Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

It Looks Different From Here — Advocates versus Litigants

with one comment

Note:  My internet time is very limited, and I rarely spellcheck or proofread posts.  Style is often consistent.  I simply get the ideas OUT, and trust (hope?) that some of them will take root on a thinking, activist populace.  Judging by the Feedjit counter, that’s a wide range of geographic and institutional viewers, especially for such a fly-by-night blog….

The second function this blog fills is something of a track record.  Although I’m anonymous, people who know me could probably figure out who’s who.  As a woman who left an abusive relationship years ago, and has not been able to exit the system (the parties involved simply run out of steam, or money, periodically, until someone makes a move to get free, which can bring an escalation or counter-move.  IN fact, experientially, it’s not much different than the fabled “cycle of abuse” at all. Little did I know!  But I would STILL have left, even if I’d known, and I still assert that it’s been better to have had this experience now, than to have remained in a household where we were likely to become a statistic, faster, and have virtually none of the record public, or the story told.  I did experience some brief independence, exhilarating, while a restraining order was on, and partially (at least) respected.  I thank God for that.

Put straight out, I am living day by day, and by faith, instinct, creative networking, continual adapation to situations, guts, and (let me say) the grace of God (not churches) and bunches of friends, nearly none of them dating from the years of in-home assault and battery spouse abuse.  I wanted a fresh start, and made one.

I also pick my family where I find it, and sad to say, none of the biologically related ones, OR in-laws qualify for what family is supposed to be about.  This is not uncommon (see Lundy Bancroft books for more on the topic).


I read a post yesterday, and decided to address what I consider the inappropriate approach and tone of this post, although it’s calling for greater transparency in the courts and independent audits.  I have some familiarity with the organization and author of the article, and prior interactions with them.

With hopes I don’t now alienate some other women I am networked with, I feel it necessary to say, THAT NONPROFIT DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME, and my particular case crosses most of the major factors in family court abuse — it’s entailed domestic violence restraining orders, child-stealing (unreported and), stalking (current), and continuous involvement in this court venue (though both parties are broke! and no issues have been resolved) for just over ten years.  I know many women in similar situations.

Posted at RightsforMothers.com, a site I stay in touch with in general, particularly as it has been reporting on the recent Linda Marie Sacks travesty in Florida.  This is a nice example of how it “works.”

(more than one link to this story, above, and below):

Linda Marie and Children

Gina Kaysen Fernandes: To an outsider, Linda Marie Sacks had the perfect life. Her husband was rich, and they lived in a huge home in Daytona Beach, FL, where she spent her days shuttling her girls to school and various activities. Linda Marie describes herself as a “squeaky clean soccer mom” who “lived my life for my children.” Behind that façade, Linda Marie says she married a monster — a man who verbally and emotionally attacked her for years and sexually abused their two young daughters.

When she finally left him and tried to take her girls with her, she encountered a new monster — family court. Rather than protecting Linda Marie and her two young daughters from a sexual predator, a family court judge denied Linda Marie custody and put her daughters into the hands of their sexually abusive father.

Talk to mothers, divorce lawyers, and child advocates and you’ll hear tales of a family court system that’s badly broken. It’s one that routinely punishes women for coming forward with allegations of abuse by denying them custody of their children. Instead of protecting children from abusers and predators, the court often gives sole custody to the abusive parent, say child advocates. Mothers who tell judges their children are being molested or beaten are accused of lying and are punished for trying to intervene. Some are thrown in jail for trying to keep their kids from seeing an abusive parent. Women, many of whom have few financial resources at their disposal, are often at the mercy of a court system that is not designed to handle domestic violence.

