This post first published 6-25-2011.  Being formatted/broken-links checked in prep for a 3-2017 quote, as this font and the border, plus posting title with link, indicates.   In 2011, I didn’t know how certain formatting techniques which would’ve made for easier viewing…//LGH.

CA SB-557, and U.S. H.R. 2193 — Family Justice Center & Fatherhood pending legislation (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-L3”)

AN Ex-NOW (California Chapter) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:

Just a little reminder of an old 2006 missive on the use of Fatherhood Funds from HHS

[“http://www.now.org/issues/family/law/HHSletter.pdf” no longer valid.  The letter was found under Internet Archive, and was only saved in a single snapshot SIX YEARS after its writing.  This version is now uploaded as a pdf and will not disappear; it’s only 2 pages long. //LGH 3-30-2017]

WayBackMachine (Internet Archive) showing that as of March 2017, there was only ONE screenshot of this ltr (in all years). It apparently was not a high-traffic site, or was taken down after being posted earlier.

For broken or missing links, sometimes Internet Archive may have the answer (I used it this time…)

(Click to read; I’m also posting the two full-page screenshots below): 2006 to CalifMembersCongress re HHS (ltr fr CA NOW (signed HGrieco) per WayBackMachine (sole snapshot only 3-22-2012),re-loaded 3-30-2017byVEnglund 2pp

Click here for both pages full-sized (no annotations other than to label the URL (p1 top) and filename (p1 bottom, yellow).

See link in above caption to view this page full-sized.

There are some developments that I report on (and some others) which are not covered in this letter, but it sure has the basics.  I am not (FYI), a NOW member and never was.  However, I do endorse this letter.  Because California NOW is moving its pages around and appears to have dropped or eliminated some of its Family Law Links, I’ll also post the entire letter, below.

Just a little reminder, the origins of the “fatherhood”movement were in part to counteract the perceived threats of feminism and NOW.

Every “now” and then someone trumpets that they have got a reformed or converted feminist in their ranks.  Warren Farrell, Ph.D. is one, and another one I discovered recently (although the activities were in the previous century) is a Karen DeCrow, who is a member of the Family Advisory Task on the Children’s Rights Council, which the author of the 2006 letter cites as a fathers’ group (which it is).  I have blogged far more on AFCC than CRC, but they are related, have personnel in common and as the next link will show, are Richard Gardner-favorable.

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS COUNCIL – FAMILY  BOARD

A reminder:  this is not a Republican/Democrat issue.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as in “It takes a Village to Raise a Child,” back in 1997 endorsed this group.  In looking into WHY, I ran again into the network of secretive meetings around “The Family” which have involved many U.S. Presidents and other world leaders, among them senators which are definitely pushing fatherhood funding (Santorum, Brownback, Grassley).

(OK, here is that 2007 Mother Jones article:  Hillary’s Prayer: Hillary Clinton’s Religion and Politics )(and another one detailing how Hillary got involved, under the title The Family:  Hillary Clinton’s Fascist Spiritual Guide)  The Family’s connections with anti-Communist dictators (the key word being “dictators” and racist groups mentioned in 2008 article by Barbara Ehrenreich.)(<==hover cursor over the second link for summary text).

Just because someone is a powerful woman doesn’t mean she is in favor of doing something to remedy the family court situation, in which people are dying around exchange of children after or during divorce, or even a rumour of divorce sometimes.  The system is unfair to both men and women because it is indeed “fascist” — it ties systems of control together and holds them at the top policymaking levels.  This is why such organizations are so focused, perhaps, on training judges and training workers and training practitioners of this and that.

(All these images from the CRCkids.org “About us” page — thank you).

CEO

• Trustees
• Family Board
• Partners

Family Board has some familiar names:

Although without governing authority, the Family Advisory Board plays a vital role in helping to recommend advocacy initiatives, strategic planning and policy development to the Board of Trustees. Serving members include:

• Ms. Jeanne Phillips (Dear Abby);
• Karen DeCrow J.D., former President of the National Organization of Woman (NOW);

Karen DeCrow is a nationally recognized author and attorney specializing in Constitutional law, gender and age discrimination, and civil liberties. Her long involvement with the National Organization for Women goes back to 1967; from 1968 to 1974 she served as National Board Member of NOW, and from 1974 to 1977 as its President.

