Case Synopsis for David Johnson:

First, you need to know that David is a CUSTODIAL PARENT ordered to  pay child support to the NONCUSTODIAL mother.   No reason that I can  see except that the court doesn’t like him.  He reported one marital master  to the Judicial Conduct Committee, and he recused.  (Forget who it was, I  wasn’t his attorney at the time.)  Federal Enabling Legislation regarding Child Custody Guidelines mandate that the non-custodial parent pay the  custodial parent in order to collect federal funds for support of the OCSE.  
 
I'm frankly sick and tired of the courts not making their decision based on  LAW.  In this case, at the contempt hearing, I submitted a REQUEST FOR  FINDINGS OF FACT, and rulings of law, which were not ruled upon in the Court’s ORDER.  I specifically asked for a ruling that a finding of civil contempt requires a finding of present ability to comply with the Court Order.   Curiously, I went to the court today to look at more in the file, and it was not there.  It was listed on the docket sheet, but it was not behind the contempt  ORDER.   It was heard by Marital Master Phillip Cross, but Judge Sadler  never ruled on it.  This happens to be another complaint I have of the court  system.  Judges are supposed to RULE on Requests for Findings and Rulings.
 
In this case it's particularly egregious because a JUDGE told my client to take it to the Superior Court, stating that it sounded like corruption and the  Superior Court denied him without setting it for hearing.  Needless to say, I  cannot reveal the name of the judge.
 
Please note that about a week before the Supreme Court’s unpublished  opinion on this case, where L. Jonathan Ross, Esq. represents the mom,  the Bar gave Judge Broderick the "L. Jonathan Ross" award.     It smacks of "Appearance of Impropriety," prohibited by Canon 2, Rules of Judicial Conduct.    I  think perhaps the bar should consider naming its awards after dead people  to avoid this in the future.
 
I wracked my brain for two days trying to figure out why the Court would set a bail hearing after the Superior Court had just affirmed the bail, and liter ally within a couple of hours of the arrest of Mr. Johnson.  I doesn’t seem to make sense that the Court has to make an explicit finding for contempt that the man has the money to pay his child support arrearage, fails to rule on  our Proposed findings and ruling of law stating that my client doesn’t have  the money, and it’s an element of the offense, sets the amount of bail in the Contempt ORDER, and then sets it for a bail hearing right after arrest.  I  thought the purpose of the bail hearing was to set reasonable bail, but bail  has already been set in this case.  At the bail hearing, I argued that it was likely a problem from a judicial conduct point of view that the judge set a bail hearing in the first instance within minutes of when my client was picked up. I also argued that the US Supreme Court states that courts should not jail fathers if they are unable to pay child support, and handed her the case of Hicks v. Feiock to make sure she had it in the file.  If she didn't believe he had the money to begin with, why would she even set bail?  I argued that the bail order should be vacated, but the court denied the request.
 
 It is true that David did not pay it last summer when he had cash from the  sale of the home.   He explained to the court under oath that he used it in  part to pay personal (and therefore not recorded) loans he had previously  gotten to keep the mortgage from going into foreclosure.  So some of it was really not “proceeds” at all.  It was debt on the property.   He does not, and  will not have the ability to pay his arrearage.  He also had extraordinary  moving expenses because the OCSE arranged to have his driver's license  suspended right before September 1, the date he was to move out the family home.  (Part of the consideration for the home was about 6 months of  rent - and it ran out Sept. 1.)  Instead of using some friends and his own  truck, he had to rent a truck and hire more people to help.  The license  suspension happened without ANY due process on his ability to pay.
 
I originally guessed that since David was pro se at a child custody proceeding that Jon Ross or former attorney may have turned in a proposed child  support order labeling him as the obligor in the Child Support Guidelines  Worksheet without knowing who was going to get custody of the child, and  frankly not caring.   I assumed that the court probably simply signed it.  It  turns out I was wrong.  There were NO Child Support Guidelines Worksheets  for any of the child support orders in the file.   Actually, this is significant.  The child support law states that
II. There shall be a rebuttable presumption in any proceeding for  the award of child support that the amount of the award which  would result from the application of guidelines provided under  this chapter is the correct amount of child support. A written finding or a specific finding by the presiding officer on the record that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate  in a particular case, as determined by using the criteria set forth  in RSA 458-C:5, shall be sufficient to rebut the presumption in  such case.  Oddly, one of the criteria mentioned that can result in a deviation from the guidelines is “Parenting schedule.”  
Now my client is the custodial parent, although the mother has fairly significant custodial time as well.  So under RSA 458-C:4, he is the presumptive obligee.  No circumstances were cited as a reason for a downward adjustment of the mother’s child support obligation, as she never  asked for one as required under RSA 458-C:5.  I could find no pleadings filed by L. Jonathan Ross, Esq., the mother’s attorney,  even requesting a  downward adjustment of the child support guidelines.  Instead, there is a child support order for my client to pay the mother with no explanation in  the file at all for a reason that the child support obligation was going in the  wrong direction entirely.   While the NH Supreme Court is correct that New Hampshire  lae does not mandate that the “obligor” us the non-custodial  parent, it does require a rebuttable presumption that this is so.  The judge  has to make findings of facts to justify an adjustment to the child support  guidelines.   Absent any evidence that the child support guidelines worksheets were even completed in the case, I estimate that the judge is on the  line for about $700 per month of “abuse of judicial discretion.”   Then there  is that pesky little problem that the Court made my client’s child support obligation due through the Office of Child Support Enforcement.  The federal  law authorizing the states to collect child support for the benefit of children  and give them monetary incentives to collect more child support unfortunately only authorizes states to collect child support from non-custodial  parents.  So the judge, the marital master, the Office of Child Support, and  the Division of Motor Vehicles, who suspended my client’s driver’s license  for non-payment of child support are all potentially liable for federal funding  fraud.
 
L. Jonathan Ross, Esq. has a reputation in the state as one of the smartest  and shrewest child custody attorneys.  It is absolutely inconceivable that he doesn’t know that child support orders are to be based on the child support  guidelines.  He took advantage of my client’s status as pro se in temporary  hearings on October 31, 2005, stating that the court "could" hear the issue  of temporary child custody in a motion he filed less than 10 days before the scheduled status hearing.  Court rules require a 10 day response time to  motions. Superior Court Rule 58.  He submitted a proposed order taking a  day of custody away from David, and that was not changed a lot at the  permanent custody modification hearing in March of 2006.  Despite Jon  Ross's attempts to wrest custody from David entirely, he failed.   Parent  and child are very closely bonded.
 
David appealed the March 2005 child custody order and it was denied by  the NH Supreme court without oral argument, in an unpublished opinion in  February.    With respect to child support, it is consistent with their published opinions.  The Court has stated before that the "Obligor" does not  have to be the non-custodial parent.  HOWEVER, it is federal funding fraud to enforce the ORDER through the Office of Child Support Enforcement.   His license was suspended once, is in danger of being suspended again,  and the OCSE replied to our Petition for Writ of Cert, AND informed the court that David did not make his payment as of Monday, so please issue  the capias.  Those offices are set up under federal law to collect money on  behalf of custodial parents.

I submitted a Motion for Guidelines Child Support, with a proposed Uniform Support Order, which was summarily denied by Judge Sadler.  

I also submitted a Motion to Recuse, and a Motion to Vacate the Bail Order, also both summarily denied.

After the bail hearing of March 21, David wrote me a long letter about problems in the case file.   There was a second bail hearing on April  12, 2006, and bail was again denied.  

David appealed the original capias to the Rockingham County Superior Court, which was denied.   A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was also summarily denied.  

David had the opportunity to write his own case synposis in his long hours in jail.   It gives some of the older case history about how it is really the fault of the Derry Family Division that he can't afford to pay child support in the first instance.

I've written to anyone and everyone to let them know about the problems in this case.   Some of the letters are listed below:

March 29, 2007 Letter to the Executive Counsel
March 29, 2007 Letter to Judge Kelly
April 24, 2007 Letter to the NH House Judiciary Committee and Child and Family Law Committee.

In addition to the above, there have been multiple emails. 

 And still my client sits in jail.  Is it any wonder  that there is a strong movement afoot for a good look at the state’s treatment of men in the court systems?  
 -Paula J.  Werme, Esq.

last updated 28 April, 2007