{{ In short, about 3 years, and $140,000 later, a woman who was thrown out of her own home for reporting child abuse (like we’re supposed to, and being a mother) is badly mistreated (what else is new) during a motion to UNsupervise her OWN visitation of her OWN daughters.  Rules of court are broken (what else is new).  She sticks up for her rights, and a number of groups are publicizing this one.  It seems (to me) to be a prime example of how pushing “supervised visitation” as if to enable kids to safely interact with both parents were actually for that purpose.  No, it’s been used to spawn a new profession (wealth transfer, in other words, from litigants and/or government) AND punish and extort mothers for expecting due process in the courts, and — as they’ve been coached by society to do — report that abuse and expect someone else to make it stop..

{{Do the math on $140,000 divided by 3 years, divided among the court professionals that, so far, have NOT gotten these kids back to their mother, where they belong!

{{If there’d been no money there, it’d have been funneled even faster (lightening-quick) through mediation only, providing demonstration grant material for other nonprofits to report (to each other) on, like mine was.  I’ve not seen my own kids that much in the past 3 years, probably, the only difference being, as money is gone from THIS family, no supervised visitation center is making a profit off us.}}

Now for today’s Main Feature:

Point Of View-1:  The Voice of Professional Advocates

Typical Characteristics:

  1. Tone — Moderate.

  2. Recommendations — Moderate.

  3. Apparent Process.

Gradually establish a reputation as speaking to the crisis, and through collaboration and compromise, get SOME reforms STARTED and repeatedly, prominently, call for more, while remaining employed…

UPSIDES to this approach —

  • Speech and recommendations are not actually so offensive or radical as to actually cause (or even jeopardize) present professional direction or job loss, let alone personal whistleblower physical retaliation through assault by an “ex” or legal kidnapping of one’s own children through the courts.

  • As such (though I can’t say for sure), less likely to deal with PTSD in speaking out.  This moderte tone is certainly easier for other professionals in the systems being confronted to “take.”

  • Client referrals through getting one’s name in print, a quality shared with the family court professionals all trying to “help” the litigants.  There’s a great –or at least reasonable — living at fixing things, if it’s done right, and without actually completing the fix…

  • Reduced potential for becoming homeless, or extinct.  I.e., longevity.  This approach is not likely to turn a professional into a Nancy Schaefer or a Richard Fine or a Barry Goldstein, Esq.

DOWNSIDES to this approach —

(Note:  This is my personal “take,” and I don’t expect even all of the bloggers (see blogroll) might agree with me on it.  However, after some analysis and prior interactions, it’s the conclusion I came to, and why I am not otherwise associating or promoting this particular nonprofit’s attempt to address the family court crisis.)

  • The moderate voice is entirely inappropriate to the scope and extent of the crisis.  People are dying over this, and society is picking up the tab.  To me, such a situation would require the fastest and strategically MOST accurate and effective solution.
  • Timeframe/urgency for System reform and Timeframe/urgency for raising one’s children/stopping their abusers (or one’s own) are entirely different.  The second one is shorter.  A parent wants ONE thing FIRST (any good one):  To STOP his or her child’s abuse NOW.  (Or her own abuse), NOW.  It’s LIFE, then LIBERTY, then PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.  LIFE is first. Part of life is sustaining a livelihood…Getting closure, and getting on with life after divorce.

Point Of View 2 — Of Litigants Whose Children’s Lives or their own are still at risk.

(note:  this is my take on this point of view, those who disagree, feel free to comment).

POV of Noncustodial Mothers struggling to stay alive, employed & housed, analyze “what happened and WHY?,” speaking out appropriately about these outrages, and keep see her children again, safely, yet knowing that justice is not likely to take place in the courts before the children age out.  Of Noncustodial mothers who are also kept traumatized by the continuous NONresolution of issues in the family court system, and forced contact with their ex-batterers — AND agents of their exbatterers, both in and outside the courtroom — through it.  Women who have been forced to take on repeated restructuring of their own lives when custody switch happens, and whose sense of betrayal includes not only (at times) the enablers of the former abuse, but the institutions which promised yet didn’t deliver help, and lied to them about the prognosis of the help delivered.  Who failed to distinguish in a timely fashion between civil and criminal protective orders and concealed conflicts of interest in the system.  Mothers who trusted family court attorneys, being led to (falsely) believe that they couldn’t adequately represent themselves, but then were sold down the river and deserted by attorneys when money ran out.

