Arizona's Determination of false premises of the UIFSA action

SHANELARIS & SCHIRCH, PLLC

March 9, 2015 

The Honorable Maggie Hassan Governor of the State of NH 

State House 

107North Main Street. Concord, NH 03301 

The Honorable Kelly Ayotte 

United States Senator 

144 Main Street 

Nashua, NH 03060 

Megan Yaple, Esq. 

Assistant Attorney General 

NH Attorney General's Office 

NH Department of Justice 

33 Capitol Street 

Concord, NH 03301

Dear Governor Hassan, Senator Ayotte and Attorney Yaple: 

I am writing to implore your assistance regarding an interstate child support matter. I am a family law attorney from Nashuaand former chief staff attorney for the New Hampshire Division of Child Support Services. I have worked with my client, Jeffrey Strobel since 2008[1]

Mr. Strobel is the custodial parent of his son, Connor Strobel. Connor Strobel is now 23 years old. Jeffrey Strobel has been in court in both the states of New Hampshire and Arizona on a multitude of occasions to attempt to enforce a child support obligation against his former spouse, Gail Rosier. Ms. Rosier currently resides in the State of Arizona. Mr. Strobel has spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees from hiring counsel in New  Hampshire and Arizona to enforce Ms. Rosier's obligation of child support and to date, he has received only approximately $1600.00 from Ms. Rosier after one enforcement hearing held in Arizona in January 2014. Ms. Rosier owes a child support obligation of over $202,500.00. After the enforcement hearing was held in Arizona, Ms. Rosier has hired New Hampshire counsel and Arizona counsel to fight against her obligation. She has filed actions in the 9th Circuit Court-Family Division in Nashua, the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the United States District Court in Arizona, all in an attempt to avoid any payment on her child support obligation. 

The parties were divorced by Decree of Divorce issued on May 24, 1996 in the Dominican Republic. The Decree of Divorce contained no substantive orders for child support or parenting. In May 2006 Ms. Rosier filed a Petition to Register the Foreign Decree and to Establish a Parenting Plan in New Hampshire. She acknowledged that the Decree of Divorce contained no orders for parenting and wanted the New Hampshire Court to establish a parenting plan to allow Connor to travel to Arizona to spend parenting time with her. 

In July 2006, Ms. Rosier and her attorney submit proposed orders to the Court, including a proposed Uniform Support Order ("USO") for child support.[iv] Ms. Rosier's proposed USO provided for a downward deviation from the child support guidelines and that "Child Support is waived in lieu of college contribution." Ms. Rosier made this agreement and submitted her proposed order all while being represented by counsel. She promised the offer of proceeds from her interest in some real estate to pay for Connor's college. In 2006 Connor was 15 years old. The divorce occurred in 1996. Ms. Rosier has never essentially paid child support nor any kind of financial support for Connor's benefit. 

In July 2006, Mr. Strobel filed a response in the Court and requested that child support be addressed by the Court. Ms. Rosier knew since 2006, that Mr. Strobel was requesting that Ms. Rosier pay support by demonstrating that she had been saving to pay for Connor's college costs as she proposed and agreed to. Ms. Rosier had not paid any child support but told Mr. Strobel that she had been savings funds plus interest for Connor's college. In response, the parties discussed that Ms. Rosier should pay her weekly child support obligation into a fund set up for paying for college instead of paying Mr. Strobel directly. Mr. Strobel was asking the court that Ms. Rosier provide proof that she was saving for college. 

The Arizona Attorney General's Office attempts to argue that the most current child support is unenforceable because the Court did not make an underlying child support order. This argument is misguided. What the Arizona Attorney General does not realize is that when Ms. Rosier failed to demonstrate that she had been saving for Connor's college, Mr. Strobel requested that the Court issue an order on the child support arrears that Ms. Rosier owed over all these years after she failed to provide any proof that she was saving for Connor's college expenses. In March 2009, the Court issued an order acknowledging that when the Petition to Register the Foreign Decree was filed by Ms. Rosier in 2006, neither party requested support, however "at a hearing before this Court in 2006, Ms. Rosier submitted a proposed Uniform Support Order which states the following: By agreement of the parties, child support is waived in lieu of college contribution." The New Hampshire Court found that Mr. Strobel relied on the parties "agreement" and has not received any child support from Ms. Rosier since February of 1997. 

Ms. Rosier never complied with any orders· of our Courts. In July 2009, Mr. Strobel filed Cause hearing to enforce the March 2009 Court Order. He requested that a capias issue and asked to have the State of Arizona enforce the child  support order against .Ms. Rosier. There is some procedural history to the case, but in summary,  Ms. Rosier never appeared for any hearings in New Hampshire and never challenged the orders.  A capias for her arrest was issued in the amount of $25,000.00 and the Court also issued a  Uniform Support Order ordering Ms. Rosier to pay child support arrearages in the amount of  $202,500. This figure was determined by calculating what Ms. Rosier would have paid in child support since February 1997 plus accrued statutory interest on the arrearages through June 2010 (Connor's graduation date from high school). The USO was payable through the New Hampshire Division of Child Support Services. In June 2010, the Court issued another USO affirming the child support arrearages. 

Ms. Rosier could have filed Motions for Reconsideration regarding any of the Court orders from 2006 to 2010. She did nothing. No motions to reconsider were filed, no appeals were ever initiated or filed. She had every opportunity to reconsider or attempt to vacate the orders. It has been nearly five years since the last orders were issued ordering Ms. Rosier to pay her child support arrearage. Mr. Strobel has spent years attempting to enforce the order, spent legal fees, tried to file as a creditor in probate court in Arizona to get his son's child support arrearages paid. He has worked with the child support agencies in New Hampshire and Arizona to enforce the orders -all without success. Ms. Rosier has done everything in her power to avoid paying her child support obligation. She in fact took proactive steps to avoid her obligation. At one point, in May 2011, her wages were garnished for the payment of child support. She attempted to avoid the garnishment by setting up an LLC to avoid future child support payments. She obtained an American Express credit card in Connor's name, without Connor's or Mr. Strobel's knowledge and ran up $46,000.00 worth of charges. She has caused Mr. Strobel and Connor a great deal of emotion and financial distress. 

The crux of this matter began in January 2014 when the state of Arizona was attempting to enforce the New   Hampshire child support order against Ms. Rosier. In March 2014 Ms. Rosier filed a Petition in the 9th Circuit Court-Family Division in Nashua to vacate her child support obligation issued by the court in June 2010. All enforcement in the Arizona courts ceased after Ms. Rosier filed her Petition to vacate her child support here in New Hampshire. The enforcement proceedings against Ms. Rosier to require her to pay her child support obligation were place on hold in the Arizona courts pending a ruling by the New Hampshire Court as to whether the child support obligation against Ms. Rosier was an enforceable child support order. Please see attached copy of the Arizona order vacating an enforcement hearing pending a ruling in New Hampshire on the enforceability of the child support order dated April 21, 2014. 

After multiple hearings in this matter in 2014 in New Hampshire, the 9th Circuit Court­ Family Division in Nashua issued an order in 2014 in Ms. Rosier's Petition to vacate the child support order and affirming that the June 2010 Uniform Support Order finding that the June 2010 Court Order is an enforceable child support arrearage. The USO does not include any statutory interest from June 2010 to present. Please see attached Order. Ms. Rosier filed a Motion to Reconsider, a New Hampshire Supreme Court appeal and a civil suit in the United States District Court all in an attempt to negate the order affirming the arrearages. All her attempts were denied and dismissed. The June 2010 order remains in full force and effect. 

When the New Hampshire Division of Child Support Services requested enforcement services through the State of Arizona, the Arizona Attorney General is denying any request to enforce the child support order. Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, RSA Chapter 546-B, the Arizona Attorney General cannot modify any existing court order issued by the issuing state of New Hampshire. New Hampshire has the controlling order in this matter. Arizona cannot choose to be judgmental about the arrearage figure or how it came to be, its only, job is to enforce the child support order for arrears against Ms. Rosier. The Arizona Attorney General's Office flatly refuses to enforce the order, violating the terms of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA") and the requests of the NH Division of Child Support Services to enforce the order. Pursuant to the terms of UIFSA, the state of Arizona has no authority to modify the existing child support order, only to enforce its terms. Despite the fact that our courts has issued an order that the child support arrearages are enforceable, the Arizona Attorney General's Office refuses to enforce the order. I spoke with Attorney Janet Sell the Unit Chief Counsel of the Child Support Enforcement Section of the Arizona Office of the Attorney General in May 2014 who absolutely refused to allow any enforcement to proceed in Arizona. I have worked for many months with another assistant attorney general in Arizona

who ultimately was told by the Unit Chief that Arizona would not take any further action. I received the enclosed February 24, 2015 letter from Attorney Paula J. Cotitta, another Unit Chief at the Arizona Attorney General's office that Arizona will not enforce the order because of their interpretation of the order. Arizona is violating UIFSA by interpreting the order and failing to enforce it. 

Melissa Penson-Mesa, staff attorney at the New Hampshire Division of Child Support I Services had done everything she can to assist Mr. Strobel in working with the Arizona Attorney General's Office, including contacted the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to enlist their help, all with no avail. This is a terrible, tragic situation of a father who has raised his son without any financial or emotional support from the non-custodial parent. There is a massive amount of child support owed to Mr. Strobel by Ms. Rosier. Mr. Strobel is respectfully requesting your assistance to speak with the Arizona Attorney General's Office to allow the  enforcement proceedings to continue in the state of Arizona. All his state remedies have been exhausted here in New Hampshire and is grateful for any assistance you can provide to help. 

Thank you for your efforts with this matter. 

Respectfully, 

Catherine E. Shanelaris, Esq. 

enclosures 

cc: The Honorable Doug Ducey 

Governor of the State of Arizona 

State Capitol 1700 West Washington   Street 

Phoenix, AZ 85007 

Commissioner Vicki Turetsky Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W. Washington,  D.C. 20447 

Kevin Landry, Esq. 

Chief Staff Attorney 

NH Division of Child Support Services 

129 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 

Melissa Penson-Mesa, Esq. 

Staff Attorney 

NH Division of Child Support Services 

129 Pleasant Street Concord,NH 03301 

Paula J. Cotitta, Esq. 

Unit Chief Counsel East Valley Regional Office Office of the Attorney General Child Support Services Section 

PO Box 2390, Site Code 029C-4 

Gilbert, AZ 8.5299-2390 

Janet W. Sells, Esq. 

Unit Chief Counsel East Valley Regional Office 

Office of the Attorney General Child Support Services Section 

PO Box 2390, Site Code 029C-4 

Gilbert, AZ 85299-2390 

[1]  False: Her "Limited Entry of Appearance was dated and filed December 27th, 2009. All of Strobel's previous appearances we representing himself.

[ii] 

[iii]

[iv] This USO was deemed to be a "no child support" cause of action, recognized by the court to only be for Rosier's reinforcement of visitation rights.