STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT

SUPERIOR COURT Docket No. 226-2010-CV-00612

DENISE-MARIE MCINTOSH, Pro Se, et al., Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DIVISION FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES, et. al., Margaret A. Bishop, Tracy Roukey , Kris Geno, Tracey Gubbins, Matt Barrington, Thomas Bamberger, Alice Spelas Love, individually and in their official capacity, Ellen McCormick, CASA, individually and in her official capacity, Susan G. Vonderheide, PhD, individually and in her official capacity, William P. McIntosh individually and in his official capacity and HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY of the STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES, the Plaintiff, Denise-Marie McIntosh, Pro Se, and brings this complaint against and moves this court for judgment and restitution against each of the Defendants as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This complaint replaces the Plaintiffs original entry of 12/16/10 and arises out of the Defendant(s) purposeful, willful and/or wanton gross negligence, acting under the color of law with a conscious, malicious flagrant indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff under

civil rights, federal laws, state laws, and set policy, while acting in their individual and official capacities; resulting in a continuing and direct personal injury to the Plaintiff, Denise-Marie McIntosh, and the loss of caring for her son. The pecuniary loss is without comparison to the injuries suffered which are to such an extent that the pain and suffering is irreversible and cannot be adequately measured or compensated solely by money but must be concurrent with a prohibitory injunction to address the adverse conditions that developed under the NH RSA 169-C. The deficiencies through DCYF and the judicial sector in this case need to be addressed to ensure the health and welfare of other citizens, their families and childrens inherent rights to the truth of their heritage. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 2. Plaintiff, Denise-Marie McIntosh, is a natural person and citizen of the State of New Hampshire, residing at 35 Edmond Drive, Nashua, NH 03063; and at all times mentioned herein, was and is the natural mother of Simon M. 3. Upon information and belief that Margaret A. Bishop, is a natural person employed with DHHS as an Administrator III (hereinafter the Defendant Bishop), employed at; The Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter DHHS), 129 Pleasant Street, Concord, NH 03301. 4. Upon information and belief that Tracy Roukey, is a natural person employed with DHHS as a CPSW, Investigating Supervisor during these actions, now a CPSW, (hereinafter the Defendant Roukey), employed at; the DHHS Nashua District Office, 3 Pine Street Extension, Suite Q, Nashua, NH 03060.

Page 2 of 19

5.

Upon information and belief that Kris Geno is a natural person and an individual formerly employed with DHHS as the primary CPSW in this matter (hereinafter the Defendant Geno),with a principal place of business located at RTT Associates 2 Beacon Street, Concord, NH 03301 and/or 1045 Elm Street, Manchester, NH 03101.

6.

Upon information and belief that Tracey Gubbins is a natural person and an individual employed with DHHS as a CPSW Coordinator (hereinafter the Defendant Gubbins), employed at; the Nashua District Office, 3 Pine Street Extension, Suite Q, Nashua, NH 03102.

7.

Upon information and belief that Matt Barrington is a natural person and an individual employed with DHHS as a Reimbursement Specialist (hereinafter the Defendant Barrington), employed at; the Manchester District Office, 195 McGregor Street, Manchester, NH 03102.

8.

Upon information and belief that Thomas Bamberger is a natural person and an individual employed by the State of NH as a Judge (hereinafter the Defendant Bamberger), employed at; the Nashua District Court, 25 Walnut Street, Nashua, NH 03060.

9.

Upon information and belief that Alice Spelas Love is a natural person and an individual employed by the State of NH, as a Marital Master (hereinafter the Defendant Love), who, during times relevant to this Complaint was a Marital Master employed at; the Hillsborough County Superior Court South, 30 Spring Street Nashua, NH 03060.

10.

Upon information and belief that Ellen McCormick is a natural person and individual engaged as a volunteer CASA/GAL (hereinafter the Defendant McCormick), with CASA located at; 138 Coolidge Avenue, Manchester, NH 03102.

Page 3 of 19

11.