TONE — STRONGER, and often less polished.

Tends to rants at times.  Sarcastic, Stringent, and NON-compromising.  We have already been compromised to the ground.  Tendency to use figures of speech and more vivid vocabulary.  Don’t like to mince words.  Haven’t got time to attend all the conferences, and proper priority is (#1) Their children, and (#2) System reform.  It is NEVER in reverse order…  Our timeline is shorter and of indefinite duration until we are OUT of that system.


Once help is found NOT to be up a certain tree, ceases barking up it, and associating with others (generally) who continue to.  Researchs and networks to find where shortest and most probable route to success is.  Continues Lethality and other risk assessments.  Willing to sacrifice just short of death and homelessness for this cause.  Willing to change perspectives when perspective has serious flaws (and mine did, in the first few years) and wishes to pass this knowledge on to the uninitiated.

Less interested in nationwide collaboration than in where individual help for the case lives.  When a hot lead is found, blogs it.  Wishes to maintain more personal independence and personal voice because there is less time to screw around.

Analyzes systems almost as widely as the policy-makers do, because this trail leads back to those policy makers to start with.  We take the system apart from the personal, experiential level upwards, not from the theoretical and “demonstration grant” (upon the public) downwards.  As such, it has some more legitimacy — at least on a per-family basis.

UPSIDES to this approach —

  • Well, I think it preserves personal integrity and power base, rather than handing it over (yet again) to others who lose our story in translation and over interpretations.
  • One Mom who succeeds in a court case by exposing the fraud helps the next Mom by blazing that trail.  Moms who lose their fortunes, but eventually regain their children, still lost their fortunes.  This is no help to mothers who had none to lose.
  • Develops transferable skills in life, and by empowerment helps reverse the process that may have gotten them trapped in abuse to start with, or in ignorance that their kids were being molested.
  • Contributes to society by helping clean it up, one batterer or molester at a time, or one crooked judge, mediator, or other abuse-enabler.
  • The ability to analyze systems accurately and quickly is an entrepreneurial skill.
  • Approach isn’t built on the fantasy that the courts and attorneys in general consist of basically honest folk with a few bad apples.


  • Fewer friends.  On the other hand, fewer fair-weather friends, too!  May lose family too, when family has become comfortable with abuse, or worn out with supporting the prolonged exit from it via the courts.
  • Sometimes one acts like a fool (case in point).
  • Gains a better understanding of how the world acts, and what place one wishes to occupy within it.
  • Learning by personal trial and error is one of the more effective.

The voice of a Staff Consultant to a prominent California Nonprofit

Reinstate Accountability To Our Courts: Pass Assembly Bill 2521

Daily Journal

Reinstate Accountability To Our Courts: Pass Assembly Bill 2521

By Kathleen Russell

No part of our government is more integral to fairness and justice than our court system. That’s why the people who must abide by the laws of our state deserve to see the courts administered with model efficiency, accountability and transparency. It is especially important that as taxpayers and businesses suffer the lingering effects of a deep recession, they see their tax dollars being spent prudently.

Everyone from business owners, to abused and neglected children, to victims of domestic violence count on our courts to be accessible and reliable.

Just a reminder, some victims of domestic violence are, and/or were, business owners, and some are children, too.  And, quite frankly, though we’d LIKE our courts to be accessible and reliable, I don’t think many of us any more COUNT on them to be this.  I believe the word is out that they’re screwing people over and causing trouble.  Nor are they truly “our” courts.  They have been co-opted by special interests.  I find this tone too moderate here.  It’s a conciliatory tone.  I don’t share it.

Funding shortfalls from the state budget have resulted in courts being closed due to the public and massive layoffs of hard-working courts staff who serve critical functions like court reporting and collecting payments and fines.

