Right to Know Law (RSA. 91-A:4 (I) ) and without violating RSA 91-A:5 XII privileged attorney/client discussions, I am demanding access, within 5 business days, to the below enumerated governmental records for Citizen complaints against NH State Government staff members:
- All communications between Amy Fortin and the person/people she called:
- Names, title, organization
- Documents referenced
- The data element that was used to skirt the unsigned consent form.
- Ditto for Laurie Grant.
- Any logging of such communications for later reference (emails, paper copies, voice mails, recordings, et al) that were used to find said “loophole(s)” that allowed Ms. Grant, Ms. Fortin, and the Laconia Police Detective to do the interview of <my Granddaughter> that was presented to Judge Surber.
If this cannot be fulfilled within that 5 business day mandated window per RSA 91-A:2, II, please advise when the Responsive Record(s) will be made available.
And then the rest of my normal Right To Know boilerplate. However, given Ms. Fortin’s response (“it’s public and out on the Internet”) when I demanded DCYF’s standard operation procedures Investigative Manual (after all, that is supposed to strictly tell her how to do her job) and the Library Directors / Lawyers telling me “look <it | them> up yourself”, I have added a new clause to MY standard procedure:
Additional: It is not up to the Requester to be made to look up the subjects or materials that are the focus of this Right To Know (e.g., from the Respondent: “here’s the URL so do the search yourself”). It is the responsibility of the Respondent to fully supply all demanded materials.
<snip>
Thank you for your lawful attention to this matter. Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Skip Murphy
Founder, GraniteGrok.com
Dominating the Political Bandwidth in New Hampshire
Skip@GraniteGrok.com
And so I wait for their answers. However, fortuitous for me, another DCYF specialist (protecting the innocent here so no name) had emailed me about the same time concerning something else so I told her what had happened:
Well, what came up at the Laconia CAC was that I refused to sign the CAC Waiver form for <my Granddaughter’s> interview this afternoon. The reason why, and I told Amy (Fortin), Laurie (Grant) (CAC) and the Laconia Detective was the wording in the waiver “for your child/ward“.
To my knowledge, I have not been given any information that <my Granddaughter> is my ward. No copy of a Judge’s order, no paperwork from DCYF; nada. That could have been done yesterday. It could have been done over the last couple of weeks when the appointment was made. As I told Amy, that should have been done by DCYF if it was available – but wasn’t.
“Ward” is a specific legal word that has grave implications. All that I and [TMEW] know is that we are providing care to our Grandaughter at the request of DCYF; that not’s a legal Power to sign such a document. So, not wishing to put myself or [TMEW] at legal jeopardy for signing something that I shouldn’t have, I demurred. I told all three that I Follow The Law. Amy started to call folks to get that permission and I left the room. It seems that permission was granted by some means as the interview happened. It would be nice to know how.
Thus, I need to understand what our current legal status is and if it is to be changed at some point to where we can sign such a legal document – or not.
<snip>
And the response was something that told me that Amy, WHO APPEARED IN COURT as the lead DCYF person bringing the case, is either incompetent – or some other words I shouldn’t type.
You are correct that [my Granddaughter] is not your ward and that you are not her legal guardian. Her mother still has her parental rights, she needs to sign any documents that need a guardian’s signature on them.
Here it is with my response:
AH! So she IS a ward of the State! Amy should have known that. Glad that I didn’t sign the document because it would have been invalid.
So what’s the upshot of all this from my view? Fortin tried to use me as a pawn to cover up her incompetence and put the onus on me if things went sideways in court. Now, was she informed about the above image and is “custody” sufficient? Perhaps about the former but from my source, insufficient. Read again:
Her mother still has her parental rights, she needs to sign any documents that need a guardian’s signature on them
My daughter-in-law, upon talking with me, assured me that she had signed no such documents thus confirming that Fortin was in CYA mode and I didn’t play along.
Yes, this post will be going to the lawyers.
DCYF is an agency of the State and Amy Fortin / Lisa Grant are its employees. There should be consequences.
