Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

There is a NEW POLL at Right--------------------->

Don't forget to VOTE!
Make your voice heard!

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

Welcome to the NEW Atkinson Reporter! Under new management, with new resolve.

The purpose of this Blog is to pick up where the Atkinson Reporter has left off. "The King is dead, Long live the King!" This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events. You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. The conversation begun on the Atkinson Reporter MUST be continued!

This Blog will not fall to outside hacks from anyone, especially insecure public officials afraid of their constituents criticism.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Really NH????

Bride, 13, was divorced in 4 months


Four months after a judge gave permission for a 17-year-old Newmarket boy to marry his 13-year-old pregnant girlfriend, the girl was back in court - seeking a divorce.

The teens had told the court their religious beliefs compelled them to marry after they found out she was pregnant.

"We are 6-months pregnant, and it is important to us that the baby is born to a set of married parents, as we have been taught by our Southern Baptist church home," they wrote in a marriage petition filed on April 11, 2013, in Dover.

"We know we are young, but with the support of our parents and the congregation, we are committed to bringing our son into a loving and healthy environment."

A state law dating back to 1907 allows girls as young as 13 and boys as young as 14 to marry, with permission of a parent or guardian and approval by the family court.

That remains the law of the land after the House on Thursday effectively killed a bill that would have raised the minimum age for marriage to 18 and eliminated the court review process.

According to state vital records, courts have allowed 810 minors to marry here since 1989. The 13-year-old bride in 2013 is the youngest person granted permission during that period.

A judge from the 7th Circuit Court family division agreed to allow the marriage after a 30-minute hearing on April 24, 2013, in Dover, where the teens appeared with both of their mothers.

In her May 8, 2013, order, Justice Susan Ashley clearly had misgivings. "The initial thought of a 13-year-old getting married weighs heavily against granting this marriage petition," she wrote. "Nevertheless, this very idea is clearly contemplated, and allowable, by the ... statutes."

Ashley noted that the family court only sees the unsuccessful marriages. "To be frank, this court could imagine protecting (the teenagers) from the emotional havoc from 'marrying too young.' Yet, the court also knows all too well that such havoc may ensue whether or not (they) marry each other," she wrote.

Ashley said "trying to protect and guide these two young people is simply not the job of this court; it is the job of their parents."

All four parents had given permission for the teens to marry, she noted, and she cited their "desire to act in accordance with the tenets of their religious instruction" for her decision.

At the hearing, the couple "spoke of their Christian beliefs, which prompt them to take responsibility for their actions and do what is best for their child," the judge wrote. "They believe that their child should be born to married parents, as a symbol of their commitment to each other and their child."

The couple's baby boy was born on Aug. 3, 2013, according to court documents.

On Sept. 20, the girl, who had turned 14, filed a petition for divorce, citing "infidelity and domestic abuse" as the cause. The following January, she filed a motion to amend the petition, changing the cause to "irreconcible differences" (sic).

The divorce was granted on Jan. 9, 2014.

Efforts to reach the teenagers and their parents last week were unsuccessful.

Judge Edwin Kelly, administrative judge of the circuit court, said the judge's order in the 2013 case makes it clear she was concerned about the girl's young age.

But, he said, "it's pretty hard to say no when you've got a statute staring you in the face saying yes.

"Despite the fact it is 100 years old, it wasn't changed on the date that this case was heard. A statute in most cases will create a presumption that it's OK."

Rep. Jacalyn Cilley, D-Barrington, was the prime sponsor of House Bill 499, which would have raised the legal age of marriage to 18. She said the House vote to "indefinitely postpone" the bill last week was "devastatingly disappointing."

Her original bill would have raised the marriage age to 18, but allowed teens aged 16 or 17 to petition for court approval. The House Children and Family Law Committee amended it to remove the judicial review, and voted 11-0 to recommend it "ought to pass."

On Thursday, however, five members of that committee, including its chairman, Kimberly Rice, R-Hudson, and vice chairman, Daniel Itse, R-Fremont, voted to indefinitely postpone the bill.

Opponents argued that such a law would prevent young service members from marrying their teenage sweethearts before deployment, depriving them of family benefits.

The motion to postpone passed 179-168.

Watching from the House gallery on Thursday was Cassandra Levesque, a 17-year-old senior at Dover High School.

She began researching the effects of child marriage two years ago as part of her work on advocacy for her Gold Award, the highest award in Girl Scouting. It was Levesque who approached Cilley about sponsoring the legislation; she also testified before the committee.

After the House limited debate on the bill and then voted to kill it, Levesque said, she was "a little bit discouraged."

"But then I took a breather and said, I'm not going to give up. I'm going to keep fighting for this bill and this cause," she said.

