PART 3
Elwood McLlarky v Jamie Doherty
What one true professional saw in 7 months, was completely apparent and ignore by NH's very own Judge Albee, for six years now. In the following Motion For Expedited Hearing submitted on June 13, 2011 to the courts, by the second GAL to represent (the child), stated this:
"1. (GAL) was appointed as Guardian ad Litem for (the child) on November29, 2010.
2. Pursuant to the Order on November 19, 2010 Hearing, "the court expects the substitute GAL to address a plan for a period of reintroduction of (the child) to Ms. Doherty.
2. Pursuant to the Order on November 19, 2010 Hearing, "the court expects the substitute GAL to address a plan for a period of reintroduction of (the child) to Ms. Doherty.
3. The GAL's "Reunification Plan" included in the Summary Report of the Guardian ad Litem was adopted in full, and incorporated as a further order of the court on May 27, 2011.
4. The GAL has observed that (the child) response to this reunification plan has been extremely positive.
5. Jamie Doherty has been fully compliant with all phases of the reunification plan to date.
6. The GAL has maintained a professional contact with (the child's) therapist, Mary Crossdale by telephone and written communication. The GAL attended and observed the first family session with (the child) and her mother on June 7, 2011.
7. The GAL had a lengthy phone conversation with Mary Crossdale on June 10, 2011. Mary Crossdale stated that she was very pleased with the family session, and that both (the child) and Jamie were "beaming." The GAL asked Ms. Crossdale if she had seen any "red flags" with regard to Jamie Doherty during the session. Ms. Crossdale replied that she had not seen any red flags about Ms. Doherty during the session.
8. The GAL received a very disturbing email from Elwood McLlarky's email account that was signed "Elwood B. McLlarky" and dated June 9, 2011. (see Exhibit A)
9. This email contains numerous false statements.
10. This email contains personal and professional attacks against the GAL that are completely without merit.
11. The GAL has advised Elwood and Maggie McLlarky repeatedly to attend therapy to help them adjust emotionally to the Court Ordered reunification plan.
12. The GAL confirmed with staff at Northern Human Services that Elwood McLlarky last attended a therapy session on September 20, 2010 with Vicki Harlow. Northern Human Services staff reported that Elwood McLlarky was discharged from services on February 3, 2010. According to their records, Elwood McLlarky has not attended therapy since he was discharged on February 3, 2011.
14. The GAL is of the opinion that the content of the recent email to the GAL strongly suggests that Elwood McLlarky is struggling with the Court Ordered reunification plan, and is inappropriately taking his frustrations out on the GAL, rather than processing his feelings in therapy.
14. The GAL is of the opinion that the content of the recent email to the GAL strongly suggests that Elwood McLlarky is struggling with the Court Ordered reunification plan, and is inappropriately taking his frustrations out on the GAL, rather than processing his feelings in therapy.
15. The GAL has concerns that, if Elwood McLlarky does not process his feelings about the Court Ordered reunification plan in therapy, Mr. McLlarky may be at risk of displaying negative behaviors in the home while (the child) is present.
WHEREFORE, the Guardian ad litem respectfully moves the Honorable Court to:
A. Grant the GAL'S Motion for Expedited Hearing.
B. Schedule a one hour expedited Hearing in this matter as soon as the docket permits to address the GAL's concerns regarding Elwood McLlarky's lack of attendance at therapy since 2010, in light of the email to the GAL dated June 9, 2011."
Judge Albee held a hearing on this motion, and made no ruling on all that was said, by the second GAL of her choice. This became Judge Albee's pattern in this case. Many Motions ignored with no rulings on pleadings for a child's life and safety. Judge Albee has dismissed any and all evidence that disputes her decisions, or proved her wrong doings in this case. Including every non professional, and every licensed professional. Judge Albee's final ruling in this case will end like all NH Family Court rulings, ashes to ashes, dust to to dust, is all the respect NH's Justices will ever give to a child's life.
CASE HISTORY
PURSUANT TO PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2ND GUARDIAN AD LITEM
"Pursuant to the order on Ex Parte Motion dated September 24, 2007 Elwood McLlarky was granted temporary sole decision-making and residential responsibilities for (the child). The court further ordered that Mr. McLlarky could allow Jamie Doherty to have parenting time with (the child) as [he agreed], as long as her parenting time did not interfere with (the child's) day school program."
