Malinda Nicolosi

Overall Case Overview Case: In the Matter of Anthony Grillo and Malinda Nicolosi (Docket No. 622-2018-DM-0053), 10th Circuit Family Division-Derry (later Dover District noted in stamps). Child: Anthony Nicolosi Grillo (age 8 in 2025), residing in Manchester (232 Eastern Ave., Apt. 303) for 5+ years per mother. Parties: Petitioner/Father: Anthony Grillo (Manchester, represented by Jason M. Sullivan). Respondent/Mother: Malinda Nicolosi (Cambridge, MA, pro se, defaulted since May 2020). Core Issues: Severe restriction/termination of mother's parenting rights since May 2022 (all contact ended except child support + quarterly emails/photos of father's choosing); mother's efforts to reinstate time, transfer venue to Manchester (9th Circuit), and challenge rulings on due process, bias, and best interests. Father opposes, emphasizing mother's lack of insight and child's protection. Chronological Key Filings & Documents Early Case History (2018 Docket Summary Excerpts) Case opened February 22, 2018 (Individual Parenting Petition). Initial orders: Mediation (May 2018), temporary parenting/support (July 18, 2018 hearing; Judge Cross). Hide quoted text Disputes: DNA test (mother, deferred/denied), contempt (father), disestablishment of paternity (mother, denied), attorney fees (mother, denied). Child address listed as Londonderry (outdated; mother later claimed clerk refused her correction, said father's responsibility). Mediation failed; temporary plan adopted/modified. Hide quoted text Expedited Petition for Change of Venue (November 6, 2024) Mother seeks transfer to Manchester to refile August 2024 Motion to Re-establish Parenting Time (returned as case closed). Arguments: Child/father in Manchester 5+ / ~8 years; mother in Cambridge, MA (~3 years); no Rockingham ties; child's school/activities/records in Manchester; easier access/proximity; bias concerns (validated by Judicial Conduct Committee caution JC-21-047-C); fresh venue for impartiality/co-parenting. Requests: Expedited grant; allow modification in Manchester. Served on Sullivan and Manchester Court. Petitioner's Motion to Strike (December 16, 2024) Father moves to strike mother's modification/venue motions due to default; requests cancel January 3, 2025 hearing. Mother's Motion to Dismiss Strikes (January 18, 2025) Seeks dismissal; reiterates venue (Manchester residence, UCCJEA, bias); default irrelevant for procedural motions. January 3, 2025 Hearing Order (Clerk Notice January 21, 2025) Grants venue change (child's Manchester residence, no Rockingham ties, bias concerns) but denies modification (failed RSA 461-A:6/11). Manchester declines internally; case remains Derry. Mother's Motion to Reconsider January 21, 2025 Order (Excluding Venue Grant) (January 31, 2025; received February 6) Challenges order on overlooked facts/law: First: Termination scope understated—all contact/participation ended since May 13, 2022 (father's unilateral email suspension, 17-day withholding without repercussions, RSA 633:4 interference). Only child support + quarterly emails remain (no videos, records, health info). Second: Unlawful under RSA 170-C:5, 461-A:6, abuse/neglect protocols (no proven harm from brief Facebook post/text; suspension due to sister's protective order, not mother's actions). Third: Due process denial (default bars evidence/exhibits at January 3 hearing; cites In re Guardianship of H. (2002), U.S./NH Constitutions). Fourth: Ignores best interests (RSA 461-A:6; child's asks/hug/distress, withheld medical info). Fifth: Improperly ruled on modification (should defer to Manchester); venue process bypassed (party should file directly with receiving court). Requests: Retract modification ruling, transfer if needed, other relief. Supplement/Correction (February 12, 2025) Clarifies exhibits shared evening before January 3 hearing. Court Letter Returning Motion (February 5, 2025) Returned for non-original signature; refile instructed. Petitioner's Objection to Mother's Motion to Reconsider (February 4, 2025; stamped February 11/12, 2025) Fails Family Division Rule 1.26(F) (no overlooked points). Mother "still has learned nothing over the last seven years" and blames everyone else; her lack of insight confirms court's decisions protect child's best interests. Requests: Deny motion; other just relief. Signed by Sullivan (handwritten date 2/4/2025); served on mother pro se. Hide quoted text Case Context & Themes Alienation Claims: Mother alleges father severed bond (unilateral suspension, withheld info, limited updates); court enabled by upholding termination without full hearing or best-interests inquiry (RSA 461-A:6, 170-C:5, due process via In re Guardianship of H.). Procedural Issues: Default limits filings; venue bypass (internal Manchester decline vs. direct filing per Rule 1.8); bias (JCC caution). Status (as of January 13, 2026): Case remains in Derry; no reinstatement; escalating acrimony over rights restoration and fairness. Hide quoted text Details on the January 3, 2025 Order and Manchester's Decline The core order in question is the January 3, 2025 ruling by Judge Kerry P. Steckowych in the 10th Circuit Family Division-Derry (issued via Clerk's Notice on January 21, 2025). This order stemmed from a hearing on the same date addressing Malinda Nicolosi's Motion to Transfer Venue to the 9th Circuit Family Division-Manchester. In the order: The court granted the venue change, noting it as appropriate due to the child's residence in Manchester (Hillsborough County) for over five years, lack of ties to Rockingham County, and potential bias concerns raised by Nicolosi (though not explicitly endorsing them). However, the order simultaneously denied her related Motion to Modify/Change Court Order (seeking parenting time reinstatement), stating she failed to meet statutory requirements under RSA 461-A:6 (best interests) and RSA 461-A:11 (modification grounds), despite her explicit request to defer that issue to Manchester for impartial review. No detailed "supplemental statement" from the judge accompanies the order regarding the decline. Instead, the January 21, 2025 Clerk's Notice simply states: "The 9th Circuit Family Division-Manchester has declined to accept the change of venue. This case will remain with the 10th Circuit Family Division-Derry." This indicates an internal consultation between the courts, without a formal hearing or public reasoning from Manchester. The decline effectively voided the grant, keeping the case in Derry. Nicolosi's Motion to Reconsider (January 31, 2025) highlights this as problematic, arguing the Derry court bypassed standard procedure by ruling on modification prematurely and handling the transfer inquiry itself, rather than letting her petition Manchester directly. She claims this denied her a fair opportunity to present evidence (e.g., certificates for required courses, bias allegations) to the receiving court. Legal Basis for Mother's Right to Present Case Directly to Manchester Under New Hampshire law, venue changes in Family Division cases (intra-state transfers between circuit locations) are governed by Circuit Court Family Division Rule 1.8 (Case Transfer). This rule emphasizes mutual agreement between locations but specifies a party-driven process: Procedure per Rule 1.8(A): For transfers within Family Division locations (e.g., Derry to Manchester), "A party wishing to transfer such a case shall file a motion to transfer with the proposed family division location [Manchester], with a copy to the original family division location [Derry]." Transfer occurs "only upon mutual agreement of both family division locations." This requires the requesting party (Nicolosi) to initiate by filing directly with the receiving court (Manchester), allowing her to present arguments, evidence, and pleadings there for their review and agreement. The rule does not authorize the transferring court (Derry) to unilaterally inquire or decide without the party's direct filing in the receiving court. Internal handling by the judge (e.g., Derry contacting Manchester) bypasses this, potentially violating due process by denying the party a forum to advocate. Why This Supports Direct Presentation: Filing with Manchester would have enabled Nicolosi to submit a formal petition, attach evidence (e.g., child's residency docs, course certificates, bias claims validated by Judicial Conduct Committee caution JC-21-047-C), and request a hearing if needed. Manchester's decline without this step lacks transparency and her input, raising abuse of discretion concerns. NH courts prioritize child welfare (RSA 461-A:6) and fairness, outweighing procedural defaults (as in her status since 2020). Defaulted parties retain rights to raise jurisdictional issues like venue, per general principles (e.g., UCCJEA, RSA 461-A:2 for custody jurisdiction). Comparison to Analogous Rules: Probate Division Rule 115 (similar structure) explicitly requires a "Petition to accept the transfer" filed in the receiving court after the transferring court grants the motion. This reinforces that the party, not the judge, handles the acceptance petition, ensuring due process (U.S. Const. 14th Amend.; NH Const. Pt. I, Art. 15). Cases like In re Guardianship of H. (NH Sup. Ct. 2002) affirm rights to present evidence in family matters, even for defaulted parties, to ensure fair hearings. By Judge Steckowych handling the inquiry internally (as inferred from the clerk's notice), Nicolosi was deprived of this step, potentially constituting reversible error if appealed. She could refile per Rule 1.8(A) directly in Manchester, emphasizing the child's best interests and jurisdiction.