Being nosy, like I am, about these things, I googled, and found Ms. DeCrow presenting — alongside David Levy (CRC Board) and Richard Gardner, Sanford Braver, etc. at a 1998 conference by the On Step Institute,* a 1992 nonprofit in NY founded by Mental Health (practitioners  Ph.D.’s):

[*2017 UpdateThat link gone without a redirect, Internet Archive Results Screenshot show who are the founders and early discussions of  men’s rights in divorce.  The bottom entry of that 2nd “Conferences” screen shot may have been the same 1998 conference but (clicking on it), no screenshot of that page was taken:]

ONStepInstitute Mental Health Rsrch (NY) 2 FOUNDERS fr WayBackBachine (Karen DeCrow~ see FamilyCourtMatters’ORG 6-25-2011 post) (Screen Shot 2017-03-30 at 3.27PM

(Other links below that look like “ONStep Intitute” filenames are to one of the images (screenshots) on ONStep provided below, all from the WayBackMachine).  I didn’t find any specifically referencing Karen DeCrow, but they do give an idea of the discussions professionals (such as the two founders profiled) were having during those years, under the label of “Mental Health.” (The links are separated by “|x|” this time but click the filename, not the “|x|”))

Whitepapers

Conferences (1998 one on Divorce at bottom)

OSi (OnStep Institute) past conferences, 1999-2011 (frm WaybackMachine)

Update (as I’m getting ready to reference this post in 2017 because it refers to that SB 557 Family Justice Center).  In the interim, Karen DeCrow (nee Lipschultz), the third President of N.O.W. and longtime also supporter of men’s rights, died in 2014.  Some of her obituaries characterize her position including, as some feminists are (but at the time apparently absolutely were not) in favor of shared custody for men, and de-emphasizing the male violence against women | domestic violence factors as exaggerated or somehow over-emphasized.

Speaking as a formerly battered (while pregnant and married) wife, I obviously do not agree.

However some updated images and texts FYI; this first one is from Warren Farrell:

“In the early 70s, Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Karen and I  would often say, “what the world needs is more women at work, and more dads at home.” This was N.O.W.s position until about 1973. However, as divorces increased, NOW started hearing from moms who were dropping their memberships because, as the complaint usually ran, “I know my child best; I know what she or he needs. If I don’t want the dad involved, it’s for a reason—he’s either a bad dad or we’ve had a bad experience and I just need to take my children away and start a new life.”

N.O.W. was caught between supporting equality versus jeopardizing its base. It chose to not jeopardize its base. Gloria and Betty, while not changing their position rhetorically, looked the other way as NOW intensified its efforts to portray men either as deadbeats or self-interested (“they just want the money”) or prone to domestic violence. Karen was the only other leading feminist who not only spoke differently, but agreed to speak at fathers’ conferences. Karen’s courage marginalized her from the feminist leadership and the millions of dollars of speaking fees she could otherwise have obtained.

[2017 comment, “Ahem — fathers’ conferences have speakers’ fees too…!”]

I knew what Karen was enduring, because I took the same road she took. While my break was cleaner, Karen tried to walk the tightrope of the balance between integrity and retaining feminist colleagues and friends.

When she agreed in 2005 to write the foreword to my Why Men Earn More: the Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap–and What Women Can Do About It, she shared with me some of her lifetime of worries about losing feminist support. It wasn’t just the lost speaking fees. It was the isolation. It was desiring to lead, but being kept at arm’s length by feminist leadership.

As Karen shared that, I recollect envisioning a devil and angel fighting inside her. In the case of the foreword and in other cases I witnessed, Karen almost always chose the angel of integrity.

That was by Warren Farrell, In Memoriam of (A Karen DeCrow Appreciation), image here (to read the 91 comments, click that first link).  Also the closing sentence (next to last sentence is in the quote above):

With Karen’s death passes a feminist who, were her leadership allowed to be the guiding light, would have allowed millions of children to have a dad to guide them and love them.

Image by Karen DeCrow
Editor’s note: This article is also available in Italian.

To claim this in 2014 after both the 2006 and 2011 rounds of $150M/year “marriage/fatherhood” HHS funding (CFDA93086) as though it didn’t exist, is really a testament to the power of pretend exercised by Farrell at this time.  This type of funding began as welfare diversions back in 1996, too….and as I said, CA NOW was reporting on it, at least a few public attempts, as of 2006….

Karen DeCrow Appreciation in AVoiceforMen by WarrenFarrell *6-14-2014) with 1 comments (Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 8.42PM)

K Decrow 2014 Obituary (from funeral service LLC) Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 8.41PM shows affiliations: NOW, Chamber Music (in Syracuse), Planned Parenthood, Central NY Women’s Bar Association, or NY Chapter of ACLU.

[[picking up the post from before 2017 updates and inserted images on OnStep Institute and Karen DeCrow…]]
Richard Gardner’s presentation was on.  “Criteria for Differentiation between True and False Sex-Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Disputes (Part II)”  The entire conference (I am looking at the pdf but can’t get the computer to copy the phrasing) is about “changing the paradigm”   The conference was “in invitation to [note order of professions listed] mental health professionals, legislators, attorneys, mediators (an AFCC emphasis) and members of the judiciary to discover solutions in the new reality of dual-provider families.  Shared primary care responsibilities (i.e., that was the goal) require a new developmental paradigm for families in the 21st century.“

Shattering Fictions and Myths in Divorce Stern Auditorium, Mount Sinai College of Medicine, New York City Video available  June 6, 1998

[I see this was from the On Step Institute, “OSi” — see images above]

Invite the mental health professionals in to fix the paradigm — perhaps not the best idea, but it’s definitely a going operation at this point.   Again — what about law?  Mental health norms + legalizing them?  Frightening concept; who gets to say what’s normal, and what happens to creativity in a country when that power is centralized through a national (and in fact, international) network of rhetoric dispensers, with funding through IRS and wage garnishments (Child support system) — and with power to commit people who disagree to jail for being mentally incorrect?  Sounds like a Gulag to me — and has felt like one in practice.  Where is the feedback loop here?

[This list is continuing from the CRC Family Advisory Board, started above, after taking time out to discuss Ms. DeCrow)..

• Mr. David Birney, television actor;
• Ms. Eloise Anderson of the Claremont Institute;
• Ron Haskins Ph.D., Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institution;

• He’s all over my blog, primarily for the egregious act of having snuck in the Access Visitation language at the 9th hour into the Welfare Reform (Title IV-D) bill which is to this day making divorce a long-term, hell hole — because it undermines due process and informed consent on basic legal processes.  Through incentives.  Ah well…
• S. Richard Sauber Ph.D., author;
• Ms. Vicki Lansky, author and columnist; (Child Support connection, I THINK, though am not sure).
• Ms. Lola Bailey, President of the National Committee of Grandparents for Children’s Rights;
• Larry Gaughan J.D., Professional Director for Family Mediation of Greater Washington DC;  {AFCC, though probably not the only one on here who is}
• James Levine Ed.D., former director of the Family and Work Institute;
• Chief Rabbi M. Bruce Lustig, Washington Hebrew Congregation of DC; and
• Elliott H. Diamond, co-founder of the Children’s Rights Council.

Well to the main topic of today’s (6-25-2011) post:

CA SB-557

Search CA SB-557.  First result I found was a comment from Survivors in Action asking for a slight revision to it.

The next several results were me, saying ‘WHOA! — Just say NO!” etc.

Below that was an “Open Government”link which says this:

At the moment, we’re finding no mentions of the search term “California SB 557” in our daily automated search of the Web (viaGoogle News and Blog Search). There may be relevant news articles & blog posts outthere on the Web that refer to this bill by a slightly different name or title — in which case, they’re not included here, but our goal is to aggregate as much relevant info as possible. If you know of any, contact us with the specific links, and we’ll display them here for everyone to access.

It’s only a bill to repeal part of the California Penal Code, which in part decides who does and doesn’t get punished for (or protected from) crimes.  Penal / Penalty, etc.  Breaking the Penal Code subjects one to potential prosecution by a local (i.e., county-based) District Attorney, or not.  California has 58 counties, and the author of this bill (Christine Kehoe) comes from San Diego, one of the counties that was characterized as “Enron by the Bay” in the New York Times.  So, what exactly, is being sold here?

California Senate Bill

SB 557

An act to add and repeal Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) of Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to family justice centers.

A portion of this fill encourages victims (likely to be uninformed and highly traumatized and/or injured) to OK a sharing of confidential information among partners (in the justice system) in the assurance that this will help provide the victims better access to justice:

Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys.
(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human
trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.
(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.
(d) All family justice centers are encouraged to maintain an informed consent process to authorize any sharing of confidential, privileged, or protected information between individuals or agencies working within a center. “Informed client consent” shall refer to a process established by a family justice center to inform the victim of all applicable confidentiality provisions of state and federal law, inform the victim of the implications of waiving of these confidentiality provisions, and a written process for authorization to share information within a center. A victim may authorize the disclosure and sharing of information among partner agencies for the
purposes of providing enhanced services.

…

Just to play the opposite side:  What about issues where there has been police violence, or DA simply tossing cases inappropriately?  More to the point, what about some of the indications that like all other agencies, law enforcement is subject to undue influence and corruption — hence what are the checks and balances?

This is in a recent San Francisco Bay Area County — and the 2nd Family Justice Center (Alameda, containing the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, Alameda, etc.) was in neighboring county.  D.A. Nancy O’Malley [helped appoint the CEO, a political crony, helped obtain I heard the initial $3 million grant — and was recently found in Washington D.C promoting SB 557) of the 2nd Family Justice Center here is from a well-established family, the O’Malleys.  The Contra Costa District Attorney metioned here (Mark Peterson) here ran against an O’Malley, and it was a close run, hear tell:

FBI and U.S. Attorney Take Over Alleged Police Corruption Cases

Contra Costa County District Attorney says the feds have more resources to conduct investigation

by BAY CITY NEWS SERVICE on June 3, 2011 – 8:46 p.m. PDT

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12ANZ)

Contra Costa County District Attorney Mark Peterson announced that as of today the U.S. Attorneys’ Office and the FBI will be taking over the investigation of a case involving three allegedly corrupt law enforcement officers and a private investigator.

He said his office was not, however, dropping the 38 criminal charges filed against the four men, Norman Wielsch, Christopher Butler, Stephen Tanabe, and Louis Lombardi.

Those charges include conspiracy and the sale and possession of marijuana, methamphetamine and steroids. The charges also include possession of assault weapons, embezzlement, receipt of stolen property and bribery, Peterson said.

So, can I indicate a degree of caution in just assuming that all law enforcement officers, such as those who will be in the family justice centers, are free from corruption, undue influence, or ulterior motives?  Not to mention that none of them are personally abusing their own wives or kids (it happens).

The case began in January as a state Department of Justice investigation into alleged criminal activity of Wielsch, who was at the time the commander of the state-run Central Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team, known as CNET, and Butler, a private investigator and former Antioch police officer.

The state charges, however, will be set aside while the federal case is being tried and will likely be resolved when the federal case is resolved, Peterson said.

The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed charges against Wielsch, 50, and Butler, 49, in February, accusing Wielsch of stealing drugs from law enforcement evidence lockers and working with Butler to have them sold back out into the community.

Within the next three months, investigators uncovered evidence that Tanabe, 47, who was a Danville police officer at the time, and Lombardi, 38, who was a San Ramon police officer at the time, were also involved in some of Wielsch and Butler’s alleged criminal activities.

Some of the crimes were allegedly committed while the men were serving as law enforcement officers.

Wielsch, Tanabe and Lombardi have all since resigned from their positions as law enforcement officers and Butler has surrendered his private investigator’s license.

According to Peterson, the case has consumed hundreds of hours in investigation and prosecution efforts and there are still some matters that need further investigation, including allegations involving a possible brothel and possible marijuana growing farms.

A possible brothel.  Other indicators of sensitivity towards violence towards women, not to mention that Casey Gwinn (of the San Diego / first “Family Justice Center”) was sued by one of his own employees for ignoring a clearcut and potentially lethal domestic violence situation with one of his own employees (I blogged it) and simply giving another female employee, (Josie Clark) the task of cleaning it up — but only after the victim had gotten herself arrested for threatening to kill her spouse.  (The spouse that was beating her up — was he arrested?)

Wielsch’s attorney Michael Cardoza said federal investigators would likely also be looking closely at the Antioch Police Department, since at least three of the defendants are former Antioch police officers.

That’s encouraging, especially in the context of a brothel.  The Jaycee Dugard / Phillip & Nancy Garrido case was in Antioch; she was imprisoned and repeatedly raped in a set of backyard sheds, and raised the two girls that the rape led to the birth of.  Some of the local news at that time (less highly publicized, although the case was definitely international) from neighbors said they were concerned it was being used as a brothel also.  Of course, neighbors are neighbors, but at least ONE had attempted to get help and reported people living in the sheds back there — in Antioch.

Peterson said his decision to turn the investigation over to the U.S. Attorney’s office and the FBI will bring more resources to the case.

Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12ANZ)

They are talking potential RICO in this case, and it has a divorce component also, private investigator allegedly on the take, cooperating with police officers to set up men in divorces with DUIs.  However, unless they were actually injecting the liquor into the men’s mouths, they still did allegedly drive drunk and were in the wrong place with the wrong women at the wrong time.  BUT, a setup is still a setup:

Article by Cecile Vega:

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Calif. (KGO) — New allegations are surfacing after the arrest of yet another officer linked to the Contra Costa County narcotics team scandal.

The investigation now claims that female decoys were used to trap men, a private investigator plotted it all, and a police officer was on the take. 47-year-old Stephen Tanabe of Alamo was contracted by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department to work patrol in Danville. He is now in a Martinez jail on $260,000 bail.

A popular Danville wine bar was one of the locations where decoys, usually attractive women, plied unsuspecting men with liquor. Almost as soon as they left the parking lot, they were reportedly stopped and arrested for driving drunk by Contra Costa Sheriff’s Deputy Stephen Tanabe.

(Copyright ©2011 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

Fathers, commission on responsible fatherhood: SB 6801

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2001&bill=6801

6801 Sponsor(s): Senator Kastama

Brief Description: Creating the Washington state commission for responsible fatherhood.

SB 6801 – DIGEST

Establishes the Washington state commission for responsible fatherhood.

AN ACT Relating to the Washington state commission for responsible fatherhood; and adding a new chapter to Title 43 RCW.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that:

(1) Children living in single-parent households are more likely to be living in poverty;

(2) The overwhelming percentage of children residing in poverty reside in homes where fathers are not present;

(3) Children living in poverty are at a significantly greater risk for drug and alcohol abuse;

(4) Children living in poverty are twice as likely to drop out of school;

(5) The vast majority of homeless and runaway children are from homes where children live in poverty;

(6) Washingtonians recognize that children are more likely to thrive with support, guidance, and nurturing from both parents;

(7) The absence of one parent from a child’s life can place that child at a greater risk of health, emotional, educational, and behavioral problems associated with the child’s development;

H.R. 2193

H.R. 2193: Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2011

Federal Interagency Initiatives

• The White House Interagency Responsible Fatherhood Workgroup, led by the White House Office of Faith- Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is working to increase awareness of the importance of fathers in the lives of their children and to integrate fathers into family services throughout the government.

• The HHS Incarceration and Reentry Work Group is part of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council, which has partnered 18 federal departments and agencies to leverage resources for reentry, remove barriers to reentry, and clarify federal policies. (Take a look at the Council’s interactive map for major federal reentry initiatives and active reentry grants in each state.)

• The Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative, part of President Obama’s FY 2012 budget, proposes continuous emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency, and provisions to help further encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children and to promote strong and safe family relationships.

• The Department of Labor’s Transitional Jobs Initiative is funding grants to support transitional job programs, as well as other activities and services, to increase the workforce participation of low-income, hard-to-employ populations, specifically noncustodial parents and ex-offenders (who may or may not be noncustodial parents) reentering their communities.

• The Homeless Veteran’s Project partners HHS, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the American Bar Association to work with homeless veterans and their families to address challenges (such as old fines, child support debts, and other legal judgments) that compromise their ability to move into permanent housing.

• As part of the National Partnership for Action to End Health Disparities, HHS released two strategic plans to reduce health disparities and achieve health equity in the Nation.

(in the original, these are all links);

6/15/2011–Introduced.

Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2011 – Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act to condition continued approval of a state plan upon state assessment of its policies with respect to barriers to employment and financial support of children. Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to states for an employment demonstration project involving a court- or state child support agency supervised-employment program for noncustodial parents who have barriers to employment and a history of nonpayment, so that they can pay their child support obligations. Directs the Secretary of Labor to award grants for transitional jobs programs and for public-private career pathways partnerships. Amends part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) (TANF) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) with respect to: (1) funding for responsible fatherhood programs, (2) activities promoting responsible fatherhood, and (3) elimination of a separate TANF work participation rate for two-parent families. Prohibits a state from conditioning receipt of TANF or certain other benefits on: (1) participation in a healthy marriage or responsible fatherhood program, or (2) assignment to the state of certain support rights. Amends SSA title IV part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) to prohibit a state from collecting any amount owed it by reason of costs it has incurred for the birth of a child for whom support rights have been assigned. Requires a state to make a full distribution of collected child support to the family. Amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 with respect to: (1) deductions from family income for child support received in order to qualify for food stamps, (2) verification of child support payments, and (3) inclusion of economic opportunities programs in qualifying work programs. Amends SSA title IV part A with respect to: (1) grants to healthy family partnerships for domestic violence intervention and prevention, and (2) grant recipients and their procedures for responding to the risks of domestic violence. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to increase the credit percentage under the earned income tax credit for eligible individuals with no qualifying children.

In addition, CA NOW believes that Wade Horn, current Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, has a major conflict of interest in his role overseeing such programs, given his past affiliation as president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. Horn, as President of National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), promoted (in collaboration with fathers rights groups) during 1999 and 2000, “Fathers Count” legislation, which would have mandated $10,000,000 in total annual funding to fathers organizations. According to the legislative language, only NFI and the leading fathers’ rights group, Children’s Rights Council, would have qualified for the grants. The bill passed the Congress, but was stalled by the Senate Finance Committee.

California Member of Congress, 8/02/06

California National Organization for Women (CA NOW) is respectfully requesting that you join the call for a federal investigation, by the U.S. Government Reform Committee, into the operations of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration of Children and Families’ Access/Visitation and “Responsible Fatherhood” programs, including those operating in California.

CA NOW believes that these fatherhood programs misuse funds, do not account for their spending nor evaluation of their programming, and encourage illegal court practices that result in harm to women’s safety and well-being. We believe that fathers’ child support arrears are frequently abated by these groups, in violation of the Bradley amendment. We also believe that Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration of Children and Families, has a conflict of interest serving in this capacity, and operates from a dangerous political ideology that actively favors fathers’ rights and seeks to minimize mothers’.

CA NOW believes an investigation would expose serious system failure and fraud in these fatherhood programs. They are funded with federal money intended for resolving parental disputes, but instead give legal representation to fathers, which often results in high conflict litigation against perfectly fit mothers. CA NOW believes many fathers use these resources in order to avoid paying child support, and that many batterers do so in order to continue to abuse and manipulate their spouses and children through financially draining and emotionally devastating litigation, that often stretches on for years and years.

Fatherhood programs operate on the false premise that there is a “crisis in fatherlessness,” which is contradicted by Census data. CA NOW asked HHS, and the National Fatherhood Initiative (the most cited program on the HHS website) to justify this claim of crisis, and to date have not received an answer from them. We believe the entire premise for the programming is erroneous, and that mothers and their children are suffering harm from the consequences of such a focus.

Through political connection, legal trainings, and funding diversions, these fatherhood programs emphasize false syndromes, such as Parental Alienation Syndrome as a technique to remove children from their mothers. Fatherhood groups train court appointed minors’ attorneys, mediators and evaluators to discriminate against mothers, and create a vacuous draining of mothers of funding, faith in the system, and ability to fight to protect their children. These are primary caregiving mothers. Single mothers whose children’s fathers come back after years without contact, and demand and receive full or partial custody. Mothers are losing custody to their abusers, to men who have abused or neglected their children, and men with criminal backgrounds. Often fathers are awarded custody based on frivolous justifications, such

as insufficient cooperation with the father, while documented evidence of domestic violence and abuse, even sexual abuse, goes ignored.