In an earlier interview on KFOG (SF Bay Area) in which Supervisor Gayle Steele participated or hosted, one caller was a court employee, who told of how some court staff followed a teenage child and convinced the child to change her decision and request, resulting in later violence (as I recall it).  Courts staff DO serve critical functions.  I wonder how ‘collecting payments and fines” came into play in this article.

That makes wait times longer for simple transactions and means crime victims wait longer to see justice.

CJE has been dealing, to my understanding, prominently with the family court venue, not law enforcement and police/criminal agencies.  This is a bit of loose wording, as family courts and criminal courts differ.  Nor is the wait time the issue in “waiting to see justice.”

Yet at the same time, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the state agency that oversees court operations, has pursued a $2 billion computer system and given double-digit pay increases to its top staff, calling into question whether our courts are being administered with financial integrity.

Again :  “Our” courts?

The reference to Administrative Office of the Courts fails to mention– which Ms. Russell has been advised of, and didn’t really follow up on — that this office administers grants originating in father’s rights movements, and compromising court cases through a grants system that is not being properly tracked:

From the California AOC:

The Center for Families, Children & the Courts announces the following new publications. For a complete list of CFCC’s publications, click here.

California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program (Fiscal Year 2009-2010) (March 2010) (PDF) (note — this link is broken now — why?)

THIS “AOC / CFCC” (Center for Families, Children & The Courts) is where many of the practices Ms. Russell’s group has been protesting (in public, & loudly) LIVE and are administered through, and she has rejected the assessment that this is taking place, from what I can see.  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v/research.html

Legislative Report 7: Ten Years of Access to Visitation Grant Program Services (Fiscal Years 1997-2007) (March 2008). The grant program celebrated its 10-year anniversary in fiscal year 2006–2007. The report showcases programs funded, program successes and accomplishments, innovative promising practices, and program service delivery gaps and challenges. Although no formal recommendations are made in the report, it does identify various challenges and complexities regarding the administration and operation of the grant-related services that limit the ability of the grants to address the great demand for program services

I have blogged and quoted excerpts from some of these reports and repeatedly directed readers to the HHS which is funding the grants.  These reports are fatherhood-oriented, and PAS-friendly.  Professionals in this area (including, to my understanding, Isolina Ricci, Joan Kelly, et al.) are pushing mediation and reconciliation on women attempting to leave abuse, a totally unfair power balance.  They tend to be active in the AFCC, an organization which also is where Gardner’s pedophile friendly philosophies reside.

To JUST NOT SPEAK about this is just a travesty, and I’m tired of it!  I’d rather take a brusque, and/or offensive version of truth, and act on it (see nafcj.net) than a watered down version of it talking, why can’t we just collaborate, after all, we ALL want what’s good for our kids, don’t we?  This is an offence to me.  Again, I speak only for myself in that.  Ms. Russell knows better.

California NOW (Family Law Page) has known better for a very long time.  A study back to 2002 (oft cited on my blog) studied the history and origins of family law, and details how due process is farmed out to other professionals.

Other professionals themselves (source:  LizLibrary, Trish Wilson, and others) have also detailed this.  It’s an acknowledged issue, in the wider public.  WHY softpedal this?

When a member of the public visits their local courthouse and [his/her] finds a “closed” sign on the door, they deserve [he or she deserves] to know if courtroom closures could have been avoided. But a loophole in current law shields court financial information from outside scrutiny.

Every member of the public has a right to inquire about the use of nonprofit or federal funds funneled through or to the courts, even down to examining vendor payments.  This is what Marv Bryer (Los Angeles area) did a long time ago, and discovered the L.A. Judges Slush fund, and a private organization operating out of the county courthouse.  Look it up yourself — I did, and I’m a litigant.  How’s come more others didn’t?

The unintended consequences of a well-intended law known as the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 have allowed our courts to escape the same kind of outside audits required of other public institutions, such as school districts and county and city governments, even as our courts should stand as shining examples of the accountability and transparency we expect of our government. The Trial Court Funding Act put local court administration under a larger state umbrella that lawmakers hoped would provide greater stability in funding and better services to the public, but it did not include some basic accountability measures such as independent audits. This lack of adequately independent financial oversight is a problem at both the state level, where no regular audits are required, and at the local level, where the audits are conducted only by the AOC itself.