"On October 16, 2007 Tina Craig was appointed as Guardian Ad Litem for (the child)."
"On November, 2007 Elwood McLlarky submitted an Ex Parte Motion in which he [alleged] that Jamie Doherty had posted nude pics of (the child) making inappropriate poses online on her My space web site." He did not have this alleged evidence that he only spoke of, to submit to the courts. Once again NH courts only rules on hearsay and no evidence!
"On October 16, 2007 Tina Craig was appointed as Guardian Ad Litem for (the child)."
"On November, 2007 Elwood McLlarky submitted an Ex Parte Motion in which he [alleged] that Jamie Doherty had posted nude pics of (the child) making inappropriate poses online on her My space web site." He did not have this alleged evidence that he only spoke of, to submit to the courts. Once again NH courts only rules on hearsay and no evidence!
"Pursuant to the Order on Ex Parte Motion dated November 26, 2007 ...Jamie Doherty was (Now) ordered to (possibly self incriminate herself) provide GAL (Tina Craig) and both parties attorneys the opportunity to see the images posted on her web site, and ultimately, removed the images from her MySpace page. Jamie Doherty's parenting time was to be supervised, with two visits to be held between November 26, 2007 and the date of the hearing on the ex parte scheduled December 6, 2007" Remember Part 1? All pictures were cleared of any wrong doing by both law enforcement and child advocacy groups, and Mr. McLlarky was even warned about the consequences for filing false statements, to any private or government agencies, for the sole purpose of his custody battle.
"Hearing on the ex parte motion was held on December 6, 2007."
"Pursuant to the Ex Parte Order dated December 10,2007 Jamie Doherty's parenting time would continued to be supervised, (Now) pending her completion of the Child Impact Seminar and enrollment in parenting classes...Ms. Doherty was also granted parenting time with (the child) on Christmas Day from 10:00am to 6:00pm., provided the maternal grandmother was present to supervise the visit...Jamie Doherty also was ordered to enroll in counseling. Finally, Tina Craig was granted the authority to terminate the order for supervised visits once Ms. Doherty completed the Child Impact Seminar and enrolled in a parenting class, as long as she determined that (the child) was not at risk of being exposed to discussion of the issues between her parents." The court implies on record another false statement, that Ms. Doherty was talking about the father with the child. The court never documented any evidence that this issue even existed.
NH's Judge Albee chose to risk and expose an innocent child to the evidence in part 2 before ever willing to admit she actually was wrong. What is most apparent, is her evident decision to ignore all signs, and to continue to subject a innocent child to irreparable harm. Even more interesting is the following comment noted by the court themselves, noted by the 2nd GAL, proving that NH Courts, will apparently even ignore their own findings!
"According to the Status Conference Order dated January 29, 2008...The Court noted its concern that "Mr. McLlarky's hyper vigilance regarding Ms Doherty's actions may be interfering with his ability to foster a quality relationship between (the child) and her mother. As a result, Elwood McLlarky was ordered to "engage in counseling which will assist him in being able to co-parent with Ms. Doherty and to value her role in (the child's) life." The very same counseling that Judge Albee later told Ms Doherty, that Mr. McLlarky substantiated a "good reason" for now deciding when to stop therapy on his own. But when asked to refresh Ms. Doherty's memory as to what that "good reason" was? Judge Albee's only response is, and I quote, "I DON'T KNOW!!!" This is what Article 73a has done for NH! Are these truly the hands you would want deciding your own child's life?
"According to the Further Status Conference Order dated February 27, 2008 Jamie Doherty's Attorney reported that his client had "completed the Child Impact Seminar", attended "First Appearance via video", enrolled in counseling which will likely have a medical component", "enrolled in a parenting education class", and was meeting with Christine Dias for therapeutic parenting supervision." No matter how many tasks that Ms. Doherty completes, that is requested by this court, it will never be good enough! "So shall suffer the little children" is a saying, not a law NH!
ASHES TO ASHES, DUST TO DUST IS WHAT NH IS WILLING TO DO TO OUR CHILDREN!!!
NEED I SAY MORE?
APPARENTLY YES!
