On 2021 Nov 15, Richard Lorman shot his girlfriend, Lindsay Smith, in the head then later shot and killed himself. Weeks before, Smith was denied a permanent restraining order which has led to the NH court system to review their policies and relevant laws.

The problems that led up to this tragic event have existed for years. The review is important, it is being done with a lot of public exposure and involvement.

This page was written to record my written testimony for a public hearing and to record other important references.

Background

• 2021 Sep 21
  A Concord Monitor timeline reports Smith was granted a temporary restraining order by Judge Polly L. Hall.
• 2021 Oct 20
  A permanent order was denied by the judge. A check box item says “The Plaintiff has NOT been abused as defined in RSA 173-B.”
• 2021 Nov 15
  Lorman shot Smith as she left work in Salem MA. See this followup report from Boston's NBC affliate Suspect in Salem, Mass. Shooting Identified
• 2021 Nov 18
  Per the Concord Monitor above, "New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald called for an internal review of the case...". Also, the Judicial Branch announced it was forming a task force to make a broader review of domestic violence policies and laws.
• 2021 Nov 23
  The internal report is released and concludes that the denial of the permanent restraint was consistent with "all applicable laws and protocols." The report lists seven "charges" to be explored by the task force for "improvement, both to court processes and to the law regarding IPV more generally."
• 2022 Jan 22
  The Task Force on Domestic Violence Cases in the New Hampshire Judicial System held a public hearing this day to receive the views of any member of the public, the bench, or the bar as the Task Force considers what to recommend to the Supreme Court...". The task force meetings are recorded, the public hearing included.
• 2022 Mar 8
  The task force appointed by Chief Justice MacDonald issues, in a written statement its 60 page or so report, with recommendations. It highlights the lack of attorneys available to help DV victims, and suggests some changes to the laws. I watched the press conference, and at least one reporter held Justice Marconi's feet to the fire on the issue of judicial oversight. I will have much more to say about this in the months to come.

My written testimony, Comments of Paula Werme, Esq. (retired) on this Committee's Inquiry reflects a lot of what I have learned during my career and in my retirement. I hope the task force reads it.

It refers to other sources that are even longer but also worth reading:

• Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations
  This is from the George Washington Univ. Law School.
• A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases
  This is from the National Center for Juvenile Justice is the research division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The term "coercive" is mentioned 40 times in the document, and the term "coercive control" is mentioned 23 times. Clearly the organization has done their research concerning domestic abuse and child abuse.
• Structural Violence in the New Hampshire Family Court System: An Autoethnographic Exploration
  This is both a PhD thesis and autobiographical. I.e. Ann Moynihan lived this.

Still more resources:

• Domestic Violence Rebuttable Presumption: Case Law Update 2018-2020
  From the page:

  This document contains summaries of published state court decisions of interest related to a rebuttable presumption against awarding sole or joint custody to a parent who has engaged in domestic violence against the other parent. Such provisions have been adopted in some form in 28 states. While most of these summaries are brief, containing only the court's holding and any necessary background or procedural details, a few have been expanded based on their complexity, their uniqueness, or the importance of their holding.

• When courts accept what science rejects: Custody issues concerning the alleged “parental alienation syndrome”
  Unfortunately, the article is paywalled. The abstract:

  “Parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) is unscientific and is an affront to children, women who hold the custody of children of separated couples, science, human rights, and the justice system itself. Justice, to be just, should be based on scientifically proven theories and evidence. This article describes investigations carried out to show that two of the principles that underpin PAS are false: That children lie when pressed (alienated in the terminology of PAS), and that the principle that should guide judges' actions for the good of the child should be that for the child to always be in contact with both parents. The results of these investigations show that these two principles are false and advocates the use of truly scientific proceedings for judges to grant custody in case of dispute between parents, as well as for determining the visitation for the noncustodial parent.

Written 2022 Jan 24, last updated 2022 Mar 10.