The public is going to have to start doing these audits themselves.  Unless they want to charge the foxes guarding the henhouse with monitoring the other foxes over the same henhouse.

Coming before members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee today, Assembly Bill 2521 is common sense legislation that will ensure that court finances are transparent by requiring independent annual audits of county courts and the AOC.

AB 2521 is a good government bill that will correct one of the flaws of the Trial Court Funding Act. The goal of this bill is simple – to apply the same transparency requirements that apply to school districts, cities and counties to trial courts in California.

Failure to conduct independent audits has serious consequences for our system of justice. For example, a multi-million dollar error resulted in layoffs of San Mateo Superior Court employees, a situation which hurts workers and families and compromised access to our courts.

A lack of transparency prevents our government agencies from operating efficiently and openly. No agency that runs on taxpayer dollars should be free from public scrutiny. Our judiciary exists to serve the people, and reinstating accountability to our court system will give taxpayers back the right to know whether state agencies are doing just that, or whether the courts are failing in their mandate to serve the public interest.

I think this bears following up on, and will attempt to do so.  On my “free” time.  MANY authors have written on the issues in the courts:

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

Page 1 of 5 (Start over)

The authors are selling books (presumably).  Mothers and fathers being drained, ARE NOT…..

Here is ONE search tool that looks at nonprofits, and NONPROFITS get GRANTS which are influencing the COURTS.  Got it?  As NONPROFITS, we have a right to know what they are using the funds for:

GuideStar – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GuideStar USA, Inc. is an information service specializing in U.S. nonprofit companies. It provides information on more than 1.7 million IRS-recognized

Now WHAT can you do with this handy tool?  You can look things up…

For example, CJE’s EIN#, and their stated mission:


And their 2008 grants donations, etc. received (no earlier forms show up on Guidestar), which are around $215,000, and who are the executive officers (this is available for free on Guidestar).  Ms. Russell, being a staff consultant, presumably gets some of this for her efforts, which is only fair.  Workers are worthy of their hire.

Ms. Sacks, noncustodial Mom, on the other hand (see above) is, rather, Spending her money to get justice, hopefully.

Another thing I’ve learned to do is look at who’s on which board, and look them up too.    This is one way I learned that Family Violence Prevention Fund went the way of Fatherhood Funding, and –voila — the vocabulary, tone, and emphasis of this major, major nonprofit has changed, to mirror policies already in place at HHS.  While many social services are being cut, this particular group’s funding is in FINE shape (endabuse.org)…

Are they going to compromise that funding just because it might not fix the problems in the courts???  What do you think?

More from CJE’s website:

The Center for Judicial Excellence, or CJE, is a community-based organization established to improve the judiciary’s public accountability and strengthen and maintain the integrity of the courts.

Since 2008, the CJE board has made a special commitment to protecting the rights of children and vulnerable populations in the courts.

CJE was founded to promote best practices, with a five-point plan of action – information gathering, education, collaboration, implementation and citizen review. The organization works to gather information and educate the community, the media and policymakers at all levels about the courts, judicial issues and best practices, as well as the dire need for judicial accountability and oversight.

And staff:  An administrative assistant, and one consultant, Ms. Russell:

CJE also benefits from a long-term consulting relationship with Kathleen Russell Consulting.

Technically speaking, I believe citizens could ask to see receipts for that consulting.  Not that I’m saying, something is amiss, but I’m pointing out, that while Ms. Russell is working hard, and advocating for (us?), she’s getting paid for it.  We, litigants, are NOT, generally speaking. She also gets a reputation, and possibly business referrals.

I actually just saw the salary (it’s on the IRS 990 if you register with Guidestar).  It seems to me that, along with a board of directors, and an advisory board, a website, and an administrative assistance, “CJE” in essence “IS” Kathleen Russell.  So when she puts her name, for pay, on what may purport to be MY story (stories of women in my situation), I just think the difference of viewpoint should be pointed out.

