Information to post on Unethical NH Attorneys, Guardian Ad Litems, Marital Masters, Judges or any other persons involved in "Judicial Child Abuse" or "Judicial Child Neglect." Please email details to nh.unethical.attorney@gmail.com. We will not post your identity or give out your personal information.

Message Board:

We need to keep the pressure on the NH Family Courts by educating the public about the numerous injustices occurring. Please feel free to send us your information for posting. I have not had any recent dealings with the court system so I do not have current information to post. The best way to deal with these unethical judges, guardian ad litems and lawyers is to post as much on them as you can so that people do not want to do business with them. I have personally known judges that have their own practices as most judges are attorneys first. Hit these people where it counts. Their wallets. Starve them out and cut off their funds. When people do not want to use their services, they will have to change their evil ways or be unemployed.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Here are some Common Characteristics of Female Abusers Symptoms (for Male Victims)

This is part of an article online that I found by R.P. BenDedek and can be seen at the following link: http://www.magic-city%20news.com/R_P_BenDedek_33/Emotional_Abuse_Pt_4_Male_Victims_o%20f_Abuse9369.shtml.

Section 7. (a.)    Are you an abused Male?

Here are some Common Characteristics of  Female Abusers Symptoms (for Male Victims) 
  • She was verbally abused as a child, witnessed it in her own family, or was verbally abused by a previous partner.
  • She has low self-esteem.
  • She has an intense temper, triggered by minor frustrations and arguments.
  • Her sense of power or control depends on her partner's acquiescence and his performance per her demands. She feels "in control" only if her partner is totally passive and giving in to all of her preferences and decisions.
  • She has rigid expectations or fantasies of marriage, partnership, or men, and will not compromise. She expects him to behave according to her expectations of what her partner should be like; perhaps the way her parents' marriage was, or its opposite. She demands that he change to accommodate her expectations.
  • She projects the blame for all relationship difficulties onto her partner. She wouldn't get angry if only he would be who she wants him to be... She wouldn't drink if he didn't make her unhappy... She denies the need for counseling because there's "nothing wrong with her, only with him." She might not want him to get counseling because she's threatened by the threat of an outsider "taking sides" with him.
  • Abusers are extremely possessive and jealous. They experience an intense desire to control their mates.
  • Abusers often have superficial relationships with other people. Her primary, if not exclusive, relationship is with her husband/boyfriend.
  • She may be described as having a dual personality -- she is either sweet or exceptionally cruel and sharp. She is selfish or generous depending on her mood.
  • A major characteristic of abusers is their capacity to deceive others. She can be sweet, calm, charming and convincing.
  • The mate is usually a symbol. The abuser doesn't relate to her partner as a person in his own right, but as a symbol of a significant other. This is especially true when she's angry. She assumes that he is thinking, feeling, or acting like that significant other -- often her father (or other family member or authority figure).

What Are The Characteristics Of Women Who Are Abusive And Violent?

This was from the website of Oregon Counseling at the following link http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm.  I thought it was interesting.  Most of these traits were displayed by my ex-wife.  I wish I had insight about these issues several years ago. 

What Are The Characteristics Of Women Who Are Abusive And Violent?
The characteristics of men or women who are abusive fall into three categories. 
  • Alcohol Abuse.  Alcohol abuse is a major cause and trigger in domestic violence.  People who are intoxicated have less impulse control, are easily frustrated, have greater misunderstandings and are generally prone to resort to violence as a solution to problems.   Women who abuse men are frequently alcoholics. 
  • Psychological Disorders.  There are certain psychological problems, primarily personality disorders,  in which women are characteristically abusive and violent toward men.   Borderline personality disorder is a diagnosis that is found almost exclusively with women.  Approximately 1 to 2 percent of all women have a Borderline Personality disorder.  At least 50% of all domestic abuse and violence against men is associated with woman who have a Borderline Personality disorder. The disorder is also associated with suicidal behavior, severe mood swings, lying, sexual problems and alcohol abuse.
  • Unrealistic expectations, assumptions and conclusions.   Women who are abusive toward men usually have unrealistic expectations and make unrealistic demands of men.  These women will typically experience repeated episodes of depression, anxiety, frustration and irritability which they attribute to a man's behavior.  In fact, their mental and emotional state is the result of their own insecurities, emotional problems, trauma during childhood or even withdrawal from alcohol.   They blame men rather than admit their problems, take responsibility for how they live their lives or do something about how they make themselves miserable.  They refuse to enter treatment and may even insist the man needs treatment.   Instead of helping themselves, they  blame a man for how they feel and believe that a man should do something to make them feel better. They will often medicate their emotions with alcohol.  When men can't make them feel better, these women become frustrated and assume that men are doing this on purpose.

Friday, December 24, 2010

Erik G. Moskowitz of Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell PC of Concord, NH – Another Unethical Attorney

From my dealings with Erik G. Moskowitz my opinion is an oath means nothing him.  As with all people, there are good people and bad people.  There are good attorneys and bad attorneys.  Erik Moskowitz in my opinion is not only a bad attorney he is a bad person.  I have had the pleasure of personally dealing with Moskowitz during an unemployment hearing. 
Moskowitz purposely misrepresented facts of the case and his misrepresentation of the facts has violated my constitution rights.  He is representing a municipality in NH where his key witnesses lied in their testimony.  When he was shown physical proof of his witness’s lies by me, he refused to act appropriately and professionally which at minimum he should have told his client he had to recuse himself for a conflict of interest.  Instead he continues to perpetuate the lies and hide the truth.  How can an attorney represent someone when he has knowledge that they lied in their testimony?  How can an attorney continue to cover up lies at the expense of an innocent person? 
I confronted the law firm of Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell about their Jr. Partner misrepresenting facts and representing a client that he knows to have lied in testimony.  I was blown off which supports my suspicion that the law firm is just as unethical.
Erik G. Moskowitz’s unethical behavior makes him deserving of being on the Unethical “Wall of Shame” located at the bottom of the page. 

Parental Alienation Is Like A Spider Web – It Begins In The Center With The Alienating Parent And Continues To Spiral Outward Into An Intricate Woven And Detailed Web – It’s Amazing Who Will Get Caught In It.

There is an old saying ''Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.''  This saying goes hand and hand with my experiences with my ex-wife and her Parental Alienation Campaign.  The story begins with my ex at the center weaving her web of Parental Alienation. 

This story is from my experiences.  I am not an expert on Parental Alienation.  I am a dad that has been affected by Parental Alienation.  I am telling this story so that if you are facing divorce, you can hopefully learn by my experiences or if you have gone through divorce with a similar experience, you can realize how complex the issue is. 

First let me say that in my opinion any woman who would fight to keep her children from their father (Unless there are good compelling reasons such as abuse, etc) is not thinking of her children but herself only.  The sad thing is that we live in a society that condones this type of behavior.  Compound this by living in a small town in NH the Spider Web will spin out of control. 

In my case, the web began to spin when we first started getting serious with our relationship.  I remember a camping trip that we were on with some other people.  My ex ran off into the woods and sat down in a remote area crying.  When I asked her what was wrong, she blamed me for not being sensitive to her needs.  Now in most relationships this issue comes up.  However people don’t run off into the woods and isolate themselves from everyone.  Looking back, my ex did this to punish me.  If my ex had been mature, she would have pulled me aside and spoke with me.  Not run off into the woods throwing a tantrum.  If you see this type of behavior, be aware. 

The web continued to expand.  Shortly after the marriage

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Attorney Cynthia P. Gilman, Manchester, NH Added To The Unethical “Wall Of Shame”

The following is a post from the blog NH Judges Are Sodomites at the following link: http://nhjudgesaresodomites.blogspot.com/2010/12/cynthia-gilman-lawyer-refuses-to.html.  This post earns Cynthia P. Gilman the honor of being on the Unethical “Wall of Shame” at the bottom of this page. 


Thursday, December 23, 2010

Cynthia Gilman, Esq.: criminal member of the NH Bar

While there's good reason to suspect the NH Bar Association is just as self-serving as the rest of the judicial branch, but somebody has to take a stand for my son's rights. His mother sure as hell won't, and her hyper-zealous lawyer is even less likely to do so. For facilitation of contempt and the child abuse of parental alienation, this corrupt, criminal and downright reprehensible "attorney at law" ought be disbarred. The following complaint has been notarized and mailed to the Professional Conduct Committee:

1. This grievance is against Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. of The Law Offices of Cynthia P. Gilman, at
40 W. Brook Street, Manchester, NH 03101
2. I am the Respondent in the case XXXXX in the Cheshire Superior Court.
3. The Petitioner, is being represented by Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. of Manchester, NH.
4. False statements of material fact by Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq.:
- a. In a Motion to the Cheshire Superior Court, Cynthia Gilman made impossibly false “statements of fact,” maliciously implicating the Respondent as being several months in arrears on support.
- b. This action is directly counter to N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1), “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”
5. Wanton act to facilitate contempt and acting as an accessory to child abuse:
- a. On December 16, 2010, the Petitioner filed a motion for and was granted a temporary restraining order against the Respondent.
- b. On December 22, 2010 the Petitioner was explicitly Ordered by the Lynn District Court of Lynn, MA that she was to abide by the Parenting Plan set forth in the matter of 08-M-0302.
- c. At 4:51pm the Respondent contacted the Petitioner's counsel, Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. by phone regarding visitation pursuant to the Parenting Plan.
- d. During this call it was indicated that Atty. Gilman had contacted her client; while at the same time informing her client that defying orders of visitation would be an act of contempt, Atty. Gilman explicitly stated, “I recommended to my client that she not show for visitation.”
- e. To make matters worse, this recommendation to refuse to facilitate visitation comes the day before the Respondent was to spend Christmas Eve with his son; through this disgraceful action, Cynthia Gilman has acted directly as an accessory to both contempt and alienative abuse of the parties' 7-year-old child.
6. The Petitioner had a history of bad faith conduct leading to several Contempt findings against her; it is likely that she was counseled made this recommendation with knowledge that Contempt, even of visitation matters, carries virtually no weight in the Cheshire Superior Court.
7. The actions of Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. are abhorrent acts of child abuse; furthermore, N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(a)(c) clearly states, “A lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.”
8. A “valid obligation” pursuant to a Parenting Plan not only existed in New Hampshire, but was strongly reaffirmed by the Lynn District Court.
9. As a member of the Bar in both NH and MA, Attorney Gilman ought to recognize her obligation to the law and the Orders of the courts, but instead stated a belligerently steadfast refusal to act in accordance with those Orders.
10. Attorney Gilman's actions, having been perpetrated with knowledge that her counsel was to commit an act of contempt and fraud against a Court, simply cannot be a more clear violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a), “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly or induce another to do so, or through the acts of another.”
11. Attorney Gilman's actions, are counter to Rule 8.4(b), as she has perpetrated a “criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.”
12. By recommending that her client commit a willful act of contempt, she has disregarded Rule 8.4(c), “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
13. Through recommending a contemptuous act to her client, Attorney Gilman has taken violation of Rule 8.4(e) to a new extent, not only implying an ability to achieve results, but in fact actively guaranteeing results “by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.”
14. Bearing the title of “Esquire” ought imply that admission to the Bar holds one to a higher standard; this clearly contemptuous and abusive behavior from an “Attorney at Law” disgraces and disreputes the entirety of the legal profession, and the New Hampshire Bar as a whole.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Divorced Fathers with Visitation Orders Still ‘Powerless’ to See Children (From the website of Fathers and Families)

Here is a great article I found from the Fathers and Families website at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=11416.  I have been reading about this group.  They are very active in trying to get laws changed so that both parents have equal access to their children. 


Divorced Fathers with Visitation Orders Still ‘Powerless’ to See Children

December 3rd, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

One point that Noam Chomsky has often made is that, if you want to get news and commentary that doesn’t tend to “manufacture consent” for existing policies and ways of framing issues, you need to put down the New York Times and pick up small regional or local publications.  They are, he’s said, more likely to provide information free of the filters elite opinion making requires.

Some time ago I reported on an excellent series in the Myrtle Beach Sun News on the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children.  That was a good example of what Chomsky was talking about.  Here’s another (Goderich Signal Star, 12/1/10).

It’s a longish article about fathers and the trials - both actual and metaphoric - they face in the aftermath of divorce.  The piece considers three actual fathers, whom it calls Mike, Tom and Phil; its focus is the financial and emotional impact of losing custody and how the punitive nature of child support separates fathers from children.

All the villains are there; the piece describes a rogue’s gallery of anti-father bias.  For example, there’s domestic violence.

Tom and his then girlfriend had a falling out worse than most. A domestic assault left him with severe injuries to both his back and his jaw and unable to work. After both he and his girlfriend were charged in different assaults, she was granted custody of their son while he was put out in the street.

As with all the men interviewed, Tom’s access to his child is in the hands of the mother.  Yes there are court orders requiring her to allow him to see his child, but she violates them with impunity.

In his case, the mother of his child refused to sign a consent form, and as she had care and control of the child, there was nothing he could do. He’s scared to fight back, because any sort of aggression will only make his case worse.

“The worst part is, I’ve been there as a father,” he said. “But even my lawyer tells me to keep my mouth shut and bite my tongue. I never tried to argue – I just want access. I eventually had to call the police to get it.”

Now, he only wants to see his son regularly again, but it is getting increasingly hard, as the mother moved away from Huron County in direct contravention of their agreement.

On disability from his girlfriend’s attack, Tom can’t remotely afford an attorney to press his parental rights in court, so he is stuck with ever-diminishing contact with his child.

Phil, on the other hand, apparently has enough money to pay thousands of dollars to attorneys to fight for access to his child.  And over the years, he’s done just that and gotten court orders that supposedly allow him to see his son.  The result?  It took him nine months to get an order and another year before he was actually allowed to see the boy.  That’s 21 months in the life of a small child, which is to say, an eternity.

But even with yet another court order in hand, his parental rights still reside with her.

The worst part, Phil said, is that he has a court order to see his son, however, he is powerless even if the mother of the child continues to violate the agreement. Rather than the courts making the mother obey the court order, he said, he has to go through the whole process from the beginning.

The courts answer to the mother’s violation of one of its orders is not to order her to pay costs, not a fine, not a change of custody and not jail for contempt of court; it’s another order.  He must go again to court, get another order which she can then comply with or not as she desires.

As Australian academic John Hirst wrote in his essay, “Kangaroo Court,” alone among courts and only in the case of visitation orders, family courts refuse to enforce their own orders.  In no other situation does a court abandon its power to enforce its own dicates.

The result of course is that custodial parents, in Canada 90% of whom are mothers, are free to ignore visitation orders, and in many cases they do.  They know they won’t be punished or lose custody, so why let the dad see his kids?  Thus are fathers removed from or marginalized in their children’s lives.

The article ends by returning to the tragic 1995 case of Andrew Renouf.  Destitute in part due to paying child support, and unable to see his child, Renouf was driven to suicide.

A single father who was cut off from his daughter for four years, Renouf’s suicide note described a situation where his paycheck garnishing left nothing to live on. By the time his pay reached his bank account, he literally had 43 cents to his name.

This is the system of family law we live with.  It’s a system that all too many find perfectly satisfactory and that they defend tooth and nail.  It’s a system fully capable of destroying non-custodial parents, and depriving children of their fathers.  It’s a system built on myths, principally those of the dangerous dad and the deadbeat dad.  That essentially all reputable social science debunks those myths, and has for decades, is apparently of no importance. 

Recently I read an article by the redoubtable warrior Donald Dutton.  It was a piece about the myths perpetuated about men and domestic violence, and he pointed out something I’d never thought of before. 

Dutton wrote that courts and the legal profession generally make much of what is and isn’t good science.  Courts are ever wary of what they sometimes call “junk” science, i.e. that without sufficient data, methodology or scientific rigor.  And when they find such deficient science, they hasten to exclude it as evidence, rightly refusing to allow it to support or rebut one side’s case.

Dutton’s point was that, given the great value they supposedly place on good science, it’s odd that, in the case of domestic violence, courts routinely rely on the shoddiest work in the field.  And what’s true of DV is equally true of the value of fathers to children.

And yet, with all the science on the side of fathers and the value of them to children, and with all the pontificating about the “best interests of the child,” courts still obstruct fathers’ access to their children.  As countless studies, and by now a wealth of societal experience, have shown that’s the worst of junk science. 

“So we beat on, boats against the current…”

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Attorney John J Cronin III Joins the Unethical “Wall of Shame”

I know of someone that is dealing some post divorce issues with their ex.  Their ex is represented by Cronin.  Cronin appears to be using unethical tactics to drive up the cost of litigation.  I will keep you posted as more information becomes available. 

I recently came upon some information on Attorney John J. Cronin of Bennington, NH which prompted me to add him to The Unethical “Wall Of Shame.”  This information was from the Mass.Gov website http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/bd08-086.htm.


NO. BD-2008-086

S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension/Suspended entered by Justice Botsford on September 29, 2008.1
On February 26, 2008, the respondent John J. Cronin III was suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for six months, all of which was stayed for two years subject to conditions that the respondent take and pass the Multi-state Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) within one year, submit his financial records to random audits, and reimburse the Professional Conduct Committee of the New Hampshire Supreme Court for the costs of investigation and prosecution. The misconduct giving rise to this sanction is as follows.

During an audit of the respondent’s trust account, a staff auditor for the Attorney Discipline Office of New Hampshire discovered that the respondent as a matter of practice deposited retainers paid for services to his operating account prior to earning those retainers in full. The retainers remained in the operating account, and the respondent returned the unearned portion of the retainers and otherwise properly accounted to the clients at the conclusion of the case. The respondent’s failure to deposit the retainers to a trust account violated Rule 1.15(a) of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct.

The respondent also committed additional misconduct in handling a domestic relations case and the execution of a will. In the domestic relations case, the respondent kept a check for $23,866 representing disputed funds in the matter in his office for three weeks before depositing the check to an interest-bearing account. In the matter involving the will, the respondent signed the client’s will as a witness and left his office prior to the client’s appearance at the office and execution of the will in front of the other witnesses. The respondent’s conduct in the first matter violated New Hampshire Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) and, in the will matter, Rule 8.4(c).

The respondent failed to report the suspended suspension to the Office of Bar Counsel. On September 4, 2008, bar counsel filed a petition for reciprocal discipline in the
Supreme Judicial Court
for Suffolk County. Subsequently, the parties waived hearing and assented to an order of reciprocal discipline, which was entered on September 29, 2008.

1 The complete Order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the
Supreme Judicial Court
for Suffolk County.
2 Compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record filed with the
Supreme Judicial Court

Manchester's Union Leader Runs Article About Marital Master David Forrest - Supreme Court Decision An Example Of His Bias Against Men

E-mails fall short for fault-based divorce
New Hampshire Sunday News (Union Leader)
Sunday, Mar. 22, 2009

If you're seeking a fault-based divorce in New Hampshire, you'd better have more than sexually suggestive e-mails and hurt feelings on which to base your case.

That's the message the state Supreme Court sent in a March 5 ruling that set a standard for finding one spouse at fault. The ruling may affect future divorces involving a claim that one spouse caused what state law describes as "serious injury to health or endangered reason" to the other, one of nine grounds for fault-based divorce in New Hampshire.

"The decision raised the bar. It's got to be serious injury, not just hurt feelings," said Nashua attorney William Aivalikles, who represented Daniel R. Guy's appeal of the divorce filed by his wife, Joni Guy.

Joni Guy claimed sexually suggestive e-mails Mr. Guy exchanged with a former girlfriend caused Mrs. Guy to be "angry, upset and distraught," according to court documents.

Senior Associate Justice Linda S. Dalianis, citing previous cases, said Mrs. Guy's claim was based on an 1840 law that allowed divorce when the claim didn't meet the standard for legal cruelty but the conduct "might make life intolerable and death welcome."

Being "angry, upset and distraught" isn't enough to meet that standard, Dalianis wrote, citing similar past cases that involved constant drunken abuse by domineering husbands, including a threat of murder. In each of those cases, the behavior caused some effect to the "innocent" party, such as becoming highly nervous, losing weight or undergoing counseling, Dalianis wrote.

"This kind of effect upon (Mrs. Guy's) physical and mental health is insufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain a divorce. ... In cases involving a divorce upon these grounds, the effect upon the 'innocent' spouse has been much more severe than mere anger and upset and the conduct in which the 'guilty' spouse engaged was more brutal than merely e-mailing his former girlfriend," Dalianis wrote in the unanimous decision.

Few fault-based divorces
Only about 1.3 percent of all New Hampshire divorces last year were completed as fault-based, according to the state Division of Vital Records. There were 4,913 divorces last year, and 4,847 of them were no-fault divorces based on irreconcilable differences.

In 2007, the most recent year for which the National Center for Health Statistics has divorce figures, New Hampshire's divorce rate was 3.8 per 1,000 of the state's total population. That's about the same as the national average, 3.6 per 1,000, although not all states report, according to the NCHS.

Experts estimate between 5 and 10 percent of divorces are filed as fault-based, but fewer than 2 percent are granted, according to the state Division of Vital Records.

Before no-fault divorce became part of New Hampshire law in 1971, a finding of fault was required to dissolve a marriage here, Aivalikles said.

Property settlement
In fault-based divorces, marital assets can be divided to favor the "innocent" party, Aivalikles said.

In the Guy divorce, the original property settlement, which was partially based on Mr. Guy's fault, was vacated in the Supreme Court's ruling.

Mr. Guy is expected to get an additional $56,000 as a result, Aivalikles said.

David Forrest, the marital master who heard the divorce, had recommended the fault-based grounds and the recommendation was approved by Judge William Groff.

The trial court dismissed Mrs. Guy's 2007 fault claims of habitual drunkenness and adultery against her husband of 18 years.

"It's safe to say my wife believed a lot of things that turned out to be untrue," said Mr. Guy, who added that he neither has a drinking problem nor committed adultery.

The ruling will likely mean Daniel Guy, a disc jockey and broadcast engineer, gets to keep at least half of his $112,000 inheritance, which was an issue in the settlement, he said.

"(Justice Dalianis) took more of a common-sense approach to my case. Finding fault was just a stretch," Mr. Guy said.

Joni Guy couldn't be reached for comment, and her attorney, Francis Holland of Nashua, didn't return phone calls to the New Hampshire Sunday News.

Alternatives to litigation
Wilton lawyer Honey Hastings said she changed her practice four years ago after a troubling case involving sexually graphic testimony.

Hastings, who wrote "The New Hampshire Divorce Handbook," said, "I don't litigate anymore. I felt it was enabling people to treat each other badly and hurt children."

She offers services to families, including mediation and collaborative practice, also called "no-court divorce."

Attorney Amy Wolfson of Nashua said fault-based divorces might lead to unequal division of assets, alimony and increased alimony, and may affect parenting rights and responsibilities.

Depending on how outrageous the fault, Wolfson said, the asset split could be 55-45, 60-40 or whatever the judge decides. In one of her cases, she said, her client walked away with 90 percent of the marital assets, though she said such cases are "extraordinary."

Mediation isn't always the best option in divorce cases, Wolfson said.

"Mediation works well when both parties are of equal bargaining power," she said. "When you have power disparity in the marriage, it doesn't work well."

Randy Kessler, secretary of the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association, said New Hampshire is in the mainstream, as about 25 states have both fault and no-fault divorces. Seventeen states have no-fault only, and eight states have fault-based divorces only, he said.

Even if fault isn't alleged in a divorce suit, Kessler said, fault may be found and used as leverage in reaching a favorable settlement for the injured party. Fault also can be relevant in deciding settlements and child-custody arrangements, he said.

End of Article

Let’s not forget that Marital Master David S. Forrest can’t sign off on divorce decisions without a Judge reviewing his decisions and also signing off on them.  Judge John P. Arnold and Judge Brian Tucker signed off on Forrest’s decisions in my divorce case.  These Judges in my opinion are just as guilty for the bad rulings that Forrest continually makes since it is their job to supervise Forrest. 

My ex-wife brought three different fault grounds against me in my divorce.  I brought forth one petition on irreconcilable differences.  Her three charges against me in her cross petition:

1.      Adultery
2.      When either party has so treated the other as seriously to injure health or endanger reason.
3.      Irreconcilable differences

Forest being the bigot he is used emails against me too but here is the real killer.  The adultery I was being accused of was after the fact.  A few weeks after being thrown out of my house, I moved into a four bedroom house with someone of the opposite sex so that I could share expenses and because plainly speaking, I was tired of sleeping in my vehicle and on peoples couches.   Forrest used this against me to support my ex’s theory that I committed adultery (after the fact) and therefore she had no way to reconcile her marriage.  Funny, I thought the marriage was over several months earlier when my ex told me to choose between my job and my family and shortly after I filed for divorce. 

Originally I was supposed to be moving in with two female roommates.  We would each have a bedroom and my kids would have their own bedroom.  It’s a good thing the third woman backed out at the last minute due to her not being able to get out of her existing lease.  God only know what Forrest would have given my ex if I was living with two women at the time of my divorce and sharing a house and expenses.  Forrest incidentally decided that there was no proof of me damaging my ex’s health and reason (I’m sure that anyone could see that her health and reason had been damaged a long time before I knew her).  

Here is how getting thrown out of my house by Forrest transpired.  I got a temporary order of protection against my ex-wife for her assaulting me one night.  My ex mind you was just as big as me and her job was very physical so lets just she was no petite flower.  This was one of the many times that my ex became physical to me.  At the hearing, Forrest dismissed my petition.  A few days later, he threw me out of my house which was the day before Thanksgiving.  I was notified by my attorney that I had to vacate the house immediately.  My ex had friends and family in the area that she could stay with.  I was an outsider.  I had no friends able to take me in and all of my family was two hours away.  I also have a very serious food allergy that I have to contend with which makes it difficult to stay at other peoples houses.  If you ask me, this prejudiced Marital Master that hates men had to find that I did something wrong so that he could justify throwing me out of the house and giving my ex an unequal distribution which included 98% of my childhood possessions, a lot of my clothes, some tools that belonged to my deceased father and a couple pieces of furniture that belonged to my soon to be deceased mother.  One piece of furniture in particular was an antique knick knack shelf that was given to my parents as a wedding gift.  My ex told Forrest that my mother purchased it for her at a yard sale for $20.    

I would love to see people in that State of NH that have so much power like Marital Masters and Judges have to go through counseling as a prerequisite to being appointed and to have a stipulation that the public gets to look at the findings.  Forrest would probably be diagnosed with multiple personality disorders himself.  People like Forrest can not handle power nor should they ever be allowed to be in a position of power. 

Here is an example of the types of frivolous Emails that were used.  Attorney Jaye Rancourt brings up to David Forrest that she found some emails where I stress desire to spend the night with another female.  Rancourt provided the email to Forrest.  I point out to Forrest that the email stated that I was looking forward to spending an evening with this female, watching a “Redsox and Yankee Baseball Game” the following year as this email conversation happened at the very end of baseball season.  This also happened after I signed divorce paperwork and was separated from my ex.  It’s so pathetic that Forrest cites this email in his written decision of fault in my divorce. 

The real sad thing about this email evidence is that I should have appealed this decision.  I didn’t because I was just glad to be away from my sick and deranged ex-wife’s abuse.  I was glad it was over.  I had no money (My divorce broke me at over $50k), no attorney and was just emotionally beat up.  About a month after my divorce, the above article came out.  Had this decision happened a few months earlier, the outcome of my divorce I am sure would have been different and if not, I would have personally gone to the Supreme Court and fought this bigot’s decision on my own.

The State of NH is so pathetic.  Several months after my divorce, I involuntarily became unemployed.  I had no money.  As the saying goes, I didn’t have a pot to piss in.  However because I had the window to throw it out of (I was living with someone who was paying the rent), the State of NH told me that I didn’t qualify for legal assistance to help me with my continuing post divorce frivolous nonsense that Attorney Jaye Rancourt and my ex kept on throwing at me.  I didn’t have any money because I spent it all on my divorce, my credit was tapped out, I sold off what little bit of personal property that I had just so I could pay my child support. My newest vehicle is a 1995 which every time I drive down the road with it and hit a pothole, rust falls off. You get the picture.  I’m not living an elaborate life. 

If you go through a divorce in NH plan for the worst, especially when you are a man and the noncustodial parent.  The State of NH is biased against men to start with.  I believe that men and women should have equal rights but why is it that when there is a divorce with children involved, you quite often see the woman fighting for full custody of the children and trying to deny the man access to his children?  Where is the equality here?  I can’t speak for everyone but in my case it was all about money.  My ex told me and numerous people that she was going to ruin me and take all of money and property.  However, it didn’t ruin me.  It made me a stronger person. 

Marital Masters and Judges will continue to be biased against men as long as the system remains old and archaic.  If you are a man in a contested divorce, expect to lose custody of your kids to a sick spouse, expect to have all of your values as a man deflated, expect to not be listened to when you tell the truth, and expect that in the end you will be bankrupt.  I’m telling you this so that you can plan ahead.  I wish knew what I know now and that I had time to plan ahead so I could stash money away.  That wasn’t my case.  My ex stopped contributing to the household a few months before I was thrown out of the house so I had to cover all expenses on my own.   Then when I got thrown out of the house, Forrest orders me to pay the mortgage in lieu of child support which was more then $400 a month above the NH child support guidelines and then holds it against me when I can’t afford to keep up with payments after many months of this nonsense.      

Recently, someone pointed out to me that there is a reason that NH Judges and Marital Masters order child support to be paid through the Department of Health and Human Services.  When the State acts like a collection agency for child support, the Federal Government pays the State money to do this.  The State of NH likes to have an income at the expense of the Federal Government and it is a major source of how the State of NH is funded.   What Forrest, Tucker, and Arnold as well as all the other Marital Masters and Judges are doing is just like in the old days when police departments wrote tickets to fund themselves.  A cop would write a ticket.  The money would go to the cop’s agency thus giving a great incentive for cops to write lots of tickets.  Even when people didn’t do anything wrong cops would write tickets just for the money.  It’s called corruption and in NH we have a lot of Marital Masters like Forrest and Judges like Tucker and Arnold that foster corruption.  Let’s work together to get these people removed and lets get the laws changed. 

I have been made aware of some house bills that are going to be proposed to the NH House this coming year that will help deal with some of these issues of bias.  I will try to post them once I get more information. 

Friday, December 17, 2010


Someday, my two boys will realize that their Dad loves them unconditionally and their mother played a significant role in keeping them from me by using Parent Alienation techniques. 

NH like all states has Child Abuse Laws.  There are also laws that mandate who has to report suspected abuse.  These laws are great but they fail to consider Parent Alienation abuse.  Below is a quick overview of the law. 

New Hampshire Child Abuse Laws

Code Section
169-C:3, 169-C:29, et seq.
What Constitutes Abuse
Sexual abuse, intentional physical injury, psychological injury such that child exhibits symptoms of emotional problems generally recognized to result from consistent mistreatment or neglect, or physical injury by other than nonaccidental means
Mandatory Reporting Required By
Physician, surgeon, medical examiner, psychiatrist, optometrist, psychologist, therapist, nurse, dentist, chiropractor, hospital personnel, Christian Science practitioner, school teacher or official, social worker, day care worker, foster/child care worker, law enforcement official, priest, minister, rabbi, any other person
Basis of Report of Abuse/neglect
Having reason to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected
To Whom Reported
Department of Health and Human Services
Penalty for Failure to Report or False Reporting
Knowing violation: misdemeanor

Right now, Parent Alienation (PA) is not considered child abuse in NH.  I am not sure if other states have made movements to make PA a form of abuse.  I suspect some states have had movement to make it abuse or are in stages of defining PA as abuse.  Because PA is not defined as child abuse in NH, there is no law requiring people to report it.  That means that our children who go to school, church, the doctors office, etc, never receive the benefit of being rescued by the Alienating Parent. 

We need to change the laws on PA.  There are lots of studies that show that it’s real.  Aside from studies, IT’S JUST PLAIN COMMON SENSE.  Mess with a young person’s mind and they will have issues their whole life if not treated by years of counseling. 

I hope that people will read my stories and learn from what has happened to me.  I hope that any alienating parent that reads my blog will think twice about what they are doing to their children.  Alienating a child from their parent may not immediately hurt as bad as hitting the child but someday the pain will be unbearable to them.  How do I know?  I am witnessing what it has already done to my children.  Children need both parents.  What will the cost of PA be to our children?  One can only imagine.  Some children will recover.  Some will overcome it.  Some will not.  Some will be effected by PA their whole lives.  Some I’m sure will even commit suicide because of it. 

If you have children and you read this please do me a favor.  Give them a hug for me and my boys and tell them that you love them.  Don’t ever speak ill of their other parent in front of them or to friends and family who will repeat your words.  No matter how much you may want to. 

Family Court In NH Is A Joke – Marital Master David Forrest Is The Ringmaster Of A Three Ring Circus

In Master Forest’s Three Ring Circus first comes the bickering, his deciphering and then men’s suffering. 

In looking back at my divorce file I noted a lot of things that were interesting.  My Alienated children can someday look back at what Forrest did to them and thank Forrest for devaluing their father and empowering their mother, an Alienating parent who thinks of her needs over her children’s needs.  I have records in a safe place and someday when my kids are older, I will let them look through the records so that they can learn the real truth and not the lies that their mother has filled their minds with. 

First of all Forrest made a lot of decisions on hearsay and testimony with no evidence presented.  Keep in mind that in a divorce, the burden of proof is the preponderance of evidence.  Not proof beyond the reason of doubt.  What does this translate into?  Whoever has the better story and who ever is more believable wins.  The burden of preponderance of evidence gives people like Forrest too much leeway and too much power.  They can totally ruin a person if they see fit to.  For the common person you don’t have the resources to fight it.  It is so costly you will end up bankrupt before your divorce is done and plan on a two year fight.  This is the atmosphere that Forrest encourages.  He like conflict.  I think he feels empowered by it. 

An example of Forrest poor judgment is, my ex told Forrest that she paid for my $10k college loan and told Forrest that I didn’t work much.  He liked her story.  She provided no physical evidence.  Just her testimony.  Forrest in his decision stated he believed what my ex-wife had said. He took her word over mine.  Why? He is a biased man hating pig.   I told Forrest when I testified that I have records that prove my ex was lying. 

I have records from the government showing that I paid off most of my loans prior to our marriage and the government paid off most of the rest when Bill Clinton signed a law reimbursing police officers on their student loans for service as a full time cop.  I brought this up to Forrest at the hearing but he decided that I was lying and took my ex wife’s testimony as gospel.  Call me a liar now Forrest.  I have your written decision and I have the records in my possession and can prove what I say is true. 

I also have my statements from SSN. When I was married, I made more money then my ex did.  How is that possible for a low life blood sucking leach that Forrest portrayed me out to be?  In his decision he portrays me out to be a man whore that worked part time and was unemployed most of the time when in fact I worked long hours with lots of overtime to support my ex wife’s spending habits.  Oh that’s right, my ex told him I was a deadbeat husband and again he believed her. 

When I questioned my ex in court, I caught her in several lies.  She testified that she never called State Police on me.  I provided Forrest a State Police Report where my ex called and spoke with a Trooper inquiring how she could legally get me out of the house.  The Trooper asked if I was abusive to her or the kids in which she stated no that I was not.  The trooper told her there was nothing he could do for her.  My ex’s response was that was what her attorney told her (This was her second attorney and not Jaye Rancourt). 

I had to deal with this kind of crap and maintain my job as a cop at the same time.  Forrest should have given me a medal for being able to deal with my while maintaining my job.  My ex totally denied that it was her who called this Trooper and spoke with him.  My ex in my opinion is sick but let me tell you, she knew what she was doing.  Her moves were calculated. 

If you are going through a divorce, learn about personality disorders.  Many people have them.  If you can learn about personality disorders, it may help with your situation if you can understand what you’re dealing with. 

Just remember, a system that allows a person like Forrest to make decisions on the preponderance of evidence is bound to fail.  People like Forrest abuse their power.  If you have a contested divorce in front of Forrest and you are a man, I would recommend that you ask him to recuse himself from the case due to his being biased.  Forrest does not have the ability to be fair to men.  I have had numerous people contact me because of this blog and they tell me their stories of how Forrest abused them and condoned giving full custody of their children to the alienating parent.  I hope that my stories about Forrest unethical behavior will help others to deal with their divorce and custody issues.  Anyone wanting to contact me with their stories or for assistance can be assured that I will keep there identity anonymous. 

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Douglas A Thornton Listed On NH Guardian Ad Litem Board’s List – Listed As “Expired or Renewal Denied” – How the State Of NH Protects Those Working For The State That Have Enormous Power To Destroy Lives And Yet The State Refuses To Give The Public Access To Information About These People

Here is a list that was published by the Guardian Ad Litem Board in NH.  As you will note, Douglas Thornton is listed as “Expired or Renewal Denied.”  This document is available at the following link. http://www.nh.gov/gal/documents/BoardCertifiedGALs-Alpha.pdf
Changes through December 8, 2010
Lenora Boehm
Marsha Lavallee Huntoon
Newly approved
Lynn Aaby
Arlene Agosto
Tracy Bernson
William Cleary
Margo Cooper
Tina Craig
Anna Elbroch
Kristen Finnegan
Carleen Forrest
Barbara Gardner
Aprel Goddard
Lucinda Hopkins
Robin Partello
Elizabeth Rodd
Laura Vaillancourt
Expired or renewal denied:
Michael Atkins
Dianna Baker
Lisa Bellanti
Paul Bennett
Floreen Keifer-Bishop
Quentin Blaine
Barry Bolduc
George Bortnick
David Braiterman
Peter Brigham
Susan Brown
Peter Brunette
Deborah Buxton
Cindee Carter
Mark Cavanaugh
Karen Collman
Clark Corson
RoAnne Cronin
Timothy Cunningham
Gail Cyr
Susan Denenberg
Elaine Dolph
Daniel Dwyer
Edmunds Everett
Michael Finamore
John Fox
Patricia Frim
Christopher Garner
Matthew Garthwait
Jill Gaumont
Kim Gaumont
Michelle Gosselin-Limire
Tammy Gosling
Joan Gross
Margaret Cunnane Hall
Marianne Hannagan
Jeremy Harmon
Patrick Harrigan
John Harwood
Honey Hastings
Tricia Hayes
James Hurley
David Kamen
Kathy LaRocque
Marcia Leighninger
Thomas Mandra
Jeanette Marino
Steven Markiewicz
Elizabeth Maynard
Barbara McCracken
Glenn McCracken
Andrea McCusker
Robert McKenney
Norma Micheroni
Fred Miller
Kathy Needleman
Deborah Shepherd
Douglas Thornton
Someone contacted the GAL board for information and here is their response. 
1st Request For Information From GAL Board
I recently noticed that GAL Douglas Thornton is on a list of "Expired or renewal denied." as for changes through December 1st 2010.  How do I find out information about this?  I would like to know what information is available to me. 

1st Response To Request
Good Morning,
I am not sure what information you are requesting, so I am including the dates of any status changes for Mr. Thornton. I reviewed Mr. Thornton’s file and found that he was originally certified by the Guardian ad Litem Board on March 13, 2006.  His certification expired on March 13, 2009.  He did apply for Guardian ad Litem Certification again in the summer of 2010; however, the board denied his application on September 24, 2010.  He is not a board certified GAL, and has not been board certified since his original expiration date.   
If you are looking for something more specific please let me know and I can try to get that information for you if it is indeed public information.  The reasons for denial are not public information.   
Thank you,
GAL Board Secretary
2nd Request Asking For Information

Thank you for your speedy response.  You answered most of my questions.  Specifically, I am assisting a friend with some post divorce issues.  Doug Thornton was the GAL.  It would be helpful is we could find out why Mr. Thornton's application was denied as there could be some impact on the post divorce issues.  I am a little confused why that information would not be open to the public under the NH Right to Know law and if it is not subject to right to know, how could someone find out?  A petition to the court?  Subpoena?  Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. 

2nd Response To Request
The reason for denial is exempt from right to know requests pursuant RSA 91-A:3 II(c), and cannot be disclosed.  If he had requested a hearing to challenge the board’s denial of his application, then the information would have become public, but he did not.  I am a secretary, and I am unaware of how you would force the release of exempt information, but I think it may be through the Supreme Court, but you may want to get some legal advice on that.
If you are under the assumption that the reason for denial stems from a complaint about Mr. Thornton as a GAL, I can inform you that all disciplinary decisions regarding GALs are posted to the board’s website under the complaints section.  I do not see that any disciplinary action was ever taken against Mr. Thornton.
If your friend wishes to file a complaint against Mr. Thornton, there is paperwork available on the Board’s website under the complaints section.  However, it should be noted that the board can only handle complaints against certified GALs, so if the time period during which the violations took place was after Mr. Thornton expired, then the complaint would need to be directed to the court, and she would need to contact them as to how to file a complaint.
Thank you
GAL Board Secretary
As you can see, the secretary in quite polite in her response.  She notes that the reason for Thornton being denied his certification is not subject to the right to know laws.  Here is a person that has caused a great deal of destruction to two young boys and God knows who else but you can’t find out why his application was denied.  Do you see something wrong with this?  What is the GAL Board covering up?  Thornton created a lot of problems for my divorce, he was biased and negligent in the way he handled the case but I can’t find out why he was denied his certification. 

Someday my children will become adults.  They will someday realize that their father did everything he could do to be in their lives but had his rights taken away by a sick mother that breeds on Parent Alienation as well as her attorney Jaye Rancourt, a negligent GAL Douglas Thornton along with Master Forrest and Judge Arnold.