Upon information and belief that Susan G. Vonderheide, Ph.D., d/b/a Susan G. Vonderheide, Ph.D., private practice (hereinafter the Defendant Vonderheide), is a natural person and individual with a business located at; 3-B Taggart Drive, Nashua, NH 03060.

12.

Upon information and belief that William P. McIntosh (hereinafter the Defendant McIntosh), is a natural person and citizen of the State of New Hampshire, residing at; 20 Century Road, Nashua, NH 03064 and is a teacher in the Nashua School District; and at all times mentioned herein was and is the natural father of Simon M.

13.

The matters at issue in this case commenced and continue in the City of Nashua, County of Hillsborough South, State of New Hampshire, involving records in McIntosh and McIntosh (Docket No. 00-M-927) in Hillsborough County Superior Court and In re. Simon M. (Docket No. 05-JV-565) in Nashua District Court.

14.

That this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action pursuant to the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 491:7 (1993). The damages to the Plaintiff may amount to a sum in excess of the Courts maximum jurisdiction transferring it to NH RSA 491:7 a. (2008). STATEMENT OF THE CASE

15.

Brief History: this matter arose in the case of McIntosh and McIntosh docket # 00M-927, from the Plaintiffs and Defendant McIntoshs contentious divorce due to domestic violence in the marriage suffered by the Plaintiff. When relief was sought in Superior Court, the Defendant McIntosh admitted to attempted strangulation of the Plaintiff; Defendant Love dismissed it because the victim fought back. A subsequent temporary restraining order, issued by Defendant Bamberger on 6/24/02 came before

Page 4 of 19

Defendant Love and was dismissed when Defendant McIntosh claimed he was a school teacher and would lose his job. 16. The Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Children Youth and Families (herein DCYF or Division) became involved with this family under the following DHHS Assessment Referral Information report numbers, as provided to the Plaintiff on 12/23/10 by Defendant Gubbins: a) No. 125536, initiated 5/29/01, b) No. 207202, initiated 11/14/03 and c) No. 262134, initiated 6/23/05. The retention and disclosure of No. 125536 by the Division is a violation of NH RSA 169-C:35-a II, Record Destruction. 17. The DHHS report No. 125536 of 5/29/01was made by the Plaintiff due to Defendant McIntoshs repeated refusal to explain reoccurring bruises and injuries on the couples then 3-year-old child when returned from his care; the results were unfounded by DHHS. Based on information and belief, the investigation of this matter under Defendant Bishops department substantiates the individuals as being unqualified or incapable, as required by their jobs, of following established procedures and the law; instead acting in direct opposition to policy and procedures required under NH RSA 169C:34 Duties of DHHS and the Attorney Generals Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, Protocols on Child Abuse (est. 1989) (herein AGs Protocols). 18. Based in whole or in part on the results of the report and investigation referenced in 17 above, the Hillsborough County Superior Court granted joint legal custody to the parents, with physical custody and final decision making to the father despite a split week-to-week schedule with their child who attended school and received special

Page 5 of 19

education in the City of Nashua, NH school system, as ordered by Defendant Love on 2/26/02 and signed by Judge Hampsey 03/07/02. 19. On or about 11/14/03, the Defendant(s) McIntosh and Vonderheide began to campaign to discredit and slander the Plaintiff to numerous individuals, both public and private. 20. The DHHS report No. 207202 of 11/14/03 was returned unfounded; the disclosure of Reporter was not allowed. Based on information and belief, the Reporter was Defendant Vonderheide, and the investigation of this matter under Defendant Bishops department substantiates the individuals as being unqualified or incapable, as required by their jobs, of following established procedures and the law; instead acting in direct opposition to policy and procedures required under NH RSA 169-C:34-a, Multidisciplinary Child Protection Teams, NH RSA 169-C:38 V., NH RSA C:38-a, and the AGs Protocols (2008; predominantly pages 13, 15, 19-20, 26, 28, 35, and 42-43), all which state the interview of the victim must be videotaped or audio-taped. 21. Defendant McIntosh filed a motion in Hillsborough County Superior Court South on 11/3/04, heard by Defendant Love on 2/9/05. Based on information and belief, the statements and evidence presented against the Plaintiff by Defendant McIntosh are materially and knowingly false and are the same allegations that restricted the Plaintiff's visitation on 8/4/04. 22. The evidence presented by Defendant McIntosh on 2/9/05 was a letter from Defendant Vonderheide dated 10/27/04. Based on information and belief, the statements and evidence presented in the letter by Defendant Vonderheide are materially and knowingly false.

Page 6 of 19

23.

The court order by Defendant Love on 3/22/05 signed by Judge Hampsey Jr., was issued with malice and a clear abuse of discretion penalizing the Plaintiff, and specifically barred the Plaintiffs due process rights with the denial of access to Defendant Vonderheides case notes, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Ross v. Gadwah, 131 N.H. 391 (1988). This one act of denied due process to the Plaintiff, based on evidence that is materially and knowingly false, shows this marital master was improperly supervised and/or lacked the necessary education in family law. The act was punitive toward the Plaintiff, and has furthered this case to its present state.

24.

The DHHS report No. 262134 of 6/23/05 was returned founded against the Plaintiff; Reporter disclosure not allowed. Based on information and belief, the investigation of this matter under Defendant Bishops department substantiates the individuals as being unqualified or incapable of following established procedures and the law as follows: a) NH RSA 169 C: 34 I & II Duties of DHHS were not adhered to; b) NH RSA 169-C: 30 Report to be made immediately on incident of - 6/18/05 c) NH RSA 169-C: 29 Persons required to report conflicts called - 6/23/05 (called in five (5) days after the fact) d) NH RSA 169-C: 34 Duties of DHHS to commence within 72 hrs of (b). e) AGs Policy 681 (a) clearly states alleged victim to be interview within 72 hrs (Alleged victim interviewed on 6/29/05 - 11 days after the alleged incident.)

25.

On 6/29/05 at 10:30am, upon initial and secondary phone contact with the Plaintiff, the Defendant Roukey failed to follow established procedures and protocols under NH RSA 169-C:34 Duties of DHHS.

26.

On 6/30/05 at 9:00am, upon first face-to-face contact with the Plaintiff, the Defendant Roukey blatantly exhibited her lack of knowledge in conducting a proper

Page 7 of 19

investigation and provided false information, either recklessly or willfully, as evidenced in the Divisions Bridges Contact Log of the same date. 27. On 7/6/05, a hearing was held on an Ex Parte Motion filed by Defendant McIntosh at Hillsborough County Superior Court South. The resulting order of 7/21/05 was aptly reasoned and ordered by Defendant Love, and signed by Justice Groff on 8/3/05. 28. On 7/26/05, Defendant Roukey submitted an Affidavit to the Nashua District Court. Based upon belief and information contained in the DHHS Bridges Contact Log, conversations with witnesses that would have raised questions of the affidavits validity were purposefully, willfully and recklessly omitted. 29. Based upon information and belief, the Defendant Roukeys Affidavit of 7/26/05 exposes that she was incapable and/or inadequately trained to do a proper investigation, including but not limited to failure to apply standards of NH RSA 169-C:30, NH RSA 169 C:34, NH RSA 169C-38-a Standard Protocol and the AGs Protocols. 30. Defendant Roukey, through her Affidavit of 7/26/05 and testified-to statements in said hearing of 8/2/05, is known to be materially false based in part on her refusal to review Defendant Vonderheides notes as describe in the AGs procedures, and the actual order from Superior Court is misquoted by Defendant Roukey because it wasnt received yet but the order was stated in court. 31. On 7/26/05, the Nashua District Office of DHHS through Defendant Roukey filed an incomplete Petition for Abuse or Neglect in the Nashua District Court, without appropriate disclosures on the right to recovery NH RSA 169-C:8 III, an Administrative Rule in 2005.

Page 8 of 19

32.

In a hearing on 8/2/05 in Nashua District Court, Defendant Bamberger recklessly and, with an intentional disregard for procedure and the law, willfully denied the Plaintiff her procedural due process rights, based in part on false information provided by Defendant Roukey (Ref. order 7/21/05), without personal or subject matter jurisdiction. Under Superior Court N.H. Code Administrative Rules Annotated, Superior Court Rules 12-14 D. for Marital Masters, DHHS referrals must have a show cause hearing in Superior Court, which was not done.

33.

On 8/22/05 (twenty days after the hearing in District Court), Defendant Loves order was issued, signed by Justice Hicks, recklessly and/or maliciously denying the Plaintiff procedural due process by negating the Superior Court rules referenced in 32 above. The consistent change of signatory justices on the marital masters orders shows a lack of review to substantiate the continued approval of lack of due process.

34.

The order of 11/9/05 by Defendant Bamberger found the Plaintiff guilty of neglect under NH RSA 169-C:3 XIX (b); this was willfully, knowingly and/or negligently reasoned based on information that was materially and knowingly false, lacked reasoning under NH 169C:6-b, NH RSA 169 C:18 V-b. (a) & (b), and/or lack of jurisdiction.

35.

On 1/5/06, Defendant McIntosh made a call to CPSW Przybyla and provided information that was materially and knowingly false.

36.

Defendant Gubbins wanton neglect in this case is documented in Bridges from 1/27/06 to 2/23/06, when without notification to the Plaintiff, a CPSW was not assigned to the case. The Plaintiff was ordered to attend parenting classes that were not scheduled, and visits were not taking place and/or on time as required under NH RSA 169-C:3 II. XIV (b), and NH RSA 169-C:16 I. (d) (2).

Page 9 of 19

37.

The Plaintiff left multiple messages for the CPSW during the first week, and then to Defendant Gubbins who never returned the Plaintiffs calls; on 2/23/06 a receptionist relayed that Defendant Geno would be taking over the case. A message was left for Defendant Geno by the Plaintiff requesting a meeting with her and CASA to move this case along, and ensure visits as mandated by the court.

38.

On 3/1/06, the Plaintiff met with Defendant(s) Geno and McCormick (for the first time with either) to arrange a consistent visitation plan. The Plaintiff requested copies of visitation reports, Defendant Vonderheides notes with the child, CASAs notes with the child, and contact information for parenting classes and family therapy. A subsequent meeting on 3/24/06 with Defendant Gubbins and Defendant Bishop resulted in fewer attempts by the Division as a whole to move the case forward. The right to tape a government departments meeting affecting the Plaintiffs rights as a parent was denied at both meetings.

39.

Defendant(s) McCormick, Geno, and Gubbins purposefully, willfully, negligently and with a flagrant indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff failed to provide the requested discovery (ref. Ross v. Gadwah 131 NH 391 (1988)), and failed to ensure consistent visitation between the Plaintiff and Child (from 3/6/06 to 12/29/06, the Bridges Contact Log and other sources documents 29 cancelled visits), never made up.

40.

A subsequent order from the District Court through Defendant Bamberger was a standing order to produce dated 8/17/07 had no results. Defendant Bamberger failed to enforce his orders throughout the matter, denying due process to the Plaintiff and nullifying NH RSA 169-C:2 II. (c) Effective Judicial Procedures.

Page 10 of 19

41.

On 4/4/06 through the close of this case, Defendant Geno knowingly, willfully and with malicious intent submitted reports to the court that were materially and knowingly false and failed to provide factual documentation as requested. All court-ordered documents due from the Plaintiff are contained in the District Court file in line with NH RSA-C:12-b; no alternative orders or other instructions exist in the court record.

42.

On 4/4/06, Defendant Bamberger ordered Defendant Vonderheide to provide monthly reports to the court and failed to enforce the standing order, a denial of due process and failure to protect the parent/child relationship in accordance with NH RSA 169-C:2 I. (b) & II. (c); Defendant Vonderheide in fact never submitted monthly reports.

43.

Upon information and belief, on 4/4/06, Defendant Bamberger broke the contract between the Plaintiff and the state (if the original is deemed valid) under NH 169-C:17 II; the original order for reunification was replaced under the direction of Defendant Geno without lawful reasoning by either party that reunification between mother and child was not the goal of this case.

44.

Upon documented information and belief, Defendant Geno failed in ALL of her duties, including but not limited to: review of the case, ensuring visits between the Plaintiff and her child, scheduling appropriate services for the family and child, and updating the Plaintiff on her childs schooling and health, failing to meet the standard set in NH RSA 169-C:2 II (c), NH RSA 169-C:6-b II, 169-C:24 II, 169-C:24-b III, and/or 169-C:24-c II, for accessible, available and appropriate services. Defendant Geno lacked competence, training and/or had a complete disregard for basic human rights and dignity, by acting with malice and bias towards the Plaintiff, resulting in wanton gross negligence

Page 11 of 19

and a malicious flagrant indifference toward the rights of the Plaintiff and the minor child. 45. On 9/22/06, during the first home visit to the Plaintiff by both Defendant(s) Geno and McCormick, who through the powers invested in them by the State of New Hampshire, used that power maliciously towards the childs preapproved elderly visitors from out-of-state in an act of wanton gross negligence and a malicious flagrant indifference toward the rights of the Plaintiff and the parties present. 46. Contrary to NH RSA 169-C:25 II, without permission of the District Court, acting under the color of law with a malicious flagrant indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff, Defendant Geno attended an un-related child support hearing on 1/11/07 in Nashua Superior Court and disclosed in an open public court room that the Plaintiff was found guilty of neglect. 47. The audio recording of the Superior Court hearing (referenced 46 above) with Defendant Geno documents her purposeful, willful and wanton abuse of the position entrusted to her by the State of New Hampshire and was brought to the attention of supervisors, who failed to provide corrective action for violating NH RSA 169-C: 25 II Confidentiality rights entitled to the Plaintiff, and prescribed by law as a misdemeanor. 48. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gubbins and her superiors, up to and including the Commissioner, were notified of the behaviors exhibited by Defendant Geno, not limited to the Plaintiff, her attorneys, neighbors, friends and all professionals the court ordered the Plaintiff to see, who were asked by the Plaintiff to review every contact log, visitation log and cross reference to Defendant Genos fabricated reports to the court.

Page 12 of 19

49.

On 1/25/07, Defendant Vonderheide was in contempt of court for not producing her case file with the minor child. Defendant Bamberger ordered her to produce it within 10 days to the court, and notes on his order law is clear parents are entitled per John Camerons Child Impact Seminar in the Lakes Region. Defendant Vonderheides failure to produce the report prior to the start of this matter (or after it was submitted on 2/26/07) denied the Plaintiff the care, custody and control of her child without due process, placing the Plaintiff in a position of prejudice (opposing NH RSA 169-C:2 II. (c) Effective Judicial Procedures).

50.

Defendant McCormick failed to take an active part in this case, under NH RSA 169C:10 and the requirements of CASA, by failing to interview the Plaintiff or the childs other family members, failing to visit the child monthly, and submitting incomplete and biased reports based solely on reports of Defendant Geno. Defendant McCormick breached her duty of care in the powers invested in her through her appointment by the State of NH and CASA, with flagrant indifference acting under the color of law and willfully submitting reports to the court that were materially and knowingly false.

51.

On 11/27/07, Defendant Bamberger verbally and abrasively denigrated and denied the Plaintiff due process, closing the case as of 12/27/07 without the reunification of mother and child, when the standard for return of child in placement had been met under NH RSA-C:23 (directly opposing NH RSA 169-C:2 II. (c) Effective Judicial Procedures).

52.

In November of 2009, Defendant Barrington coerced and induced the Plaintiff to sign an assented to order for parental reimbursement to garnish pay. Final access to discovery on 2/17/10 shows the District Court files contain three motions for

Page 13 of 19

reimbursement: one not date-stamped as received by the court, the other two have no orders attached requiring the Plaintiff to pay. 53. The right to recovery in New Hampshire is governed under NH RSA 169-C:8 III., and/or NH RSA 169-C:19; however, none of these methods were utilized or in court records to notify the Plaintiff. NH RSA 169-C:27 I. (c) governs the collection period; Defendant Barrington charged the Plaintiff for 627 weeks recovery when records show the maximum recovery period is 279 weeks in this case. 54. On 10/01/10, a hearing was held alleging the Plaintiff was in contempt because the Defendant Barrington failed to attach her pay. Judge Leary indicated the motions were

ordered, and the scribble inserted here means granted. 55. Defendant Bambergers orders did not clearly communicate to the Plaintiff the exact nature of the sentence or the extent to which the court retained discretion to modify it or impose it at a later date; it is bias and a denial of due process to the Plaintiff (and opposes NH RSA 169-C:2 II. (c) Effective Judicial Procedures). 56. The perceived bias on behalf of Defendant Bamberger can also be seen in his actions of appointing and paying for the non-accused, non-indigent fathers attorney for two years, contradictory to 169-C:10 II (a) & 169-C:27 I (f). When reported to the Attorney Generals office, Defendant Bamberger followed up with an unsolicited order to bar the Plaintiff from her file, in defiance of NH RSA 169-C: 25-I. (a), which states that records shall be open to inspection by parties. Defendant Bambergers actions demonstrate a complete lack of impartiality and a continued bias exhibited through his failure to follow

Page 14 of 19

the laws governing his appointment and lacking the application of NH RSA 169-C:2 II. (c) Effective Judicial Procedures. 57. The last order from Superior Court, dated 1/28/10, illustrates how Defendant Love repeatedly placed limitations on the Plaintiff to exercise her parental rights and failed to recognize her due process rights, again denying the Plaintiffs request to release records of Defendant Vonderheide. Instead, Defendant Love allowed Defendant McIntosh to reap the benefit of his own behavior in placing his opponent at an unmerited and misleading disadvantage. 58. The records of Defendant Vonderheide were retrieved in their entirety from the Nashua District Court file on 2/17/10, (absent monthly reports never submitted and all previous letters to the courts), as was due with the District Court order of 8/17/07; the actual case notes of visits with the child will reprehensibly show that Defendant(s) Vonderheide and McIntosh made statements in official proceedings that were knowingly and maliciously fabricated to the detriment of the Plaintiff. 59. The reimbursement matter is still in the appeal process as of this writing; however, Defendant Barrington abused his position with the State and acted under the color of law in attaching the Plaintiffs pay as of 1/7/11, based on the order in dispute from 11/2009 clearly abusing the authority invested in him through the State of New Hampshire. COUNT ONE GROSS NEGLIENCE AND MALICIOUS FLAGRANT INDIFFERENCE WHILE ACTING UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW (42 U.S.C. 1983)

60.

The Plaintiff restates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-59 and incorporates the facts therein by reference. Page 15 of 19

61.

The Defendant(s) Love, Bamberger, Bishop, Gubbins, Roukey, Geno , Barrington and McCormick owed the Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to conduct themselves in an unquestionable manner; while acting through the authority vested in them by the State of New Hampshire, they failed to perform their duties with precision, due diligence, and due process.

62.

The actions or inactions of Defendant(s) Love, Bamberger, Bishop, Gubbins, Roukey, Geno, Barrington and McCormick in this matter were willful, purposefully reckless and/or intentionally malicious with bias or prejudice, and a violation of the Plaintiffs Civil Rights expressly enumerated by the U.S. Const. amend. I, IV, V, VIII, IX, and XIV; NH Const. Part 1 art. 1, 2, 4, 8, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 33, 35, 38; federal and state laws; and set policy. These Defendant(s) acted in their individual and professional capacities under the color of law, and/or knowingly made statements that were materially and knowingly false, and by their acts and/or deeds they did not act in Good Faith, negating any right to claim immunity under NH RSA169-C: 31.

63.

Defendant Vonderheide and Defendant McIntosh conspired and/or coincidentally made statements that are indisputably materially and knowingly false, negating any rights to immunity.

64.

Defendant McIntosh made statements that were indisputably materially and knowingly false, negating any rights to immunity.

65.

Defendant Vonderheide made statements that were indisputably materially and knowingly false as a mandated reporter under NH RSA 169-C: 29, negating any rights to immunity under NH RSA169-C:31.

Page 16 of 19

66.

The orders of Defendant(s) Love and Bamberger show repeated error, bias, abuse of authority, disregard for fundamental rights, and intentional disregard of the law, without purposeful, faithful and effective discharge of their judicial duty; this breach of duty, negates their right to claim immunity.

67.

That as a direct and proximate cause and foreseeable result of ALL herein named Defendant(s) breach of some or all of the above-mentioned duties of reasonable care, the Defendant(s) caused and/or allowed, and/or failed to prevent a continuing and direct personal injury to the Plaintiff, Denise-Marie McIntosh, and the loss of caring for her son; the injuries suffered are to such an extent that the force and impact is shocking and morally unacceptable to the human spirit and she will continue to suffer from said pain in the foreseeable future. As a direct and proximate result of her grievance, the Plaintiff has incurred medical care, treatment and expenses, lost wages, incurred legal fees and fees for legal education. The Plaintiffs serious deprivation of a personal liberty in losing her son and only child has adversely affected her daily life and she will continue to have pain and suffering, medical expenses and lost earnings due to the past and ongoing litigation. COUNT TWO

THE LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP, CARE, CUSTODY, AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFFS CHILD 68. The Plaintiff restates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-67 and incorporates the facts therein by reference.

Page 17 of 19

69.

As a direct and proximate result of all the injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiff, Denise-Marie McIntosh and the loss of six-plus years in her only child, Simon M., life has been and will be in the foreseeable future substantially and adversely affected by the deprivation, loss and diminution of a natural parent's "desire for and right to `the companionship, care, custody, and management of her child' " a liberty interest denied based solely on others views of perceived idiosyncratic behavior from a mother fighting for her sons right to her care and affection - something far more precious than any property. RELIEF REQUESTED

Wherefore, the Plaintiff Denise-Marie McIntosh, demands judgment against ALL the Defendant(s) named herein, for the following relief in this action: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. All lawful compensatory damages; All lawful exemplary damages; All lawful interest and costs of suit; All lawful reasonable attorneys fees as a pro se litigant; All lawful prohibitory injunctions; All lawful general damages; Set aside all charges against the Plaintiff and order the matter VOID; and For such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just, proper and equitable in the circumstances. STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION The Plaintiff has read the above complaint and it is correct to the best of her knowledge and belief.

Page 18 of 19

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Plaintiff demands a trial of jury on all issues of fact. Respectfully Submitted, _________________________ Denise-Marie McIntosh, Pro Se 35 Edmond Drive Nashua, NH 03063 603-566-8318 dmvc@comcast.net

Dated: February 01, 2011

CERTIFICATION: : I hereby certify that the Defendant(s) were all served a Summons prior to the initial status conference scheduled on 1/20/11, and that the Sheriffs notice confirming delivery to the defendant(s) was submitted to the Court at said hearing. I further certify that the Defendant(s) have all been mailed a copy of the above Amended Complaint and Jury Demand on this day by USPS as follows: Rebecca Woodard, Asst. AG Counsel for Defendant(s): The State of New Hampshire County of Hillsborough DHHS/ DCYF, Bishop, Roukey, Geno, Gubbins, Barrington, and The State of New Hampshire County of Hillsborough Judicial Defendant(s) Bamberger and Love. W. Daniel Deane, Esq., Nixon Peabody for Defendant McCormick Ralph Suozzo, Esq., Morrison Mahoney LLP for Defendant Vonderheide Defendant McIntosh, Pro Se AFFIDAVIT OF FACT AND TRUTH I, Denise-Marie McIntosh swear (affirm) that: To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have fully disclosed and prepared all the information contained in this Amended Complaint and Jury Demand. Based upon real facts supported with appropriate evidence to the same, with a right of action by different rules of law and I verify it is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date __________________________Signature __________________________________ State of New Hampshire, County of Hillsborough. The person signing this affidavit of fact and truth appeared and signed this before me_________________________________and took oath that the Statements set forth in this Amended Complaint and Jury Demand are true to the best of her knowledge and belief. This instrument was acknowledged before me ___________________________________ on ________________________________ my Commission expires___________________________________: Signature of Notarial Officer / Title____________________________: Page 19 of 19 Affix seal, if any