Family Court Enterprise Spotlight Reveals Foundational Flaws
Profit over Well-being
What does the Administrative Family Court and Judicial Branch have in common? Lack of oversight and accountability for starters. Legislators are working to fix these issues with bills like CACR 23 and CACR 29. Sound resolution won’t be found in one or even five good bills but several corrective measures. When these bills pass, taxpayer responsibility from others misconduct will begin to be reduced. However, the corrections needed are not just in family law legislation but foundational.
In recent months, many New Hampshire state legislators are taking significant steps toward addressing longstanding concerns about the structure, influence, and operations of the family court eco-system as well as other dominant influences. Just look at the YDC, reportedly now estimated at over $1.8 billion. A series of proposed bills indicates an overwhelming increased awareness and decisive efforts to dismantle what’s viewed as a deeply flawed and profit-driven systems that’s responsible for harm and depriving our citizens of their rights to due process and wellbeing.
Financial Overview: Parents and Children as Commodities
Historically, the term “family court” is a big misnomer. Rather than functioning as an Article III court with full due process protections, it has operated more as an administrative tribunal under a veil of misdirection. This Article I court lacks oversight, accountability, and recourse, it is an entity without accountable judicial oversight. It functions as an administrative body tasked with creating written recommendations to mimic court orders for the following agencies: BCSS, DCYF and YDC. They are tasked with helping these three agencies meet their financial objectives and to ensure predictable case outcomes that will easily align with agency goals. Goals—the reason cases are largely fabricated.
It appears that these agencies’ missions have shifted from helping families in times of need to a profit-driven emphasis on relevance and revenue. This is concerning, as they seem indifferent to the harm they have caused for decades, instead seeming to double down on strategic targeting and investigative tactics designed to exploit and distort facts. Ultimately, this undermines their very purpose and erodes public trust. Moreover, it seems the heavy influence of the NH Bar Association and family law attorneys are often cited as integral in case manipulation, perpetuating the cycle of prolongation and fabrication to generate maximum revenue and delay resolution.
Legislators Working to Reclaim Authority with CACR 23, 29 & 27
All of the following legislation should be non-partisan, as they focus on constitutional principles designed to restore efficiency to the three branches of government and to uphold the rights of the people. The ill-conceived plan to monetize family law matters in an administrative tribunal was a catastrophe in the making, as policymakers’ decisions were driven by a misguided attempt to access federal funding. The consequences of an administrative entity with sweeping powers to judge, try, and imprison parents and children would inevitably result in harm for the sake of profitable convenience. The stakeholder narratives citing lack of resources and serving the best interest has been discredited by the overwhelming patterns of manipulation and harm.
Recognizing the foundational issues, legislators are actively working to reassert their legislative authority and responsibility. CACR23 establishes legislative oversight of the judicial branch, aims to ensure the legislative body can appropriately monitor and regulate all judicial operations, ensuring transparency and accountability. CACR29 eliminates the existing misguided judicial branch provision that states, The rules so promulgated shall have the force and effect of law. For example, this sentence has been abused heavily as the foundational authority for operating family courts. Rules with the power to subvert legal principles undermines all due process guarantees. Removing it will prevent financial stakeholders from exploiting the rules over law doctrine which asserts undue influence—an issue that has contributed to fabricated and biased rulings creating predetermined outcomes over the best interests and well-being of citizens.
Another key measure, CACR27, aims to clarify that the authority to establish courts resides exclusively with the general court (legislature), effectively curbing any overreach by the judicial branch to create or modify courts without the necessary legislative approval. This will reaffirm the legislature’s constitutional role as the primary branch responsible for the creation and oversight of judicial institutions.
Restoring Oversight and Professional Regulation HB 1825, 1322
The legislature’s commitment to oversight extends to legal professionals as well. The proposed HB1825 aims to establish an independent legal licensing board, separate from traditional bar associations, to regulate the practice of law. This new regulatory body would require attorneys to prove their qualifications and credentials actively, while ensuring higher standards and accountability.
HB1322 focus is on re-establishing the Judicial Conduct Commission, necessary for providing a dedicated mechanism to oversee judicial ethics and discipline, thereby promoting integrity within the judiciary and the state. NH’s Judicial Conduct Commission was established over 20 years ago but never activated. Interestingly, as the family court misconduct had become a focal point, a bill was introduced to repeal the Conduct Commission over a minor technicality. Instead of responsibly activating the long-overdue oversight commission to address the mounting issues, an overly ambitious sponsor from the judiciary committee, pushed to revoke the entire Commission as being flawed. The narrative sold to legislators was ‘this is merely a bit of legislative housekeeping.’ In this case one could easily say, their actions to repeal judiciary oversight spoke much louder than the words housekeeping.
Overall, these efforts aim to not only reform the system but also restore the balance between due process rights and freedoms, ensuring that financial interests no longer take precedence over the well-being and rights of our state’s citizens.
Bills Summary:
CACR23 Relative to legislative oversight of the judicial branch. establishing legislative oversight of the judicial branch.
CACR27 Relating to the authority to establish courts Provided that the sole authority lies within the general court.
CACR29 Relating to the Supreme Court. Providing that the Supreme Court may not make rules that have the force and effect of law.
HB1064 Relative to liability of governmental units.
HB1322 Reestablishing the judicial conduct commission.
HB1825 Relative to the regulation of the practice of law, establishing an independent legal licensing board, and making an appropriation, therefore.
The author has asked to remain anonymous.
Editor: This was published later than intended, so our apologies, as some of these bills may already have had hearings.
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
