This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Speak up Guest - Dorothy "Dot" Knightly Reveals Devestation in the N.H. Family Court

The Redress Committee believed this matter should be thoroughly investigated with a view to revisiting the decision to returning the child to the custody of relatives or its actual mother.

On August 31st, 2005, Dot Knightly s daughter delivered a healthy baby girl at Southern NH Medical Center in Nashua. Dot’s daughter had been enrolled in a pregnant women's methadone program, which she entered the day she found out she was pregnant. Both Dot and her daughter were unaware her pregnancy was considered high risk at the time. They were told nothing about any of all the complications she suffered from during her pregnancy, including Placenta-Previa. Candy, dots Daughter  was given a Morphine IV for 19 hrs. In labor, as the baby should have been delivered by C-Section, but wasn't.

Hospital paperwork, dated 9/1/05 and signed off by 3 Nurses and the SW, state the baby met ALL criteria for discharge on 9/2/05. After speaking with the Methadone Program Director on the evening of 9/1/05, the SW had the baby moved to NICU after she was told the baby was withdrawing.

On 9/2/05, the Social Worker called DYCF and told them the baby had illegal drugs in her, even though toxicology test results weren't even back yet. The results came back on 9/6/05, which showed morphine in the baby. Morphine given labor spill's into the unborn child. The Methadone Director told DCYF and the Court that the Morphine in the baby was Heroin and that no Methadone was found in the baby. The baby was never tested for Methadone. On 9/26/05 a Preliminary hearing took place where DCYF was awarded custody. Relative placement was denied, due to the DCYF Lawyer relaying an already proven false report to Judge James Leary. They stated the Mother abused and neglected her daughter, yet left her in her Mother's care for another week while in the Hospital. DCYF took the baby from the Hospital on 10/3/05 and placed her in a Foster home. The Assessment worker testified she had no clue morphine was given in labor, nor of any of the complications my daughter suffered while pregnant. Even after finding out, she still went ahead with the charges. Dot’s daughter was charged with "anticipated" Neglect in the Future.

Find out what's happening in Martha's Vineyardwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

When Dot’s daughter first met with the Assessment worker, she was told to stay in the methadone Program. On 9/26/05, my daughter was Court-ordered out of Methadone treatment and ordered to go into a Medical Detox program to get off the Methadone in order to regain custody of her daughter, but there was no Medical detox in NH and her caseworker denied her going to another State. Dot’s daughter was given thirteen day's to detox herself off 86 mg.s of Methadone, an unfeasible feat for anyone, but somehow she did it and yet was still denied her daughter. The caseworker told the Court that Candy, Dot’s daughter was not being drug tested, the doses of Methadone wasn’t going down, nor were the levels going down. The question is, if she wasn’t being drug tested, how would the CPSW know the doses and levels weren't going down?

I have recently come across a SAMSHA booklet, entitledKnow Your Rights-Rights for Individuals on Methadone Assisted Treatment. 

Find out what's happening in Martha's Vineyardwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

This booklet is put out by the Federal Govt., which states this question:

 Child Welfare System.

May judges, prosecuting attorneys, and others in the child welfare system require parents to end their participation in MAT in order to get their children back or to keep their children?

Answer:

No. Courts and other government agencies may not single out people in MAT and require them to stop taking legally prescribed medications. Such a requirement would be no different than telling an insulin-dependent, diabetic parent that she may not have her children back unless she stops taking insulin and addresses her diabetes through nutrition and exercise alone. Courts may, however, require people in MAT to comply with treatment requirements.

 

So why was this law not followed in Dot’s daughter's case? She has spoken to many Doctors and Nurses who have all told her it was illegal and discriminatory to court order her out of treatment. Can we conclude that DCYF never had any intentions on returning her daughter?

 

Dot Knightley’s daughter's rights were terminated after Judge Cloutier wrote the opposite of testimony and proof in his decision. Dot’s granddaughter was illegally adopted by the Foster stranger's. Her father's rights were never terminated. The rights of a fictitious man were instead. Judge Patten denied ever receiving an affidavit from my daughter giving her child's father's name, even though the affidavit could be found in an objection brief filed by Atty. Rebecca Woodard. Isabella's father filed for paternity testing and custody twice and was denied.

In 2011 Dot and her daughter  testified in front of the NH Redress Grievance Committee and supplied all proof of wrongdoing by both DCYF and the Family Court system.Her petition was FOUNDED 9-3 in 2012 and therecommendations included:

The Committee believes this matter should be thoroughly investigated with a view to revisiting the decision to returning the child to the custody of relatives or its actual mother. 

They are still fighting for their Granddaughter's return!

Watch Dot's Compelling Interview Here on Speak Up TV

 

Speak up is Sponsored by: Center For Redress Of Grievances LLC.
and friends who support the Center for Redress Of Grievances.
If you would like to  Sponsor Speak up Or the Center for Redress contact us at Centerforredress@gmail.com


We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Martha's Vineyard