March 11, 2009 Hearing-- Strobel's "Motion for Clarificati

---

In  New Hampshire, state law explicitly exempts college education expenses  from being part of a court-ordered child support obligation. Under  RSA 461-A:14(V), a court cannot order a parent to contribute to an  adult child's college costs or other post-secondary educational expenses  beyond high school .  The 2009 New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in  In Re Goulart established that courts could not require parents to pay for an adult  child's college expenses, even if the parents had previously agreed to  it in a divorce stipulation. The decision interpreted New Hampshire  statute RSA 461-A:14(V), which at the time prohibited courts from making  such an order.  The decision was published only a few weeks prior to the the Court's written order, and M/M Forrest was likely unaware of the recent ruling that in actuality  deprived the court of jurisdiction.    

Gail's  acknowledgment in the notation in the Financial Affidavit Box 19  of the No-Support USO, is legally irrelevant, and not a sustainable admission to the civil contract application of college funds in exchange for child support, as agreements usually have other performance requirements that any civil court would want to first examine and consider. The  original arrangement indemnifying her against any future child support was not an either/or option available to the court as a default back-up, and her shorthand acknowledgment alluding to such arrangement, did not disclose the actual quid-pro-quo terms some nine years earlier-- her withdraw of  her impending litigation against Strobel for  sole custody.  

See the Strobel's actual proposal here.

The court asked Strobel if the agreement had previously entered  to the court.  He equivocated, and then lied that it had.  It was not 

Furthermore, his memory of the arrangement had conveniently changed. Here is is proposal verbatim:    

Second, I have been trying to better understand your comments about paying child support, taxes and the possibility of custody changes and in doing so always trying to keep Connor's best interest my top priority. I do not see anyone winning in a custody battle. The thousands of dollars (probably between $10-$20,000 for each of us) Spent on legal fees, would be a greater benefit to Connor if they were invested for his education instead. He would sense the tension and pressure and I fear the happy, loving child we know would become moody and sad and cause long-term emotional problems he neither needs nor deserves. If I accurately heard and read your comments about child support, you feel it is not equitable that I get to deduct Connor while you get no tax relief even though you are paying child support. 

Second, I have been trying to better understand your comments about paying child support, taxes and the possibility of custody changes and in doing so always trying to keep Connor's best interest my top priority. I do not see anyone winning in a custody battle. The thousands of dollars (probably between $10-$20,000 for each of us) spent on legal fees.

I would like to propose the following that we keep the current custody arrangement and that you no longer are obliged to pay child support. 

First and foremost we do not disrupt Connor's routine and development. While we would both love to be able to spend more time with him, his needs need to come before ours. As for the child support, this more than solves the tax issue you raised. It also gives you total discretion to the use of the funds you had been paying in child support, whether it's to invest for Connor or to meet another need depending on the situation. 

Please let me know what you think. If this proposal is acceptable to you I can draft up an agreement and we can proceed. 

As the 3-16-09 Order was void ab initio due to the application of the Supreme Court's determination  Goulart determination on RSA 461-A:14(V), it was also a void order in another way: 

In  New Hampshire, the impossibility of complying with an order is a  recognized defense, particularly in the context of contempt of court and  criminal law.  The validity of the  defense depends on whether the impossibility is genuine and unavoidable  versus a deliberate creation by the individual.   Ability to comply: Courts in New Hampshire, following precedents from federal courts, have  consistently held that a person cannot be incarcerated for failing to  comply with an order if they do not have the present ability to comply.  While both Strobel and Shanelaris had asserted in different venues, Strobel in his malicious letter to the Arizona judge, and Shanelaris  using her knowledge that Gail sold the property and took the money,  the reality was that the property was sold the prior year by the trustee of the trust that owned and controlled the property.  However the both pursued a malicious putative contempt charge against Rosier full well knowing that the property had been sold, and she had no control over the funds, and Shanelaris even secured a $25,000 arrest capias against Rosier with the knowledge that the property was sold, and that the funds were in legal limbo.

Catherine Shanelaris has