I could educate both my kids and would’ve easily foregone child support (let alone social services of any sort) on, literally, one-TENTH of that salary. I  am certainly educated and experienced enough to speak to the issue.  I just wasn’t raised as a PR consultant, and hadn’t developed those connections over time.  Like many Moms, we stayed on the right side of the law and minded our own kids-raising, income producing business, and changed society through our kids, our volunteer work (as appropriate), or our professional jobs.

I finally “got” how nonprofits operate when I had to resort to them for help while unemployed (after government agencies, not only the courts, had failed, and failed abysmally).  These nonprofits are accountable to their funders at least as much as their “clients” (the group that the nonprofit status claims to serve).  Pro Bono Buyer Beware.

And had I foregone child support, after leaving abuse, there’s a GOOD chance that my girls would’ve continued living with me.  It’s that economic control that gets you every time, either while in the relationship, or while funneled INTO the family law system.

Kathleen Russell Consulting

Telling Stories Moving Mountains

The question arises, naturally, WHOSE stories are being told?  This is where it gets a little interesting….

Among a wide variety of clients (appropriate for any successful consulting firm, and a sign of professionalism, for sure…) is the Young Men’s Ultimate Weekend.

The Young Men’s Ultimate Weekend (YMUW) is an initiation program for young men, providing them with adult mentoring and male support during their transition from adolescence to adulthood. By empowering young men with physical and mental challenges and providing strong adult male mentors, the YMUW helps young men develop confidence and leadership skills and learn the importance of teamwork through honoring what is RIGHT and embracing the principles of Respect, Intelligence, Gallantry, Humor and being True. KRC was hired by YMUW to conduct media and community outreach in the run up to the weekend event in the Santa Cruz Mountains


In addition to lots of nice, positive press, if googled, we also find it listed alongside some serious cult-like behaviors that (from MY POV) sound quite similar to the male-bonding and “setting off” procedure that my own ex (batterer) was more and more prone to, particularly with his religions connections.

And a whole SLEW of fatherhood groups.  I tracked this down a while back, and the “Dean Tong” mentioned (see Rightsformothers.com narration, or a narration it links to, summarizing Linda Marie Sacks’ situation:

While these may be all very well and nice (though I don’t think all ARE…), I think it MAY explain why Center for Judicial Excellence and Kathleen Russell Consulting aren’t going to come down TOO hard on fathers’ rights, or fathers’ rights funding.  Although I don’t have a precise answer, I am deducing that MOVING A MOUNTAIN AND TELLING THAT STORY — about the Father’s Rights origins (1994 NFI, 1995 Bill Clinton Executive Order, 1998/1999 resolutions in Congress,  and the Religion Through Government Agencies narration) story, as soul-numbing as it is (if you’re not a man)  just wouldn’t be good for business.  And we all have a right to sustain our own businesses, right?

In fact, every time I turn around there’s more “male bonding” going around. …  SOMEONE has to counteract those feminists…

The New Warrior Training Adventure


The New Warrior Training Adventure is a singular type of life affirming event, honoring the best in what men have to offer the planet. We are only able to recognize the powerful brilliance of men because we are willing to look at, and take full responsibility for, the pain we are also capable of creating … and suffering. This is the paradox of modern masculinity, and it is a lesson we are dedicated to learning and teaching.

The New Warrior Training Adventure is a modern male initiation and self-examination. We believe that this is crucial to the development of a healthy and mature male self, no matter how old a man is. It is the “hero’s journey” of classical literature and myth that has nearly disappeared in modern culture. We ask men to stop living vicariously through movies, television, addictions and distractions and step up into their own adventure – in real time and surrounded by other men.

Among some of the topics, generally speaking, will be how to keep your woman (or women, as it may be) in line, and what you can talk with them about, and what you should NOT talk with your woman about.  I kid you not.  Back to feudalism….

SO, there’s a living to be made, and stories to be told.

Except family court litigants, one parties’ of which (or both) will most likely be destroyed — possibly permanently — in the process of being sripped of our civil rights.

So, improving court excellence and saving children?  Of course, who doesn’t want to do THAT?

Of course, that’s the purpose, ostensibly, of the millions (see below) already going to the courts, also, for example under “court improvement” and so forth.

BELOW — some $$ figures from HHS on money going to the California Judicial Council to improve the courts and help noncustodial parents.

I want a lively discussion on THESE figures, but most people don’t have the head, or heart, or will for it.  It takes a certain analytical and nosy mindset.

Again, hope I didn’t offend TOO many good people, and apologies for any incomplete sentences in the first part of the post.

This is not exactly the first time I posted this chart on-line, and I’ve emailed it privately enough also.  THis is only ONE of many programs running through the courts affecting outcome IN the courts, the grants ending “SAVP.”  You can also look up at least 3 other kinds of grants coming directly to the California Judicial Council, at the same source:  Taggs.HHS.Gov.

For example:

2009 0901CASCID 1 1 ACF 12-07-2008 $ 786,069
2009 0901CASCIP 1 1 ACF 12-07-2008 $ 807,034
2009 0901CASCIP 1 6 ACF 06-06-2009 $ 266,289
2009 0901CASCIT 1 1 ACF 12-07-2008 $ 788,370
2009 0910CASAVP 1 1 ACF 12-23-2008 $ 942,497
Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $ 3,453,010

Award Actions

Printer-friendly Version

CFDA Number = 93597

Recipient ZIP Code: 95814

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support
Agency Award Code Action
Issue Date
This Action
1998 9701CASAVP 1 ACF 2 05-31-1998 $1,113,750.00
1998 9801CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-01-1998 $1,113,750.00
1999 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 2 08-16-1999 $987,501.00
2003 9801CASAVP 1 ACF 7 02-24-2003 ($250,805.00)
2003 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 5 02-25-2003 ($139,812.00)
2009 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 8 09-14-2009 ($38,917.00)
Award Subtotal: $2,785,467.00

Recipient ZIP Code: 95741

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support
Agency Award Code Action
Issue Date
This Action
2000 0001CASAVP 1 ACF 3 08-24-2000 $987,501.00
2001 0001CASAVP 1 ACF 4 10-06-2000 ($987,501.00)
Award Subtotal: $0.00

Recipient ZIP Code: 94107

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support
Agency Award Code Action
Issue Date
This Action
2001 0010CASAVP 1 ACF 5 10-10-2000 $987,501.00
2001 0110CASAVP 1 ACF 1 08-23-2001 $987,501.00
2002 0210CASAVP 1 ACF 2 08-06-2002 $970,431.00
2003 0310CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-11-2003 $970,431.00
2004 0410CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-15-2004 $988,710.00
2005 0510CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-14-2005 $988,710.00
2006 0610CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-19-2006 $987,973.00
2007 0710CASAVP 1 ACF 1 07-20-2007 $950,190.00
2008 0810CASAVP 1 ACF 1 01-30-2008 $957,600.00
2009 0010CASAVP 1 ACF 8 09-14-2009 ($48,827.00)
2009 0110CASAVP 1 ACF 4 09-14-2009 ($26,938.00)
2009 0210CASAVP 1 ACF 6 09-14-2009 ($46,392.00)
2009 0310CASAVP 1 ACF 2 09-14-2009 ($15,092.00)
2009 0910CASAVP 1 ACF 1 12-23-2008 $942,497.00
2010 1010CASAVP 1 ACF 1 11-25-2009 $946,820.00
Award Subtotal: $10,541,115.00
Total of all awards: $13,326,582.00

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I am hoping that in Australia and other nations that we can work together to protect our children in the family law systems…if you wish to receive our nesletters than please subscribe.

    Alicia ELkhart

    April 21, 2010 at 5:35 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: