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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for February 2011

Let’s Get Honest about “Kids’ Turn” and Judges’ Profit.. [First Publ. Oct. 24, 2011, updated Mar. 25, 2017].

with 10 comments

~ ~ ~

Let’s Get Honest about “Kids’ Turn” and Judges’ Profit. [First Publ. Oct. 24, 2011, updated Mar. 25, 2017]. Short-link ends “-Ev”.  About 9,200 words and this post has several comments.  Title and shortlink notation added Sept. 29, 2019 as I’m intending to reference it in a new post.

First published Oct. 24, 2011, I would consider Let’s Get Honest about “Kids’ Turn” and Judges’ Profit.. among key posts early in the blog (from a 2017 perspective). In wishing to quote this (for one of its passing references to Kids’ Turn donor “Halsey Minor” (founder of CNET), and because a blog-upgrade has for some reason turned the base post color to a sort of sickly mixture of greenish-white, I’m adding also a font-change, border, and a few other things I didn’t know how to do in 2011. Kids’ Turn has since submerged itself into (if I remember it right) San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center (SF CAPC) which “CAPC” is something of a serial curriculum-peddler (through a series of nonprofits to run the curriculum). That’s a general recall, and anyone is free to do a more detailed check on the Secretary of State, or Attorney General (Charitable Trusts Registry) as I do throughout this blog in case I mis-remembered exactly WHERE Kids’ Turn decided to submerge its identity into another nonprofit with classes to sell.

This may have happened anyway in the organization’s process of growing up and not wishing to call attention to the conflicts of interest it would sure seem to represent for anyone with a divorce case and likely to be added into forced co-parenting education, when the entity routinely has family court connections, family court judges, attorneys, or administrators on its board, and as this post references, contracts with the City and County of SF regarding the court.

Or, I like to think this blog may have had SOMETHING to do with their decision to go further underground and (apparently) otherwise continue business as usual…//LGH 3-25-2017.

Per an Annual Report, 2010, on this organization which sheds light on how the courts work:

The following representative results definitely affirm the efficacy of Kids’ Turn’s 2010 services:

• 50% of Kids’ Turn families are Court ordered

HALF THE CLIENTELE OF KIDS’ TURN ARE ORDERED TO GO THERE BY THE COURTS.  Notably, this Nonprofit also was started by a family law judge, and by the end of this (LONG) blog, you should know much more about the interrelationship between the Profit in Non-Profits and how judges order litigants to attend services provided (fee-based) for organizations that MANY of them have sat on the board of.

Not just for US.  Nope, the UK is going to help out this “charity” (started by family law judge…)

Kids’ Turn will soon complete a partnership with two charities in the United Kingdom (Relate and National Family Mediation) leading to implementation of Kids’ Turn throughout Great Britain.

Amazing….they write:

The UK govt has pledged a new pot of funding to help families. Here is a link to an online article about it which we posted on the KT Facebook Fan Page:

• Our partner agencies will submit funding requests in three categories, one of which is to implement Kids’ Turn throughout the UK

• They will received the funding award notices by March, 2011 and when awarded, the funds will be in place for four years

• The two agencies have settled their partnership challenges and worked out their respective roles re. the implementation of Kids’ Turn

UNbelievable…  Some families stuck in the courts (beCAUSE they are stuck in the courts) can’t afford internet, and “Kids’ Turn” has its facebook page…

I am simply throwing out some greens here, about a gleam in a judge’s eye (1987-1990) that is going global.  Not exactly in the free market — it is subsidized as a sub-grantee THROUGH the California Judicial Council, under “Access Visitation Grants,” and as such, you probably can’t get out of some facet of indoctrination once you file a motion in any family law court, anywhere, for any reason.  You might, but it’s kind of like what I hear of slot machines, gambling, etc.  — the House always wins.

KIDS’ TURN,” INTERNATIONAL” — and is CLOSELY Associated with AFCC:

International Conference Presentations (cached article…)

Kids‘ Turn Executive Director, Claire Barnes, had the privilege to co-present this summer at the International Commission on Couples and Family Relations’ 2002 Conference held in Sydney, Australia.  She collaborated with Claire Missen, Teen Between (Dublin, Ireland) on the topic of Divorce and Teens.  The respective papers, where cultural commonalities and differences specific to gender differences were discussed, are available for review.

Additionally, Susanna Marshland, former Kids‘ Turn Program Director, participated in a panel presentation at this year’s AFCC Conference in Hawaii.  The topic of Best Practices was a perfect venue for Susanna’s information on the KidsTurn Early Years Program.  Susanna’s remarks are also included
for review.

1. Statistics: a presentation by Claire Missen, Teen Between (Dublin, Ireland)

2. Presentation by Claire Barnes, M.A to the 2002 International Commission on Couple and Family Relations: Distance Diversity Dislocation, June 2002, Sydney, Australia

3. Summary of Presentation for the ‘Best Practices’ workshop
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Annual Conference, presented by Susanna Marshland, LCSW, June 7, 2002, Waikoloa, Hawaii

How nice to belong to more than one organization for which conferences can involve transcontinental and transoceanic travel to exotic locales to talk about “healing family relationships.”  OF note — this organization is funded in part as a sub-grantee from US Federal funds, including diversions from WELFARE to enhance CHILD SUPPORT collection for needy families.  ….

But what caught my interest — what is KIDS’ TURN doing on a notice of lien to the SFTC, which is the San Francisco Courts?  (Source:  CRIIS.com, recorded documents)

Record Date Document Number GrantoR GranteE Name Cross Reference Name Document Type

Someone should look into this — what’s THAT about? From what I understand, “SFTC” is the San Francisco Superior (or Trial) Courts — pls. submit comment correcting me if I’m wrong.  And its GRANTEE, i.e., Kids’ Turn is granting something to the courts, while receiving grants from the Cal. Judicial Council through the courts.

I could write on anything — of course — but have noticed this particular group (out of SF and San Diego, originally) going international, Hawaii, Illinois, you name it.  They say they are really successful — read it on the website here, a study done in 2009 (it began around 1988) “Our programs work….”

Read the rest of this entry »

Beware AFCC and Reform the Courts? What an Oxymoron!

with 8 comments

We have (or, I have…) been talking about “foundations.”  Well, the Foundation of the Family Law SYSTEM in at least the U.S. is a creature out of Hollywood, almost.  And it gradually morphed into the “AFCC” which as you know, I blog plenty at.  Probably because I’m pissed off at its initial premises, as well as pissed off at so many groups purporting to protect women and children FAILING to, er, mention, this group.

Me being somewhat religious in inclination to start with, NOW’s agenda wasn’t usually part of my normal vocabulary, or its concerns.  And being still young (40s), I hadn’t yet begun to fully appreciate how valuable feminism truly is, and how endangered a species, either.  But thank God, they existed, and for Helen Grieco/Rachel Allen et al.’s work on the Family Court Report….

I ran across NOW information almost incidentally while flailing around for some group (nonprofit, agency, professional — whoever) to make some sort of sense in why police thought they could fabricate informations on the reports, why the child support agency didn’t enforce, and how to survive without that danged protection order that had worked so very well for about the first few WEEKS of its existence (and not much more….).

Most of this information is from NOW (CANOW.org family law page) but recently — probably because I pushed this envelope so hard about AFCC — on a certain nonprofit’s web page, under:

The group is “Stop Court Ordered Child Abuse”(.org), a.k.a.

All Rights Reserved: Copyright © 2010

{I’m curious about the Copyright, because this “BEWARE AFCC” information seems straight out of this page, almost):

CA NOW 2002 Family Court Report

CA NOW recognizes that there is a crisis in the family courts.  We have had hundreds of complaints from mothers whose divorce, custody and child support cases denied them their right to due process and failed to consider the best interests of the child.  CA NOW documented the results of analysis of 300 family law cases in our 2002 Family Court Report.

About 40% of custody cases are contested today due to allegations of child abuse, molestation and domestic violence. Tragically, in some of these cases perfectly fit mothers are losing custody of their children to abusers. Pseudoscientific psychological theories are used as legal strategies to switch custody from or deny visitation rights to mothers of abused children.   In cases where fathers contest custody, they win sole or joint custody 40 to 70 percent of the time.

This information (below) appears to come from Chapter 9 of this 2002 report:

9 Conflict of Interest and Corruption

a. “Court Cancer Metastasizes”

b. Audit of Los Angeles Judges Fund

(and I note — now that I look again — is credited to its source, as in:


Helen Grieco CA NOW Executive Director


WHATEVER — so long as we get the message — think about this content!


(I don’t think this info was out, on the site, or in the promotions of this particular group, when I first put up the “ABCs of AFCC ~ Shady/Shaky Origins of Family Law” page, here.)

Registered with IRS and Secretary of State in Illinois, but claimed they were a charity and were brand new. But Meyer Elkin takes charge shortly after their incorporation. (NOTE: he is the co-founder of the CCC) Shortly afterwards they changed to Association of Family and Conciliation Courts** (dropped Law) (Not supposed to use a misleading name, claiming they are a court, but are not.) At the same time the Conference of Conciliation Courts was still operating in California and was not registered with the IRS.

**(a.k.a. “AFCC”)

1978 Child Custody Colloquium had their first conference.

1979 Conference of Conciliation Courts was suspended by Franchise Tax Board

Evidence: Secretary of State Status Inquiry


The Association of Family Conciliation Courts was established as a foreign [i.e., out of state] non-profit corporation

(Get it?  “Metastasized…”)

Located at 111 N. Hill Street, LA (no room number, but in courthouse) Headquarters in Cook County, Illinois They are an Illinois corporation doing business in California. • Margaret Little is a custody evaluator since 1986 until now she is the child custody evaluator and the head of family court services in LA, and is the local agent/president, corporation head of the AFCC) • Jessica Pierson [s/be:  “Pearson”] is also an agent and incorporator outside of CA in Colorado**

Evidence: Secretary of State corporation papers filed in California No IRS papers filed.

**NB:  Center for Policy Research (read on…) operates from Denver, Colorado….

Who else is Jessica Pearson?  [I should go meet this woman some time — and give a piece of my mind…]

Pearson & CRC Per NAFCJ.net site:

Another AFCC founding official is Jessica Pearson, President of Center for Policy Research of Denver, Colorado, which is a primary consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services – Administration for Children & Families (HHS-ACF) which includes OCSE.

{{GOt that?  Got that??  CPR is a primary consultant to DHHS, including the CHILD SUPPORT factor, OCSE…}}

Pearson/AFCC have been using ther influence for many years to create pro-father programs and protocols which are steered to the pro-father court professionals who train others in the anti-mother evaluation tactics such as PAS.  She has been a frequent speaker at CRC and AFCC conferences and works closely with other fathers rights collaborators to promote PAS in government programs.

In 2000

OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs, Excerpts from, June 2000 report done for HHS by Center for Policy Research, Jessica Pearson, Ph.D.

, Nancy Thoennes, Ph..D. which included passages which pinpoint the fatherhood programs are a fraud – since


they are for abating fathers child support arrears and paying for their custody attorney – which are not allowable services

– even by more recent HHS-ACF standards



CONTINUING with the “Beware AFCC” chronology of this group:….

1989 Association of Family Conciliation Courts surrenders their intrastate license to do business in

No longer supposed to be doing business in CA Evidence: Corporation papers


Gregory Pentoney began working as an accountant for LA Municipal Court, 110 N. Grand, LA (same building as 111 N. Hill St., LA)


Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund bank statements indicate an account was established at Security Pacific National Bank

Address was Room 1198, 111 N. Hill Street, LA. This room is the Finance Department of the LA County Courthouse. Can’t tell exactly when it was established, since bank records destroyed after 7 years (and these records were requested in 1997) Evidence: Bank Statements Current BofA bank statements state that JMEF has been a customer since 1962. Curiously, that was the approximate date of the establishment of the Conference of Conciliation Courts which was also at located at 111 N. Hill Street.


The County Functional Listing directory of phone numbers and addresses does not show any entry for Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund in Room 1198

BUT there are two entries in LA and Norwalk for a Judges Trust Fund Accounting. • Judges wrote checks out of Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund for cash. (Kelly O’Meara article) • A check made out to Family Court Services Special Fund was deposited into the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. • A check from a District Attorney and his judge wife, David and Sally Disco, was made payable to Judges Trust Fund, and was deposited into the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. • This is called “diversion of funds” because one can’t cash or deposit checks made out to one entity into the account of another entity. (Penal Code 487 Grand Theft Larceny, or Penal Code 484 if under $400 or Penal Code 242 Theft of Public Funds.)


Al Schonbach began working for LA Superior Court, Manager of the Finance Department (Revenue and Pace-Professional And Court Accounting Expenditures handles all Court money from every part of LA)

Judges Trust Fund Accounting was listed in the County Directory

1992 14th Child Custody Colloquium

This book states that the LA Superior Court Judges Association created the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, which was formerly the Conference of Conciliation Courts founded in 1963. How conflict resolved. Judiciary and attorneys redefined roles, to learn and celebrate interdependence. Grown in stature,work together, cooperative judges, attorneys, mental health Promotes Richard Gardner and PAS. Thanked Pat Higgins especially. She collected money from lawyers to take the classes which were created and taught by judges and psychiatrists, free tickets were given to evaluators. Calderon (legislator) and Lionel Margolin (evaluator) were part of the colloquium.

1992 April 22, 1992 Security Pacific National Bank merged into Bank of America.

BofA is now the bank of record for the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. The bank had to convert all the accounts from SPNB to BofA which took a year-it is a complex process.


April 23, 1993 Bank of America/Security Pacific National Bank conversion completed.

All SPNB account numbers all had to be transferred and assigned a new BofA account number.

Not only was the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund given a new BofA account number, but it also received a new name. It is now the LA Superior Court Judges Association. Evidence: a signature card with the old and new account numbers and date of conversion. Neither JMEF or LASCJA is registered with the Secretary of State, FTB or IRS. There is between $60,000 and over $100,000 in the account, and one transaction was $30,000


LA Superior Court Judges Association, an unincorporated, non-profit, nonbusiness

Evidence: On their business card.

Marvin Bryer’s daughter filed disqualifications on Presiding Judge Richard Denner (his Judicial Profile states his court is sexist) and head of Family Law Judge Kenneth Black in December due to fraud. At first both denied, then Kenneth Black disqualifed himself.


January, Richard Denner becomes head of Family Law and is out of the case. Sacramento Judge Ford rules that since Black disqualifed himself, no hearing needs to be held.

Citizen Marvin Bryer reported possible financial fraud and wanted a criminal investigation in LA to Christopher Darden, Bureau of Special Operations (CID) in LA District Attorney’s office. . May 23, Christopher Darden declined to investigate.

Get the general idea?

AFCC’s own page states it started in 1963 with the publication of a certain quarterly.  If you’re a real going concern, one way to look like one is publish a magazine.  Of course with the internet, this is now even easier….



A Legacy of Innovation and Collaboration

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) took root in California in the spring of 1963 with the creation of the California Conciliation Courts Quarterly, the first publication to promote the interchange of ideas between California’s conciliation courts. Judge Roger Alton Pfaff, presiding judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, wrote:

California has become a model for conciliation services as a part of the judicial function for other states to emulate and each year we find jurisdictions creating such services. It may well be that in the not too distant future this little publication may have a wider dissemination with similar courts in other states.

How nice;  Organizationally, tax-wise, transparency-wise,

The “BEWARE AFCC” page states the activities around this time as follows:

History of the AFCC – Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

COURT CANCER METASTASIZES Metamorphosis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family Conciliation Courts A Guide to Destroying Children BY MARV BRYER

1939 Judges, lawyers and mental health professionals got State law passed (SB 737).

The 53rd Session of Legislature. The court became a lobby group. Each and every county would pay for marital counseling to help unclog the court system from divorce cases. The Family Law code • Section 1740 et seq formed The Children’s Courts of Conciliation, which was later repealed. • Section 1760 Article III Whenever any controversy exists, disruption of household with a minor child, the Court of Conciliation takes jurisdiction: to create a reconciliation. Evidence: Senate Bill and Family Law Code Lukewarm reception

1955 A Los Angeles judge formed the first Conciliation Court as per this law in Los Angeles.

1958 The Los Angeles County courthouse at 111 Hill Street was dedicated.

The Conference of Conciliation Courts (CCC) established a bank account at Security First National Bank (which later became Security Pacific Bank)
Evidence: CCC 1968 Financial Statement. A balance from 5th Annual Conference is described. This indicates the account probably began 6 years before in 1962.

Conference of Conciliation Courts, a private organization, was formed. The address of record was 111 N Hill Street, Room 241, which is the LA County public courthouse.
No incorporation documents on file, and no registration with Secretary of State, Franchise Tax Board or IRS. Evidence: Statement from IRS that there is no such entity and corporation papers in 1969. The founders of CCC were Los Angeles judge Roger Pfaff and Meyer Elkin. Six (6) California counties were involved • Los Angeles County • Imperial County • San Mateo County • San Bernardino County • Sacramento County – Albert H. Mundt, Phillip Schleimer • San Diego County 339 W Broadway The incomes of Blacks, Hispanics, Orientals, Caucasians were profiled.

Wonderful.  Here’s what Marv Bryer (Johnnypumphandle) thought of it in 1998, after doing some research:

CONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN.

In California – the organization filed as a CIVIC LEAGUE – Revenue and Tax Code 23701g. A CONCILIATION COURT is NOT A CIVIC LEAGUE. The exemption certificate was mailed to a lawyer named Michael Aaronson at P.O. Box 1055, San Carlos California 94070. The STATE 3500 papers states the organization was to improve marriage counseling. However, conciliation court is a STATUTORILY mandated function of the COURT – not a private corporation for lying and thieving judges and their court staff. The income was alleged to be derived from dues and contributions. In reality, the funds came from laundering legal education money through the COURT CONCILIATION DEPARTMENT through the FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

Makes you think about all this constant ‘education” of the courts that the HHS keeps putting out for, i.e., see last post….

Looking up a little more on Judge Pfaff, who in 1941 was an Assemblyperson (see, passage of the Conciliation Law, above…), Lexis Nexis article (abstract) of 1994:

Copyright (c) 1994 San Diego Law Review Association
San Diego Law Review

ARTICLE: No-Fault Marital Dissolution: The Bitter Triumph of Naked Divorce

Spring, 1994

31 San Diego L. Rev. 519




In recent years, widespread disillusionment over no-fault divorce has focused debate on the equity of conflicting distributive schemes. The divorce revolution of the 1960’s has generally been condemned as a failed liberal reform. In this article, Professor DiFonzo re-examines the origins of the no-fault movement, concluding that the abandonment of fault grounds was conceived as a conservative measure intended to facilitate the reversal of the escalating divorce rate and to replace traditional marital dissolution with therapeutic divorce. Compulsory conciliation was the key tool in the anticipated era of modern divorce, in which newly-empowered family courts merged with the social-science and psychiatric establishment to dramatically expand the state’s role in supervising family life.
The reform collapsed at mid-point, achieving only the jettisoning of divorce grounds. Professor DiFonzo argues that while the envisioned super-courts were never funded,
(and establish new professional niches for those fields.  No WONDER family law looks like a pay-your-way trip to the local judges’ (etc.) psychiatric couch — that’s how it started, and how it views itself, also!

The reform collapsed at mid-point, achieving only the jettisoning of divorce grounds. Professor DiFonzo argues that while the envisioned super-courts were never funded, {{This is 2011, and I’m not sure this statement still appies…}}an unintended consequence of the reform battle has survived to haunt divorce law for the next generation. The elimination of grounds transformed mutual consent divorce, the operating milieu for most of the twentieth century, into divorce on demand. The transition in divorce law from a mild reinforcement of mutuality to an enshrinement of the right of unilateral marriage demolition has resulted in a significant loss for women.

Possibly so, as practiced….

Back to NAFCJ.net on –well, “fathers rights and judges” page…

We need to understand a bit about “CRC” (Childrens Rights Council), and overlap with AFCC:

One important factor which the fathers rights leaders never mention is that their leading group, CRC, was set up many years ago by people who were officials of secretive judicial organizations – AFCC: Association of Family & Conciliation Courts — established in Los Angeles in 1982 [Should/be 1962, I think] by L.A. judges and a few others, including a man named Meyer Elkin, (now deceased) who was a prison sex offender psychologist
(NAFCJ note: a profession notorious for being sympathetic to sex offenders).

But Meyer Elkin was not the only AFCC official who was also a founding official, or closely associated with the leading fathers rights group – CRC.  Joan Kelly, of Marin County CA, does research and trains court professionals,  is also a AFCC and CRC founding official. Several other AFCC officials or leaders are also closely associated with the fathers right groups.   This and other factors show that the fathers rights movement was a creation of a ring judges who dominate the family court system and public policy  in many states.  These judges are not only hearing a large percentage of domestic litigation, they are also writing the state laws covering custody, divorce and child support.  In addition they influence HHS-ACF agency which controls most of the grant funds going to the state level agencies and courts. Their people are getting the grants and using for the fathers rights cases.


I recently read some of the CRC’s history page also, but now’s not the time to post it.

More from the NAFCJ page, which I WISH I’d read prior to losing my kids on an overnight in an atmosphere of escalating harassment, child support arrears (no explanation offered) and with apparent impunity, no matter what the guy did.

The  AFCC never mentions the multiple cross-affiliations between AFCC officials and the fathers rights group including Children’s Rights Council (CRC), founded by David Levy  in 1985, along with several other key AFCC people.  While this vital fact is no where to be found on any of their recent literature, it did appear in the early (pre-Interent) CRC hardcopy newsletters,  which NAFCJ possesses, and uses to discredit this group and the judges who collude with them.  Also in these older CRC newsletters was discussion of grants they received from HHS and the people who worked with them on those grants – people like incest promoters Richard Gardner and Warren Farrell.  CRC allies were put into high-level HHS-ACF position such David Gray Ross, as Commission for Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) -starting in 1993 through approx 1999..  Ross was a Maryland Judge, who people who knew him say was a dead-beat dad himself.  He spent his time as OCSE commissioner instituting regulations, programs and policies favorable to fathers and CRC.  He essentially set up OCSE to be a fathers rights child support avoidance and custody switching agency.  This perversion of  OCSE’s  agency’s original legislative mission continues to-date.  This is the reason why so many custodial mothers can’t collect on their child support arrears, while non-custodial mothers are hounded incessantly and even jailed for support obligations assessed beyond standard guide-lines and beyond their ability to pay.   Other evidence taken from HHS Inspector General Web site reveals even worse corruption at HHS-ACF/OCSE.

The AFCC claims their focus is on training judges, custody evaluators and mediators about custody and divorce issues. But in reality they are a father focused organization and promoting alienation theories to explain away family violence by men. In reality they act as a “clearinghouse” for organized case rigging.  They hold conferences about parental alienation but never mention the many professional experts who have condemned it as harmful to children or the link to incest promoter Richard Gardner.  Their  scheme involves “recruiting” male litigants through fathers groups and federal HHS programs managed by the local child support agencies for program “services” which are ostensibly for helping non-custodial fathers get their visitation rights so they would have less incentive to default on child support obligations.  Instead the fathers get deals to have their support obligations closed and sent to a program paid attorney to litigant for custody.  The judge hearing these cases proves payments to the court-colluding fathers attorney and other supposedly “neutral” court evaluators.   None of this is disclosed to the targeted female litigant who sometimes is also ordered to pay the fees of these court professionals (e.g. illegal double billing)..  The father is encouraged to file repeated motions (usually on frivolous claims of visitation denial or alienation) so the co-conspiring court professionals can get a steady stream of government payments.  It appears the judge handling these cases gets a kickback from those being paid (with his approval) based on a few exposed examples.  This is what keeps their litigation game going and going.  They label it high-conflict bitter custody litigation to hide their own fraud.  The blame the mother for everything and keep her away from her children so she will be desperate to go back to court and get a chance to convince them of the truth (which of course they already know, and are exploiting perversely against her).

Basic Judicial ethics prohibits judges from belonging to organizations with people who appear before them in the court cases.  However, this doesn’t stop the crooked  AFCC affiliated judges from appointing Guardian at Litem (child’s attorneys) or court psychological evaluators who are AFCC members to the same cases which the AFCC member judge is handling.  Also the AFCC conducts joint conferences with the CRC – fathers rights group – usually on the subject of Parental Alienation – which they all know has been discredited as being not a valid method for use in court evaluations.

Other people on AFCC’s Board of Directors are many people closely associated with the Children’s Rights Council.  Their  favorite researcher  —  Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. — was a recipient of a $10M federal grant.  Braver,  found, astoundingly, as a result of his study that after divorce, women do as well financially as men!   Bradford and many other purported “neutral” expert evaluators all work in concert behind the scenes to issue rubber-stamp anti-woman, pro-abusive father evaluations for the primary intent of deliberately covering up for abusive fathers (as a protection racket fueled by federal program graft).

The reason so many groups do NOT really follow up on this material is that doing so would expose, as it says, Federal Program Graft, and so very many groups are on the receiving end of — you got it — federal programs directed to solve this or that problem, mostly likely ones created to start with by this setup.

Just how are you going to Reform THIS much indoctrination, plus a little financial incentive too? — Univ. Baltimore Law School & AFCC:

  • Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Working with Children of Separation and Divorce: Fostering Healthy Family Transitions, December 7-8, 2005 (with AFCC)
  • Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D., Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes, January 11-12, 2005 (with AFCC)
  • Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D., Parenting Coordination: Working with High Conflict Parents, March 30-31, 2004 (with AFCC)
  • Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., Child Custody Disputes: Beyond the Basics, December 6-7, 2004 (with AFCC)
  • Phillip M. Stahl, Ph.D., Conducting Child Custody Evaluations, December 8-9, 2003 (with AFCC)

Pruett– Fatherhood friendly, as is her husband.

Joan Kelly — see above, and CRC founding official

Deutsch (sorry, not so familiar, though I recognize the name)

Stahl — I studied this one; he moved from a Northern California County to Phoenix, AZ; paid to train judges, and trains into PAS, straight through from the start, practically… (the link is to a Canadian site…)

CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGIST, March 1999, Vol. 32, No. 3, p 23ff

Alienation And Alignment Of Children

by Philip M. Stahl, Ph.D.

Prior to 1970, it was rare that parents disputed custody of their children. Beginning in the early 1970’s, parents began litigating over child custody as a result of changes in societal factors and custody laws. With this increase in litigation, Gardner (1987) observed and outlined a concept that he referred to as “Parental Alienation syndrome.” Currently, there is a significant dispute among experts whether parental alienation is a syndrome, as well as the causes and remedies of parental alienation. This brief article will describe some of the dynamics related to the alignment and alienation of children and provide some solutions for these children. For purposes of this article, I am accepting the premise that alienation exists and that the child is caught in a battle between the alienating parent and the alienated parent. There is little research on the effects of alienation on children, either the long-term impact on a child being alienated from a parent. the long-term impact of a change of custody to remedy alienation, or which qualities within the child might help to mitigate against the alienating behaviors of both parents.

What Is Parental Alienation?

While Gardner was the first to coin the phrase “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) first wrote about a process which they termed “alignment with one parent.” In their break-through book, Surviving the Breakup, they wrote:

Here’s a Philip Stahl site, “Parenting After Divorce”:

Parenting After Divorce
Philip M. Stahl, Ph.D.

Take Dr. Stahl’s online CE courses at the Steve Frankel Group.

Upcoming Trainings:

Please check back for future upcoming trainings.
Dr. StahlPhilip Stahl, Ph.D., ABPP (Forensic) is a psychologist licensed in California (#PSY 10272), Michigan (#6301001615), and Arizona (#3843). Dr. Stahl lives in Maricopa County Arizona, though his work takes him all over the country. Dr. Stahl is a practitioner, author, and teacher, specializing in high conflict families of divorce.**. He has served on numerous committees and task forces designed to improve the quality of work in his field. He teaches judges, attorneys, psychologists and other mental health professionals about issues affecting families and children. His expertise is accepted in courts across the country.

the categories in red basically comprise who started the family law field to start with….

**high-conflict is a code word (and euphemism)  for violent.  Arizons is where a female legislator was targeted and SHOT recently, and it’s where Dawn Axsom lost her life; it’s a hellhole for divorce.

If you are a professional, you will probably be interested in his training, either at conferences or for ongoing continuing education. Dr. Stahl specializes in training judges, presenting workshops to judges in Arizona, California, Virginia, Utah, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, and other states. He is on the faculty of National Judicial College and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. ***

Most recently, Dr. Stahl, along with several co-faculty, has developed and begun to teach a course titled Modern Divorce Advocacy through the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. As an approved provider of continuing education for the American Psychological Association and an approved provider of legal specialist education (family law) for the California Bar Association, Dr. Stahl also provides ongoing training and continuing education workshops for psychologists and attorneys.

**sometimes mothers get off on stating how this NCFCJ has discredited PAS.  No matter how often I bring this up, they do not process the fact that NCFCJ also hosts people such as Philip Stahl, who acknowledges and promotes the concept

YOU CANNOT, ANY MORE, SEPARATE THE “CFCC” functions of the courts with this AFCC:

Here’s one I found — turns out to be Baltimore, again:

Thursday, December 2, 2010

It is hard to believe it already has been almost six months since CFCC and the ABA Section of Family Law co-sponsored the Families Matter Symposium. We at CFCC are excited about the work that has been done since the symposium to expand the Families Matter initiative. Because of the partnerships that this initiative created – among CFCC, the ABA, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), to name a few – we are able to tackle the issue of family law reform from every angle, something that has been a struggle in the past.
Get the connection?  Significance — these are up and coming law students, attorneys, judges, they are being schooled in the “right way” to handle, presumably “family matters” including, Presumably framing criminal matters as family matters also…  After all, who’s proselytizing them?
I decided to click on ‘Families Matter Symposium” and here it is again, that (damn) concept that Courts aren’t courts, but psychologists’s couches:

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Families Matter Symposium: Working Toward a More Therapeutic Family Justice System

The invitation-only “Families Matter” Symposium was held last Thursday and Friday, June 24 and 25, at the University of Baltimore.  Co-sponsored by CFCC and the American Bar Association Section of Family Law, the symposium promises to be a powerful catalyst for change.  It was exhiliarating to participate in the exchange of groundbreaking ideas that emerge when you put together some of the leading professionals from a range disciplines to discuss how to improve the experience of children and families in the family justice system.
Thank God, MY kids are almost gone and I’m beyond child-bearing years.  I supposed these ‘Matters” will come up, however, if THEIR marriages (or partnerships) don’t stick.  ….
More exciting, however, is the fact that this group of high-powered experts is committed to move from theory to action by implementing many of their recommendations for changing the family law system.
Guess who will NOT be forewarned about this?   Families coming into it, particularly spouses being abused by the other spouse…
Maryland’s Chief Judge Robert Bell’s inspiring keynote reminded participants to keep those families who are less fortunate in mind while developing a roadmap for the future, and Georgia’s retired Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, in her heartfelt concluding address, urged us to focus on the preservation of stable families when possible, even while considering the divorce process.
In the coming months and years, we will work together with our partners to ensure that therapeutic reform touches legal and court structures, relevant service providers from across disciplines, and the lawyers and other legal actors who work so closely with families. It is our hope that family law horror stories – from cutthroat attorneys who seemingly care nothing for the havoc wreaked on their clients’ lives to disjointed, overtaxed systems that extend the time, agony, and unpredictability of already explosive situations – will dwindle and eventually become a thing of the past as this comprehensive, nationwide effort takes its hold. 

CFCC currently is involved in many projects relating to the Families Matter initiative:

• In the coming months, CFCC plans to publish and share a final report from the Families Matter Symposium – complete with insights into the problems underlying family justice system dysfunction across the country, proposed solutions, and concrete action steps that interested parties can take to help ensure that the reform vision becomes a reality.
• In a similar vein, CFCC has devoted an entire issue (forthcoming in January) of its Unified Family Court Connection newsletter to the Families Matter Symposium, with select symposium participants writing in-depth about their involvement in and reflections about the symposium

You see, with all this training — someone always PAYS the trainers — whether the government, or the liigants, or both.  These grants are not monitored as they should be (that’s already been acknowledged) and are in part to conduct research and demonstrations upon the populace that is forced and dragged to show up before them.  JUDGES can order it, and extort compliance by either removing a child, or throwing someone in jail.

DivorceDex definition of AFCC:

DefinitionASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS (AFCC) – an association founded in the late 1960s by professionals concerned about the care and custody of children and the collaborative settlement of disputes.

Application in DivorceAFCC is an association of judges, counselors, court personnel, attorneys, mediators, researchers and teachers concerned with the resolution of family disputes as they affect children. The association develops and improves the practice of mediation and counseling as a complement to judicial procedures.

AFCC conducts research and offers technical assistance and training to courts, legal associations, judicial associations and behavior science processionals.

Behavior science professionals — operating in the courts.  AFCC members also include (probably the majority of them) COURT professionals themselves.  In short, they are steering business to themselves…  They are the originators of the “mediation” concept, it seems (in this field), but as practiced it’s NOT mediation, because federal grants to the states give an incentive for that mediator to switch custody or increase noncustodial parenting time.  Moreover, these professionals are not held to obey their own rules (rules of court rules, I mean) and rarely do consequences happen when they fail to.  “Next, please!”

AFCC Massachusetts: Chapter founded, 1993


reduced-fee application process

To submit a reduced-fee application for the MA AFCC 2011 annual conference taking
place in Weston, MA on
April 15, 2011, click here.  The reduced-feeapplication process will end on March
14, 2011 at 12:00 PM.

The Massachusetts Chapter of AFCC, founded in 1993, is an interdisciplinary association of family law judges, attorneys, mediators, guardian ad litem, court administrators and mental health professionals.

It is dedicated to providing an interdisciplinary forum for the exchange of ideas and the development of procedures to assist families in conflict; to encouraging the improvement of courts and court procedures emphasizing collaborative methods of dispute resolution; and working to develop and improve the provision of services that aid in resolution of family disputes.

It is also dedicated to protecting the interests of children in relation to all aspects of family law, child protection proceedings and all other legal proceedings affecting children; and conducting cutting edge educational programs in furtherance of the foregoing purposes


Here’s what its president does:


David Medoff, Ph.D.

David Medoff, Ph.D.

Boston, Massachusetts

David Medoff, Ph.D., Forensic Psychologist. Associate Professor of Education and Human Services and Director of the Mental Health and Counseling Program at Suffolk University, and President of the Massachusetts Chapter of AFCC, Boston, Massachusetts.

What does your current position entail?

In my private practice, I conduct a wide variety of foren- sic psychological evaluations and consultations. I am trained in both pediatric and adult forensic assessment and I perform evaluations that involve high conflict divorce, child custody, parent-child contact and visitation, child develop- ment and attachment, child abuse and neglect, and juvenile delinquency.

He says regarding this field…

“For mental health practitioners, it is the merging of clinical knowledge and experience with the foreign culture of the law. For attorneys, it is the blending of specialized legal knowledge with the complexity of psychopathology and the field of mental health”

Yes, the law HAS become a foreign culture anymore, in these fields, as AFCC promised on its “History” page it intended to happen.  Transforming from the “old” language of criminal law..  to (therapeutic jurisprudence, what else?).

Remember, this whole organization began with tax evasion, fraud, and people who thought incest (Warren Farrell fans) was a good idea, and spouting Gardner TO THIS DAY on many sites….

Here’s the MASSACHUSETTS “Family & Probate” web page:

It’s convenient to combine family & probate, because someone has to fund all the prolonged family law litigation, and it’s good to find out right up front (if you’re in this field) which parent has the wealth. Then the child(ren) can be suddenly transferred to the OTHER side so that they will fight to get ’em back.  Let the games begin!

However, I note that there’s an AFCC link (actually two links) here, and this is a GOVERNMENT site, but AFCC is NOT a government-funded entity…

Self Help

And, first under “Additional resources…”

Other Helpful Links

GEE — in California, they just have AFCC publish most of the materials coming through the courts.  In Massachusetts, why bother?  They just put a link right in there…


The title of this one just makes me want to “puke”: (better seen in original).

The presenters include some of the names above — Stahl (PAS adherent), Deutsch (selling her stuff, too), and many judges.  at $131 a night probably tax-deductible, what a nice opportunity to discuss what to do with families they are helping bankrupt — “in the best interests of the children.”

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges


Fall Regional Training Conference

Applications for High Conflict Families, Domestic Violence and Alienation

Join NCJFCJ and AFCC for this first-time collaboration!

{{note — they have members in common…}}

• Three days of conference program and skills training with the leading professionals in the field. • Professional Tracks for judicial officers, lawyers, mediators, custody evaluators and parenting coordinators. • Pick one track or mix and match the workshops of interest to you. • Outstanding continuing education opportunities (see details on page 11).

• Three days of parenting coordination programs based on the AFCC Parenting Coordination Guidelines Recommended Training.

Professional Tracks



Custody Evaluators


Parenting Coordinators

Thursday Pre-conference institutes

Representation in Domestic Relations Cases with Family Violence

Mediating Enduring Conflict and Power Imbalances

Domestic Violence and Alienation

The Child’s Voice in Custody Disputes

The Parenting Coordination Process

AND of course, how to handle cases where one partner has engaged in such things as threats to kill, injuries, kidnapping or threats to, consistent patterns of neglect, intimidation, property destruction, and other things that would land a stranger that did that to you in jail.  As we see:

9. Applying Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Domestic Violence Cases (J)

Therapeutic jurisprudence can be conceptualized as a study of how psychology and law can unite to promote therapeutic out- comes. Theoretically, therapeutic jurisprudence is based on both social psychology and cognitive behaviorism. In the case of domestic violence, it identifies the factors that impact judg- ments of procedural justice, which in turn may promote behav- ioral change, or the unintentional reinforcement of maladaptive behavior. Domestic violence research shows that laws, judges, attorneys and mental health professionals can achieve iatrogenic or therapeutic effects for both victims and offenders as a function of the legal system. This workshop will provide an introduction to therapeutic jurisprudence, as well as how that construct can influence change through legal means. In addition, it will help judges and others involved in these cases understand that the manner in which domestic vio- lence cases are processed in court can affect the way offenders and victims view their roles in the violence, which has direct links to issues of safety, recidivism, and compliance with orders.

Gail A. Poyner, Ph.D., Choctaw, OK

Annette Prince, J.D., M.S.W., Director, Palliative Care Resource Center, Oklahoma City, OK

In addition, one can see them promoting their own pamphlets to the professionals, to feed the clients — only 25 cents, or 20cents each for around 1,000.


8. Evaluating Allegations of Child Abuse & Neglect in Complex Child Custody Cases (CE)

This workshop provides a structured approach for identifying and assessing the interdependent variables of a child cus- tody/visitation evaluation containing allegations of child abuse and neglect. Several myths regarding child sexual abuse (CSA) will be discussed. Using Heilbrun’s forensic evaluation model and Kuehnle’s scientist-practitioner model, this workshop will teach the participants how to organize the evaluation tasks of assessing the child’s needs and the parents’ capacities to meet those needs, while assessing the child abuse and neglect alle- gations. Related variables such as domestic violence, parental “gate keeping,” and alienation will also be discussed.

H.D. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., ABPP, Charlotte, NC

Children need to be SAFE from molestation, or watching their siblings molested, AND from violence from a parent towards them, a sibling, or the other parent.  The courts are doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would expect in this regard — and AFCC members are coaching each other how to do this, and getting extra credit in the courts (CLE, I mean) for doing so.

For “parental gate keeping” read — Protecting one’s children.  Of course right next to it, ‘alienation’ has to get in there.  This is simply PR and marketing.


This is an AFCC Associate Director (Per AFCC home site):

Associate Director
Leslye Hunter, M.A., LMFT, LPCC

Leslye Hunter has served as Associate Director since 2008 and was Chapter Services and Development Consultant from 2006-2008. She is a licensed marriage and family therapist and professional counselor who has practiced as a custody evaluator, parent educator, mediator and parenting coordinator. She served on the boards of the Family Mediation Council of Louisiana and Voices for Children; chaired a subcommittee on Evaluator Standards and Guidelines for the Louisiana State Bar Association Family Courts Committee and sat on the Louisiana State Board of Social Work Task Force for Child Custody Evaluation Standards. She was on the Steering Committee of the AFCC/Hofstra University Law School Family Law Education Reform Project and is on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody. She was President of AFCC in 2004-2005, during which time she appointed the AFCC Child Custody Evaluation Model Standards Task Force. She earned her B.A. in Psychology from Beloit College where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Her M.A. in Psychology was earned from Long Island University, New York.


Peter Salem (Exec. Dir of AFCC) has a role on Hofstra, and a google of AFCC or his name (therein) will bring up many hits.

The “Family Law Education Reform Project” is seen on page 15-16 of this 2005 publication (pdf), and describes the function of family law as it’s now conceived.  This is discussing how to train upcoming family lawyers:

In reality, today’s family courts incorporate a wide variety of dispute resolution procedures and are populated by professionals from multiple disciplines. Many jurisdic- tions have unified family courts that group a range of issues – from divorce and custody to juvenile crime to child support – under one roof, with a single judge.

Specialized courts for domestic violence, drug abuse, and permanency planning also dispense both mental health and legal services, involving the courts in interventions in the family that are designed to meet therapeutic goals.

Only problem — that’s not what courts are for.  Civil courts are not “therapeutic.”  Criminal courts are not “therapeutic” in intention.  Torts are about breach of contract.  Crimes are about crimes.  But family law is about therapy — whether or not we want it, and we must pay for it because of a divorce and (seeing as divorce normally involves inability to get along) we can’t figure out the kid thing?  HOw is a woman support to “figure out” a parenting plan with a man that’s been assaulting her — and why does he even GET a parenting plan, rather than just gol- dang OUT?

The answer lies, among other places,  in welfare reform, and the need of certain professionals to maintain their profession.

As a result, family court judges do not serve only as adju- dicators – they may also oversee a multi-disciplinary group of service providers all engaged with the children and families whose cases are before the court. This com- plex mix of professions, skills and roles is still evolving. In addition to lawyers and judges, mediators, custody evaluators, guardians ad litem, parent educators and par- enting coordinators are all powerful actors in today’s fam- ily courts. Indeed, today’s family lawyer works in a world where understanding the work of dispute resolution and mental health professionals may be as essential as knowl- edge of governing statutes and constitutional doctrine

And THAT, my friends, is why you can’t reform it.  You cannot really separate AFCC (which is a ring of judges, to start with, and ongoing) from the family law system — because one basically started the other in Southern California this long ago.  It’s about fraud, kickbacks, and mental health professionals with their captive audiences.  PERIOD.

You pump in child abuse, or wife abuse or other criminal matters into this system, and it will come out (years later) ground up and re-packaged (shrink-wrapped) as a “family problem” that these people need to solve.

We have seen this in action, far from the conferences and the classrooms.  It punished mothers who protest abuse and has them paying $200 an hour, or $75 an hour to see their own kids — after they report any abuse.  If they get to do even that.  if they flee with the children, they are hunted down and jailed, or punished with total removal, at times — and that includes from overseas.  If they protest and expect child support to actually be enforced, and go to the local child support agency to do so, that agency (behind their backs) is literally being PAID (by the Federal Govt – taxpayers) — to recruit fathers into programs (that enrich people running the programs) to engage in frivolous litigation in exchange for reduced or eliminated child support — or what’s even more of a triumph,Dad gets custody and MOM pays him child support, even after abuse.

You cannot “reform” this.  We need to understand the foundations — and that things not built on a solid foundation (and this on sure ain’t) will need to be propped up and propped up and endanger others near it.

We need to understand also that anything which had a defined BEGINNING can as well have a DEFINED end.

I have just shown you from a private university in New York that those educating family lawyers include that it’s as important to know about mental health profession(als) as it is about constitutional issues.

Please see my post on the “FAMILY COURT ARCHIPELAGO” and I believe that one also referenced BAHRAIN.

This is insane, and it’s improper use of the U.S. populace, especially with the budget problems.

You do not “reform” things that are this far off the mark.  You boycott them. You find ways to shut them down based on their misappropriation of federal funds AND you teach others how to do this.

I am just undressing the thing a little bit here – it’s NOT about law, it’s about endless education, and money laundering seems to be a innate part of the operational system, as witnessed when people get caught.  See my last posts also..

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 19, 2011 at 7:45 pm

Let’s Get Honest, The Emperor Has no Clothes (Foundations, “Nonprofits” and Your Constitution…)

leave a comment »

I thought it was time for a nice, short-winded

Post.  These are re-posts..  This is a pot-pourri, which pretty much also describes the feeding grounds of most courts these days…

(1)  Want to understand the courts? Read this: It’s “Foundational.”

(LINK is to my April 2010 post, “The Love of Money Spells Trouble,” which starts with a lead-in to Phoebe Factoids:)

Follow the trail!  Not your reptilian mammal brain!   Guess what reptiles are:  Cold-blooded.  They adapt to the environment.  Human beings are mammals.  They should be a little more independent.

Money is fine as a means to an end.  As an end itself, it tends to blind, and it gets pretty cold-hearted when that’s the end, forget the means…..and civil rights…

Despite all the hot-button, gut-wrenching, paper-selling issues in the news headlines, and on this blog, I consider my Phoebe Factoids post one of the most relevant.  It talks about what happened to two men who looked at the books, found them cooked, and some of the strategies to shut them up and shut them, their professions, and most especially, their story, down.

And I also noticed another link on this post, quoted here:

CPS Corruption and Human Trafficking Exposed in San Luis Obispo

Republicans Sam Blakeslee and Able Maldonado have teamed together for a child charity in the greater San Luis Obispo area named “The Family Care Connection”. While promoting this charity both politicians refuse to review corruption in the local CPS office.

Legislation gives states incentives under Title IV-E to increase the number of children adopted out from foster care.

OK?  Got it?  See yesterday’s post.  See life. Run, Jane, run.  See Spot jump.  Kids . . . $$ . . . Kids . . . . $$

Title IV funding provided to local CPS offices is being used for capturing and adopting out children. However, not all of these children are abused or neglected. Many children who are taken by CPS are not at risk or in any danger thus our Government is creating a form of “child trafficking”. Children are becoming a very “profitable commodity”.

This author is talking about the RICO aspect of current practices, and trust me, some legislation backs up some of those practices.  Beyond the legislation, are the loopholes that directs money to nonprofits where people steering that money also have a vested interest IN the nonprofits, or, are even employed by them.  For example, in CA, there’s that “First 5” funding — for kids, right?  But somehow, it, too had scandal following the use of taxpayer funds…

Under section 1962(b) of the RICO Act it unlawful for a person to acquire or maintain an interest in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. Since a RICO claim cannot be made in the absence of criminal activity many parents are being unjustly prosecuted in kangaroo courts so that children can remain in the “system”. Almost half of the children taken by CPS are being adopted out using this technique. Assemblyman Blakeslee and Senator Maldonado’s actions are protecting this practice by not responding to innocent desperate parents who have sought their assistance from improper removals by overeager Social Workers. These politicians have turned a blind eye to the CPS practices and to the children and families who are being abused by the CPS system they support.

Assemblyman Blakeslee’s office claims they have no involvement withCPS procedures, yet has contacted them when children from the “Family Care Network” are at risk of escaping foster care. Senator Maldonado thinks some parents are “terrorists” if they seek his help. Some children have chaperones with them at all times so they don’t try to run away to return home to their loving parents. The benefit of these unethical practices include: increased funding, full staffing, and support of their share of over 1.6 billion dollars would be lost if this corruption were exposed. This does not include the block grants exceeding 200 million dollars annually and other incentives. In a recent publication supported by Senator Maldonado and Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee The Family Care connection is asking people to write to Governor Schwarzenegger to speak out against a budget slash of 5% in foster care funding; while knowing the author of this article has been seeking their assistance for close to 6 months.

The standard practices of CPS offices throughout California and other states have been under scrutiny for the last several years. Since President Clinton placed into effect The Adoption Safe Families Act block grants have increased the number of children who are in the system. The state pays extra incentives for adopting out children over the age of 9 years old and additional funds if they require mental services or have other special needs. As a result of these block grants almost 50% of all children in CPS’s care are between the ages of 13-19 years old. Every day 36 children an hour are taken by CPS throughout the United States. In California alone more than 20% of all children are in foster care.

This is an industry, which has grown by huge proportions and must be reined in. The Gestapo type tactics currently being used by County and State agencies to increase revenue from federal sources may provide jobs today for the local economy but is having a negative impact on many levels. Good families are being torn apart and children are dying under the State’s care. When CPS takes children in error they rarely return them right away. The families are subjected to endless classes and programs whether or not they are guilty. The parents suffer great financial hardships because they are forced to retain expensive independent legal counsel. Many families lose their jobs and their homes trying to get their children out of the system. Some attorney’s are working in collision with CPS and help keep children in the system because it’s profitable, but most will agree that CPS is in fact corrupt.

Common practices of CPS agencies include: Not investigating before removing a child, taking children into state custody based upon here say, taking children from school without a “Protective Custody Warrant”, manipulating the Court system in criminal cases against the parents who are improperly prosecuted, obstruction of justice, fabricating documents, omitting facts, coercing minors, deception, isolating children from their parents, breaking bonds, traumatizing children, negative therapy, and placing children in unsafe foster homes. Children are not being evaluated right away by a doctor or seeing child advocates such as CASA. Social workers have been known to go on “witch hunts” against parents, influencing doctors, and ruining parents medical files. Many CPS agencies work in collusion with therapists who give parents false “mental conditions” which is used against them in court. Family court is “secret” so there is no jury or fair trial. Children are being heard in Judges chambers so many testimonies cannot be documented on Court record.


Many judges who rule on family court cases also sit on the boards of phony nonprofit organizations created to generate state adoption/foster care grants via federal funding. San Luis Obispo CPS has politicians heading non-profit organizations and Judges hosting “Adoption Saturdays”. California’s 2003 Little Hoover Commission Report said up to 70 percent of children in foster care should never have been removed from their homes in the first place. Children who complain about foster care or beg to go home are either placed on psychotropic medication and are sometimes sent out of State. California’s website for children up for adoption can be found at: www.adoptuskids.org

Dr. Moore who is the National Director of legislative affairs for the American Family Rights Association is heading up chapters under the NAACP. Children’s rights organizations, parents, and independent non-profit agencies are also joining in the fight against CPS corruption and human trafficking. Senator Nancy Schaffer recently passed a new law that went into effect in Oklahoma and we in California are hopeful that our state will soon follow.

Senator Nancy Schaffer is now history — and HERS needs to be told, as well….  Her work isn’t, just her physical body, and her husband’s.


“The Profit in Non-profits and two men in Georgia — Lessons from Phoebe Factoids

Surgeon Dr. John Bagnato stands outside Puntney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga.

NOT-FOR-PROFIT hospitals are actually for-profit hospitals, according to the new documentary Do No Harm. Rebecca Schanberg, who produced and directed this insightful film, tells the story of the two men who blew the whistle on Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga

Charles Rehberg, a certified public accountant, and John Bagnato, a surgeon, are two ethical, humble and honest guys who stumble across financial information showing that Putney Hospital has $2.6 billion in cash and transferred millions to offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.

. . .

June 17, 2009 | Issue 700

Surgeon Dr. John Bagnato stands outside Puntney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga.  (PHOTO above)

NOT-FOR-PROFIT hospitals are actually for-profit hospitals, according to the new documentary Do No Harm. Rebecca Schanberg, who produced and directed this insightful film, tells the story of the two men who blew the whistle on Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga.

{{READ the whole link….}}

Rehberg and Bagnato discover that the hospital charges the uninsured more than the insured and aggressively hounds and sues patients who can’t pay. As a result, thousands of patients have had their wages garnished, leaving many of them destitute. This is how hospital executives get rich–on the backs of poor, uninsured patients.

Guess who knows plenty about that?  Certain families stuck in the court system…

And then, just like in a John Grisham novel, things get legal, ugly and scary. Rehberg walks out to the parking lot after work one night, and a vehicle pulls up and blocks his car. Two men jump out, identify themselves as FBI agents, call out his name and say that they have been investigating him. The men–who in reality were no longer with the FBI–say they work for Putney and ask him to get in their car and go to a meeting. If he cooperates, they promise the hospital won’t file a lawsuit against him.

. . .Sound like a threat to you?  Don’t you just “love” it when some […. fill in the blank] threatens you?

Wisely, Rehberg doesn’t get in the car. As they leave, he’s warned, “If you’re not smart enough to do this for yourself, you should for your wife Wanda and your lovely family.” A bodyguard is hired to watch over Rehberg’s family.

Bagnato receives suspicious e-mails and phone calls from someone who hangs up every time he and his wife pick up, and the lock in his front door falls out.

The scare tactics and intimidation don’t work, and Bagnato and Rehberg hire Dickie Scruggs, the famous lawyer, who filed a class-action lawsuit against the tobacco companies and won one of the largest settlements ever.

Putney Hospital lawyers go on the offensive and file a lawsuit for $66 million against Rehberg. Next, the two men are indicted on trumped-up, ludicrous criminal charges of burglary, assault and harassing phone calls. Eventually, the charges are dismissed.

When someone gets inbetween the cash flow and the recipients, then the fangs come out, and we see who is really concerned about WHAT.

The word “nonprofit” is a tax designation.  Get it?  It’s a TAX designation, meaning this group pays LESS taxes, and others who do, pick up the tab if it comes to social services… “NONprofit” basically means, the US favors this set of organizations, as opposed to the poor sucker wage earners hoping to make it to retirement without being outsourced….  I’m not saying all wage-earning is bad; work is honorable, and the products and buildings we use are many of them valuable.  However, not enough people are talking about the alternatives to “jobs” just as our Presidents are not likely to talk about the very real alternatives to paying IT to educate everyone’s kids who can’t escape to something better, and calls that “Education” and “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top,” when it’s nothing of the sort, on all three counts.  It’s a set of incentives to reform the landscape through re-setting values in the schools.

The tax, courts, child support, prison, and educational systems (from daycare on up) are interdependent.  They couldn’t function without each other.

So the question becomes, who’s in the driver’s seat?

I have answered that to my satisfaction, after full-immersion “baptism” in this system, and the answer is, primarily, the foundations…

JUST EVEN GOOGLE “Foundation and family law” and you will come up with something interesting.  Here’s one in Texas, talking about itself:

Legislative Mission
Founded in 2001, the Texas Family Law Foundation’s mission is to improve the family law practice and jurisprudence of the State of Texas. Since its inception, the Foundation’s involvement in the legislative process has increased, but the Foundation really took on the leadership role for family law policy in Texas during the 2009 Legislative Session.
The Foundation’s successes to date include:
  • Passed multiple bills proposed by the Family Law Section, including the bill that repealed “economic contribution” and a family law omnibus bill which included reforming the parent coordinator laws, possession and access issues, and military deployment.
  • Defeated and repaired numerous bills potentially damaging to family law and neutralized issues that would have been very dangerous to Texas families and the people that represent them.
  • Becoming the go-to source for legislative staff and members on family law questions.
  • Foundation analysis of over 300 bills filed in the Texas Legislature.
  • Volunteer cooperation with our professional lobby staff to monitor each and every committee hearing on legislation affecting your practice. Read first-hand accounts from three of our volunteers:
  • And most importantly, establishing a reputation of competence and reliability with Texas Senators, Representatives and their staffs. See what some of them had to say about us!
The Foundation’s leadership and volunteers work with our lobbying team to maintain an active presence at the State Capitol to protect your clients’ rights and your practice. While you represent your clients at the courthouse, we represent them at the Capitol. We also represent you by:
  • Monitoring changes in statutes and regulations and alerting you of any potential effects on your practice.
  • Communicating the importance of your issues to elected officials.
  • Shaping family law practice and jurisprudence in Texas.

2007 marked a new beginning – for the Foundation and for Texas Family Lawyers! Join now and help us grow!

Many people, though they hear the words, don’t know what a Foundation is, or its purpose.  For those who are clueless (except that watching Television, one can notice several PBS shows may be supported in part by them):

For example, from “Creating a Family Foundation” (2006)

(“GP Solo:  Law Trends & News:  Estate Planning.”):

An initial inquiry should address the client’s vision for this new foundation. Will it seek contributions from the public or be funded by one family? Does the client wish to retain control? Private foundations best suit clients who plan to fund the foundation themselves and control its operations. Although this article focuses on the formation and operation of a private non-operating foundation, several alternatives to a private foundation may be a better fit for an individual client. An understanding of the client’s intentions and goals for the future can help the practitioner properly advise the client and guide the client to the appropriate vehicle for its philanthropic vision. These alternatives include private operating foundations (created to directly carry on one or more charitable activities), supporting organizations (organized and operated to support one or more public charities), and publicly supported charities (which must meet specific support tests to maintain favorable public charity status). Another consideration is for the client to establish a donor advised fund with a community foundation. With a donor advised fund, a donor has the ability to recommend the charitable recipients of its fund without the burdens associated with the administration of a private foundation.

The client should be advised that the private foundation requires ongoing monitoring and administration and that many transactions between the donor and the foundation will be prohibited. Despite the restrictions, the advantages of the private foundation make it attractive to the wealthy client. The most important advantage is the degree of control the client can exert over the foundation.

Foundation, Fund, Nonprofit:  Community, Charitable, etc.  — these are legal and business terms that more of us ought to understand, because a good deal of these foundations and funds can put a politician — or a policy — in place.  There seems to be no question that some were very active in plummetting (propelling?) Senator Obama in Chicago to President Obama in Washington, D.C. — and many of them deal with real estate, also.

Wikipedia “foundation”

foundation (also a charitable foundation) is a legal categorization of nonprofit organizations that will typically either donate funds and support to other organizations, or provide the source of funding for its own charitable purposes.

This type of non-profit organization differs from a private foundation which is typically endowed by an individual or family.


Foundations in civil law

The term “foundation,” in general, is used to describe a distinct legal entity.

Foundations as legal structures (legal entities) and/or legal persons (legal personality), may have a diversity of forms and may follow diverse regulations depending on the jurisdiction where they are created.

In some jurisdictions, a foundation may acquire its legal personality when it is entered in a public registry, while in other countries a foundation may acquire legal personality by the mere action of creation through a required document. Unlike a company, foundations have no shareholders, though they may have a board, an assembly and voting members. A foundation may hold assets in its own name for the purposes set out in its constitutive documents, and its administration and operation are carried out in accordance with its statutes or articles of association rather than fiduciary principles. The foundation has a distinct patrimony independent of its founder.

Foundations are often set up for charitable purposes, family patrimony and collective purposes.

FOUNDATIONS get things done, yet can get it done without directly tying “whodunit” to the results.  A foundation has no “shareholders” (meaning, they don’t control, either).  It may hold assets in its own name, meaning, protects wealth for whoever funds it (etc.)

OK, now let’s look at some of the players in the Family Law / End DV Field:

  • Family Violence Prevention Fund

It took me a while to understand, this is a FUND.  It can do whatever the hell it wants to, including promoting fatherhood while claiming to prevent “family” violence and eliminating, almost, the discussion of mothers in policy talk, in accord with who’s FUNDING the fund and which grants it can get from HHS (believe me, that’s plenty…).

It has no obligation to actually stop family violence, or even address accurately its causes, help victims of domestic violence, or address RICO in the courts.  I used to get more upset about it, til I realized that money rules, and it does what the (> > > >) it wants to, including continuing to talk the same talk, while women are getting blown away, or kids ending up on life support after OTHER grants to the family courts ensure that Bad Dads as well as Good Dads have access, and pay off the California Judicial Council (which receives this particular grants series) to make it happen, thereby corrupting the concept of law and evidence in the family law arena (if it was indeed there to start with).

And, this it has done, and a lot more.  For example, here’s they are doing best practices for a “domestic violence” court with others, including “Battered Women’s Justice Project”…

Creating a Domestic Violence Court: Guidelines and Best Practices

Supposedly this is a good thing.  I happen to disagree, along with others, but here’s the PDF reasoning:

. . . The court is a crucial part of this system, bearing the ultimate responsibility for case outcomes. Moreover, the court has the opportuni- ty to leverage this interaction in many ways: it can address the needs of the many vic- tims coming through its doors, providing them links to services; monitor the behavior of perpetrators and mandate them to appropriate interventions; and use the authority of the judge to demonstrate publicly the commitment that the system has to end- ing domestic violence. In recent years, the domestic violence court has emerged as an innovation with the potential to make the most of this opportunity for improved court response.

The domestic violence court, in which a specialized caseload is handled by dedicated judges and court staff and linked to key partners, such as victim advocacy groups, has been receiving substantial interest from policymakers, judges, court administrators, and agencies involved in domestic violence cases.. . .

((one can speculate as to many reasons why))

The court also can build on an extensive collaboration with agencies and community-based organizations, in an effort to strengthen the entire community’s response to domestic violence.

((and steer federal funding to them, yeah . . . . . ))

What’s so great about a “domestic violence” court?  It’s kind of lost on me…

Sources I’ve read, and my experience tells me, that a “domestic violence court” is not even a good thing to start with.  For example, see, JusticeWomen — in Northern California:

Someone asked for a feminist analysis of domestic violence court.
Here’s ours:

Our DV Court, a Deceptive, Dangerous Sham

Our domestic violence court has been designed as a showcase judicial ghetto for dv cases, and, like all ghettos, it’s been stripped of its most essential functions and powers.

s in many other counties, our domestic violence court was established in response to intense criticism of our criminal justice system’s handling of domestic violence cases. Also, as in many other counties, our domestic violence court is a sham, an elaborate dog-and-pony show designed to dupe the public and to preserve the dumping of victims, as much or worse than before.

Here are the defects of domestic violence court as set up in our county and many other counties around the country:

  • Like many domestic violence courts, ours only deals with misdemeanor cases. Defendants come into the court at arraignment and must enter a plea of “guilty” or “not guilty”. At this initial point, dv court is no different than any other court. The similarity ends there. If the defendant enters a plea of “not guilty”, the criminal case is immediately kicked out of dv court and sent back to a standard municipal court for adjudication. If the defendant pleads “guilty”, the dv court then sets a schedule for the now convicted perpetrator to report back again and again to the dv court for monitoring and supervision of his probation.

n other words, dv court doesn’t really function as a court at all. It doesn’t decide guilt or innocence in domestic violence cases, doesn’t weigh evidence, examine witnesses, prosecute defendants, doesn’t undertake the rigorous search for truth that is the core work of a court, and it doesn’t conduct trials. In dv court, except on rare occasions, the victim’s voice and testimony isn’t heard.

Our dv court is nothing more than an inflated probationary baby-sitter for convicted defendants. Granted the dv court has the power to throw the guy in jail if he doesn’t abide by the conditions of his probation. But overall, our dv court has been designed as a judicial ghetto for dv cases, and, like all ghettos, it’s been stripped of its most essential functions and powers. Precisely those functions and powers which victims most need to be wielded on her behalf.

This eviscerated dv court ghetto, like many other dv courts, has the following disastrous consequences for victims and their cases:

  1. When the defendant pleads “not guilty”, and the criminal case is reassigned to a standard municipal court, the cases are handled back in muni court by a junior prosecutor and by muni court judges who are now more unfriendly to these cases than before there was a dv court. In addition to their previous virulent biases against dv cases, these judges are now also resentful at being strapped with cases they feel should be being handled in the dv court. So even worse than before, these muni court judges have a tendency to get rid of the dv cases as quickly as possible – all too frequently by outright dismissing the cases, no matter how strong the evidence, no matter how egregious the offense, no matter how long the criminal history 

  2. Not surprisingly, it took defense attorneys in our county less than five minutes to figure out what dv court meant for their clients, the domestic violence defendants. Defense attorneys began immediately explaining to their clients ‘how sweet it is’. Plead “not guilty”, they strongly advise their clients, get your case moved back into muni court, and you’ve got a great chance of walking free. In fact, the gutted functioning of our dv court has assured that the most intractable, hard core dv offenders have the greatest chance of going free.

Domestic violence courts are not taken very seriously, all round.  They are revolving doors that spin people off right into the family law case, and that RO is going to come off pretty soon anyhow.  If it does NOT come off, and the woman is still alive (and has children), sooner or later the case will be consolidated with a divorce or dissolutiona ctions — and require, guess what — a CUSTODY plan — and there you have it.  Down the assembly line to the “it’s not violence, it’s just high-conflict” mentality of the Therapeutic Jurisprudence, like fish waiting to be flayed, gutted, and eaten by the fishermen.  Grants money goes to the headcount, business as usual.

if it stays on, seems like she can’t require it to be enforced anyhow — there is no such “right” created even by the presence of “mandatory” arrest policies.  See my blog, “What Decade Were These Stories?” and “Luzerne County…”  Jessica Gonzales (kids dead through unenforced order, despite her pleas and warnings:  THREE) tried, resulting in the city suing her, “Castle Rock. v. Gonzales,” then quoted by others to say the same thing:  tough luck!

BUT — FVPF is indeed a a FUND (a donor-advised one?  Probably, though I don’t know).

But FVPF can do whatever it feels like doing — because it’s got the prominent voice through prominent funding.  If they line up with the status quo, more funding.  Is this group likely to blog what I blog, and JUST a few others?  No way — it’d be cutting off the hand that feeds it.

Its programs — though I’d bet that a chunk of funding does indeed come from the VAWA stream, meaning stopping violence against WOMEN — don’t even mention women, except if they’re immigrant — in a heading, and sure as hell not “mothers” against whom much violence is directed, and which status (having a child with an abuser) makes women more vulnerable in many ways.  Here’s the list of “PROGRAMS

It is a Non-profit, Private, Non-Government Organization, per TAGGS:


SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103-5177
Country Name: United States of America
DHHS Region: 9
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

And, no matter how big the budget crisis, it’s getting its funding from the Feds to put out whatever its Non-Profit, Private Self feels like, and to neglect causative issues behind domestic violence and death to kids through the courts (or, trafficking through the courts) for the life of its funding — there is no law against this, from what I can tell:

From HHS to FVPF: $4,528,812 in 2010

(note year of support indicates ongoing grant)

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue
Date Amount This
Action 2010 90EV0377 4 2 ACF 12-22-2009 $ 0 2010 90EV0377 5 0 ACF 07-01-2010 $ 1,178,812 2010 90EV0401 1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 $ 250,000 2010 ASTWH090016 1 03 DHHS/OS 11-17-2009 $ 1,500,000 2010 CCEWH101001 1 00 DHHS/OS 09-14-2010 $ 1,600,000 Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 4,528,812

ASTWH — whatever that is:  “DISCRETIONARY”

ward Number: ASTWH090016

Got it?  Train and Technically Assist, Talk and Conference….

And another one:

Award Number: CCEWH101001

Incidentally, this one appears to have started out small (like $31,000) and then — the very next year, $1.5 million.  Now you tell me what that’s about!  But this is how it sometimes works…

Now, however good, or bad, that “model” is, here comes GLASGOW, copying it, much the way (?) The UK began copying the one-stop, fast-food, made-to-order “Family Justice Centers,” a.k.a. a certain attorney’s (Casey Gwinn) personal retirement program, the second one (or is it vice versa?) being up in ALameda County, for which I had to post “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys.”

Here’s Scotland’s “Domestic Abuse Court Pilot Program” report (2007..)

Scottland.gov.uk, yep:

Evaluation of The Pilot Domestic Abuse Court

Description This presents the findings of the 2 year evaluation of the pilot domestic abuse court in Glasgow.
ISBN (Web Only)
Official Print Publication Date
Website Publication Date March 29, 2007

Next »


Reid Howie Associates
ISBN 978 0 7559 6562 5
This document is also available in pdf format (808k)


Here’s a 2000 California Analysis, same idea — Domestic Violence Courts — and guess who’s writing it?  The same groups that are receiving the access/visitation funding:  CFCCs





Supervising Court Services Analyst Coordinator for Special Services


Senior Attorney


Assistant Director

(and marriage/family therapist of 30 years)

{{Right here is the AFCC/PAS-Gardner/Co-Parenting, KIDS TURN, etc. connection.}}

Ms. (or Dr.?) Ricci’s Lecture series seems to include a time with Kids’ Turn (known to be an Access/Visitation Grants recipient through this very same organization — California Judicial Council, AOC, CFCC, which GETS the grants, and you can go right on the court side and see that Kids Turn is a recipient, and marketing a curriculum (internationally) which just happens to benefit from the A/V funding law…


March 16-17, 2007
Wisconsin Fatherhood Conference
Keynote Speaker, Workshop Leader
Madison WI

Great to know that this person is going to represent the interests of battered women and abused children, and their legal rights, while a keynote speaker at the fatherhood conference, a HUGELY-funded (and paternalistic) movement known to be CONTRARY to those rights and deleterious to mothers & children’s health….  This is who is presiding over the great recommendation of “Domestic Violence Courts..”



Los Angeles, April 26, 2006
Honored Guest, 25th Anniversary of Mandatory Mediation
Annual Statewide Educational Institute
Center for Families, Children, and the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts, State of California




October 28, 2006
Invitational Workshop
KIDS TURN Faculty and Affiliates
The “Business-Like” Relationships: Helping Parents Set Boundaries and Build Skills
Corte Madera, California

(KIDS TURN was the brainchild of a judge or attorney around 1987 and is a prime promoter of PAS theory to explain away legitimate abuse claims.  It’s also a nonprofit that benefits from the whole setup….).  ….


Here’s a March 2005 CANADIAN publication recommending Isolini Ricci’s book right alongside a 1985 Richard Gardner book, pamphlet titled “High-Conflict Parenting.”  The section describing kinds of abuse vaguely suggests that one should “report to the authorities” the following behavior:


Intimidation includes threats to hurt or kill children, pets, or friends. Making a partner watch as children or pets are abused and not allowing him/her to intervene is another form of intimidation. In addition, this behavior includes the destruction of property, controlling what the other partner says, making the partner account for every minute or every action, threats to hurt anyone who helps the partner, threats to claim the partner is an unfit parent, and threats of suicide. These behaviors should be reported to the authorities.

BUT, oddly, not THIS — which is likely (as it is in the U.S.) a misdemeanor or felony crime, and could result in death if it escalates, and is categorized (at least THEORETICALLY) as “crime.” . . . .

Physical abuse includes pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, punching, kicking, breaking bones, knifing, shooting or use of other weapons; locking someone out of their home; abandoning someone in an unsafe place; and murder.

Those are NOT “report to the authority” behaviors in this “High-conflict” parenting manual citing Gardner and Ricci?  I’m “so glad” to know that the “Domestic Violence Courts” are under such watchful eyes as this person.

Here she is, 2010, at another AFCC conference (see my page on the AFCC and the foundations of family law), more business as usual healing broken relationships, and helping “change” the language of the law from caling crimes, crimes…. and reframing them as “conflict” and hence BOTH parent’s faults and requirement to somehow, “get over” for the sake of their children.

Rather than understanding that for the sake of the children, if it’s gotten that violent or abusive, already, the best thing is SEPARATION and go get the perpetrator some help WITHOUT using the kids as bait…

2010 Tenth Annual Texas AFCC Statewide Conference
October 15 & 16, 2010
University of Houston Law Center, Houston, Texas

Children Caught in the Conflict:
A Multidisciplinary Perspective
Featuring Keynote Speaker – Dr. Isolina Ricci, Ph.D.,
Author of Mom’s House, Dad’s House books
Presenting “Co-Parenting Today: The Professional’s Toolkit” 

Isolina Ricci, Ph.D, the author of Mom’s House, Dad’s House for Parents and Mom’s House, Dad’s House for Kids, is a licensed marriage and family therapist with 35 years experience in the fields of divorce, custody, co-parenting and mediation. Many of her pioneering concepts have now become accepted standards. For 14 years she headed the Statewide Office of Family Court Services for the California Administrative Office of the Courts serving all family court mediation and child custody services. She received her doctorate from Stanford University and has been honored by the Academy of Family Mediators and the International and California Association of Family and Conciliation Courts with their most prestigious awards for outstanding contributions and achievements.

That’s why we have no shortage of kids getting put on life support, kidnapped, or put into the  foster care system as protective parents take their roles SERIOUSLY, and by protesting this, make plenty of “business as usual” for such people.  See my last post.

She is the Director of CoParenting Today providing consultation, co-parent counseling, publications, and professional training where she integrates research on the brain, impulse control, resiliency, and motivation in her work. The audio book, Mom’s House, Dad’s House for Kids and a workbook for co-parents will be published in Fall 2010.

When this is the mentality behind “stopping violence” (and it’s being financially rewarded, and prestigious speaking conferences also), I have to say, it’s time for a little financial investigations, right?  And not to be cowed by the family alw system that set itself up to do precisely this — keep business COMING for the family law therapists, and income GOING for the parents, particuarly custodial mothers who, if contested in the courts, there exists a set of federal “facilitation” to help them lose their kids in the name of “Father knows Best”….

As a citizen, I can demand quite a bit from any nonprofit receiving public funding.  However, I cannot particularly stop the family foundations from spouting off on what they think is good for the rest of us.

Just a little reminder:

Pennsylvania ex-judge convicted of racketeering in ‘kids for cash’ kickback scam

Pa. judge guilty of racketeering in kickback case


A former juvenile court judge who sent large numbers of children to detention centers was convicted Friday of racketeering for taking a $1 million kickback from the builder of the for-profit lockups, in what prosecutors said was a “kids for cash” scheme that ranks among the biggest courtroom frauds in U.S. history.

Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella, 61, left the bench in disgrace two years ago after he and a second judge, Michael Conahan, were accused of using juvenile delinquents as pawns in a plot to get rich. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed 4,000 juvenile convictions issued by Ciavarella, saying he sentenced young offenders without regard for their constitutional rights.

Federal prosecutors accused Ciavarella and Conahan of taking more than $2 million in bribes from the builder of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care detention centers and extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the facilities’ co-owner.

A federal jury in Scranton convicted Ciavarella of 12 counts, including racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy, but acquitted him of 27 counts, including extortion.

The AFCC has run and organized the family law arena to just about guarantee a ripe area for kickbacks in ordering the mediation, supervised visitation and parenting education series of grants to the courts, in order to “facilitate” noncustodial parents “access” — and in the process, any board members, originators, or other profiteers from some of the NONPROFITS that PROFIT from this, have access to both parent’s funding and federal funding, it seems.  (See my last post on double-payments).  How did this get rammed through?  Well, it’s kinda FOUNDATIONAL —

Like, Annie E. Casey, Scaife, etc.

Got it?  “Discretionary” (i.e., up to you, presumably within SOME guidelines…)



I’m beyond 6,000 characters, so that’s it for today, folks.  Next post, more on AFCC (compare with today’s reflection on some of their keynote speakers’ topics…)


Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 19, 2011 at 5:06 pm

Below the Belt Custody Actions in the Beltway (Washington, D.C.) area.

with 2 comments

I realize Bahrain– an Archipelago I blogged on herein — is in turmoil, along with Egypt, Yemen, Libya and other countries where Shari’a is an ongoing “business as usual” issue for women. Yes, I touch on that in this blog.

However, I live in the USA, and have lost my respect for the judicial system HERE, and, like many mothers, lost custody of children I’d raised in “less time than it takes to change a tire.” Why?

A good cause might be made for answering that “why” with legislation dating back to 1913. A good cause might be made for understanding that one thing that sparks religious backlash and fundamentalism is ethically morally bankrupt (but financially prosperous) leadership in the primary institutions affecting our lives.

Such as the courts:

This post quotes a section from some recent articles, a larger section from FullDisclosure.Net, and some anecdotal evidence that not all fathers make the best nurturers.

Lest I be criticized for blogging as though there were no upheaval, riots, deaths, and earth-shaking events going on politically (and economically), I’ll begin AND end this post with Words from the Declaration of Independence (USA) in hopes that the Tea Party cannot co-opt the theme, but they are GREAT and relevant words at ALL times, which many have simply forgotten. And a reminder, that int he wisdom of the “founders” checks and balances were put into the government so ours did NOT do what I am documenting, in these pages, it now is doing — head towards tyranny with a long train of abuses. So, if these abuses are worse overseas, still the elected and appointed officials of THIS country owe it to THIS country to stop acting as tyrants to families, particularly parents of young children, and overall particularly towards WOMEN, simply because it’s convenient and desirable to maintain the plantation owner/slave divide after slavery was abolished and women got the vote.

I have been reading think tanks, legislation, family codes, civil rules of procedures, AFCC publications on shared-parenting, grant proposals, websites of grant recipients, and study after study funded by certain foundations to “fix” the rest of us who don’t happen to be running a family foundation and have time to run the rest of the world according to each generation’s new “master plan.” I have sat in on conferences run by mother-friendly, father-friendly, court-professionals-friendly, and SUPPOSEDLY, Children’s rights-friendly organizations and believe that my conclusion that the division is between the funders, the funded, and the studied, who may (or more likely, may NOT) benefit from any trickle-down funds that happen to splash back on them, accidentally.

You can hear it in the tone of the dialogue — condescension, vague generalities, and incessant rhetoric. It makes me sick!

The simplicity of the matter is that a larger populace of manageable consumers is necessary to run world affairs and manage international debt. That’s probably the primary assessment. And those who do not speak up for the travesty that our judicial system has become (long ago) will find fewer people willing to speak up WITH them, after they failed to speak up for others bounced out of home, livelihoods, and any semblance of normality simply for sticking up against and speaking out against oppression and violence perpetrated on them….

These systems cost me and people I love and worked alongside of, years of my life, (while risking mine), my children, future hopes and wasted past efforts. I am seriously considering how to survive and not pay into ANY of it for future waste.

This travesty has now outlived both my parents and my children’s “minority,” and wasted their and my time and talents, dumbed down their educations, and traumatized three generations of family. When FAMILY are the abusers, I learned that there is little recourse then getting the hell away from them, which is not possible if one has given birth, for the most part, and is danged difficult if one’s work has been eroded and lost through trying to get free.

But the process has taught me how our country works, and valuable information for the future, including stop being so gullible, and before engaging in business, work (or for that matter, social) relationships to FIRST check out who is paying whom what, and THEn consider whether I’m interested — which I most likely am not.

OK so here’s a 7,000 word post, but the beginning and end are from the Declaration of Independence…

Please — if nothing else — read the posts on the Virginia Judges, which got me out of blog-silence to make the point.

(My formatting will be improving, soon, but is not a priority issue at this time. Deal with it! Am still learning yet another new software system, and I’m over 15, so give me a break on the learning curve, OK?)

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

NOW, for the Business of the Day:

So please take a moment to read this “Beltway Confidential” about the judges in Arlington County, VA, part of a series by Barbara Hollingsworth. I am not doing a proper post here, but putting up the links:

Virginia’s Judicial Crisis is not lack of Judges.

She notes that zero out of 92 legislators saw any reason to question the reappointment of ALL judges, and the vote was all in one bucket (secret) and no names read aloud. Meanwhile, the anecdotal evidence of incompetence and conflicts of interest is mounting, which is why we need good investigative reporters AND Free Press (Remember that pesky “Bill of Rights”? Got news — it’s not self-sustaining!)

I learned about Ms. Hollingsworth’s articles from HERE:

Arlington judge accused of covering up fraud

By: Barbara Hollingsworth 02/08/11 8:05 PM

Legal fireworks went off in Arlington’s Courthouse Square recently when the Circuit Court agreed to hear an emergency motion that accuses a court-appointed guardian ad litem of padding her bill — and the chief judge of Arlington’s Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of sealing court files to cover up the fraud. Delores O’Brien has been fighting for the return of her 11-year-old granddaughter since July 22, when the child was seized by Arlington Child Protective Services in Stafford County even though, as Maryland residents, Virginia courts had no legal jurisdiction …

{this is an INTER-STATE Custody napping, it seems… }

WHat’s UP with those judges? Well, read the article; and This one, too:

“Three Strikes for Arlington Judge?”

And here, too:

“Baby Snatching by Arlington Judge”

Get THIS one:

Baby snatching by Arlington County


By: Examiner Staff Writer 04/18/08 2:00 AM

Examiner Staff Writer

There’s an empty highchair sitting in the kitchen of the Arlington home of Nancy Hey and Christopher Slitor. It’s their daughter Sabrina’s highchair. But it’s been empty for  two years because thieves disguised as Arlington County social workers and judges took her from her parents. She was stolen with no public scrutiny or accountability. Arlington County social workers used unproven allegations of neglect in April 2005 to justify removing then-3-week-old Sabrina from her parent’s home. Her parents were accused – anonymously – of starving Sabrina. And they were deemed unable to care properly for their daughter, even with the frequent help of Nancy Hey’s mother and a full-time nanny. After more than two years of legal wrangling with the county’s Child Protective Services (CPS), Arlington Circuit Court Judge James Almand terminated the couple’s parental rights in June 2007.

But nine months earlier, Sabrina’s parents were completely exonerated by Virginia CPS hearing officer George Walton, who noted in his official report that, despite the baby’s worrisome 10-ounce weight loss soon after her birth by Caesarian section, nothing in the her medical record indicated she had ever been in danger. There was also no evidence, Walton added, that Sabrina’s “failure to thrive” resulted from parental neglect.

In fact, the record showed the opposite: Nancy Hey – who suffers from a developmental disorder that makes it difficult for her to recognize non-verbal signals from others – and her husband fully cooperated with medical professionals and CPS workers throughout their ordeal. In any case, Sabrina was at her proper weight when she was taken away by county officials, two days after her parents told social worker Dana Zemke that they were retaining a lawyer. Arlington Judge Esther Wiggins Lyles signed the removal order with neither Hey nor Slitor even aware of the proceedings, much less being present to contest the decision. Sabrina went to a politically influential local professional couple with no training as foster parents, despite CPS requirements that foster couples be trained before being entrusted with children.**

Judge Almand later used the baby’s inappropriate removal to justify making the separation permanent, saying it would be too “traumatic” to return Sabrina to her natural parents.

{{Where was that line of reasoning when they took her away to start with? I’m sick of this! Who started the series of disruptive custody changes — the parents???}}

So, when Sabrina turned 3 April 3rd, she didn’t blow out her birthday candles in the kitchen where her heart-broken parents still keep her empty highchair. Even after spending $350,000 in legal fees, they have not given up hope. They’ve asked the Virginia Court of Appeals to return their child. Meanwhile, every Arlington County employee involved should be put under oath and questioned in public about their role in this outrage.

(this is the entire article by “Examiner Staff Writer” posted on 2008, note this behavior by the judges has been ongoing).

***I’m not a Virginian. But where is “The Virginian” when you need him, that TV hero that rides in and takes care of the bad guys?

From this distance, it seems clear (again, in my OPINION) that when the parents telegraphed they’d found MONEY to fight, the removal was guaranteed. That family had to get soaked. Beyond this, the connections between who adopted and any judge is outrageous.

We need to continue to remember, there are UNALIENABLE rights, NOT granted to us in part from our government, but from which no government has the right to remove from any individual; and any such pattern of tyranny eventually should cause redress, especially if it becomes a long and egregious pattern of behavior, as is described regarding “the King of England” by Colonists a few centuries ago in the Declaration of Independence.

Women in particular need to stick up for our right to be aggressive, independent and NOT overly submissive to authority when our CHILDREN are taken, and whether or not religious groups like this (they don’t, trust me on that), it’s for our own good that we eradicate the concept that a slave- based economy of ANY sort is acceptable in this country.

At some point in time, this has to become a tax revolt, as the taxes are automatically collected to fund public servants, including corrupt ones, grants upon grants upon grants to support dubious programs “for our welfare” — seems like the only part of the Constitution that our presidents (plural, not just the current one) swore to protect which they are actually focused on — and almost ANY program could be “justified” under for the public good, as defined by those allocating funding.

This link HERE shows that one attorney (who got thrown in jail at age 69 for this) is still working with others to confront — just in California, alone — fraud of the taxpayers totally close to a billion ($ 1,000,000,000). The judges were getting paid higher than Supreme Court Justices. The District Attorney was sitting on millions of already-collected child support funds (and the interest accrued from them), not distributing this to the children and spouses. Richard Fine was involved in the exposing of this. Safety measures/environmental measures were short-circuited involving safety of people whose housing was over a methane deposit as the City of Los Angeles issued multiple building permits without environmental clearances. Certain Judges were on dual payrolls, County and (State) while hearing cases involving the county. And that’s not even dealing much with the family law arena…

It’s called, appropriately, ‘The Money Trail.”

A true story — wrapped up in one man’s personal nightmare.” and see also, my READ THIS FIRST foundational page, “ABCs — Shady, Shaky Foundations of Family Law…” (to the right). The family law frauds are just the tip of an iceberg.

From a related page, “the Best Courts (Your) Money Can Buy”:

You’ve probably never even heard about it, but our LA County Supervisors have been giving local superior court judges an illegal bonus (now an extra $57,000 a year per judge), even though doing so is plainly prohibited by California’s Constitution.  (Judges already receive about $179,000 a year in salary from the State, plus another $30,000 in benefits, and they’ll continue to receive as much as 80% of the packages in retirement benefits.) 

There are letters, reports and memos which prove there were no doubts the givers and receivers all knew and understood that the payments were illegal, but they’ve been doing it anyway for more than 20 years.

Why would the County pay out such a huge amount of money (about $300 million so far) when it didn’t have to?   When it was illegal to?   (And now the County is suffering from a monstrous budget “crisis”, for heaven’s sake!   Might this be a clue as to why?)  They’ve said it was to “attract and keep quality judges”, but that explanation ignores the fact that judges are elected and We The People decide which ones we’ll keep, and it ignores the thousands of qualified lawyers who’d gladly fill the judgeships at the legal base pay rate.  (These LA County judges are receiving far more than any other group of judges in America, even more than the judges of the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court.)   So the reasons given can’t possibly be true, not to mention the glaring fact that we’ve now paid more only to have gotten an entire bench of judges acting illegally.  Whose definition of “quality” are we going by here? 

The Cost of Living Index bears this out:  Los Angeles is rated 147.7 (the “average” city is rated 100.0), yet it costs 14.2% more to live in San Francisco, which is rated at 172.1.  Yet LA judges have managed to get themselves 32% more salary than San Francisco’s judges.

Could the answer instead lie in the 2005-2008 reports analyzing the cost of lawsuits in which LA County was a defendant?  It turns out that not one of those cases was lost by the County when decided by a judge who’d gotten the illegal bonus.   Not one.  (Update with newly discovered report:  It also turns out that the criminal conviction rate has doubled, while the actual crime rate has remained essentially the same.) (Update #2:  LA County Board of Supervisors’ salaries are set to match superior court judges’ salaries, which were supposed to have only been paid by the State.  But since the Supervisors paid them illegal bonuses, the Supervisors’ own salaries also apparently were increased as a result … without the public’s permission.  The law characterizes this as a crime of “embezzlement”.)

Many years prior to these discoveries, Richard Fine, a gentleman and attorney with a very distinguished career as a taxpayer advocate, had forced LA County to stop stealing from kids after a client discovered that the County was holding up child support monies it collected before paying them over to the parent who was supposed to receive them, illegally keeping all the interest while callously depriving millions of helpless children in the process.  (In some instances, the support monies were not being paid over at all.)  Mr. Fine also forced the County to stop overcharging residents on their sewer bills (obtaining $85 million in refunds).  There are many more examples from over the years, but perhaps the worst of all was the relatively recent discovery that County leaders are striking sweetheart deals with developers which practically give away taxpayer-owned land (OUR public land) to them, in exchange for campaign donations and who knows what else.  This practice alone has and will continue to cost us hundreds of millions in lost tax collections, money that we’ll all have no choice but to make up elsewhere, because judges have dismissed all the lawsuits that were filed trying to recover the lost tax value of at least $700 million dollars.

This is no exaggeration. 

Mr. Fine realized that very strange things had happened in several recent cases he’d filed against Los Angeles County.  Knowing that cases were mysteriously being dismissed for nonsensical and bogus reasons,

{{WOW — Katie Tagle in CA, Cabrillo in MD, Dawn Axsom in AZ, much? Women’s attempts to renew or maintain a domestic violence restraining order, or to help protect their children from IDENTIFIED instances of child abuse, and having their concerns be blown off, repeatedly, by judges…?? I just mentioned three cases that resulted in deaths — the first two, of the child/ren in question, and the last, of Dawn and her mother. What about the Leichtenburg twins in Illinois, or others? The list is absolutely ongoing. Want a more recent one? Here’s one from California — a baby in his father’s care:

And — why I hate researching some of these articles — usually three more similar ones surface in the search. …

Here’s one from Boston, 2009. 36 year old Dad, boy on child support

And one from Florida

Toddler on life support, custody clouds the issue (FLORIDA, 2/4/2011)

This one apparently an underage (17 yr old) mother, “Scott” had her own mother die, putting her into foster care, and probably precipitating the removal of the child from her home. The child was given to the father, who THREW the 16 month old (for crying) resulting in brain injury and a criminal case, landing the 23 year old father in jail. Wonderful. Oh yes, and he had a prior arrest for misdemeanor battery as an 18 year old. Great person to give custody of a young son… But, in the interests of a child, a married couple in Virginia with a full-time nanny and clean bill from CPS gets THEIR infant daughter removed — because they have money to fight back with??? ??

“The health of the child is a private decision,” Seidel said.

Poole, 23, was arrested Tuesday night on an aggravated child abuse charge and is being held without bail. Police said he threw his son on a bed as punishment for playing near an electrical socket; Ronderique’s head hit a dresser or wall.

{{Let’s review this again. Bush, Clinton, Obama, and HHS all agree, as do many others in on the funding: There’s a fatherlessness crisis in the land. Oh yes, and we need more abstinence (not for us presidents, of course…. or Legislators….), and more marriage promotion. We need fatherhood commissions, initiatives, training, funding, and so forth — and we GOT them. Well, how’s that turning out?

This father, then, got back in his son’s life, and came close to ending it — for playing near an electrical socket. Can we Puh-LEEZ start supporting MOTHERS again, let them nurse and hold their kids, even if some Dads continue to cry “not fair — WE can be nurturers, too!”}}

Scott doesn’t live with Poole. She said Ronderique was removed from her care when she was placed in foster care after her mother died.

Gillespie said DCF had prior investigations relating to Scott’s care of her son. She said Ronderique had been placed in his mother’s care, but then removed, several times before the agency determined Scott wasn’t an appropriate caregiver.

Although Poole was given custody of his son, Scott retained her parental rights, said Jeff Rainey, chief executive officer of Hillsborough Kids, which contracts with DCF to provide foster care services.

{{There’s the financial connection in THIS case — Hillsborough Kids / DCF / Foster care services. }}

Poole was convicted of misdemeanor battery and sentenced to 14 days in jail following a November 2005 fight, records show. He was 18 when he got in the fight in a hallway at Bloomingdale High School in Valrico, deputies said.

After Ronderique was placed in his father’s custody, case managers went to Poole’s home to check on the child’s welfare, Gillespie said. There were no prior reported problems with Poole’s care, and no history of violence involving Poole or Scott and their son.

But in light of Poole’s arrest, DCF is reviewing its decision.

“We do believe already with what we’ve seen that mistakes were made in choosing the father as the placement for the child,” Gillespie said.

The damage is done to the young boy — he’s on life support. Now they are arguing about who gets to pull the plug, or not. Great policy, folks… Wonder if any fatherhood funding played a role in THIS one …

Here’s a father who abused a two-month old, and his wife, and another two-month old, who eventually sent to child support, and DIED. And some of the case history:
Antioch, California: (NB: home of the infamous Dugard/Garrido kidnapping, hostage, rape, father two kids, and all while on probation case: cost to taxpayers to settle — last I heard and on including prosecution costs — $20 MILLION)….

MARTINEZ — A 2-month-old boy from Antioch has died from injuries he got when his father punched him in the face, compounding the man’s violent history that includes allegations he abused his older son when he was an infant in 2009, a Contra Costa County prosecutor said.

Sigifredo Lua, 23, was charged Friday with three felonies that allege abuse on his two sons, including the infant who until Friday had been brain dead in the hospital, and his wife.

He is charged with murder and assault on a child resulting in death for punching his 2-month-old on Tuesday at the family’s Antioch home, deputy district attorney John Cope said.

Lua is also charged with willful injury to a child for assaulting his now-2-year-old son when that boy was 2-months-old on April 15, 2009, Cope said. He is charged with corporal injury on a spouse for assaulting his wife, the mother of both children, on Feb. 7 this year, Cope said.

Lua was watching the two boys on Tuesday night when he called his wife at her workplace and said the infant was injured, police said, and she called 911. Lua allegedly later told police that he punched the infant in the face to stop him from crying.

The infant’s injuries include multiple fractures, a lacerated liver and bleeding on the brain. Detectives are still investigating whether the infant had been abused on other occasions besides Tuesday, Cope said.

{{Just a reminder, that children in FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS are supposedly at highest risk. This man was abusing his wife also. … caused HER injury, how likely is it that the same activity towards an infant might kill the infant? My argument — men are not constitutionally set put to handle crying infants. Perhaps this is why they don’t have wombs, except in an occasional movie involving Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito… No matter how much pay-per-view “evidence” federal funds amass, I think there is simply something to the fact that little kids belong with Moms… And that men who HIT Moms don’t belong in the household…}}

The infant was in a vegetative state Thursday night. . .

Now let’s continue to look at why some judges don’t give a damn and what they DO seem to give a damn about, and get worked up about — like some upshot attorney upholding his ethical, professional oath, and in the process confronting financial conflicts of interests (aka bribes by any other names) and how they humbly repented of their oversight and quickly corrected the “errors.” Yeah, right…

(i.e., back to the FULLDISCLOSURE.net site)

he [Richard Fine] investigated and uncovered the County’s illegal payments to judges and the reports showing that the County was no longer losing lawsuits when judges determined their outcome.

In trying to right the further wrongs being done to taxpayers, Mr. Fine insisted that judges being paid by the County should have revealed that fact on their mandatory financial disclosure forms and, if any party to a lawsuit objected, the judge should voluntarily step aside and not determine the outcome of cases in which the County was a party.  As an officer of the court, Mr. Fine was obligated by oath to raise these issues.  He made it clear that any other course of action looked suspicious, and reminded them that judges are required by the law to disqualify themselves automatically when there was even an appearance of impropriety.  Mr. Fine insisted that the judges disqualify themselves and allow the cases to be ruled over by unbiased judges.

{{What about in family law cases, where Judges presiding over custody decisions in a context that ENCOURAGES (by federal grants incentives — Access/Visitation payments, I mean — “parenting education” “supervised visitation” and “mediation” alternatives to get the (fathers — aka “noncustodial PARENTS”) more visitation time, in exchange for abatement of child support arrears — whether it was reasonable, or unreasonable — and child support can be either, and is… What about as in the Arlington, VA cases, above, or in the PA Kids-for-Cash Scandal of Luzerne County, which I also posted on…}}

But the judges, who all feared having to repay that money and who faced prison time for accepting it, closed ranks and refused to disqualify themselves.  They put on the false front that there was no problem whatsoever.   Mr. Fine’s clients were not happy, of course, and encouraged him to stop them from getting away with it.  So he fought back. 

To make a long story short, the judges managed to take away his license to practice law, charging him with “moral turpitude” for questioning the courts’ neutrality.  (This issue is what’s currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Update:  State Bar files waiver of right to respond, meaning Mr. Fine’s appeal is unopposed.)

They even held a hearing about Mr. Fine without notifying him (which they later admitted), and issued orders in his absence without giving him any opportunity to object or respond

{{in other words, they treated him like an average mother might be treated in any contested custody case, or parents MIGHt be treated if CPS gets wind of some money in the family and an adoptable child, for which it’s known there are just about bounties in the foster care/adoptions fields.}}

He is now being forced to sit in jail on a false contempt charge because he refuses to pay sanctions of $47,000 which were imposed to punish him for causing them trouble and prevent him from continuing.   Judge Yaffe even acted as a witness in the contempt “trial”, improperly putting himself in the role of judging the truthfulness of his own testimony.  (There are so many laws against this kind of thing, it’s stunning it was even tried, much less that they’ve been able to keep Mr. Fine behind bars for months with an “order” which was generated under false pretenses and under color of law.)   To prosecute the contempt charge, Judge Yaffe and the attorneys for developer Jerry Epstein agreed that Epstein’s attorneys would prosecute the case.

The judges are so scared that they’re keeping Mr. Fine in jail despite knowing that the California Court of Appeal issued a decision late last year in a case brought by Judicial Watch called Sturgeon v. LA County which left no doubt that it is absolutely illegal for the County to make these payments to judges. 

However, rather than conform to the law as the Sturgeon decision commanded, those involved got together and, guided by California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George, hired expensive lobbyists (paid with public funds?) to manipulate the State Legislature into literally sneaking through a midnight bill (called “SBX2-11”) at the peak of this year’s budget crisis.  Our laws were thus changed to not only make the payments  appear to be “legal” and authorized to continue, everyone involved in the giving and receiving of them has been granted retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution.  (Immunity is never given when no crime is involved.)   (UPDATE:  The paragraph of SBX2-11 concerning the retroactive immunity was not put into the official Code like the rest of the bill.  Why are they hiding this pardon of over Ten Million Felonies from the public?  Also, and luckily for taxpayers, it turns out that SBX2-11 does NOT grant immunity to county supervisors who paid themselves matching bonus.  Looks like they’ll be facing some time behind bars for their greed blinded by stupidity.  Now, if only we could find an honest prosecutor.)

SBX2-11, however, is an ex post facto law.  Its immunity provisions will ultimately be repealed.

Mr. Fine currently has an appeal for release before a higher court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,  and new ammunition:  a brand new decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was issued on June 8, 2009 (in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.) which confirms the no-brainer holding confirming that judges must disqualify themselves from presiding over cases in which they’ve received money from a party to a case before them.

Also, a bright star on the horizon is the news that a preliminary injunction is being sought on July 13th by Judicial Watch to stop the bonus payments to judges from the Los Angeles County Supervisors (one of whom was actually caught some years back phoning a judge on behalf of a campaign contributor to try to influence the outcome of a case being heard at the time).   (UPDATE:  Protecting his fellow judges (for now), Judge Richman has dismissed the case,  ruling that SBX2-11 now authorizes the payments.  The case is again up on appeal before the California Court of Appeal (which ruled in Sturgeon’s favor after the first round), with oral arguments scheduled for sometime in October, 2010.) 

Meanwhile, Mr. Fine has been locked in solitary confinement under horrendous circumstances and conditions since March 4, 2009.  He’s been in what the ACLU has said is absolutely THE “worst” jail in all America  …  Men’s Central Jail in downtown Los Angeles, home to 20,000 inmates.  Things were bad enough as he was kept from sleeping because of bright overhead lighting being purposefully left on all night, and he was not allowed outside for fresh air and exercise, or even a moment to see the sunshine.  The judge’s malice was clear from the beginning, however, inasmuch as he ordered that Mr. Fine be denied paper and pencil with which to petition a higher court … a basic civil right of ALL incarcerated persons, even mass murderers.  Reporters were also not allowed to interview him.    Mr. Fine is not allowed to post a bail or have any kind of hearing, nor does he have access to a law library or any legal materials; simply put, he is ordered to remain in jail until he relents and acknowledges the void “order” as being legitimate.  (For this to happen, Richard Fine will be forced to violate his oath,  one deeply held and honored throughout the life of his productive career.  But eighteen months later and counting, we can’t help but wonder how much longer any human could hold out.)

{{He has since been released, but the incarceration was an outrage to start with…}}

At the present time, even though the (all-volunteer) support team was able to have some of the jail restrictions relaxed a tiny bit, Mr. Fine continues to be prevented from earning an income and the financial consequences have been devastating.  As a taxpayers’ advocate, Mr. Fine never lived a life of opulent luxury.  Now he is literally on the brink of losing everything.  (One judge even took money directly from a client settlement fund of Mr. Fine’s, forcing him to pay for the cost of the judge’s attorneys to defend his receipt of the illegal payments.)

Richard Fine worked tirelessly for all of us, but now has nothing left beyond the hope that you, the decent citizens of California and elsewhere, will return a small part of the favor and support efforts to restore and enforce our Constitution. 

How can you help?  Consider voting against all incumbent superior court judges and LA County Supervisors in their next elections.  Consider voting against all California State Senators and Assemblymen who voted in favor of SBX2-11 while it was in committee. (See Footnote 1)  And consider voting against all those who’ve refused to get involved here with the excuse that it’s “a judicial matter” like Congressmen Brad Sherman and Adam Schiff, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who also signed off on SBX2-11).

The details of this story are very complicated, so drafts have been written and put online — one for lawyers which contains legal details, and a shorter one for those who don’t have the interest in slogging through it all.  (Both are works in progress.)  If you’re interested in learning the details, you will find the lawyers’ version at http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/Home/the-money-trail and the shorter version at http://sites.google.com/site/freerichardfine/money-trail—edited-version.  (If you are interested in staying updated, please see our blog at RightTrumpsMight.blogspot.com .)  …

But lawyers still tell us they cannot afford to get involved publicly.  They have to work before these judges, and they know very well that what is happening to Mr. Fine could also happen to them if they make waves.   So it’s up to us.

Your support, in whatever form, will make a difference.  Monetary donations would certainly help tremendously (the cost of filing just the one petition with the U.S. Supreme Court was almost $3,100).  The larger picture, however, involves protecting ourselves and our futures from those we cannot trust who have managed to get into office. 

But we’re only a small group of dedicated people in a fight against 500+  …  and the robed robbers have a tremendous amount of power. 

However, WE have the decency and good intent they sorely lack.  If you join us, someday you too will be able to look back with pride in the knowledge that you played a meaningful part in history … that you helped save an entire state from massive corruption, getting it back on track to becoming a great place to live, where justice is dispensed fairly, once again

Beyond freeing Richard Fine, the following issues will be addressed and changes implemented with immediacy to undo damage done and right wrongs committed to date:

*     Demand will be made upon judges to return all monies that were paid to them illegally, and any judge so tainted who may remain on the

        bench is forbidden and will be prevented from ever presiding over any future lawsuits involving the County.  (The costs of providing

        additional judges to handle County-related matters will be deducted from tainted judges’ State salaries.)

 *      All lawsuits against the County of Los Angeles and/or members of its Board of Supervisors filed in LA Superior Court while its judges were improperly receiving payments will be reopened and examined by a neutral judicial body, after which settlements will be entered into with any wronged parties, and judges who improperly dismissed cases or otherwise acted dishonorably will face impeachment, disbarment and indictment.

*       A citizens’ oversight committee will be established to monitor activities occurring on behalf of the County, especially those involving the leasing of public land.

*      In all future cases, every judge must disqualify himself upon request from any party before him, with no requirement that any reason be given, after which the case should be turned over to the judge whose name follows next alphabetically in the roster.

*       Thorough Federal investigation of all dealings between Supervisors and developers will be expanded and completed.  Audits will examine the County’s use of all Federal funds ever at its disposal.

*  Immunity will be revoked, then criminal indictments brought and prosecutions begun against all persons who committed what would have been considered a crime prior to passage of Senate Bill SBX2-11.

*      The current provisions tying salaries of County employees to percentages of judges’ salaries will be immediately repealed.  (i.e., innocent employees will not suffer because of judges’ misconduct.)

None of these will be a breeze to tackle, much less accomplish … but they are what we will see is accomplished because they are all the RIGHT things to do.   And when it’s all over, we’ll have an honest system again … the bare minimum we can allow ourselves to accept … and we’ll have lower taxes to boot!

Our forefathers wisely crafted founding documents which were intended to create a system of justice by which we could all live under the rule of law.  Our current leaders and judges, however, have callously subverted our rights and subjected our taxpayer funds to rampant theft with, apparently, no fear of consequences.  If that isn’t changed … soon … California will be overrun by corruption forevermore.   Since there’s no other moral choice other than that somebody must do something about it, we will.

Make no mistake about it, we’re coming.  And if a reader is guilty of any part of the corruption, you’re a felon, we all know it, and we’re coming for you.  We’ve given the powers that be several months to do the right thing as we’ve painstakingly collected the evidence.  Now the case is in place and no one’s done anything beyond hunkering down further.  So be it.  Soon, the world will know what you’ve done because we WILL NOT STOP until FULL justice is obtained, not only for Richard Fine, but for ALL decent citizens of Los Angeles County and the state of California. 

See HERE for updates.  MANY surprising events have occurred since the above was written months ago.  Also, check the blog Right Trumps Might for commentary on critical events as they occur.

If you’ve read this far, you know the situation is dire.  So donate, why don’tcha?  There’s a PayPal link on the home page for just that purpose.  The volunteers’ time is all free, but it’s costing us an average of $350 a week in hard expenses to keep this critical ball rolling.  If we have to quit for lack of funds, we all may as well pack our bags and leave the state. 

Footnote 1:  The “yes” votes on SBX2-11 in the California Senate Committee were cast by:

Ducheny Alquist Calderon Cedillo

Corbett DeSaulnier Florez Hancock

Kehoe Leno Lowenthal Liu

Negrete McLeod Oropeza Padilla Pavley

Romero Simitian Steinberg Wolk

Wright Yee

P.S.  To anyone having access to the Sustain** system, if it’s not illegal to do so, we sure would appreciate receiving an anonymously-sent copy of whatever secrets it contains regarding the Fine cases, especially 09-56073 and 09-80130 (9th Circuit) and 09-cv-1914, 08-cv-2906, and 09-mc-00129 (USDC).   Please email to FreeRichardFine@gmail.com.

{{** it’s now “out” though not widespread enough, that there is a DUAL system of California Docketing, and one which appears to compromise the legitimacy of court rulings — in other words,rulings can be filed electronically without proper court seal — not to mention the fact that the PACER (?) Public general access system may be so inaccurate and the SUSTAIN one is only accessible to certain levels. For more on this, search on my blog (and/or google) Joseph Zernik, who looked into it. }}

“One man with courage makes a majority.”  ~  Andrew Jackson

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Don’t measure your life by what you’ve attained in terms of your desires…

but those small moments of integrity, compassion… rationality, even self-sacrifice. 

Because in the end, the only way that we can measure the significance of our own lives…

is by valuing the rights of others.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Here are the words that shook the thrones of tyrants and haunt the days of despots:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.  …”

“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

[More at above link.]

2009 © All Rights Reserved. Free Richard I. Fine™


Time to Prune that Therapeutic Jurisprudence…

leave a comment »

People like to talk about their “Family Tree,” meaning, a distant man and women (pluralize as needed) and their many saplings, sprouts, roots, and buds off a distant “Ma & Pa.”  That “Ma” just might have conceived by rape, or consent when Wife wasn’t looking.  It gets real interesting.

We are at a time in history when the U.S. family law system is evicting certain kinds of biological mothers {like, the feisty ones!] from their children’s lives, altering the subsequent generations, and doing this in the name of “family.”

I am more interested in the FAMILY LAW GENEALOGY & TREE.  Clearly, I noticed after a few visits, this is indeed a different species of “law” & procedures than I’d ever heard of before.  For example, we got to a mediator, whose main job (I later find out) is — by federal facilitating grant system — to cooperate with the Head of the Department of Health & Human Services, i.e., its Secretary — in doing research and demonstration reports on (us fools), as well as to shift more and more parenting time to the current NONcustodial parent — until that parent becomes a female NOncustodial parent, at which point, the job is done.

In our area, it’s typical for couples to go to mediation (separately, if domestic violence has occurred) and then not get the mediator’s report til IN the courtroom, the morning of the hearing (if even by then), at which time one gets to experience serious shock and disbelief in a courtroom, with witnesses, shortly before one’s 20 minutes of glory trying to frame some sort of response to the ridiculous assertions.  What this has to do with “mediation,” beats me!

And many more oddities keep showing up, like the concept while “a rose is a rose is a rose,a crime is not a crime, is not a crime, depending on what court it landed up in.  To add to the fun, mothers are not told this.  They get to figure it out by trial (if they’re lucky enough to get one) and error, mostly the latter.


* notice, no individual exists in this phrase.  Nor do many individual rights, in these halls….

So as families become more and more fragmented, someone in the courts grafted in a new concept, so we can all worship “family” the RIGHT way, and hence there are things called the Centers for Children & Families in the Courts.  What a great idea — since these families ARE going to be in some kind of court action til the kids hit 18, the word “IN” the courts really applies.

Hence, it’s necessary to train up new generations of law students that their role is less law than THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE, a.k.a. SOCIAL SCIENCE, a.k.a., HUMAN ECOLOGY and so forth.  This great field of study is funded by the public (probably without their full knowledge) and promoted at university levels, in private conferences of various associations that hang round the courts like flies around outdated warm meat, and like body scanners around airports.  Somebody has to provide the “services,” right?

A BRIEF introduction shows that at least Baltimore and California are real big on this one:


The Center for Families, Children & the Courts



The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) is a national leader in the movement to reform the family justice system….

Wow.  Maryland is East Coast.  I (and anyone involved in the largest court system in the U.S., California) live on the opposite coast.  So nice of them to have put out the alert to us before we filed, thinking it was a law thing..  Also notice they are a triple-ING thing.  (See my post, “Ye shall know them by their -INGs,” meaning, the job never gets done…).

CFCC works to integrate communities, families and the justice system to improve the lives of families and the health of communities.

As with so many public-entities, this has become expert at producing the opposite of what it promise, i.e., people die over divorce, or attempting, to, custody, and etc.

CFCC approaches court reform from two key perspectives:

  • Therapeutic jurisprudencethe belief that families and children deserve an effective and efficient court system that aims to improve their lives.
  • The ecology of human development – a social science framework that requires a holistic look at the many systems affecting the lives of families and children.

OK — the courts must be CHANGED.  They are not to be “courts” but centers of learning where people come in not to get their legal needs adjudicated (fairly!), and back on to live but where they hit the radar of Therapists and Human Development Ecologists.  Perhaps this explains why so many of us become battle weary, get parts of our lives amputated, and walk around shell-shocked and riddled with perplexing situations and conditions that just won’t leave.  Why?  We — AND our kids — are being used for target practice for these theorists!

it gets even better — Click on the THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE, and learn:

Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Ecology of Human Development**

Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Ecology of Human Development

Therapeutic Jurisprudence

A central tenet of CFCC’s work is therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ), which aims explicitly to improve the lives of families and children in court.  A critical role of judges and lawyers is to help resolve the family’s legal problems and to strengthen the emotional and psychological well-being of families and children.

This must be why judges are not only so highly overpaid, and require slush funds to help them maintain the lifestyle, and endless EXTRA trainings to refine their skills — because whereas many judges may have obtained the position for, say, power, influence, fame, the paycheck, or political connections (not exactly the most altruistic of motives, i.e.) — here they have to learn to be sensitive, compassionate, and care about the EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING of families – – kind of the other side of the coin, as to temperaments.

It has not helped my emotional well-being to approach for law, and receive instead an attempt to “therapize” me, a Mom, into believing that what happened, didn’t — or, if it did — we should all just “forget it’ for the sake of the family….

Ecology of Human Development

This holistic, social science approach explores the many different systems affecting the lives of families and children.  These include families, children, schools, faith-based institutions, the workplace and community activities.

That word “holistic” is a real buzzer I’ve noticed buzzing around many of the justifications for programs like Batterers INtervention, Supervised Visitation, and such.  Someone is taking a “holistic” approach to telling someone else that the term “straighten up and fly right” doesn’t apply to him, or her.

THERAPY implies something needs treatment (an obvious perspective if you’re a therapist…), and Ecology of Human Development implies that you are the slab of humanity being sliced and diced for inspection, labeling, and commentary, at which point in time, that therapy might come in handy because the slicing & dicing part tends to slow down “Human Development,” particularly, in the jobs department!  I mean, it takes time away from work to come in and be examinued, routinely, regularly.

Now let’s look at the UNIFIED FAMILY COURT theory (same source — U. Baltimore School of Law):

CFCC and Unified Family Courts

CFCC and Unified Family Courts

CFCC works to create, implement, improve and evaluate Unified Family Courts (UFCs). This court model addresses the legal issues in family law cases, such as divorce, custody, child support and domestic violence, and the non-legal issues, such as substance abuse, mental health problems and poverty. CFCC aims to solve real-world problems with lasting solutions through using appropriate legal theory and doctrine.

Instrumental in UFC development in Maryland and throughout the nation, CFCC provides educational programs, technical assistance,evaluations and training to jurisdictions, judges, attorneys, court personnel and community leaders.

OK, the main part there is to note that when Family Law picks up topic of “domestic violence” it has a whole different atmosphere than say, an arrest record on its own, which is in the Criminal arena.  A criminal — even the worst creep — gets a public defender.  A mother being targeted for repeated ridicule and hearsy from her ex (and/or the attorney) does NOT get any public defender — because it’s not “real crimes” in this family arena but only — I guess, “social science” or “human development” crimes, like, say, protesting some injustice.

The CFCCs are a great resource if you have a particular theory (PAS, anyone?) to promote, for example, if your name is Warshak:

June 24, 2010

Dr. Warshak was invited to participate in the Families Matter Symposium, co-sponsored by the American Bar Association Family Law Section and the University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts. A select group of leaders in the field were invited to develop recommendations for family law process reform to make the system less destructive to families. The two-day symposium will be held at the University of Baltimore.

Which brings me to the NEXT heading ….


June 3, 2010

Dr. Warshak will participate in a plenary panel at the annual conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), Denver, Colorado. The topic of the panel is: “Helping Families with Children Who Reject Parents: Consensus, Controversies and Future Directions.”

Also at AFCC, Dr. Warshak and his colleagues will present a 1.5 hour workshop on “Family Bridges: Principles, Procedures, and Ethical Considerations In Reconnecting Severely Alienated Children With Their Parents.”

AFCC is an interdisciplinary, international association of professionals dedicated to improving the lives of children and families through the resolution of family conflict.** Watch this site for information about registering for this conference.

**coincidentally, this includes when one parent is stalking another, has assaulted another, has molested mutual children, has kidnapped mutual children, and in general may have done something to provoke the other one to say, “i have IRRECONCILIABLE DIFFERENCES” — which in many states IS a grounds and a legal one, for divorce.

In a typically bright manner, then, here come these Centers, and declare that well, we must just “Reconcile” for ever that once a family, always a family — or there’s the deprogramming “Reunification Therapy” that can be applied to someone to reconsider that attitude.  These two approaches ARE “irreconciliable” which is why it’s GREAT business for therapists…

For who is AFCC — see my “READ THIS FIRST” page to right.  Or, figure it out yourself — don’t just read one point of view; they have a corporate and organizational history also.

CFCCs (throughout the land — in the courts AND in the law schools) appears to have been the brainchild of several members of AFCC to keep business coming.  ACFC (funny coincidence, the similarity of acronyms, don’t you think?) represents the Fathers point of view….

At any rate, the concept that the courts should be doing Mom n Pop style psychology and therapy — instead of law — appears to be here to stay, even though, like transfats — it doesn’t always go down too well.  Kind of like some religious nuts that won’t give up on the idea that — for your OWN good — you should also forget that Congress is NOT to make any law establishing a religion — and genuine conversation just won’t happen til you give in and convert (or pretend to have) …

Here’s a good (and older) protest of this whole theme.  Of course, it’s been ignored, but it’s still true:


My particular reason that any theory consisting of two four-syllable words ought to be tossed out as ridiculous.

Here’s Liz Kates’ version, and well-written:

Why Therapeutic Jurisprudence Must Be Eliminated From Our Family Courts,

by E. Kates

downloadable doc file Why Therapeutic Jurisprudence Must Be Eliminated From Our Family Courts, an article about family lawyer ethics problems, published in 13 Dom. Violence Report 65 (2008)

Prefatory note: The phrase “therapeutic jurisprudence” is used in this article to mean “a mental health approach to the law.” The term originally was coined in 1987 by Professors David Wexler of the University of Arizona and Bruce Winick of the University of Miami School of Law to mean the study of the therapeutic or anti-therapeutic effects of law and legal procedures. It also has come to be more widely used to mean therapeutic applications in the law, as well as the influx of mental health therapeutic and forensic practitioners into the courts, both of which somewhat predate the coinage. The growth of these ideas in family law, however, has been exponential over the past two decades. Much of the therapeutic jurisprudence currently being applied in family courts around the country, as well as the laws furthering these practices can be traced to trade promotion ideas conceived and lobbied for by various psychological and multidisciplinary trade organizations.

The Unacknowledged Problem

There are many problems with therapeutic jurisprudence in the family courts, which now runs the gamet from all manner of alternate dispute resolution procedures, to excessive guardian ad litem practices, to various court-ordered therapies, to extensive psychological opining and forensic evaluation in court cases. One of the problems with the rise of therapeutic jurisprudence and the placement of non-legal systems and non-legal professionals into the courts has been the subtle denigration of long-established precepts of lawyer independence and due process. One of the many ways this happens in the family courts has been, ironically, through the introduction of subtle and often unrecognized conflicts of interest afflicting lawyers’ representations of their clients, created through the common development of multidisciplinary collegial relationships and business referrals, both informally and through the very multidisciplinary organizations which are promoting therapeutic jurisprudence ideas.

The conflicts of interest arise because most lawyers represent different kinds of clients on ideologically oppositional sides in different cases. The typical family lawyer sometimes represents the wife, sometimes the husband, sometimes the “good guy”, and sometimes the “bad guy”. If a lawyer coming into a case runs up against an expert with whom he has a referral or employment relationship in other cases, and that expert takes a position adverse to the lawyer’s client in the new case, the lawyer will have a very difficult time adequately representing his client. Appropriate representation may require the lawyer to strenuously object to the expert’s testimony — or even the expert himself. But if the lawyer needs the good will and cooperation of that same expert in connection with the lawyer’s other clients’ pending cases, he cannot do that because he may put those other cases at risk.

The legal community, even in urban areas, is limited and often close-knit. Lawyers in the same area of practice regularly encounter each other in different cases. The pool of forensic experts and guardians ad litem (GALs) tends to be even smaller. The repeated association time and again of these specialists in cases means that at any time and from time-to-time any given one of them may show up on the “wrong side” of a lawyer’s case — and simultaneously also be on the “right side” of other of the lawyer’s cases, whether as a hired expert or a court-appointed expert. This creates many of the same dilemmas that ordinary client conflict-of-interest issues do.

How the Conflicts of Interest Affect the Lawyers and Their Clients’ Cases

Lawyers in these positions will be tempted to rationalize to themselves, as well as maintain the posture in the community at large, that the expert’s opinions, even when they are adverse to his client, are scientifically valid — even when they may not be, even if they are deeply flawed or completely specious. These lawyers may rationalize to themselves that the validity of the science itself is not their responsibility because, after all, lawyers are not “scientists”. The lawyer who naively or purposefully steps down the path of multidisciplinary practice, regularly exchanging referrals and engaging in other close associations with nonlawyer case participants simply cannot avoid encountering this problem.

Lawyers and these other participants in the system have very different roles. When lawyers directly hire paralegals, experts, and others to assist them, there is not as much of a potential conflicts problem, even when these individuals are independent contractors. First, their work is covered by attorney work product unless and until they testify. Second, because they were hired by the lawyer, they are subject to the same conflict of interest rules as is the hiring lawyer, as far as their involvement in other cases and with other people. This is not true, however, in the case of “independent” experts, such as custody evaluators and guardians ad litem. These individuals who render opinions “for the court” as so-called “court-appointed experts” are a very different matter.

These same kinds of conflicts also do not arise when lawyers engage in professional relationships with other lawyers who regularly are on the opposing sides of cases, because unlike the lawyer colleagues, the practitioners of therapeutic jurisprudence are actually case participants — witnesses and even parties. Although ostensibly working “for the court”, they are not akin to neutral judges or magistrates, bailiffs or other courthouse personnel. None of these truly neutral courthouse persons advocates for a position in a case, testifies as a witness, or participates as a party proper as do some GALs. Contrary to the rhetoric, court-appointed evaluators and opining GALs are not neutral participants in the system. Even if they initially were hired under that rubric, once their reports are rendered, and their opinions formed and ready to be given, they have become advocates for one or the other side or issue in a case. Thus, at a point, they are, just as any party would be, pointedly in favor of certain outcomes, and adverse to others.

The routine broad involvement of these expert witnesses thus must be recognized by the legal profession as the egregious misjudgment it is, fostering legal ethical violations that must be addressed by state bar ethics rules.

Ironically, the problem is worse for lawyers who are not ideologues, because these lawyers are more likely to advocate for different client perspectives. Such a lawyer confronts an unresolvable dilemma when an expert the lawyer is relying on in one case takes a similar position, including one that may lack scientific merit, against another of the same lawyer’s clients in a different case. Because the expert and the lawyer have been, are currently, or will be in cahoots in these other cases, the lawyer is placed into a conflict, unable zealously to discredit the expert when that is necessary to protect his current client. Bar ethics rules must address this.

The legal profession actually does recognize that the experts themselves have the same temptation to manipulate their opinions to please those lawyers with whom they have ongoing relationships and receive referrals. This undoubtedly contributes to yet more corruption of the judicial system, and even has led to calls to banish these third parties (see e.g. Margaret Hagen’s Whores of the Court, Regan Books, 1997). Nevertheless, lawyers have not, as a group, either recognized or acknowledged how these practices have affected their own ethics and practices.

Why Has No One Said Anything Before?

One possible reason that multidisciplinary ideas have taken such hold in the area of family law and (except for the drug court idea where they are also increasing), otherwise kept in check in other areas of legal practice, is that unlike lawyers who practice in many other substantive areas, and who may retain their clients for years, family lawyers typically need a steady stream of new one-shot clients. Also, family lawyers tend to work in smaller firms, where they are not cross-referring the same clients among different lawyers in different practice areas of the same firm. So family lawyers value those who send them business. As a result, it appears that too many family lawyers, perhaps without recognizing or acknowledging the conflicts of interest that have caused their discomfort and unwillingness adequately to represent some of their clients in some of their cases, in fact have sacrificed these clients on the altar of maintaining their professional relationships, associations, and referral sources.

Some busy family lawyers do admit to feeling “burnout”. Some have rationalized that their unwillingness to zealously advocate for their clients, as well as their vague discomfort with some clients and positions, stems from the frequent “high conflict” created by unreasonable clients, or the high emotional toll their cases are taking on them. Others have retained their enthusiasm by becoming ideologues, including proponents of bad science favored by their own favorite therapeutic jurisprudence colleagues. These lawyers take only those cases in which they will not feel conflicted or simply suspend their judgment and integrity in the interests of churning cases and making money. For example, this is seen among lawyers who assert in case after case with very different facts that their clients have been the victims of “parental alienation”. The fathers’ rights advocates also would lay this charge on the domestic violence practitioners. Whether the ideological lawyer is taking cases which do involve only one kind of client position, or whether the lawyer just “sees” the same things in different cases is not the issue. The issue is that the lawyer has resolved his cognitive dissonance by committing to propositions outside of law and outside of the lawyer’s academic expertise, and — maintaining a deliberate self-serving ignorance — is carrying both good and bad ideas into the media of the legal field. This alone explains the constant propagation in family law of bad science, and the seemingly endless “controversies” over bad psychological ideas that are pervasive in the justice system but which do not get resolved by any amount of publication of “good science”.

Some lawyers caught in this vortex have justified their lack of vigorous representation, and the coerced settlements they’ve foisted on some clients, as hailing from a pretextual concern for “the best interests of the [nonclient] children”, or as taking the reasonable compromise position, or the high road, or “just helping people to get along”. These lawyers have attempted to redefine their jobs, paternalistically, as dictators who must “control” their clients, instead of being agents at law for them. And again, therapeutic jurisprudence explains why this problem has become so much more pervasive in family law than in other areas of law.

Other lawyers profess to themselves and each other and everyone else around a great affinity for mediation and therapy and collaborative resolution, and all manner of alternate dispute resolution (therapeutic jurisprudence) as being superior to traditional justice system litigation and negotiation practices, and in the interests of everyone, because they have been encouraged to think this way by a steady drip of literature emanating from the mental health trade organizations — as well as new referral retainers. Little in the way of objective research substantiates these opinions, or the resulting negative impact many of them have on formal justice system procedures and due process. This kind of thing again is just not as pervasive in other areas of the law, no matter how heated the conflicts get, and it is one substantial reason the public has such a generally dim view of the family courts and family lawyers. “Therapeutic jurisprudence” is a primary reason the family courts are seen as not working, unjust, and broken.

How Are We Going To Fix This

Given that clients are entitled to their choice of attorneys, and are entitled to independent, unconflicted agents at law who are committed to furthering their interests and goals (as the client, not the attorney, has defined them), one immediately viable solution would be a rule of disqualification of any GAL or forensic expert who previously was associated in any prior case with either of the lawyers in a current case, and the striking and nullification of all testimony and reports of that expert, no matter at what stage the lawyer may have entered the case.

Court appointed witnesses and parties in other people’s private civil cases are interlopers in the justice system and must be excised. The very integrity of the justice system is at stake. To the extent well-meaning individuals promoting these ideas did not fathom the repercussions of them, and were swayed by sweet-sounding “solutions” that simply do not work well in practice, it’s time for an honest reappraisal.

In addition, the loss to the justice system, if any, would be slight. It does not actually take an “expert” to do a home study or to investigate readily observable facts. The proof of this is in how often court-hired opiners are not specialists at all, but lawyers and laypersons, and in how often cases in which funds are unavailable to engage so-called mental health experts manage to be reasonably adjudicated WITHOUT THEM. The perception of need for psychological expertise in most family law cases is especially misguided too, because, unlike scientific and technical experts in other fields, the field of applied psychology is overrun with political machinations, nonsensical theories, and outright misrepresentations (see generally, Robyn Dawes, House of Cards, The Free Press, 1994, and other criticisms of applied psychology). Too often what is posited as within the realm of a psychologist’s or other mental health practitioner’s expertise is not close to research-based or experiential technical knowledge. Much of the time, it is more akin to an expertise in astrology, or theology: there is high familiarity with complicated ideas and methods of calculating answers, and the body of literature that discusses all of that, but the professional output otherwise is somewhere between unhelpful and misleading when it comes to ascertaining the facts and guiding reasonable decision-making.

It is time to start substantially limiting, and even eliminating the use of forensic experts, GALs, and other therapeutic ideas in family court. In the vast majority of cases, custody evaluators and mental health practitioners have no actual expertise to offer. When this is objectively understood, and then considered in light of the problems their presence creates, the solution is no longer arguable.

Alas, if one eliminates these players and that concept from the family law system, it would probably cease to exist! A correct understanding of the origins of the main profession IN it (AFCC, current terminology) shows that the mental health component was there from the start.

Another reason — a friend of mine relates (again) recently, it’s not exactly breaking news — but it’s earthshaking if it would actually stay OUT in the public eye — is that certain fathers’ rights groups, from the start, obtained federal grants funding to keep the projects mainstreamed — and the funding coming, coming, coming.  Mothers don’t stand a chance — this amount of funding is NOT available for them once “domestic violence” becomes a “family issue” — they and their cases are dropped like a hot potato.  Here’s how it goes — and this has little to do with helping anyone, but individuals who become main contractors for services the courts provide, making sure that the outcome gets the custody to the father, the child support arrears reduced (too bad for kids, eh?) and sometimes, punishing the mother with wage garnishments, too.


This is coming up on the NEXT post — too important to go to the bottom of this one.

Meanwhile, understand that the common sense of Liz Kates, above — has been ignored.  Why not go ahead and ignore it — it’s great business deceiving the public that the court overload is due to too many people with problems as opposed to the truth — problemmatic programs that encourage and solicit this business, and set up cases so as to generate the most possible frivolous litigation.  If the child was given to the more appropriate parent, and KEPT there til they grew up, poor family law system would have to find more subject matter, and there’d be less cause to ask for more, and more, and more, and more grants money to study “the problems” in the courts.



David Wexler and Florida Coastal School of Law

This would obviously be a “pro” site — and demonstrates how to get certain concepts up and running — a website, conferences, involve a college or university if possible, get a publication going, and get a Forum going, all of which are noted below.  Actually being a professor helps also, which Mr. Wexler, here, is, or has been:



New York University, J.D. (1964) graduated cum laude; Note Editor, New York University Law Review; Order of the Coif; John Norton Pomeroy Scholar
Harpur College, State University of New York at Binghamton, B.A. (1961)

Personal Work Experience

Distinguished Research Professor of Law, Rogers College of Law, 2007 – present
John D. Lyons Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology, University of Arizona College of Law, 1985 – 2007
Professor of Law and Director, International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence, University of Puerto Rico, 1994 – present
Professor of Law, University of Arizona College of Law, 1967 – 1985
Attorney, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division


Note that the professional life seems to have been heavy on the Professor part, and the reference to working as an attorney — only once (in red), at the U.S. DOJ.  He is encouraging people to look at the processes of law and their impact on therapy, positive of negative.  This is not quite the same as the CFCC s who are simply positioning themselves — as if divinely qualified to do so, or any more qualified than the parents coming through — to dispense “therapy” meaning, change your attitude to match mine/ours, and defining “sick/healthy” from somewhere OUTSIDE the language embodied in the legal codes.

As here, from the same site::

Therapeutic Jurisprudence concentrates on the law’s impact on emotional life and psychological well-being. It is a perspective that regards the law (rules of law, legal procedures, and roles of legal actors) itself as a social force that often produces therapeutic or anti-therapeutic consequences. It does not suggest that therapeutic concerns are more important than other consequences or factors, but it does suggest that the law’s role as a potential therapeutic agent should be recognized and systematically studied. For an overview of Therapeutic Jurisprudence click here.

The International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence is designed to stimulate thought in the area of therapeutic jurisprudence. It serves internationally as a clearing house and resource center regarding therapeutic jurisprudence developments.

The network will maintain this web page, will sponsor conferences, and, in cooperation with the Florida Coastal School of Law, will publish theTherapeutic Jurisprudence Review as a regular part of the Florida Coastal Law Review. In addition, in cooperation with the University of Puerto Rico’s Revista Juridica, it will on occasion publish, in English or in Spanish, the Therapeutic Jurisprudence Forum. It will also, through the web page, call attention to recent or upcoming activities and publications of interest, and will provide links to related internet resources. If you have anything you would like added to the site please email our webmaster at jessica@scrye.com

If you would like to belong to the international and interdiscipliany LISTSERVE where members can post and read messages relating to TJ join here. If you would only like to receive periodic announcements regarding important therapeutic jurisprudence developments and notices of important updates of this webpage, then join the INTJ MAILING LIST by clicking here.

Some of the articles accessible on this webpage require Adobe Acrobat. A free version of the reader can be downloaded from the Adobe website.


From the overview of Therapeutic Jurisprudence LINK, above, an excerpt re: in custody:

An example of a legal procedure looked at through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence is an article by Professor Janet Weinstein regarding child custody disputes. (29) Weinstein wrote about how the adversary process in a child custody context can be both traumatic for the child and damaging to the relationship of the parents who may, despite their divorce, need to have some kind of relationship in the future merely for the sake of the child. (30)

Weinstein’s analysis is very interesting because it exposes how the adversary process encourages us to find the worst thing about the other party, to bring it out, and to talk about just how terrible that other parent is. (31) This is traumatic to children and, of course, damaging to the relationship of the parents. (32) Can there be other, less damaging ways of resolving these issues, such as through mediation or new mechanisms such as collaborative divorce. Therapeutic jurisprudence focuses on these creative explorations. (33)

“Mediation” (sic) is objectionable when the relationship has already been adversarial and combative, especially when serious violence and threat has entered.  Then, the correct priority is to acknowledge and HANDLE the threat/violence first, and not force mediation until it’s been handled — or, possibly, never.  The courts tend to take the opposite approach — mandatory mediation (many places) and insist that IT takes priority over the genuine safety issues.


Finally, an example of the third category is legal roles. This category examines the behavior of lawyers, judges, and other actors in the legal system.(34) For instance, the way the judge behaves at a sentencing hearing can actually, in and of itself, affect how someone who has been given probation complies with the conditions of that probation. (35)

Therapeutic jurisprudence grew out of mental health law, the area that has been the main subject of the Thomas M. Cooley Law Review’s Disabilities Law Symposium, from which these remarks are drawn. (38) Therapeutic jurisprudence cut its teeth on civil commitment, the insanity defense, and incompetency to stand trial. (39) It looked at the way in which a system that is designed to help people recover or achieve mental health often backfires and causes just the opposite. (40)


In too many cases of family law, this approach is doing more than just backfiring, it’s resulting in entire families being SHOT, including to death, or otherwise killed.  This has not stemmed the on-rush of the theory in the family court circles.


Therefore, a perspective developed recognizing that the law itself, know it or not, like it or not, sometimes functions as a therapeutic or an antitherapeutic agent. (41) This is, of course, highly relevant to mental health law. The therapeutic jurisprudence perspective, however, now applies to other legal areas, probably all legal areas. For example, the perspective applies to mental health law, criminal law, juvenile law, family law, and other areas.


Clearly, he is very interested in theory.  He’s a professor — that goes without saying.  And he’s also into psychology.

A little more;

Some judges are very “record oriented.” (76) They try to avoid dealing with the defendant because he could “muck up” the record. (77) Instead, they look to statements of the prosecutor, the defense counsel, or something in the file that will establish the factual basis for the plea. (78) Those courts involve the defendants minimally. (79)

Other judges have an open colloquy with the defendant, such as: “Okay, you realize this is the offense that you’re pleading to. Please tell me in your own words what happened, when, and so on.” (80) The second type of judicial behavior might be a bit better than the first because it takes that first step of confronting denial, minimization, and encouraging an offender to take responsibility. (81)


This is talking about criminal law.  Family law is different.  I still have a lousy transcript from one hearing in which — after all contact had been (by this same court) cut off between me and my daughters, a judge spoke about trying to “re-establish a relationship” after they’d allowed a child-stealing and several other criminal matters to go by uncorrected.  I described the stalking between recent hearings, and how this had affected my ability to pursue court-ordered contact safely.  Then he began to lecture me, in particular, for taking up the court’s time!  The transcript also reveals my countering hearsay testimony by a court-appointed what-not who was somehow claiming that conversations which never even took place, had a certain characteristic.  By this time, my respect had been totally lost for the courts.  A few years later, reading this, it’s very clear the judge saw himself (or WISHED to be seen as) a therapeutic judge.  I’d come to them for justice — any needs for therapy would certainly go to some outfit which actually deserves my respect, not a family law “judge.”  The purpose of a judge is to “judge” or change the title — and do so UP FRONT and on the door to the courtroom, i.e., “This is a court of law, but it is our intent — and as funded by federal grants to states that give us this incentive — to actually therapize the family unit because — and ONLY because — “they” are so incompetent they can’t work it out without us.


No thanks!  Too many cooks spoil the soup!


In the next, brief post, I’m going to show that it’s not at all about therapy in these courts — that’s just talk.  If you are a genuine therapist taking business from the courts, and wondering why those parents are acting so nutty, be prepared to be genuinely INSULTED about what some of your (less honest than you, obviously) colleagues have done to this system that you work in.  Whether you are, or are not, insulted doesn’t bother me — I’ve made up my mind long ago, and our own case never even had a custody evaluator assigned.  But we had enough of a taste to see how it “works,” turning TWO working parents with a reasonably civil separation, children having frequent contact with both parents (especially given the circumstances!) into TWO unemployed parents, from what I can tell, and only ONE parent having contact with HER children — and a lot of the landscape laterally wasted also, other people who got involved.

And they say that’s NOT the adversarial method?




Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 8, 2011 at 7:28 pm

Lest we forget the ‘hood — 111th U.S. Congress was not remiss…

leave a comment »

Which “hood”? — Fatherhood — what else?

I’m a little drained on doing a hotshot post these days, and simply decided to browse the U.S. Conress for references to “fatherhood.”  Of course, now that systems are really set in place, it wouldn’t seem so necessary to keep promoting the theme, but just in case you thought someone was slacking off, no deal.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Administration, or politicians, have to practice what they preach, or take any flak when they don’t:


If it became known that a Cabinet-level official in George W. Bush’s administration — a divorced father of two — was the father of a baby born out of wedlock to an ex-girlfriend, and that the official had announced his engagement to a woman he met while the ex-girlfriend was pregnant, do you believe for one second that reporters, and not just gossip columnists, wouldn’t be having a field day?

Of course they would. Especially if Bush had moralized about family and the need for men to be present in the lives of their children. Opinion writers would be all over Bush if they thought he was deliberately ignoring the aide’s behavior.
Let, however, the absentee daddy of a love child turn out to be an Obama administration official with close ties to Washington’s political and intellectual elite and the media, and the affair is treated as a source of brief amusement and no big deal.
Thus Peter Orszag — 41-year-old director of the Office of Management and Budget, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Clinton administration economist, graduate of Princeton and the London School of Economics, father of Claire Milonas‘s 3-month-old girl, recently betrothed to Bianna Golodryga, 31, and sharer of joint custody of two children with ex-wife Cameron Hamill is regaled as a nerdy stud gone wild and all-around good fellow . . . now, let’s move on.
Wait a minute — 41 years old, three women:  an ex-wife, a mistress, and a new, stupid financee (some women are slow learners)  —
Claire Milonas, per a short google search (sorry, I don’t move in these circles, have problems of my own to deal with, and she’s not one of my household names I’m familiar with…).  The Huffington Post reported on 01/06/2010
Claire Milonas, daughter of Greek shipping exec Spiros Milonas, gave birth to White House budget director Peter Orszag’s love child in November 2009. {{Wow.  An INTERNATIONAL or MULTI-NATIONAL love child, or was the beautiful mother born in the USA or a naturalized citizen?}}
. . .
Claire Milonas Orszag

Milanos was reportedly about three months pregnant when she parted ways with Orszag.

So, . . . it appears, based on the track record, he prefers his women to keep their girlish, youthful figures, which pregnancy rather interferes with.  So, three months pregnant, their “LOVE” ran out.  Or perhaps she left him, for reasons unknown.  Meanwhile, as Orzag ages, slightly, his women (judging by the next pick), don’t. ….

The Post initially reported he left Milonas for Golodryga, but updated the story with information from another source, who explained that the split happened well before he met Golodryga. According to The Post, Orzag met Golodryga at the White House correspondent’s dinner in early May.


Golodryga followed an unusual path to fame.

Born in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova, she was 18 months old when she and her parents left the crumbling empire with $150 and settled in Galveston, Tex.

They later moved to Houston, where Golodryga attended the same performing arts high school as another beauty, Beyoncé Knowles. Golodryga was drawn more to Wall Street than show business and left for New York in February 2001.

Bunking with her grandmother in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, and armed with a stock broker’s license, Golodryga knocked on doors looking for work, but had no luck until she happened upon the cable business network CNBC.

Golodryga pestered the network for six months before it hired her. She spent six years learning the ropes as a producer for money honey Maria Bartiromo.

Although ABC colleagues described her as a head-turning stunner in a network full of beauties, Golodryga did not step in front of a camera until her last year at CNBC.

In January 2007, Golodryga jumped to ABC to work on its broadband channel – and caught the eye of Diane Sawyer. She covered the economic meltdown and drew bipartisan attention for her reporting – and her looks.

“She’s smoking,” a Bush administration official was heard saying in 2008.

Bianna Golodryga

If the image below (showing height & age difference) of Peter & Bianna holds, it source is HERE, from a simple Google search on her name.


We are all entitled to body type preferences, but I notice that young, waiflike is in for, while the administrations (Clinton, Obama) and pedigrees (schooling) making this man a real “catch” are promoting “responsible Fatherhood” and noticeably absent are some matronly photos of non-svelte women over, say, 30, let alone 40 (which Milonas was pushing) and the word “mother,” for the most part.

Message?  Mothers are replaceable incubators, fathers are immeasureably indispensible — for the rest of us plebians.   Low-income men who wish to regain perceived lost status (i.e., property) should apply at some of the fatherhood grants-oulets (like their local child support offices) possibly coming under this OMB budget manager’s (while he was their) regulation, and learn how government REALLY works….


Milonas graduated from Yale University in 1992 before getting an MBA at Harvard, putting her at roughly 39. Golodryga is 31.

So, we see how important education is in contributing to STABLE MARRIAGES.  The little girl, born of their love, could boast a biological mother with Harvard & Yale, and a biological Father with Princeton & London School of Economics.  You do the math on how long their “committed relationship” lasted, and how much difference between wife one and  mistress (that had a child the press know about) two.  This is why all FATHERHOOD movements should emphasize responsibility and education….

Orszag and Milonas released this statement to The Post:

“We were in a committed relationship until the spring of 2009. In November, Claire gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. Although we are no longer together, we are both thrilled she is happy and healthy, and we would hope that everyone will respect her privacy.”

MAHALO.com reports, on its “Bianna-Golodryga tag, the timing of this man’s various affairs, conceptions, engagements, etc.:

On December 29, 2009, Golodryga announced her engagement to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag. In January2009, the New York Post reported that Orszag allegedly fathered the child of Greek shipping heiress Claire Milonas. The ‘love child’ was said to have been born in November 2009, just six weeks before Golodryga and Orszag announced their engagement.1

Golodryga and Orszag met in May of 2009 at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner. They were engaged on Monday, December 28, 2009 at a restaurant in New York City.2

OK, for all readers who wonder how I got so good at math, and wonder why the attempt to live my life has me acting like a fan of PEOPLE magazine, in astonishment at my late introduction to politicking….


About six weeks before the end of December is halfway through NOVEMBER.  Assuming perhaps 9 months to delivery, Eleven (11/09) minus NINE =  February, (02/09), conception.  Three months later, SPLITUP. . . . 02/09 + 3 months= 05/09.  Milanos and Peter split ways in May 2009 — approximately when he met his new woman, 10 years younger than himself, and with a stunning correspondence career, too.  She attended school in Texas.
In short, whether this was when he learned about the pregnancy, or when for another reason, they split (we don’t know whose idea it was, for sure), Mr. O. within thirty days was enchanted with someone else.  Wonder what the calendar between wife one breakup and Milanos was.
I CARE — if these are out leaders, budgetary employees, public servants, etc.  — and they can’t keep their OWN pants zipped, on what basis do they have preaching to the rest of the United STates, supposedly helping POOR people — at poor people’s expense — to get back in that woman’s life and show her how to raise a real son, a real daughter, and how to hold a job, which somehow was missed in the upbringing?  I’m a woman.  I didn’t wait around for someone to coach me into the idea of working, before, during, or after my pregnancy.  I didn’t need government urging to realize that my own children deserved support, and I DIDN’T need government coaching to understand that domestic violence and Daddy is not a good combination, nor is it good for the work life, either — mine, that is.
Should we all be emulating the wealthy?  When even an actress like Halle Berry has to fight for custody, dropping out of a film to do so . . . . . (Huffington Post.  I didn’t stoop to quoting “People.” on this one…)
“You were only good for one thing…” She says he’s a racist and abusive; he says she’s irresponsible….
Halle Berry Gabriel Aubry Custody
However rich or powerful these two are going to be, the courts they go through will have been influenced by negative views of single mothers and particularly single mothers of color.  If you don’t believe me, go back and read the TITLE-IV Congressional testimony around 1995-1996.  These are part of “our” social heritage.

As her custody battle turns ugly and racial, Halle Berry would like to thank her ex, Gabriel Aubry–for his sperm donation.

“You were only good for one thing… Thanks for the donation,” she allegedly wrote in an email according to Radaronline.com.

{{RADAR is a group that believes violence between men and women is closer to 50/50 and is over-reported as to the male on female violence.}}

Halle and Gabriel split last April, reportedly amicably as they worked out a temporary custody agreement for 2-year-old Nahla. Gabriel filed a paternity petition in December, and the custody battle has turned nasty with reports of Gabriel being abusive and throwing around the n-wordand other vulgarities. Sources close to Halle also claim Nahla is terrified of her father and cries when he visits.

Welcome to OUR world, Halle….and many women, reflecting on “what was THAT about?” may have shared the same sentiment of valuing the worth of the relationship in terms of sperm.

Behind that comment, intended as an insult, is a mother’s realization that having a son or a daughter (or both) is one of the supreme privileges in life, a life-changing experience in itself.  We don’t need government programs to tell us that, either.

While I understand no man would like to be evaluated on the base of his sperm, how do men think women like to be measured and evaluated like animals on THEIR body parts, and I’m not talking, the  eggs.

Now an ex-girlfriend of Gabriel’s has come forward to TMZ backing up claims of Gabriel’s racism. The woman said he “has always been a borderline racist” and she was shocked when he got together with Halle.

For what it’s worth, a source close to Gabriel tells Radar he would never say the n-word – though he has been known to hurl other expletives at Halle.

– – – – – – –
Let’s go back to the CY KING Washington Post Op-Ed referenced at the top of this post.  He’s a man, He’s African-American evidently, and he questioned the hypocrisy also.

I have a problem, as I said in a Post Partisan blog entry, squaring Orszag’s behavior with his boss’s views on family and the duties of fatherhood.

In a speech at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago on Father’s Day in 2008, then-presidential candidateBarack Obama told the congregation: “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we . . . recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.”

Obama here is talking about a utopia and ought to qualify!  However, he doesn’t, nor does this language, almost.  Without qualification, conditions, that statement, repeated ad nauseam is simply a falsehood.  Some fathers are NOT essential to their children’s lives, particularly as some children are conceived by rape.  I mean, come-on — what about Phil Garrido?

If there are zillions of exceptions to any such statement, it lacks scientific  validation.  Our President should get out of pseudo-science and get back into the official purpose of President of the United States — and UpHOLDING and DEFENDING the Constitution — not undermining it, as many of the fatherhood legislative initiatives, and laws passed — do.  They undermine the federal/state balance.  They undermine the male/female balance in the courts by trying to jump in on the fatherhood end of the seesaw in custody situations.  They undermine the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendments in several manners.  The SECOND amendment includes the right to bear arms, which was intended in at least part for DEFENSE — SO, after serious violence towards a woman, or a mother, and addressing this in the courts (and outside of it) at no point is a woman encouraged to utilize any self-defense mechanisms other than FLEEING.  The protective order isn’t enforceable on her demand, or plea — discretion about whether to enforce is out of her hands.  She CAN’T flee if children are involved because of the shared-parenting, disappearing concept of “mother” in association with “person” rhetoric, and because of shared parenting promoters.  Those who DO flee are caught, imprisoned, and their children given to whoever they fled from, often enough.  To protect a mother who has been attacked, the concepts are promoted through legislation and initiatives that somehow some FATHERHOOD practitioners having a conference with the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE practitioners (by definition, those practitioners that wouldn’t challenge the legitimacy of either these laws, these practices, or these grants systems) at conferences together where the spoils are split, and safety is sold out.  I can show this under the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood act (below)…..one of the few (SEVEN, to be exact) places in the 111th Congress where the word “motherhood” is mentioned.

OK, More from Cy King…. Less from me….

Obama didn’t mince words. “If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

He continued: “We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes a man is not the ability to have a child — it’s the courage to raise one.”

So fathers (and by presumption here, NOt mothers) are to raise children.  This for the uninitiated, is a religious concept, and central to the three Abrahamic religions, at least, which are central to a lot of our culture for several millennia, especially in the “West.”  For more on this, read the book “CRONE” and “THe Chalice and the Blade.”

On that Father’s Day, Obama was in a black church talking to men in the African American community.

Do those views also apply to Peter Orszag, I asked?

Reader reaction varied, but I was struck by the apologists for Orszag.

“They didn’t have an abortion,” said one. “Milonas probably tried to get pregnant — a wealthy woman, unmarried, no children,” said another. “It’s . . . probable that Orszag and Milonas came to an agreement on how their child would be raised, and what level of involvement he would have,” asserted a third.

NOPE — Deal’s off.  This person works for the Obama Administration, and had, in the Clinton Administration (see “Famous fatherhood memo of 1995).  He works at the Brookings Institution which appears to be where Ron Haskins (FORMERLY OF HHS) publishes regularly on these issues, with the usual slant — what women need is just a good man  to set them straight.  Excuse me, scratch that (for public reading), what CHILDREN need is a Biological Daddy raising them, because single mothers are placing their offspring at risk BY being single mothers, per se.   He should tow the line, right?

ACCORDING TO FATHERHOOD RHETORIC FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT & BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, where her Daddy is well-respected, That 3 month old daughter of the still-young daughter of a Greek Shipping Magnate with Harvard & Yale degrees is “horribly at risk” unless her Daddy is going to go for full custody of the baby, to adorn the new marriage, while sharing custody with an ex-wife of two older daughters. This will help all three children, two mothers, and a stepmother (as of the recent marriage) to figure out what “FAMILY” is all about….  This anecdote is not, however, the target clientele of studies of “multiple-partner-fertility” at which some of these programs are aimed.

REmember the “evidence”  – that baby is at real risk…. She may sex too early; she is at risk of drug abuse and worse — without a Daddy in the home (or, perhaps, she may grow up figuring out that the one stability in her life is her mother — if they allow it.)

To add insult to injury, this man works for the OMB and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, which is drenched with fatherhood writings.

WELL, jesting aside, it’s serious legislative business patting each other on the back for being fathers at the Congressional Level.

And did you know that U.S. is promoting fatherhood GLOBALLY, or wants to, at least?





As we will see, quite a BIT of measuring has gone on, and is quoted in this very bill.  I gather by the language that the U.S. (or, our elected reps) consider the nation’s children something similar to a chicken farm, where good breeding and development is necessary.  While crowing about “family” in practice, some are acting like roosters, and making sure OTHERS’ children are raised in situations closer to factory farm institutions….

I was shocked to learn, recently, about the habitual use of pitocin (sp?) to jumpstart a delivery, forcible breaking of waters, if a baby decides to come a little earlier, later, or slower than is convenient for the busy hospitals.  (PBS special, anecdotal evidence).

I had my daughters fairly late, and we handled delivery in this manner — going to the hospital when it was time, and not too far before.  It went fine both times, and superb the second time.  The fewer drugs used in delivery (needlessly) the less damage to mother and baby in the process.  Many of the procedures used in the first delivery I realized were for the convenience of the hospital’s monitoring me — not for the timely and physically sound way of giving birth.  As a mother, I knew when this baby was on her way out, and was authoritatively told by an attending doctor (female) that I was wrong.  Even as a first-time mother, I took that advice with a grain of salt, and continued giving birth (there not being another option at this stage of the process….).

FIRST, let’s listen in.  Then let’s take a look at who’s in Congress…saying and voting for bills like this:

S.RES.560 — Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the… (Introduced in Senate – IS)

111th CONGRESS2d Session

S. RES. 560Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood , and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.


June 17, 2010

Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. THUNE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. BYRD, Mr. BURRIS, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. CASEY, and Mrs. LINCOLN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTIONRecognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood , and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.

Whereas responsible fatherhood is a priority for the United States;

WHOA _- when did THAT happen [OK, I know, around 1995…]?  We have many priorities.  Can I get a ranking, or is there no end of “priorities” for the United States?

Whereas the most important factor in the upbringing of a child is whether the child is brought up in a healthy and supportive environment;


Whereas father-child interaction, like mother-child interaction, has been shown to promote the positive physical, social, emotional, and mental development of children;

Who paid whom to show this?  Where was it shown?  And why wasn’t this bill brought to the general public by the elected representatives BEFORE passing it?

Whereas research shows that men are more likely to live healthier, longer, and more fulfilling lives when they are involved in the lives of their children and participate in caregiving;

Of course — it’s about the men.  And if Daddy ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.  Anyone mention the women living longer and more fulfilling lives when ALL men are involved in the lives of the children?  Because below, there is evidence that this philosophy literally SHORTENS some of those kids’ lives, and their mothers’….

Whereas programs to encourage responsible fatherhood should promote and provide support services for–

(1) fostering loving and healthy relationships between parents and children; and

(2) increasing the responsibility of noncustodial parents for the long-term care and financial well-being of their children;

Whereas research shows that working with men and boys to change attitudes towards women can have a profound impact on reducing violence against women;

It CAN — OK, that’s a possibility.  Alternately, it might not, and sometimes DOES not.  No matter — we’ll vote it in anyhow.  AND BESIDES — “reducing violence against women” is not enough.  I want it STOPPED, and so do most women, if you’d get them honest.  Violence against women BECAUSE of their womanhood, of their gender, is outrageous and constitutes a hate crime — but isn’t treated as such.  It affects boys and girls.  “Can have” is not good enough!  I want it STOPPED.  I’m a mother.  I know what this violence acts, feels, looks, and causes repercussions like.

Whereas research shows that women are significantly more satisfied in relationships when responsible fathers participate in the daily care of children;

More satisfied than WHAT?  Than if they were assaulting us and threatening, etc. in the home, having us work, but keeping the income, and making all major decisions for the family because, because — well because it just ain’t RIGHT for a woman to make decisions for the family ….

Since when did the U.S. Congress become specialists in Psychology?

Whereas children around the world do better in school and are less delinquent when fathers participate closely in their lives;

CAN WE SPECIFY “PARTICIPATE CLOSELY?  because SOME fathers are just too close for comfort — in fact beyond the normal boundaries of father/daughter, father/son …  Can we balance that statement, or qualify it a LITTLE bit, please?

For example….

Here’s a Columbia professor that got a real slap on the wrist for incest with his daughter.  Perhaps because she was an adult at the time.  Just friendly fatherhood, I guess..

Switzerland is thinking about relaxing that taboo at least between adults Others disagree:

Social conservatives in that country have called the bill “completely repugnant,” and a survey has shown that 60 percent of the public opposes changing the law.

American psychologists and legal experts say that there are still sound reasons why incest should be illegal, even if it appears it is a choice between consenting adults.

“It is still a social taboo and the ick factor is much stronger than the criminal factor,” said Professor Joanna L. Grossman, a professor of family law at Hofstra University in New York.

“I think these relationships are inherently coercive for the same reason that professors are not allowed to sleep with students in their classes,” she said.

Consensual incest is legal in China, France, Israel, the Ivory Coast, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Turkey, according to a 2007 report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany.

It’s not about love, it’s about a power differential — and SO IS THIE FATHERHOOD CRAP:

Mackenzie Phillips Confessed to Incest

Just last year in the United States, former child actress Mackenzie Phillips claimed that she had engaged in a decade-long consensual relationship with her father, the late rock star John Phillips.

She described in her book, “High Arrival,” how incest fueled her drug use and mental health problems.

“No matter what kind of incest, it is an abuse of power,” she wrote, “a betrayal of trust.”

Robert Geffner, president of the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma at Alliant University in San Diego, said there is no such thing as consensual incest because of the “power differential” in the parent-child relationship.

“The issue goes back to informed consent and power,” he said. “You cannot have informed consent if the power relationship is already in existence.”

“If you are saying consenting adults can do whatever they want, then what about therapists and their clients, employers and their employees, clergy and their parishioners?” asked Geffner.

Those who have been in incestuous relationships with a parent — even as adults — “mix up” power, love, affection, attention and abuse, he said.

Like Phillips, they can lose their identity, struggle with forming meaningful attachments and can resort to drugs, self-cutting and even suicide.

. . .

Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss argued that the incest taboo was “among the essential mechanisms of human society.”

Incest Destroys the Family Relationship

If incest were not “absolutely off limits” in families, the natural affection — sitting on laps and hugging and kissing — would be compromised and unsafe, said Grossman.

“The state has an interest in protecting the welfare of children and the harmony of the family relationships,” she said.

Families are also the “building blocks” of society, said Grossman. With incest, “you lose the possibility of a family connecting with another one and keeping society connected.”

Please don’t shoot the messenger, but a lot of the Fathers’ Rights movement is about just this very topic — women protesting abuse against themselves, and their children, plus molestation of their children, responded to by men protesting their protests — THROUGH THE FAMILY COURTS in particular.

Incest & Domestic Violence, these TWO OVERLAP!  Any man who treats a woman as an object, as property, as something to be used and discarded if she doesn’t suit him is just as likely to behave the same way towards children.  Domestic violence (wife-abuse) destroys families, and marriages, too.  THey make a mockery of the whole deal.  I am hear to testify that when there is abuse in the home, the home becomes a SHAM ACT, performed in front of society sometimes.  The taboo is not against the BEHAVIOR, it’s against TALKING ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR.

I have over the past two decades first lived through a nightmare, married, then rectified the situation, and another nightmare of more abuse for speaking about it, and expecting to be treated by SOCIETY — if not my husband — as the REAL HUMAN BEING with CIVIL RIGHTS that I was, and not a check mark on a family court docket, or an incubator who got out of line by developing a real emotional bond with children that I raised, and work that I did.    And the concepts that I, too, am a Citizen — and not an inferior standing one because of my gender, or because I actually decided to speak up, protest, and not continue to “submit” to these outrages.

We read on, to learn that it’s not enough to do “Designer Families” in the united states, but our broke country with its unpayable debt believes that it’s vital to evangelize the REST of the world in this, too.  They are taking their cure from (Egypt?  From Switzerland, about to legalize incest?  From The Netherlands that turned in a woman who ran from Australia to protect her son, and was hunted down?  From Korea, where a mother was thrown in Jail by a N.J. Family Court judge on the way back to the U.S. to COMPLY with a court order (ex parte) giving the Dad full custody for reasons i still don’t have straight (a child abuse investigation was under way in S. Korea).  From Somalia, Yeme, Saudi Arabia — where are we going to take our cu3e from on this “responsible fatherhood” theme?

Whereas responsible fatherhood is an important component of successful development policies and programs in countries throughout the world;

Whereas the United States Agency for International Development recognizes the importance of caregiving fathers for more stable and effective development efforts; and

Whereas Father’s Day is the third Sunday in June: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate–
    • (1) recognizes June 20, 2010, as Father’s Day;
    • (2) honors the men in the United States and around the world who are active in the lives of their children, which in turn, has a significant impact on their children, their families, and their communities;
    • (3) underscores the need for increased public awareness and activities regarding responsible fatherhood and healthy families; and
    • (4) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to supporting and encouraging global fatherhood initiatives that significantly benefit international development efforts.

While this resolution is very “pro forma”  — what else to do around Father’s Day, right?  (Was something like this done around Mother’s Day?) (???)  I have to point out that the help offered throughout the Federal government is astounding in scope and impact — to promote “fatherhood.”

As part of this, a male — ANY male –almost — who impregnated a female (i.e., his sperm swam, her egg was good, contraception, if any was used, failed, and she didn’t abort — meaning, he had to keep something “up” for a few minutes, and she had to take care of life growing inside her for about nine months — which shows by NATURE that one parent has biologically more invested already ) — it takes a real political movement to attempt to regulate and equalize this somehow — is now a “father” and should be taught how to be a good one, funded by ALL OF US who pay into this government.
I think this blog author is not compensated for her news commentary on how this works out, in effect — shared parenting, encouarge noncustodial contact, its’ good, Dads are nurturers too — or if not, we can train them to be:

Why would then this blog be even needed?  This blog, DastardlyDads is a DIRECT result of the above policy that Fatherhood needs to be inculcated (motherhood is taken for granted…).

Dad kills 2-year-old son during court-ordered visitation; family now suing judge (San Bernadino County, California)

This is NOT the first time a judge has refused to believe the mother or look at the evidence in a child abuse case involving the father. Judge Robert Lemkau (also of San Bernadino County) was recently drummed off the bench for allowing a similar miscarriage of justice in the murder of Wyatt Garcia.

Now Judge John M. Pacheco is also being looked at for granting dad ALEX BAEZA unsupervised visitation with his 2-year-old son, despite credible evidence of child abuse. The little boy later died of a head injury “allegedly” inflicted by his father. The father is facing homicide charges.

Note that the mother was threatened with loss of custody for even mentioning her concerns.

We previously reported on this case here:



No matter how many children DIE because of these policies, or suffer horribly — we are all to sacrifice for the concept, the ideology, the THEORY that it’s fatherlessness (and no other factor) that really most puts kids lives at risk.

Not including the ones that died early because of this failed theory.

Well, it’s CONGRESS — what’s to be expected?  As of the 111th:

The current Congress is the 111th to convene since the ratification of the Constitution (each Congress sits for the two-year period between House elections). The last congressional elections took place in November of 2008. The figures presented below reflect the composition of the Congress as of January 2009.

Men and Women in the 111th Congress

While the partisan composition of the Congress is fairly close to that of the electorate, there are larger disparities between the Congress and the general citizenry in term of sex and race. In the House, there are currently 357 men and 78 women . In the Senate, there are 18 women and 82 men.

Racial Composition of the 110th Congress

U.S. House

U.S. Senate
















Native American


The more important question is whether or not these statistics make a difference in the way the Congress functions as a representative body. The most obvious (and short) answer is, yes. However, the way these characteristics of the House matter is not always straightforward. In fact, the composition of the House as a whole is comparatively less important than the degree to which individual House members and Senators reflect the views and characteristics of the people in their individual districts or states. Decisions in Congress are made collectively, but representation occurs primarily at the level of the individual member.

While some people believe that a representative should, at the individual level, share important physical characteristics with the people he or she represents, others hold that “descriptive” or “demographic” representation is much less than “substantive” representation. From this perspective, a white woman could represent a black man or a Hispanic man could represent a black woman if the focus was promoting the interests of the represented individual or individuals. Indeed, James Madison observed in The Federalist No. 10 that the true test of a representative is his or her ability to make difficult decisions that promote the long-term best interests of the people back home. A representative government, he wrote, ought to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose.

It is likely that Madison would have thought any discussion of the demographic dimensions of representation irrelevant. Because America is much more diverse today than it was during Madison’s lifetime, however, a significant number of voters expect their representatives to not only think like them, but to look like them as well.

The 108th Congress had a bill regarding Motherhood.  It wasn’t saying we are essential to our children, but designed to increase penalties if an assault on a pregnant woman affects her pregnancy — to increase sentencing.

Latest Title: Motherhood Protection Act of 2003
Sponsor: Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] (introduced 5/22/2003)      Cosponsors (43)
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. 

5/22/2003–Introduced.Motherhood Protection Act of 2003 – Subjects any person who engages in violent or assaultive conduct against a pregnant woman resulting in that person’s conviction of any of specified offenses, and thereby causes an interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy resulting in prenatal injury (including termination of the pregnancy), to specified penalties (including life imprisonment) in addition to any penalty imposed for the violation.

But if a woman is assaulted pregnant (many times, that’s when this abuse kicks in as it did with me, but thank God I still had two healthy children, full term) and the blows didn’t actual damage the fetus (i.e., she was smart and turned, or he missed, or he didn’t target her abdomen) — well then, tough  luck — it’s just a dispute, and not even a custody dispute yet…

11th MORE bills with the word “fatherhood” in them:

. Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the… (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.RES.560.IS][PDF]
2 . Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the… (Agreed to Senate – ATS)[S.RES.560.ATS][PDF]
3 . Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the… (Introduced in House – IH)[H.RES.428.IH][PDF]
4 . Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the… (Introduced in House – IH)[H.RES.1389.IH][PDF]
5 . Whereas fathers factor significantly in the lives of children; (Engrossed in House [Passed House] – EH)[H.RES.1389.EH][PDF]
6 . Whereas fathers factor significantly in the lives of children; (Engrossed in House [Passed House] – EH)[H.RES.428.EH][PDF]
7 . Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2010 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.6298.IH][PDF]
8 . Protecting Adoption and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.939.IS][PDF]
9 . Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.2979.IH][PDF]
10 . Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.1309.IS][PDF]
11 . To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the Secretary of Education to establish grant programs to help pregnant and… (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.5460.IH][PDF]
12 . Education Begins at Home Act of 2009 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.2205.IH][PDF]
13 . The Claims Resettlement Act of 2010. (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] – ENR)[H.R.4783.ENR][PDF]
14 . Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Engrossed Amendment Senate – EAS)[H.R.4783.EAS][PDF]
15 . Job Creation and Tax Cuts Act of 2010 (Placed on Calendar Senate – PCS)[S.3793.PCS][PDF]
16 . Balancing Act of 2009 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.3047.IH][PDF]

Same Congress, references to “motherhood” are not waxing eloquent unless they lost a son or daughter in a war, in which case their suffering is appreciated, and details regarding IRS status for a mother whose child was adopted.  NOTHING about our role in the children’s lives, even if we raise them married, or single.  Of the 7 occurrences, the last two were subsets of a FATHERHOOD act (the Julia Carson and another one) — and in short, nothing about the amazing work so many mothers do, giving birth, nursing (if they’re lucky), chauffeuring back and forth, working outside the home many times, helping with schoolwork, negotiating with all kinds of professionals and people, teaching children to read in many cases, and dealing with a man, or without a man, at the same — bring them to religious institutions (or not) and in short — what about the many already RESPONSIBLE MOTHERS in life?  No mention?
7 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
Listing of 7 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
1 . Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing a son or daughter who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of… (Engrossed in House [Passed House] – EH)[H.RES.513.EH][PDF]
2 . Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing a son or daughter who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of… (Engrossed in House [Passed House] – EH)[H.RES.1617.EH][PDF]
3 . Motherhood Fairness Act of 2010 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.5251.IH][PDF]
4 . Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing a son or daughter who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of… (Introduced in House – IH)[H.RES.513.IH][PDF]
5 . Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the supreme sacrifice of motherhood by losing a son or daughter who served in the Armed Forces, and thus perpetuate the memory of… (Introduced in House – IH)[H.RES.1617.IH][PDF]
6 . Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.2979.IH][PDF]
7 . Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.1309.IS][PDF]

For all this work, our kids get shot up in wars, our courts get undermined, because fatherhood is more important, and if we don’t keep a man around that was the father of our children, then we are responsible for all the risks and the poverty our children MIGHT occur (or, they might NOT — if we can slide through family court without events).
Nope, nothing.
WHAT % of the population are women?
Per this study:
According to Census 2000, 281.4 million people were counted in the United States — 143.4 million of whom were female and 138.1 million male.1 The former made up 50.9 percent of the population, compared with 51.3 percent in 1990.Information on gender was derived from a question which was asked of all people. A question on the sex of individuals was included in all censuses since the first one in 1790. 

This report, part of a series that analyzes population and housing data collected by Census 2000, presents the number who are male and female in regions, States, counties, and places of 100,000 or more and highlights comparisons with data from the 1990 census.2


You can even draw a map to show “males per 100 females” in 1980, 1990, 2000 — a map of the U.S. more blue is more males, more red, is more females.  Alaska is mostly male, and a few western states, i.e., Nevada.  The south, more red.

Male to 100 females map of the comterminous United States
Sometimes I wonder whether the push, push, push to make sure we NEVER forget “fatherhood” (and DO forget “motherhood”) is more fear-based than anything else.  That’s a lot of women to keep in their place, and still helping give birth to, raise, and administratively help run most of society, including businesses, schools, daycares, hospitals, restaurants and no end of workplaces.

Suppose We — all of us — started saying “No taxation without representation.”  Because I assure readers, these programs ARE federally funded, and some of those funds going to faith institutions also.

Don’t be fooled by the inclusion of a side-reference to “domestic violence” abatement under things such as the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood Act.  This translates into abating $$ available to actually help save women’s lives into programs that won’t rock the fatherhood boat, have specialized definitions of Domestic Violence which do NOT treat it as the crime it is, and who must cooperate, or not get the grants funding.  Some of these groups take the money and run — to their latest conference, publication, brochure, curriculum, plane flight, hotel reservation, and fun outings with recognition for their rhetoric and no messy personal dealings with bloodied women or distressed children, or ABSENT children, meaning their own, on a daily basis, which is EXACTLY where this fatherhood gang is putting too many good Moms.


(a) In General- Section 403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) is amended–

(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F); and

(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:

`(D) REQUIREMENTS FOR RECEIPT OF FUNDS- An entity may not be awarded a grant under this paragraph unless the entity, as a condition of receiving funds under such a grant–

`(i) identifies in its application for the grant the domestic violence experts at the local, State, or national level with whom the entity will consult in the development and implementation of the programs and activities of the entity;

`(ii) on award of the grant, and in consultation with such domestic violence experts, develops a written protocol which describes–

`(I) how the entity will identify instances or risks of domestic violence;

`(II) the procedures for responding to such instances or risk, including making service referrals and providing protections and appropriate assistance for identified individuals and families;

`(III) how confidentiality issues will be addressed; and

`(IV) the domestic violence training that will be provided to ensure effective and consistent implementation of the protocol; and

`(iii) in an annual report to the Secretary, includes a description of the domestic violence protocols, and a description of any implementation issues identified with respect to domestic violence and how the issues were addressed.

`(E) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEFINED- In this paragraph, the term `domestic violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 402(a)(7)(B).’.

Why not just refer to a statute against domestic violence already on the books?  Why redefine it for purpose of this act?
HERE IS THE SECTION 402 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT REFERRED TO.  IT IS DEFINING ELIGIBLE STATES (to get help, evidently), as the top of the page shows:


Previous Document in Collection Parent Document in Collection Next Document in Collection

Sec. 402[42 U.S.C. 602] (a) In General.—As used in this part, the term “eligible State” means, with respect to a fiscal year, a State that, during the 27–month period ending with the close of the 1st quarter of the fiscal year, has submitted to the Secretary a plan that the Secretary has found includes the following:

Going down to section (7), I’ll pick up a side reference to concern about fraud, which comes first….section (6).
WE ought to be more concerned about the same topic when it comes to fatherhood funding — but most people just won’t bother, and prefer to argue psychology, my expert vs.  your expert, and social science theory.  They have missed the entire point ….

(6)Certification of standards and procedures to ensure against program fraud and abuse.—A certification by the chief executive officer of the State that the State has established and is enforcing standards and procedures to ensure against program fraud and abuse, including standards and procedures concerning nepotism, conflicts of interest among individuals responsible for the administration and supervision of the State program, kickbacks, and the use of political patronage.

Try to talk about this (PROGRAM FRAUD & ABUSE< CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS AMONG INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING AND SUPERVISING THE STATE PROGRAM< KICKBACKS, NEPOTISM,A ND USE OF POLITICAL PATRONAGE)  in any domestic violence (or fatherhood) group which is running off the grants system — and these are increasingly centralized under “coalitions” these days — and see how far you get…


See subtitle to my blog — where do you think I got the concept, “how family law hurts us all?”

Even those profiting from its perpetuation are still shooting themselves (in most cases) in the foot, because sometime before we all become slaves or slave-drivers, it’s likely that the money will run out.  So, I try to look at who is pushing these ideas, who originated them — not just who adminsters them.

(7) Optional certification of standards and procedures to ensure that the state will screen for and identify domestic violence.—

(A) In general.—At the option of the State, a certification by the chief executive officer of the State that the State has established and is enforcing standards and procedures to—

(i) screen and identify individuals receiving assistance under this part with a history of domestic violence while maintaining the confidentiality of such individuals;

odd wording:  “individuals with a  history of domestic violence.”  This is about individuals receiving assistance — and should’ve been worded to acknowledge these people were targets of a perpetrator(s) of domestic violence.  It GOT there by means of a person.   The wording “with a history of” shares ownership of something they were not responsible for.  It’s action-neutral, and that’s never good when crime is involved.  If it were about CRIME — would the wording be “with a history of criminal behavior” if they were victims of such behavior?  I bet not…  This is how, time after time, domestic violence is NOT called a crime or a misdemeanor in publications affecting victims of  it and survivors of it.

(ii) refer such individuals to counseling and supportive services; and

(iii) waive, pursuant to a determination of good cause, other program requirements such as time limits (for so long as necessary) for individuals receiving assistance, residency requirements, child support cooperation requirements, and family cap provisions, in cases where compliance with such requirements would make it more difficult for individuals receiving assistance under this part to escape domestic violence or unfairly penalize such individuals who are or have been victimized by such violence, or individuals who are at risk of further domestic violence.

This is helpful.  However, there is no free lunch, and “payback” happens when the same people concerned about what was formerly TANF (welfare) then went to Congress, AGAIN, and legislated the diversion of these funds to collect child support (OCSE administering through HHS).  Thereafter, those OCSE funds, as we have repeatedly shown, and other bloggers and reporters, sometimes quoting the government’s own words — were diverted t o FATHERHOOD & MARRIAGE PROMOTION  — AFFECTING MOTHERS WHO HAD LEFT VIOLENCE, TOO!


(B) Domestic violence defined.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term “domestic violence” has the same meaning as the term “battered or subjected to extreme cruelty”, as defined in section408(a)(7)(C)(iii).

These are limitations to how a State (texas, new york, etc.) may use grants to the State….

(i) In general.—The State may exempt a family from the application of subparagraph (A) by reason of hardship or if the family includes an individual who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.

GET THIS — there’s a quota to how many of us could be battered or subjected to extreme cruelty — no more than 20% per year of people seeking assistance!

Let’s suppose — just for theory — if MOST of the families seeking assistance were doing so BECAUSE of domestic violence issues, part of which is, preventing a parent (i.e., mother) from obtaining sufficient work, or education, outside the home to support herself & children, which traps them in the violent situation.  Such control  is of course part of the control / dependency system…In such cases, either she gets help from strangers, from a relative (but relatives may be perpetrating or endorsing the battering and extreme cruelty) — OR, goes to the STATE (welfare) thinking, perhaps — well, I worked most of my life, I”ve contributed into this system — now it’s time for it to help me.  Or just perhaps grasping at straws.

(Yes, those thoughts were the voice of (my) experience — but not only mine…) So, here’s that QuotA:

(ii) Limitation.—The average monthly number of families with respect to which an exemption made by a State under clause (i) is in effect for a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of the average monthly number of families to which assistance is provided under the State program funded under this part during the fiscal year or the immediately preceding fiscal year (but not both), as the State may elect.

If the state is to continue receiving the funds and more than 20% of its welfare case loads show up with DV on them (and in the press the “Economy” is sometimes blamed for DV, talk about a vicious cycle there) — then some of the excess, LEGITIMATE victims of this battering and extreme cruelty have to be re-labeled.  THat doesn’t change their history, or the merits of their need, it simply slaps a new label on them.

GUESS HOW THIS IS DONE?  AND WHERE?  IN FAMILY COURT.  It’s no longer, therein, domestic violence, but a custody issue.  Label changed, quotas met, grants exchanged.  With only one drawback — doing this fails to help protect the work life of the >= 20% of individuals, and reduces the overall tax base.  If they can’t overcome on their own, somehow, they will show up at someone ELSE’s door, draining THEIR resources, for example, charitable institutions, faith institutions, soup kitchens, etc.   You cannot get rid of this crime by relabeling it or sweeping it into another jurisdiction — the impact remains.

Looking at this ‘DOMESTIC VIOLENCE” defined in regards SOcial Security (WELFARE)  I see these elements of DV as repeated issues raised in the family law system, where a countering force simply claims they are false allegations, an angry bitch, a lazy woman, a money-grubbing woman who wants to just shop and play, etc.

Are they? ????

(iii) Battered or subject to extreme cruelty defined.—For purposes of clause (i), an individual has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty if the individual has been subjected to—

(I) physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to result in, physical injury to the individual;

(II) sexual abuse;

(III) sexual activity involving a dependent child;

(IV) being forced as the caretaker relative of a dependent child to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or activities;

(V) threats of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse;

(VI) mental abuse; or

(VII) neglect or deprivation of medical care.

That IS domestic violence, and my friends, if you want FATHERHOOD LEGISLATION — you don’t care about DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.  You can’t have your cake and eat it in this matter.  ONE or the other RHETORIC has to go, and neither belong under the “Health and Human Services” umbrella.

Want a healthier population?  Treat Domestic Violence against WOMEN & CHILDREN as a crime, and start mentioning us in public policy by noun and in a positive light.  NOT just when we show up on welfare (often because of previous domestic violence, or because of subsequent LEGAL ABUSE through patronage systems in the courts).  That’s every bit as much mental abuse as is failing to recognize slaves as persons over two centuries ago when the founding documents of this country were written.
Like some of the laws, they are of themselves, pretty amazing.  And like that Constitution initially, the real problem is enforcement — and failure to — based on definitions of personhood.
Domestic violence IS domestic violence, and includes extreme cruelty and other things described in the Penal Codes in most states AS crimes.  UNLESS IT HAPPENS TO MORE THAN 20% OF PEOPLE NEEDING HELP.  UNLESS IT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS A CUSTODY FIGHT (Batterers fight almost EVERYTHING, that’s where the extreme mental cruelty comes in.  Going out.  Getting a loaf of bread when it was not on his agenda.  Fixing a household appliance.  Getting a child in an extracurricular class ,and keeping him or her there.  Mom working.  Mom Not working.  Mom working, bringing home income, but she has no checking account, no name on any utilities, no credit, and no financial footprint that recoqnizes her existence…  Unless the police don’t feel like arresting .. .unless the D.A. ain’t prosecuting. . . unless the jails are full . . . unless the sentencing judge wants to give a guy a break, and he’s let out, madder than hell, to get even — and DOES so (See my blog on Toms River, NJ incident — it still gets visitors…) … UNLESS the neighborhood is a particularly religious one, that doesn’t talk about those things . . . .  UNLESS  UNLESS.
How many exceptions are acceptable?  In any job I’ve worked, if there are too many exceptions, a person gets fired.  It’s a lot harder to fire any politician who spouts out this and lives in its aura without a conscience about it — after all, those rules apply to poor people, both the ones about responsible fatherhood, and the need for welfare isn’t exactly a current PERSONAL need for most politicians.  The welfare vote yes — but to stand in line and repeat a life history to a stranger for a handout –and then leave, still respecting onesself and the system that put the person there — not exactly a current point of reference.
Now, we have the NCADV working hand in hand with Fatherhood groups to “solve” some problems.  Sorry, that’s unacceptable to me.  It’s going in the back door.  THe FRONT door says, STOP! and means it.  Not “train — and hope!”
By including a lot of commentary, I hope I taught someone else to listen in to Congress, and talk back, at least internally — and later, to your local representative — not so much about your personal case, but about these patterns.  Go in SMART, and go in quoting legislation, and go in with some evidence of LOCAL area program fraud — I assure you, no district is likely free from it.  Protest the formation of the family law system to take the overflow of welfare cases resulting from “extreme cruelty” issues and re-label them as all in Mom’s Mind (psychological disabilities, like “PAS” etc.).
And then campaign for more women in Congress, and policing.  Or, go start a foundation, and use it for better purposes than the likes of some of the biggest ones running research and demo projects on how to manage you, your children, and your grandchildren.
By learning to think straight on some of these matters — every citizen should be able to — we might be able, when an Egypt comes up, where they are offended at U.S. involvement and, as Dr. Chesler pointed out in a recent blog (see my last post) NONE of the women in the photographs, as few as they are, was unscarved (that I saw) — we’d better do something.  The scarves in the U.S., OUTSIDE the Muslim community within the U.S. that are wearing them — are metaphorical, but they have the same anonymous effect.  We basically almost don’t exist at the political level.
If I were an atheist (and I’m not, but if I were), I’d still go ahead and read the Bible and the Koran, at a minimum and make sure my friends do.  Although without the eyes of “Faith’ it reads differently, you can learn a lot and probably are reading more than an average church gets through in about 5 years, which I say from having attended enough of them, and worked in a variety of others….Now, I am thinking instead of how we can remove the tax-exempt status of ALL of them, based on what I’ve learned in the past three years about why i went through such hell just trying to raise children who didn’t accept that watching their mother being assaulted in the home was OK, “normal” or my own fault, which it wasn’t.
I try not to provide my warm body in a sanctuary for validation in any way, and I also try not to put my little SIGN-In on some of these grants to justify their $$ received for “persons served.”  There has to be a way back into reason, but step one is disengaging with foolish dialogues, and insisting all elected representatives understand they must, too.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 5, 2011 at 12:57 am

Name commonalities between U.S. State of the Union and Egypt’s State of Street Protests

with one comment

Why I haven’t been bloggin’.  Well, life keeps happening — while I was at a Battered Mother’s Conference, Tuscon happened.  While I was attempting to confront/expose the lack of the word “WOMEN” or “WOMAN” as any policy issue in (yet another) U.S. President’s address — Egypt erupted.

it seemed irreverent, selfish, almost, to address (again) the systematic elimination of the word “mother” and the amazing, disappearance of the word “women” in national addresses on issues of importance, while the one nation friendly to Israel is erupting in violence.  I struggled over this for a while, but I find Dr. Phyllis Chesler noticed, also — the TV scenes of street violence were mostly men.  Mostly ALL men, and a few women in headscarves.  In United States, it’d be different, and has been.

I doubt most people would pick up on this, unless they have been affected by similar matters.

So glad to hear that Phyllis Chesler, also noticed:

Am I the Only One Troubled by Cairo’s Street Scenes? (February 1st)

Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies

at City University of New York. For extended biography visit The Phyllis Chesler Organization.

{{No, Ma’am, you are not, but you said this better:}}

In the last week, we have seen massive coverage of the street uprising in Cairo on every major television channel and in print and Internet media of all political persuasions. No one has commented upon what the photos are showing us. Some say that a picture speaks a thousand words—and so it does. Follow along with me.

First, view these photos of Cairo University graduates in 1959, 1978, 1995, and 2004. Clearly, there is a progression—aregression really, in terms of women’s rights. Former feminist gains have, increasingly, been washed away.

As you can see, the female graduates in 1959 and 1978 had bare arms, wore short sleeved blouses,  dresses, or pants, and were both bare-faced and bare-headed. By  1995, we see a smattering of headscarves—and by 2004 we see a plurality of female university graduates in serious hijab: Tight, and draping the shoulders.

Class of 1959

Class of 1978

Class of 1995

Class of 2004

Now, let’s look at the recent Cairo uprising photos through my eyes. No one has, as yet, commented upon the photos that they have chosen to run.

. . . .(pls. see article) . . .

First, most photos show us mobs of mainly men marching, men at prayer, men shooting, running, falling, wounded inhospitals, standing atop tanks.  These could be scenes from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. I am not suggesting that women rush out to join a promised American Nation of Islam style “Million Man March”—as women, they are horribly endangered among groups of men, which is why Muslim men argue that “their” family women must be veiled, sequestered, kept in purdah, strictly supervised, accompanied wherever they go by a male protector.

Muslim men know how lustful and licentious they truly are, what their view of all women (who are not their mothers) truly is, and how sexual repression, forced marriage, polygamy (a shortage of available wives for poor men), affects men who have been fired up by a mosque sermon or by a holy war to seize state power. Women are also shorter, weigh less, and have rarely been trained in boxing, martial arts or weapons training compared to most men; most women cannot hold their own against one angry and determined man, certainly not against thousands of such men.

. .

My reading of these photos suggests that Egyptian women have already been Islamified. Whether they have done so to please their loving (or abusive) families or a favorite mullah, whether it was peer pressure from girlhood on that did it; or whether it was the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood being preached in every mosque, on every media channel, and inschool that did it, the fact is: It is done. Women are veiled. Such women—and their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons, will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood to run their country.

What does that mean?  Oh, check a 2010 June poll.

Such journalists also claim that the Egyptian people in the streets are not “political,” that they are impoverished, broken, barefoot warriors who have heroically risen up for jobs, food, and an end to corruption and tyranny. Indeed, the people may not be “political”—but their heroism may end up benefiting those who, unlike themselves, are already organized militarily, economically, and ideologically—like the Muslim Brotherhood.

On the other hand, unorganized though they may be, the people may still have views and beliefs. Caroline Glick, reminds us that according to a June, 2010 Pew opinion survey of Egyptians:

Fifty nine percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics….Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion…When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN’s Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

Is this Pew Center survey really true? What other indicators might we rely upon?

(For comparison, on the “father’s day” month of June 2010, the House Ways & Means Committee was hearing testimony on Fatherhood appropriations (H.R. 2979, Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood funding).  A few alert women, I’d call us feminists — got a rebuttal in– but this machinery has been in operation for so long now, it would take more than a few slender voices of protest to stop it.  I’m talk, U.S.A. ….  Search this blog — I posted on it.

In case this has maybe changed — has it?  A recent press release from the same committee, House Ways & Means, crowing about Child Support Enforcement, available HERE, shows the word “mother” (singular) (even though child support obviously is going to involve children, who have mothers) — occurs ONLY twice, and ONLY in a fine-print footnote defining “noncustodial parent.”  By contrast, the word “Father” (singular) occurs EIGHT times and twice in that footnote, defining “noncustodial parent” — and the other SIX (6) times in the word “fatherhood,” as in “Fatherhood Programs.”  Again, the score:

  • Father 8 ~ Mother 2.
  • Fatherhood programs  6 of those 8 uses.

As the press release reads:

Hatch, Grassley, Davis Release GAO Report
on Child Support Enforcement Program
Collections Actually Increased, Contrary to Predictions
if “Double-Dip” of Federal Funds Eliminated

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), former Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Congressman Geoff Davis (R-KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, released a report prepared at their request from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  The report, titled “Child Support Enforcement: Departures from Long-Term Trends in Sources of Collections and Caseload Reflect Recent Economic Conditions,” reviews how states responded to federal funding changes to the child support enforcement (CSE) program.

Specifically, the report tracked how states responded to a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 that eliminated states’ ability to claim federal matching payments for spending federal child support incentive funds.  Prior to passage of the DRA, states had been able to “double dip” into federal funds.  In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Obama Administration allowed states to go back to “double dipping” for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

I emailed my friends:

“mothers” occurs twice only — both time simply in page 12, footnote 27, an OCSE definition of “noncustodial parent”:

27OCSE defines a CSE “case” as a noncustodial parent (mother, father, or putative/alleged father) who is now or eventually may be obligated under law for the support of a child or children receiving services under the CSE program. 45 C.F.R. § 305.1(a) (2009). If the noncustodial parent owes support for two children by different women, that would be considered two cases; if both children have the same mother, that would be considered one case.

The word “father” (not “fathers”) occurs SIX times — twice, above, and EVERY other occurrence refers to some fatherhood program as part of child support enforcement efforts.  (use the “Find” function in the document & CHECK IT OUT…For example:…)

Figure 6: States’ Uses of Restored Incentive Match Funds under the Recovery Act




Customer service (voice response systems, partnerships with fatherhood or employment programs)

16 • Technology (systems enhancements, interfaces with other agencies)

Basic program functions (staff, contracts, training, operations)

Source: GAO analysis of information from OCSE Child Support Report Newsletter.

Moreover, they are whining that the “other” uses of such funds might be curtailed without Big Fed help.  On page 21 of this report:

Several officials emphasized that even states that maintained overall expenditure levels when the incentive match was eliminated in fiscal year 2008 may not be able to do so again in fiscal year 2011, as many state budget situations have worsened since the economic recession. Some officials also noted that the delivery of services beyond the core mission of the CSE program—such as job skills training and fatherhood initiatives— is particularly uncertain.36

These officials {WHICH ones???} also told us that,although they believe that these services and partnerships are necessary to continue increasing their collections, particularly from noncustodial parents who are underemployed or have barriers to maintaining employment, these services would be reduced to preserve core services in the event of dramatic budget shortfalls

There you have it.  We have no state religion (sure) — but public funding is equating FATHERHOOD & EMPLOYMENT –and when the Fatherhood Subsidy is maybe reduced, slightly this is noted.  When certain aspects of this program both corrupt the legal process -and result in sometimes custody switches which result in dead babies, infants, toddlers, young kids, teens and or mothers — and sometimes a father too, after the others are offed–that does “not” make it into the count, somehow.

Foonote 36:


36 OCSE provides some grants and waivers of federal rules to states to fund services and activities that provide benefits for CSE programs but do not meet the requirements for federal matching funds.

Dr. Chesler follows up on this, yesterday’s article:

llusions and Delusions About the Turmoil in EgyptWhat is Wrong with Rabbis Michael Lerner and Arthur Waskow?

by Phyllis CheslerNewsRealBlogFebruary 2, 2011

. . .

Brother: What are you smoking out there in Berkeley? How can you write this without also writing about Hamas’ stated intention to genocidally exterminate Jews and Israel or Hamas’ tyrannical uber-Pharaoh-like reign of tyranny over their own people? How can you blame Israel for Mubarak’s consistent “jailing and torturing of its opponents” (which I also certainly condemn) without blaming Hamas for exactly the same kinds of torture and murder of its opponents? How can you remain silent about the female genital mutilation which is practiced on 96 percent of Egyptian women or on the honor murders, forced veiling, arranged marriage, polygamy, etc. that characterizes Islamic gender apartheid in the disputed territories and in Egypt—as practiced by the very people you are busy idealizing, when in fact it was Mubarak who, unsuccessfully, banned and actually tried to eliminate some of these barbaric practices.

How can you demand a “generous, loving, caring” Global Marshall Plan, as introduced by Congressman Keith Ellison, for the Palestinians first among peoples? And for the mainly Muslim Middle East? When it comes to caring and sharing, how dare you forget South Sudan or Congo?

How can you still retain your illusions/delusions about who Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhood really are, namely, totalitarian theocratic fundamentalists, practitioners of both religious and gender apartheid, and barbaric misogynists who wish to rule the world in a new Caliphate? Really, how can you overlook and not even mention the mistreatment of women in Egypt, Gaza, and on the West Bank, not to mention in Iran—which is the state entity calling many of the shots in the Arab world?

Well, President Obama managed to deliver a State of the Union message without focusing on women. I guess he is your role model.

Actually, “Whitehouse.gov” DOES have an “issues” hyperlink to “women:”


Click on it, and see where the word “mothers” comes up ONCE:

The President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which included a number of provisions of particular concern to women:

  • To help working mothers and fathers obtain quality child care, the Act includes an additional $2 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1 billion for Head Start, and $1.1 billion for Early Head Start.

In a section on “WOMEN” –half (or more than) the population, and mothers to the other half — the word “mother” comes up only in association with “fathers” and only under working and getting child care.  SO much for the verb, “mothering.”  PERHAPS — we may show up as a category (mothers) under the Issue “Family”??


(I did this already, this is simply a “demo”):  YEP  – under the issue “FAMILY” we come up ONCE (same breath as fathers, and no different from them) and a boilerplate of the other paragraph.  So much for our biological and psychological functions in raising children….as a policy issue…

  • To help working mothers and fathers obtain quality child care, the Act includes an additional $2 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1 billion for Head Start, and $1.1 billion for Early Head Start.


The word “mother” — even under the subheading “family” occurs ONLY when next to a father, and ONLY when working (see above).  But surely, if we are right next to children, — at least infants, then we are “MOTHERS?”

NOPE — not according to Whitehouse.gov/issues/family:

To fight hunger, the Act includes a $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, as well as funding for food banks and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).


Well, President Obama had a mother, right? . . . . Surely in that case, it’s “mother.”  He was Dreaming about his Father, but while with a mother — and surely if one becomes President, SOME parent did all right — and logically speaking, his MOTHER should get at least generic-noun credit:


  • Strengthen Families
  • President Obama was raised by a single parent and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. He is committed to responsible fatherhood, by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways.


Am I the only person who notices this?  His MOTHER raised him — but while doing it she was a “parent” with an absent Father, a status that compromises “young people.”  Fathers, Young People, a Parent, and an understanding parent.  NOtice anything missing, verbally?  And if you can’t say the word, what are the chances that we have some say in policy?

And HOW many mothers across the U.S. voted for this man?

The OCSE programs to promote “responsible fatherhood” are not doing this.  They are encouraging legal corruption of due process, and creating a lot of “noncustodial mothers” who then pay to see their own kids — if they can.  If we read the policyspeak, talking to the public, talking to each others, — this comes out sooner or later.  I know I was shocked to find out that my life, my subcategory of personhood, did not count unless it had a male attached, responsible or (case in point) IRresponsible.


Seems negligible in light of the Egyptian Crisis, but most political crises have a large religious component — adn so does our new national religion of promoting responsible FATHERhood at EVERYONE’s expense (as federal funding is involved), and in cooperation with — get this — faith-based initiatives.


From time to time I write Dr. Phyllis to call attention the downward spiral TOWARDS sharia that our government is taking in these matters.  Here was a recent email (minus some personal anecdote):


Yes, I noticed the near-total absence of women in these photos, and the near lack of any commentary on their absence (cf.Kent State)…
And I noticed the lack of commentary on it.

Then again, I have noticed the lack of commentary on U.S. Presidents’ state of the union addresses, in general, and am told that Obama’s inaugural speech ddin’t even mention “women” as a topic, although we are more than half the population.
I also noticed that as a result, in part, over the exaltation of “fatherhood” and “families” (and the increasing elimination of the word, and funciton, “mother” in public policy –at least in any equal, or positive sense) + Bush’s Faith-based initiatives and Obama’s OFFICE of Faith-based Initiatives, etc.  — women & mothers don’t stand much of a chance in family courts across the country IF they stand up to abuse, or adultery by the father, or rape & molestation of their children.
In even more of an insult (to mothers), the cooperation with the “faith-based” groups is supposed to help prevent or alleviate domestic violence & abuse by helping “families” (and violating due process in the courts, and other state laws designed to protect INDIVIDUALS from certain crimes).  I found no help from these groups in stopping violence, reporting it, addressing it, confronting it –even after that escalated from abuse (I managed to get the father out of the home with legal help) to legal harassments going over a decade now, stalking, harassments to the point of losing not some, but ALL employment — employment became impossible in this scenario, and I was a single mother — elder abuse. . .{{personal anecdote deleted}}
.  What kind of country IS this?
Thereafter, the conservative, and faith/religion-basd groups are now cooperating, “Fatherhood & Domestic Violence” practitioners/advocates — with each other as if to somehow help the famlies of the U.S.  They also then help men in prison (sometimes in prison FOR the criminal violence against women, either the mother, or another woman) (and/OR a young man in jail — OR a wife — for stopping the assault & battery of a woman, his mother — with a bullet when there was no other apparent way out).
The fatherhood groups recruit/solicit men in prison to re-unite them with their families.
In some situations, this is noble.  But when a custody battle is under way, this activity (also unknown to many mothers) compromises her LEGAL rights to due process as a citizen, and her UNALIENABLE right to stay alive, with her kids.  If she flees / when she flees (and some mothers, unlike me, have) — she can be hunted down in all but a very few countries, and turned in, jailed by a FAMILY court judge (or others) for criminal kidnapping — but when her husband does this, it’s a rare prosecution (case in point).

What I’m saying, in NOTICING that your email is correct here, and not commented on in the news, we MUST start taking a stand against the abuse of women, including honor killings by Muslim families in this country and Non-muslim abuse, sometimes leading also to death and “familicide,”
based on a mollified version of the same theocracy behind Islam.
IN EFFECT, I’ve found / we’ve found (several individual women and some of their groups) is that the government sponsored entities are out-founded, out-organized, and get grants tfor “technical assistance,” and work through profits, nonprofits, professional associations, and government agencies — and ALL of those categories typically are going to pay lower taxes than any wage-owning mother whose wages are being garnished and who was improperly put on “supervised visitation” (paying to see her kids) as if SHE were the criminal for reporting crime . .. and all of this is contributing to the lessening of any “social services” because it involves high-level kickbacks and fraud (federal program fraud) of the American taxpayers and public.
I have written for some time to you on this, and hoped that a chapter somehow, or reference might be put into any revised version of “Mothers on Trial” — on the other hand, I can (without your longstanding reputation as a feminist, and a thoughtful one, not a mob-following one) attempt to get this out myself.

I beg of you (and associates) to stand up HERE as well, even as the Middle East Crisis is tumultuous and world-threatening, mis-construed, and under-reported from the Islamification point of view, from the women’s ALREADY subjugated status — to UNDERSTAND AND I HOPE SPEAK — to how our own government in cooperation with FAITH GROUPS has left no safe place for any woman & MOTHER of faith to find legitimate support — I had to go to . . . the civil court to save my life, and my daughters and possibly my husband’s, whose family has mental illness, suicide, incest (to the point of jail) and basic serious problems in it — but who found ample cover for these problems (no help to address them) in religious circles.
{Because, and when

}… I had DARED as a single mother to stick up for my right to work — where I chose and to benefit daughters in my household — to a childless BROTHER IN LAW on my side of the family — I was punished by total cutoff from my own daughters.

I say these things because of Dr. Phyllis’ known association/ connection with conservatives, including some conservative Christians.  In the U.S., I testify, they are no friend to women, although so far, (and not unilaterally) a step up from Islam in worldwide practice.

My Christianity was not even traditional conservative, but was still held up as a problem in the courts, apparently because it was ‘different.”


We DO know (financially) what type of corruption is going on in these circles, and the root of it is financial, but its covering is words like “parent” when mother is the truth, or programs to support “fatherhood” when the Congress is already primarily male, as are many of the primary institutions by design, in this country.  They are heirarchy and status-based. …. Keeping things “organized” and ordering people around to the detriment of common sense, individuality (within legal framework) or their rights.


Here’s another accounting of how this works in the courts, it’s about 2001 …  the woman who wrote it detailed the organizational conflicts of interest in the system (nationally), locally in her case, and has burnt out, like me, trying to wake up others to the fact it’s not about philosophy or religion — but about finances and kickbacks, etc.  As such, it’s EVERYONE’s issue.

And, our President can’t even acknowledge his own mother with the word “mother” on WHITEHOUSE.gov.  How disrespectful! Not that previous presidents, including those who started these programs, much better.  But is it really necessary to go whole hog on “FATHERHOOD.gov?”  — I mean, come on!


This is a response (letter to the editor) on a recall effort of a Northern California District Attorney.  I found the link on the National Alliance for Family Court JUSTICE:  http://nafcj.net.  Notice how well written:  This points out the D.A. collaboration in refusing to prosecute.  If a District Attorney won’t prosecute, but bounces cases instead to “family law” — the laws to prevent crimes against human beings become unenforceable when the human being in question is not the head of the nationally-recognized, pro forma word “family.” which just happens to coincide with conservative theological definition of a religion that came off one where the Priests were called Father and whose headquarters is in a country all its own in Italy.  Let alone the two preceding ones, in reverse chrono order, Judaism and Islam.



I am the California director of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice (NAFCJ), a support and advocacy group seeking accountability and  reform of courts, judges, attorneys and social services. NAFCJ has  identified a Family Court corruption scheme involving the misuse of federal parenting  and custody grant programs. The legal strategy used to accomplish the fund  diversion in individual cases is the “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS)  custody switching program devised by incest advocate Dr. Richard Gardner.
PAS calls for the Court to suppress evidence of family violence and child  sexual abuse when the father is the perpetrator. Blame is shifted to the  mother by dismissing her reports of abuse as attempts to “alienate”
children  from their father. The mothers’ (and children’s) silence is ensured by  court-ordered PAS “threats” which include supervised visitation, loss of  custody, jail and institutionalization.

On this blog, as well as official government sites, it’s known that in California at least, Federal Incentive funds go to the California Judicial Council, Administrative office of the Courts, “Center for Families & Children in the Courts” and the series of grants are called Access/Visitation.  The purpose is stated as increasing “noncustodial parent” time in order to better child support payments.  This is not the actual purpose, as we know, for diverting TANF funds to Child Support Enforcement, and diverting Child Support Enforcement Funds to (designer family/fatherhood, etc.) and a good deal of them to kickbacks as well.  This is  NOT new news — just under-reported news.  For a quick example/summary, see:

Michael Hayes Wants to Build “Family-Centered” Child Support

I must continue to emphasize that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) is no longer about collecting child support. It is about meddling in your family business and exercising government control over families (which begins with the “birth certificate” and “marriage licenses”), with emphasis on removing control from women as childbearers and autonomous beings. This money is NOT going to raise the children–it is going into million-dollar research at the hand of psychology pseudoscience and court litigation.

. . . (quoting Michael Hayes of Texas Attorney General’s office — an office that’s SUPPOSED to be about enforcing laws, right?  Wrong ….

also want to acknowledge the value that OCSE Section 1115 and SIP grants have had for the evolution of child support, both in Texas and around the country. Through Section 1115 grants, our Family Initiatives Section in Texas has been able to pursue the projects I’ve talked about, since these grants may be used to fund certain activities not normally allowed under FFP rules. The creativity and innovation that those grant programs have fostered play a big part in child support’s continued growth and vision. We take pride in how we’ve been able to keep the work going after the grant funding expires by using careful collaboration and coordination. For example, we found we could provide additional services to parents by linking Access and Visitation partners to our child support offices. Once the parents meet with us about the support order, they are escorted to the AV staff so they can develop a parenting plan. We could not have moved as thoughtfully or as quickly without that support.

Thank you, Michael Hayes, for making this so easy for us! I don’t even have to explain it anymore.


BACK TO NEWSMAKING NEWS, reporting same idea in 2001, only in some more detail:


The Court steers the case in the guise of children’s  “best interests,” while the actual agenda is for the Court and
court-appointees to receive and divert funds intended for “Access to Visitation,” “Responsible Fatherhood” and “Child Support Enforcement”  programs.

The Recorder article “Kamena Recall Effort Has Weird Mix of  Bedfellows” (4-3-01 Click to read. http://www.callaw.com/stories/edt0403b.shtm) states that the DA’s office has “little, if any, contact with the
family court,” and “no authority over family court issues.”

These statements  are misleading. While it is true that the DA has no jurisdiction over family  law cases, the PAS strategy specifically depends on collaboration between the DA’s office and the Family Court in turning domestic violence and child  molestation crimes into “custody disputes.”

When the Family Court “identifies” PAS, it depends on the DA’s refusal  to prosecute perpetrator fathers and collaboration with the Family Court in criminalizing mothers. This is done by giving the Family Court
jurisdiction  and enacting the “Conciliation Court Law” (CA Codes 1800-1852), so that the abuse becomes a “custody” dispute rather than a crime. The more a mother complains or seeks assistance, the more her attempts to rescue her children  are used against her in both the Family and Criminal Courts. The courts
work  together to label her an alienator* and a “vexatious litigant” to justify threatening and punishing her through the legal system and in jail. * (PAS  is  not a legitimate psychological disorder and other fabricated syndromes may be  used instead of or in addition to PAS. These include: “Munchausen Syndrome
by  Proxy”, “Malicious Mother”, “Domestic Predator” and “Access Interference.”  Sometimes legitimate disorders are inappropriately applied, e.g.,  “Borderline  Personality Disorder” and sometimes the mother is simply labeled  “delusional” or “crazy.”)

The PAS strategy also depends on the DA Family Support Division’s participation in abating rather than enforcing fathers’ child support obligations. This is done through programs which recruit fathers with
“child  support payment issues” and provide them with free benefits, including legal services from contracted attorneys and mediators. While the stated goal of  these programs is to “enhance the well-being” of children, in fact these  programs do exactly the opposite. “Responsible Fatherhood” program evaluation documents from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) show that  TANF/Welfare funds are used to reduce or eliminate fathers’ child support  payments and to “resolve” “access to visitation” issues using PAS  methodology. NAFCJ has received information regarding DHHS-ACF-OCSE  (Administration for Children and Families-Office of Child Support  Enforcement) “Incentive/Hold Harmless” funding, which shows that  approximately one half billion dollars is granted out to states based on a performance schedule.  Preliminary review of program documents suggests  that  Incentive Fund payment is based on factors such as child support  pass-throughs — with GREATER bonus money for LESS child support collected  and passed through.

In Marin County, the Superior Court/Family Law Facilitator, and the  DA/Family Support Division collaborate through a project called the “Focus  on Fatherhood Program” and the Court is the recipient of an annual Title IV-D  Child Support Enforcement Grant. All of the attorneys and evaluators  contracted by the courts are those that use and teach PAS methodology,  especially through their affiliations with the Association of Family and  Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and/or the Children’s Rights Council (CRC). CRC is the primary FR group working directly with Richard Gardner, DHHS, OCSE and other government officials and agencies, and is heavily cross affiliated with AFCC.

Court contracted and appointed AFCC affiliates do PAS custody switches and fund diversion through the “conciliation court” by calling themselves “mediators” who practice “Collaborative Law” and “Alternate Dispute Resolution.”  After receiving appointments as attorneys for children, custody evaluators, special masters and therapists, they rig the cases so that  fathers avoid child support obligations and the funds are redirected back to themselves and the Court. Often this means that the father will get custody in arrangements that are both illegal and detrimental to the children and mothers. However, because the DA participates in the scheme, any requests for investigation are dismissed as “family law matters” over which the DA claims lack of jurisdiction.


This plan would not work IF the DA’s office prosecuted properly.  Meanwhile, at least in Alameda County, a major grant was obtained to start a “Family Justice Center” (see my blog:  one-stop, fast-food, family justice centers).  The granst money is spread around and around — almost everyone gets a piece of it except for whoever the grants are ostensibly to help.


And The TV spoke about bribes in Egypt as a cause of that revolution. . . . .  Hypocrites! !!!  Like we don’t have that well-organized here….


It’s easy to oppress a category of human being that has no public policy name in association with that which they brought forth, with after gestation and labor — and this is called pregnancy and birth.  That category is Mothers under the human category “women.”  And when addressing the NATION, the word “women” doesn’t come up?


That’s why I was shocked to hear a U.S. Representative from Wisconsin even SAY the word “women” make the connection between pregnancy, healthcare, and domestic violence — in front of her peers.  (See recent post).  It was shockingly abnormal.  Has U.S. policy already completed subjugating us that so few protest?  And if so, why are all these federally -funded collaborations with faith-based and community-based organizations NEEDED to teach “fatherhood” to adult males, many of who spent their childhoods somewhere between federally-funded Head Start or Child Care, School Systems, Juvenile Hall and/or Prison?  Who raised them?  Given the heavy hand of these institutions in raising those people, and blaming the failures on “female-headed households” — what can one expect when they grow up?


And what incentive to mothers and women have to excel, when doing so will — in a marriage situation — like as not get them punished, possibly beaten (if they married inappropriately), dumped for a younger model if they married politically or high (i.e., “well” according to society) — and their very success threatens the status quo, which was to be inferior, forever, although somehow we managed to get the vote in the 1900s…


I’m a mother.  I’d just like to know what I should tell my own daughters, for their benefit, when I see them next — at which time it appears both will now be adults raised with an absent parent for the second half (their mother) and a violent father for the first half of childhood.

Should I tell them the truth — that they were lied to, a lot?  Or is the truth “emotional abuse” and speaking it a punishable offence, depending on one’s gender?





Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 3, 2011 at 12:41 pm

%d bloggers like this: