Taxpayers, Listen Up!
The systemic deception within the family court system, especially in New Hampshire, is facilitated by institutional incentives. Ultimately, taxpayers are responsible for misconduct by individuals and agencies that personally benefit from the largely fabricated family system.
On Tuesday, the 10th (Tomorrow!), the CFL committee will review HB652 (abolishing the family division, creating the office of family mediation, and reassigning the jurisdiction of the family division) during an executive session. This bill aims to dismantle the family court system. Curiously, committee discussions about finances, audits, or personal gains are taboo—particularly when it involves agencies like the Bureau of Child Support, DCYF, the YDC/Sununu Center or associated independent business owners.
Systemic Profiteering & Lack of Transparency Aren’t the Only Problems
There’s a long history—spanning decades—of individuals and entities profiting, directly or indirectly, from the family court system. There are many players, from primary players, secondary beneficiaries, and even some bottom-feeding profiteers—all seemingly oblivious and able to ignore the harm caused to parents and children, as long as the money keeps flowing.
The most troubling aspect is how the system warehouses parents and children, trapping them in cycles of suffering and court-created alienation. Instead of prioritizing families’ best interests, the system acts as a tool for control and profit—stripping families of autonomy, dignity, relationships, and assets.
Furthermore, there’s a consistent lack of third-party audits and transparency. Requests for public records under NH RSA 91-A are ignored, and privacy policies are utilized as a shield—obscuring the true financial picture. Contracts, RFP’s, and technical support are clouded with discrepancy. Questions about income, accounting practices, and transparency are just the tip of the iceberg.
Financial Mismanagement Issues
The family court financials are starting to come to light, revealing serious concerns about misconduct, especially when applying Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)—the standard for all financial reporting in both private and government sectors.
In particular, three agencies stand out:
- Bureau of Child Support Services (BCSS)
- Division of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF)
- Youth Development Center (YDC/Sununu Center)
Any deviations from the GAAP standards should be red flag warnings, such as missing requirements around independence, expenses, revenue, and record alterations.
Costly Operations & Unprofitable Incentives
The YDC/Sununu Center Issues costs taxpayers approximately $1.3 million per day. This staggering expense raises questions about the profitability of federal incentives like Title IV-Dfunding, which appears to contribute to systemic issues rather than solutions. But it seems the most unforgivable cost is the human cost, the lifelong cost, the abuse and harm which should have been preventable. Yet each of the three DHHS agencies seems to foster harm every day.
On top of the YDC issues, the upcoming legal challenges involving DCYF were federally approved on September 19, 2024, and are represented by groups like the ACLU and Disability Rights Center. These groups’ involvement really highlights the failures in due process and oversight. This action involves teenagers placed in institutional settings instead of foster homes. While lack of oversight is a core element, it’s important to note how preventable these could have been.
Perhaps the largest volume of issues among the three agencies is BCSS, and perhaps the most problematic. Aggressively pushing and recommending child support orders—whether necessary, wanted, or fair—appear to be in pursuit of goals and family targets, all tied to Title IV-D funding. BCSS has been a heavy focus of complaints, where individual rights and due process have been ignored for years. Aren’t agencies that are tasked with helping families actually supposed to help families, not financial stakeholders?
Court orders are commonly nothing more than an administrative recommendation and have challenges of enforceability. Few cases, if any, are reported to follow proper legal procedures, making the entire process appear to be nothing more than propped up on deceptive strategies and wasted taxpayer money on propaganda.
Despite 20 years of complaints about issues, officials continue to chase federal funds, not because it’s ethical or effective, but to preserve the appearance of legitimacy. This pursuit is repeatedly mentioned in parents’ complaints about the lack of due process and the transfer of assets from families to family court operators, while the state pursues federal incentive money.
Manipulation of Case Demand & Funding
The pursuit of Title IV funds was anchored in 2005. By 2007, it was clear across a number of states that demand for these services was very low—only about 10% of families needed or used them in NH. This low demand seemingly prompted financial stakeholders and some grand plans to seek resolution through the concept of fabricating the cases to meet and justify federal funding. Around 2007, the family court system was faced with a real problem and would have likely used simple math to understand the lack of need to resolve this obstacle to incentives.
Based on the low demand relative to costs, agencies appeared to face significant deficits. The basic formula demonstrates that if federal funding is allocated based on need—and the need is minimal—then federal funds diminish in benefit to the state. However, a very remarkable pattern emerged around 2007 and 2012, when a notable surge in families—from all backgrounds—were being ordered into child support arrangements without clear justification. During the same period, there was a sharp rise in complaints about the excessive use of alienation allegations being used in an unsupported manner. Complaints were growing about the total control exerted over parents and children without evidence, and demands for due process were frequent.
Interestingly, this surge in complaints occurred as concerns about the authority of ‘pseudo judges’ at the time, called martial masters. These complaints led to events that prompted the NH Supreme Court in 2007 to conclude that family court judges are not judicial officers and can only write recommendations – not court orders. Research reveals that the Senate hearing on this topic referenced an attempt to make family court masters into judges; however, an attorney at the time pointed out that doing so would cost the state its federal funding. Regardless, the 2007 Supreme Court correctly referenced that attempts to make masters into judges would violate the Constitution.
While we can’t jump into the mindset or lack of integrity and ethics in those early family court years, we can follow documented actions and show numerically that the only way to achieve the necessary numbers for Title IV Institutional Incentives was either by the actual need of NH families or by fabricating case details and exaggerating those needs artificially. In the end, this catastrophe should never have been allowed. In state after state, the scheme is being revealed.
However, the good news is that HB652, a first-in-the-nation bill, represents what the people have been saying out loud for a very long time – abolish family court now. Parents and children deserve due process and have the inalienable right to the parent-child bond. Stop the hooey!
This author has asked to remain anonymous
Authors’ and Speakers’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers.
Disagree, agree, Got Something to Say, We Want to Hear It. Comment or submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