Levesque said the argument that it would harm military members isn't accurate. "I'm from a military family," she said. "Getting married, when you're in the military, that young is not a good start."

Changing the marriage age is a policy matter that is up to the Legislature, Judge Kelly said, noting the current law "is pretty wide open."

But here's his perspective: "On the one hand, if you were to ask people what's the youngest age at which someone should get married, I doubt they would say 13 and 14."

However, he said, "I do think whatever system we have ought to maintain flexibility for special circumstances and put someone who is neutral in the middle to make that determination, which is the role of the court."

Cilley said she won't give up on changing the law, but the House vote to indefinitely postpone means it cannot take up similar legislation for two years.

"That drove a stake through the heart of this bill," she said.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

BRENTWOOD — A former Atkinson town official is considering appealing her conviction a second time after a Superior Court jury found her guilty of repeatedly lying to police by falsely accusing her neighbors of threatening behavior.

Joyce Lafrance, 61, of Granite Ridge Road was convicted of four counts of making false reports to law enforcement following a District Court trial in October. She appealed her conviction at the superior court level, and following a two-day trial in early February, was convicted of the crimes again.

"We're considering all our options," said Lafrance's attorney, Rick Lehmann. "I anticipate an appeal."


"The whole situation has been very difficult and serious for her. ... She maintains her innocence," Lehmann said.

According to court documents, Lafrance — who served on the Atkinson Conflict of Interest Committee for several years before she resigned in March 2014 — called police on several occasions in November 2014 to allege that her neighbor was making loud noises and threatening her. On at least one occasion she told police he had fired a gun and "yelled out her name."

Atkinson police charged a neighbor with disorderly conduct as a result of Lafrance's complaints twice. Lehmann said his client has a restraining order against that man.

After receiving constant complaints, the Police Department investigated by having an officer monitor the alleged noisemaker's home overnight. The officer testified she heard no noise coming from the home.

Lafrance has already begun the appeals process with her lawyer. On Feb. 14, Lehmann filed three motions, asking the court to set aside the guilty verdict, order a new trial, and allow for post-trial discovery so Lafrance could subpoena three police officers to testify.

Each motion was denied by Judge Andrew Schulman on Feb. 27.

Lafrance sought first to secure a new trial by alleging that Chief Al Brackett of the Atkinson Police Department had committed perjury in his testimony when he said Lafrance called the department "every day" and complained about "all" of Atkinson's officers.

The state argued that such concerns should have been remedied during cross examination at trial.

"If the defendant thought that the chief's statements were inaccurate, he (Lafrance's attorney) had the opportunity to cross examine Chief Brackett and did so quite vigorously," wrote Assistant County Attorney Melissa Fales. "Here, the defendant never objected to the chief's testimony, did not move to strike the chief's testimony and never even cross examined the chief regarding what he not contends is false testimony."


Schulman agreed Brackett did not commit perjury and denied the motion.

He also denied Lafrance's motion to have the verdict set aside because, as she said, "the jury's verdict in this case was contrary to the weight of the evidence." As an example, Lafrance noted that one of the prosecution's witnesses could not remember if he was 6 feet tall or 6 feet and 3 inches, casting doubt on his reliability.

Lafrance also sought post-trial discovery because she subpoenaed three police officers to the trial, but they did not receive the subpoenas before the trial ended.

The state and Schulman disregarded this because the subpoenas were delivered to the sheriff just one day before the trial began. The addresses listed on the paperwork were those of the stations where the officers worked, and the three were not working when the deputy sheriff attempted to deliver the subpoenas.

"The defendant should have attempted service prior to jury selection, when the trial was scheduled to begin the next day, and last only a few days," Schulman wrote.

Fales, the prosecutor, said she was "happy with the results" of the second trial.

"False reports, we take them seriously because they take police and first responder resources away from ... people who are actually in need of services," Fales said

Anonymous said...

if only they actually were false, alas they were not. The lies were on the part of the police, and the alleged victim. Typical whiny little boy.

Anonymous said...

No one gets services in Atkinson unless they give services.

Anonymous said...

Hey be like a tree and leave

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't the state first file statutory rape charges against the boy? Conflicting laws and they're not enforced.

Anonymous said...

OK Churchlady, crazy fireworks dude, crazy cat lady,
and all the rest of you haters...

VOTE TOmorrow...
Imagine, yours will count too, ( except Churchlady, your vote only counts as half...its been determined)


Anonymous said...

Done .... Over. The peeps have spoken



Craig..... ALways the bridesmaid.... Keep trying big guy...

Amy, good try girl, sit back, grab some popcorn, and get
ready to watch the fireworks

I'm feeling the good Dr. Is dusting off his resume about now,
we just placed a boil on his butt...