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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for July 3rd, 2011

105th Congress,ff. — Congressional Record — How many times can one say “father,” “fatherhood” & “fatherless” in one minute?

leave a comment »

Congressional Record
105th Congress (1997-1998)

In describing the AFCC, I saw that Mike McCormick of ACFC was presenting a workshop, alongside a PAS Parenting Coordinator AFCC Board Member  Matthew J Sullivan, Ph.D. and The Hon. Robert A. Schnider, long-timer from Los Angeles County who retired in 2008.

I t hought to look up the 1998 & 1999 resolutions on fatherhood in the U.S. Congress.  Here’s some of the record from Thomas.gov:

Congressional Record article 659 of 1000House of Representatives – June 12, 1997;

Congressional Record, [Page: H3723]        Printer Friendly Display – 1,471 bytes.[Help]

someday my two sons will be to theirs. Fathers like it simple. So to mine and all of ours, I simply say, thanks, Dad.
(Mr. MCINTYRE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.)

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member from North Carolina, it is a high honor to serve the people in the House. Yet an even more important role in my life is that of being a father. As I approach my 14th year of being called ‘‘Dad,’’ we must all realize that fathers do make a difference in the home.

The statistics speak for themselves and are staggering. Four out of ten children in America will go home to- night without a father. The time a fa- ther spends with a child averages, one on one, only 10 minutes a day. Violent criminals too often are males who have grown in a home without a father. As leaders of our country, we must do bet- ter.

I urge my colleagues to join the Con- gressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force. We will explore ways to challenge fathers to that type of commitment, not just another law or another government program, but encouraging fathers to fulfill the calling that they have in their lives.
The future of our country lies in the hands of our children. Through this task force, we will ensure that those hands are properly prepared with persistence and purpose and ready to lead. Please join us in this important mission that we not fail.


(Mr. TURNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as we ap- proach this Father’s Day, many of us are fortunate to reflect upon the positive influence of our own fathers and to feel the sense of joy that comes from being a father. We understand that the experience of having a father is critical to shaping our lives, and we know that there are numerous studies that have been done that point out that loving, committed fathers help children get a better start in life.

FIRST, it’s for what it does for them personally to be a father, SECOND, it’s for helping children get a “better start in life.”

According to the Journal of Family Issues, interaction between children and their fathers improves the child’s early mental development and physical well-being. We know that children who grow up with committed fathers are less likely to get involved with gangs and drugs and turn out to be better parents themselves. That is why the Book of Proverbs tells us to train the child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

A group of Members in this House have joined together to form the Fa- therhood Promotion Task Force for the purpose of examining Government poli- cies to ensure that those policies pro- mote, encourage, and support families. Every child deserves the love and care of a responsible adult, and the pro- motion of fatherhood is critical to our future.



(Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.)

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, Sunday is Father’s Day, and I would like to start by paying tribute to my father, who has done such a great job in help- ing myself and my brothers and sisters in getting to where we are in our lives today. Certainly, without his support as we were growing up, we would not be here and would not be able to be doing the things we are doing here today.

I also have to think about in the so- ciety that we live in how many fathers are forced to work two jobs because of the large tax burden. And I have to hope that the work we are doing out here this week in Washington, working to reduce that tax burden on our Amer- ican families by providing a $500 per child tax cut and by providing a college tuition tax credit, let us hope that that work and that effort that we are going through this week out here in Washing- ton will somehow allow our fathers to not have to work that second and third job out there in America so that they can in fact spend more time at home with their families and spend more time with their children, providing them the guidance to make this a better nation in the long term for everyone.

This one is long.  I am going to post it here:

WORDCOUNT “fatherhood”– 31 occurrences; “fathers” – 31 occurrences (including title), mothers (plural) ONE occurrence;  “father” – (over 100 occurrences)

Fatherhood Promotion – 9 matches + Promotion of fatherhood – 1  – 10 total.

Families – 10 occ (incl. single-parent & two-parent, 1 each).  Family – 11 matches; Children – 62 matches; parent/s — 11 matches.

“absent” — 11 matches.  “VIOLENCE” — not found.  “Abuse” – 1 occ, only with “alcohol abuse” and attributed to fatherlessness:

“Most importantly, fatherless homes have a devastating impact on our children. National research tells us that without a father, children are four times as likely to be poor, twice as likely to drop out of school, et cetera. Fatherless children also have a higher risk of suicide, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and delinquency”

“fatherless” – 5 times.


[Page: H4249]  GPO's PDF

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 417) regarding the importance of fathers in the rearing and development of their children, as amended.

The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 417

Whereas studies reveal that even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable, two-parent homes do not become delinquents;

Whereas researchers have linked father presence with improved fetal and infant development, and father-child interaction has been shown to promote a child’s physical well-being, perceptual abilities, and competency for relatedness with other persons, even at a young age;

Whereas premature infants whose fathers spend ample time playing with them have better cognitive outcomes, and children who have higher than average self-esteem and lower than average depression report having a close relationship with their father;

Whereas both boys and girls demonstrate a greater ability to take initiative and evidence self-control when they are reared with fathers who are actively involved in their upbringing;

It would be nice to see that reference.

Whereas, although mothers often work tremendously hard to rear their children in a nurturing environment, a mother can benefit from the positive support of the father of her children;

Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 79.1 percent of Americans believe the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home and the resulting lack of involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

Whereas, according to the Bureau of the Census, in 1994, 19,500,000 children in the United States (nearly one-fourth of all children in the United States) lived in families in which the father was absent;

Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 90.9 percent of Americans believe `it is important for children to live in a home with both their mother and their father’;

Whereas it is estimated that half of all United States children born today will spend at least half their childhood in a family in which a father figure is absent;

Whereas estimates of the likelihood that marriages will end in divorce range from 40 percent to 50 percent, and approximately three out of every five divorcing couples have at least one child;

Whereas almost half of all 11- through 16-year-old children who live in mother-headed homes have not seen their father in the last twelve months;

Whereas the likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is reared without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families;

Whereas children of single-parents are less likely to complete high school and more likely to have low earnings and low employment stability as adults than children reared in two-parent families;

Whereas a 1990 Los Angeles Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all mothers feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children;

Whereas almost 20 percent of 6th through 12th graders report that they have not had a good conversation lasting for at least 10 minutes with at least one of their parents in more than a month;

Whereas, according to a Gallup poll, over 50 percent of all adults agreed that fathers today spend less time with their children than their fathers spent with them;

Whereas President Clinton has stated that `the single biggest social problem in our society may be the growing absence of fathers from their children’s homes because it contributes to so many other social problems’ and that `the real source of the [welfare] problem is the inordinate number of out of wedlock births in this country’;

Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion and the Senate Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion were both formed in 1997, and the Governors Fatherhood Task Force was formed in February 1998;

Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion is exploring the social changes that are required to ensure that every child is reared with a father who is committed to be actively involved in the rearing and development of his children;

Whereas the 36 members of the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion are promoting fatherhood in their congressional districts;

Whereas the National Fatherhood Initiative is holding a National Summit on Fatherhood in Washington, D.C., with the purpose of mobilizing a response to father absence in several of the most powerful sectors of society, including public policy, public and private social services, education, religion, entertainment, the media, and the civic community;

Whereas both Republican and Democrat leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate will be participating in this event; and

Whereas the promotion of fatherhood is a bipartisan issue: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) recognizes that the creation of a better America depends in large part on the active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

(2) urges each father in America to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children, to be actively involved in rearing his children, and to encourage the academic, moral, and spiritual development of his children and urges the States to aggressively prosecute those fathers who fail to fulfill their legal responsibility to pay child support;

(3) encourages each father to devote time, energy, and resources to his children, recognizing that children need not only material support, but more importantly a secure, affectionate, family environment; and

(4) expresses its support for a national summit on fatherhood.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from California (Mr.Martinez) each will control 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).

[Page: H4250]  GPO's PDF

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 417 expresses the importance of fathers in the rearing and development of their children. This is a bipartisan measure and has the support of both the majority and minority leaders.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to move this resolution forward. Perhaps the committee selected me to move this forward because I am a recent father. Elizabeth Jenkins was born into our household last fall on October 23, and Ellie, as Ruthie and I have been calling her, is the source of unending joy for me and for my wife, and I share that joy with all of my colleagues who I know are also fathers, and it has meant a great deal to me.

I hope today by this resolution to be able to share some of the sense of joy and importance of fathers in rearing our children, because it should be alarming to all of us that half of the children born today are likely to spend half of their childhood in a family in which a father figure is absent. We should be especially alarmed when study after study shows new evidence of the negative impact of an absent father on children.

I would like to highlight one study in particular, a recent study that was released last October by the Department of Education’s National Center of Education Statistics. This study, entitled `Father’s Involvement in Their Children’s Schools,’ found that a father’s involvement, whether in a two-parent family, a single-father family, or a nonresident family had a very positive impact on the children.

Specifically, this involvement increased the likelihood of their children getting mostly A’s in schools, reducing the likelihood of their having to repeat a grade, and reduced the chance of being suspended or expelled from school. These associations remained even after controlling for other factors, such as the parents’ education level, household income or the mother’s involvement.

The fact is, a strong father’s presence can improve both fetal development and infant development, promote physical well-being, and increase the ability of children to get along with each other. Conversely, the lack of a strong father figure presents an increased likelihood of delinquency and criminal behavior when the child is grown.

Social scientists are not the only ones who realize this. …

Maybe not, but they & psychologists, sure are the primary ones (along with religiously oriented leaders) i promoting it!

A 1996 Gallup poll found that nearly 80 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Americans, believe the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home and the resulting lack of the involvement of that father in the rearing and development of their children.   (??)

Last year the leadership recognized this as well, and, with that leadership, they appointed a Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion led by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). This congressional task force was formed, along with a similar task force in the Senate, as well as one by the national Governors.

One of the main goals of these groups is to highlight the importance of fatherhood, to explore the social changes that are required and to ensure that every child, every child in America, is raised with a father who is committed to that child, who will be actively involved in the rearing of that child and be involved in the development of that child.

On June 15, the National Fatherhood Initiative will hold a summit. It is a National Summit on Fatherhood here in Washington, D.C. *** The purpose is to mobilize a response to the problem of absent fathers. It will mobilize this response in several of the most important sectors in our community, the most powerful sectors in our society, including the public policy sector, private and public social services, education, religion, entertainment, the media, and the civic community.

For the record, the National Fatherhood Initiative, is a nonprofit formed in 1994 INAPPROPRIATELY, with a CONFLICT OF INTEREST  — when one of its originators was at HHS.   THis is well- known by now, but the outfit continues to receive federal funding and trains the trainers.  It’s in full swing.

This resolution that we have before us today was first introduced to the House by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and others who want to express support for such a summit. This resolution goes on to state that the House of Representatives, one, recognizes the creation of a better America depends in large part on the active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of the children; two, it urges each father in America to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children, to be actively involved in rearing the children and to encourage the academic, moral, and spiritual development of his children; and, thirdly, it encourages each father to devote time and energy and resources to his children, recognizing that children need not only material support, but, more importantly, the love of both parents, who provide an affectionate family environment.

I would also note that during consideration of this resolution by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, an amendment by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) was unanimously accepted by the committee. This amendment added a clause urging the States to aggressively prosecute those fathers who failed to fulfill their legal responsibility to pay child support. I note that this amendment and modification is entirely consistent with the Deadbeat Fathers Punishment Act of 1998, which passed the House in May by a vote of 412 to 2.

In closing, I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and all the members of the Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, the majority and minority leadership and others involved for their efforts in this area. I urge my fellow Members to support this important resolution as we bring it to the House floor today, and, hopefully, we will have a unanimous vote in favor of it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), on the birth of his first child. The committee selected him because he was a new father, I guess they selected me because I am an old father, being the father of 5 children, the grandfather of 14 children, and the great-grandfather of 2 children.

I can tell the gentleman that he has got a lot to look forward to, especially when those children just before his eyes grow into adults, get married, and have children of their own. That is the greatest time, because you get to take your grandchildren and spoil them and send them home to their parents to run their parents crazy.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution and this topic, the importance of fathers in the raising and the development of their children, is extremely important. The role of the father in the family has been one of the more prominent issues to gain public attention in recent years.

Too many of our children are growing up in families which do not have the benefit of a father. In fact, the percentage of children growing up in a home without their father nearly tripled between 1960 and the early 1990s. Today, over 24 million American children are living without their biological fathers.

Most importantly, fatherless homes have a devastating impact on our children. National research tells us that without a father, children are four times as likely to be poor, twice as likely to drop out of school, et cetera. Fatherless children also have a higher risk of suicide, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and delinquency.

Clearly, the important role that fathers play in the development of their children cannot go unnoticed. Unfortunately, the issue of absentee fathers is not restricted to those who do not pay child support, or `deadbeat dads,’ as they are commonly referred to. Many fathers are tragically caught between their duties at work and their responsibilities to their families. The problems encountered by today’s families are not limited to deadbeat dads. Today’s families are also hampered by dead-tired dads, who want to be there for their children but do not have the time.

In closing, I want to say I am encouraged by the work of the Congressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force. Their efforts, throughout this resolution and other activities, have begun to center attention on this very important issue. I believe this resolution sends a strong message which all Members should support. I certainly do.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[Page: H4251]  GPO's PDF

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the author of this resolution.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today to reiterate the importance of fatherhood in this country. As one of the cofounders of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, I am pleased to recognize the significance of this resolution.

Today, Members of Congress will commit to promoting the role that faithful, dedicated fathers play in the development of our young people and, indeed, of our Nation; and, how timely, for it is again that time of year when we honor our dads. In two Sundays, we will celebrate Father’s Day, a day to acknowledge the special place which dads hold in our hearts, and recognize dad’s role as father, husband, teacher, provider, care-giver, and friend.

Although every American has a father, not every American has a dad, one whom they know, love, spend time with and trust. Because of this fact, our country has suffered.

The United States is now the world’s leader in fatherless families. This has taken its toll in our society, when you need no longer talk about the Dan Quayle versus Murphy Brown debate. And we have a litany of statistics supporting the position that a family unit with mother and father is an ideal environment for our children.

The realities are staggering. Four in ten children who go to bed tonight will sleep in a home in which their fathers do not reside. Overall, nearly 2.5 million children will join the ranks of the fatherless this year. This is a sad commentary. We must each be committed to bringing this to an end.

But this is not just about fatherlessness. We as a society must work to elevate the importance of fathers who value their commitments. Men across America struggle to be good dads. Many of us are co-laborers in this struggle. This is why we as elected officials must be the ones to lead by example, to take up the bully pulpit in order to effect change in this spirit of this country.

Through the events of the Congressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force, we have sought to heighten the discussion of responsible fatherhood and emphasize the importance of fatherhood in neighborhoods and in community forums across the country.

Working with the National Fatherhood Initiative, we are looking forward to the National Summit on Fatherhood next Monday. Leaders from across the country, from the highest levels of government here in Washington to sports figures such as Evander Holyfield, Michael Singletary and entertainment celebrities such as actor Tom Selleck, all will gather to honor the role of the father and to turn our momentum to action. We will gather at the J.W. Marriott next Monday for this fatherhood summit. All Members of Congress have been invited to take part in this event, and I hope many of them will come.

The time has come for fathers to take hold of and be proud of their role as dad. In the words of filmmaker John Singleton, `Any boy can make a baby; it takes a man to raise a son.’ The choice to place children above others is a noble one, and one which we as a society must recognize and reward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. In doing so, together, we can commit to promoting an office above all others in this country, that of the father.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the comments of the testimony that heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield recently gave to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

[TIME: 1430]

He said, `I, Evander Holyfield, did not meet my father until I was 21 years of age. I missed the advice, the guidance, and time that only a father can give. However, thanks to my mother, Annie Laura Holyfield, and my coach at the Warren Boys’ Club in Atlanta, Carter Morgan, I was given the faith, determination, and perseverance that helped make the boy into the man and father I am today.

`Perhaps the absence of my own father, but the presence of a strong and moral father figure in my childhood has helped me realize how important fatherhood is. In fact, being an active and caring father to my sons and daughters is just as important as being the three-time heavyweight champion of the world.’

The man became a three-time heavweight champion of the WORLD, thanks to his mother and the involvement of a father figure, a coach at Boys Club, and he says, himself a good father.  That’s success!   And this is used to justify that (because such people would rather have had their own fathers around) millions of US$$ should make sure others do NOT have this chance to prove themselves (nor do their mothers) but instead society should be re-arranged to put Dads back.

His wife spoke, and, finally, they said this: `As father and mother to our children, even with the time constraints of our careers, we realize the importance of quality time with our children. Not only is this our obligation as parents, but it is also one of our greatest sources of joy. We especially stress the areas of faith and education with our children. We love them; and loving children requires not just good intentions and feelings, but also time and attention.

`We reiterate our strong feelings about this important issue. And with God’s guidance and help, we will do our part in encouraging and elevating the status of fatherhood in America.’

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 17 1/2 minutes remaining.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority leader.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding to me.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for this resolution, also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), and others who have worked on this, the gentleman from California (Mr.Martinez), and others on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) who care about this issue.

The life of a child, it goes without saying, is so critical and so important. Nobody can replace a father in the life of a child, nobody. Fathers are role models, and they are teachers, and they offer, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania mentioned in his comments by Mr. Holyfield, they offer the most important ingredients that a child could have in their childhood: love; guidance; encouragement; discipline, which is so critical, it would carry with a child throughout his or her life; wisdom; and, yes, inspiration.

Mr. Holyfield just witnessed that someone DID replace the role of a father for him, resulting with the care of his mother, in success and his own becoming a successful father also as an adult.  How does this justify the fatherhood resolution?    Because a grown resoundingly successful man raised by a single mother would have preferred to have his Dad there?

Fatherhood is a responsibility, perhaps one of the greatest responsibilities, in a man’s life. It is also one of the greatest joys that a man can have, along with the bumps along the way in raising a child, the joy of having the input, giving the love, providing the guidance, providing the inspiration, the encouragement when it is needed. These are all so very important in a child’s development.

And only Dads can give this, not mothers.

Mr. Speaker, America needs strong families, and America needs strong fathers. This resolution has been long in coming, and I am so proud of the fact that Members have decided to raise this issue to a higher level in the country today.

Congress recognizes the important role fathers play and honors fathers for their contribution. So it is with great pride that I rise today to thank my colleagues for offering this resolution, for recognizing fatherhood, for setting aside a day in which we can, as a community, come together and recognize the great values that emanate from fatherhood.

We sometimes talk about a lot of different issues in this institution, and we sometimes forget some of the very basic fundamental bedrock issues on which the others are built upon. Fatherhood is one of them. I am just very happy to be able to share some thoughts on this today.

I thank my colleagues for their leadership in this, and wish the event that will take place much success, and wish those who have put this together and who are trying to make sure that fatherhood is respected in this country and is honored. I thank them for their efforts.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

(Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

And finally . . . ..

Congressional Record article 921 of 1000         Printer Friendly Display – 1,583 bytes.[Help]

FATHERHOOD (House of Representatives – June 12, 1997)

[Page: H3722]  GPO's PDF

(Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the fathers who do it right. A good father should first be a good husband and show his children by example the love and respect that their mother should receive. A father is one who is there, who quietly and faithfully sees needs and fills them. From diapers to bicycles to homework to growing to adulthood, fathers must be powerful forces of leading by quiet example.

Fathers keep things strong and solid, but they keep it simple. My father set an example for hard work. He came home for dinner. He stayed with the family in the evening, but he had his own business to build and he went back to work late and would work until midnight and then be back home. He set an example.

My father helped me through college, the first to my knowledge in my whole family tree, to get a college degree.

When I married, my wife’s father took it on himself to stock our kitchen and our pantry with its first set of food and supplies for us. Simple but significant.

[TIME: 1015]

I hope and pray that I will be as good a father to my five children as my father has been to his five children and someday my two sons will be to theirs. Fathers like it simple. So to mine and all of ours, I simply say, thanks, Dad.


S. 1364:
106th Congress

A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to increase public awareness regarding the benefits of lasting and stable marriages and community involvement in the promotion of marriage and fatherhood issues, to provide greater flexibility in the Welfare-to-Work grant program for long-term welfare recipients and low income custodial and noncustodial parents, and for other purposes.

19 cosponsors along with Evan Bayh of Indiana:

This one didn’t get passed into law.  For the record, Title IV was amended in 1996 along the same lines.

– Title I: Public Awareness and Community Involvement in Fatherhood Issues
– Title II: Removal of Burdensome Federal Restrictions
Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999 – Title: I Public Awareness and Community Involvement In Fatherhood Issues – Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to States and territories to:
(1) develop and carry out media campaigns promoting the formation and maintenance of married two-parent families, strengthen fragile families,** and promote responsible fatherhood; and
**this term ties directly to some studies with wealthy foundation backing, which have helped certain people’s reputations and careers in this field.
(2) obtain donations of media access necessary for such campaigns.
Requires the Secretary to contract with a fatherhood promotion organization (meeting certain requirements) to:
(1) develop and distribute a media campaign to interested States, local governments, public agencies, and private nonprofit organizations; and
(2) develop a national clearinghouse to assist States and communities to promote and support responsible fatherhood by making available to other States information regarding media campaigns and programs instituted by States using grant funds under this Act. Authorizes appropriations.
Amends SSA title IV part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) (TANF) to mandate block grants to States to provide support to responsible fatherhood efforts of local governments, public agencies, and private nonprofit organizations. Authorizes appropriations.
Title II – Removal of Burdensome Federal Restrictions
Yet, Gol-dang those burdensome federal restrictions.  See my commentary on “Section 1115 Waivers” or read them direct, yourself.
Amends SSA title IV part A with regard to TANF grant recipient requirements, custodial and non-custodial parent requirements, in-kind donations, additional use of TANF funds, and a TANF bonus to reward a State’s effort to encourage the formulation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Amends SSA title IV part D to give States various specified options to: (1) pass through directly to the family a portion of child support collected, including amounts collected pursuant to a continued assignment; (2) disregard child support received in determining a family’s eligibility for, or amount of, TANF assistance; and (3) use amounts collected by a State as child support, and otherwise payable to the Federal Government, to provide fatherhood services (especially to low income non-custodial fathers) encouraging the appropriate involvement of both parents in the life of any of their children.

How would women & mothers stand a chance in this scenario — especially if they didn’t happen to be reading the Congressional record or on familiar terms with their local legislators?  They are scandalized for receiving welfare, and some welfare funds are going to be redirected to encourage the fathers to get back in?  When some of this single-parent household relates to violence by those same fathers, or neglect?

Cosponsors of this were:

This bill never became law.  This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.
Last Action:   Jul 14, 1999: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

The list below shows legislation in this and previous sessions of Congress that had the same title as this bill. Often bills are incorporated into other omnibus bills, and you may be able to track the status of provisions of this bill by looking for an omnibus bill below. Note that bills may have multiple titles.

108th Congress try — by Evan Bayh, 2003, this time had these  co-sponsors:
Same general idea, only focusing on getting demonstration & evaluation projects going — by forcing the Secretary of HHS to run them:
Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2003 – Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) to direct the Secretary to award grants to eligible States and entities to conduct demonstration programs to promote responsible fatherhood.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to contract with a nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to: (1) develop and distribute a media campaign that addresses the issue of responsible fatherhood to States, local governments, public agencies, and private entities; and (2) develop a national clearinghouse to assist States and community efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood by disseminating information regarding media campaigns and programs instituted by States using grant funds under this Act.
IT cites the same tired old rhetoric — and note, is requesting to legislate that this rhetoric is spread around, but good, including:

6) Children who live without contact with their biological father are, in comparison to children who have such contact–

(A) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;

(B) more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom;

(C) twice as likely to commit crime;
(D) twice as likely to drop out of school;
(E) more likely to commit suicide;
(F) more than twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and
(G) more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.
Is anyone still around in Congress to ever question this material?

(7) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers.

They are for sure overwhelmingly male.  Growing up without fathers is ONE factor, poverty may be another, having witnessed violence by THEIR dads BEFORE they became ‘fatherless’ may be another actor.  Lousy schools, too.  I am the child of a parent whose father abandoned the family, and my father did not assault or to my knowledge abuse.  Had that father stuck around, her probably would have, and not stepped up to the plate and had the successful professional career he did, supporting his own family starting as a young man.  I would have had far less chance of making it to college with an abusive grandpa having raised my own father.

That a House of Representatives which is overwhelmingly male should vote this in and consider its viewpoint acceptable for the whole population, is hardly surprising.   Read on and recoqnize that as these speakers recognized that men from single families often DO succeed, and sometimes become world champions at one thing or another (i.e., Lance Armstrong did all right, too) – — they ALSO recognize there is a tie between Domestic Violence / abuse & poverty of households headed by women.  Perhaps these voters should think more about stopping abuse of women by MARRIED or INVOLVED men, and there might be fewer households like these.   Of COURSE violence is related to poverty — one can’t continually work while being beaten at home, sooner or later something has to give!

(8) Between 20 and 30 percent of families in poverty are headed by women who have suffered domestic violence during the past year and between 40 and 60 percent of women with children receiving welfare were abused sometime during their life.

This right here ADMITS that domestic violence and abuse impoverishes women (not to mention the fact women are typically paid less per hour) — which leads to poverty in 20 to 30% of poor families, but 40 to 60 % of welfare families have reported abuse.   How much stronger can one speak to stop the abuse?
And yet this solution still maintains that the REAL cause of poverty and violent crime is ABSENCE of a male, a father, in the home.

(13) The promotion of responsible fatherhood and encouragement of married 2-parent families should not–

(A) denigrate the standing or parenting efforts of single mothers or other caregivers;

(B) lessen the protection of children from abusive parents; or

(C) compromise the safety or health of the custodial parent;

Our Constitution didn’t even provide for the Department of Education; it’s become such a politicized institution who even remembers when there was none?  This Dept has a  background as does our so-called “public” school system.   When the Dept. of Health and Human Services (I think even a more recent creation than the Dept. of Education) goes this far off the deep end, we are going to be drowning in debt with or without having to purchase our currency from a PRIVATE professionalized bank called the Federal Reserve, and pay interest on it.   Just as — seems to me — the judicial system is now outsourcing its business to private contractors in all kinds of fields – fatherhood, therapy, parent education and sometimes even rearrangements of itself, as in the hybrid Family Justice Centers and other outfits.
Why should ALL of us have to sponsor the personal vision of a FEW fatherhood-obsessed members of the US in their Congressional function when they cannot, as leaders, seem to comprehend that being primarily men, they have limited understanding of the experience of being a mother in this country.  This legislation literally undermines key agencies of government AND the legal system when it comes to family courts.   What this is REALLY about is certain males concerns that they are going to lose their function in society, or get out-bred by supposedly inferior-status populations.
If our legislative bodies had more women participants (senators, representatives) there’d be a better understanding of the experience of motherhood (single or two-parent) and what contributes to crime and violence in the home — after all, mothers give birth to, nurse (if they can) and in many ways shepherd children through the school years; they are also the predominant sex in educational / teaching positions (if I”m not mistaken), which may also account for why it’s among the lowest paid professions around, per the recent Georgetown study on pay scales of college graduates by what field they are in.
More, from this one (which didn’t pass in this version):

‘(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for purposes of making grants to States under this subsection.

The Access Visitation grant series (similar purposes) was already in place as of 1996 at $10 million/year.  This sought $20 million MORE….



‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall award grants to eligible entities to conduct demonstration programs to carry out the purposes described in (a)(2).

This is requesting authorization to run demonstration projects on people.  As such, I object — past tense (too late), but if it came up again, I still object.  This is not what HHS is for!
Cosponsors for another one, 107th Congress – 15 people; year, 2001-2002

2011, same old behaviors:

HR 1135 still says TANF / Food stamp purposes includes “healthy marriage.”  Guess they don’t want too many unclaimed poor females and unclaimed poor males running around.  Note:  This doesn’t apply to RICH unclaimed females and/or males — see gossip rags, see even behavior of Obama appointee on responsible fatherhood’s behaviors:

Congress further finds that it should also be the goal of the food stamp program to increase employment, to encourage healthy marriage, and to promote prosperous self-sufficiency which shall mean the ability of households to maintain an income above the poverty level without Government services and benefits.’.


Seeing as the healthy marriage idea has made it harder for some people to LEAVE abuse and support themselves, and their families, I suggest we scrap the idea and let all  citizens figure this out, rich and poor alike.  It really IS possible that a creative single parent without ongoing stressor of a difficult relationship might be able to work harder, or faster — and probably figure out an alternate to the public school system (a time-soaker and underproducer in many ways) and simply become self-sufficient.  Or to figure out their OWn networked combinations of school, food, housing, education, health and self-defense (although the latter is one of the hardest).  There are few things more toxic than spending month after month in welfare lines or soup kitchen lines and the stigma that goes with it.  Child support is problemmatic, because this is going to be channeled into more custody wars (or elsewhere through the family system), so it seems that there might be another way.  ESPECIALLY with the $30 million here, $30 million there frauds  being caught, the racist, sexist, and just awful treatment of some clients needing child support by groups like Maximus and others.  And did I mention the $20 MILLION California settled with Jaycee Dugard family (if I have that figure right, DNK about any updates or revisions) for having so failed at supervising a convicted rapist & kidnapper, Phillip Garrido in his MARRIED household with Nancy — that this woman literally raised to girls to ages 12 & 15 in backyard sheds in a prosperous SF Bay Area County.

Other scenes in this county included a MARRIED couple & another literally torturing a young man who’d run away from a foster c are situation.  He’d managed to get over the fence and showed up in a gym? in his gym shorts and  covered with feces and curled up in a fetal position under the counter.  This was a TEENAGED BOY.

This particular HR (Welfare) act also has prohibitions on Abortion — except physical injury, incest or rape (etc.) and talks at length about definitions of the “family head and married spouse” which makes me wonder about why a married  couple with the children being both theirs, needs (for these purposes) a designated “head” making obviously a designated Non-Head, presumably the female when both are biological parents.  That’s a religious concept…


H.Res. 315 — this past June 16th, 2011, just in time for Father’s Day:

the immeasurable contribution of fathers in the healthy development of children:

The 35 co-sponsors (who wouldn’t want to get in on that one?) are:


Assuming Shelly Capito is a woman, that’s a whopping 4 females that voted for this bill essentially cheerleading the GOOD Dads.  Incidentally, it’s my understanding at least Marsha Blackburns’ office has been approached about MIS-appropriation of some of the fatherhood grants.

Commends the millions of fathers who serve as wonderful, caring parents for their children. Calls on fathers across the United States to use Father’s Day to: (1) reconnect and rededicate themselves to their children’s lives, (2) spend Father’s Day with their children, and (3) express their love and support for their children. Urges men to understand the level of responsibility fathering a child requires, especially in the encouragement of children’s moral, mental, social, academic, emotional, physical, and spiritual development. Encourages active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children, including the devotion of time, energy, and resources.”  THIS one didn’t vote any $$ so it’s an easy one to go along with.
The schools have justified their existence to do many of the things this resolution says fathers are to do (no mention of Moms made, of course) and used to justify funding, no doubt.  Schools are NOT just about academics.  However it’s handy to be able to blame an absent parent when the schools cannot perform up to standards.
“Fathering” is a verb used by this contingent. Prior to this new, improved (late 1990s) application of the term, the word “fathering” meant basically impregnating a woman who carried a child to term or at least to pregnancy — and NOT a whole lot more.
I notice that Wisconsin Rep. Gwen Moore (if she’s still there) did NOT sponsor this resolution.  Maybe she was busy.  See my post on it, early 2011.
Oh well….




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

July 3, 2011 at 6:57 pm

My response to Wayne County, MI issues: Behind many issues is often an AFCC judge…. (and what “AFCC” entails)

with 4 comments


Review Time – who/what is the “AFCC”?:

“AFCC JUDGE” — Briefly, by this, it means all that AFCC believes, entails and habitually DOES.

  • What is AFCC?

AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.

This is not necessarily what the US Court systems are in place for, nor civil codes of procedure, nor the bill of rights, nor the criminal law.  AFCC views “conflict” as bad — seemingly worse than criminal behaviors by individuals in families towards others in the families.   I can’t think of any field of human endeavor or growth that doesn’t have some built-in conflict, which can be resolved either by reference to an agreed-upon-standard, or by separation.  However, in AFCC language, whoever has conflict (including with these dedicated professionals) is the bad guy, and court-ordered punishment can be meted out.

In this system, parents are required / forced to work it out being treated and viewed as a “family” whether or not they are one any more.  Even if one has threatened to kill the other, to kidnap the kids, has caused serious injury to the other partner and/or their children, or has interfered with court-ordered visitation, the problem is viewed of conflict PER SE as being wrong, rather than there being an identifiable position of truth (and from it, some justice) on various matters.

Naturally it also sees its membership as an association of dedicated professionals who are going to resolve family problems.

  • Who are AFCC members? – WHICH dedicated professionals, in what fields?

AFCC Members are:

Judges Lawyers
Mediators Psychologists
Researchers Academics
Counselors Court Commissioners
Custody Evaluators Parenting Coordinators
Court Administrators Social Workers
Parent Educators Financial Planners

It seems to me this list of professions keeps expanding, which is another thing AFCC as an association does.  We note that while there are some people as direct public employees/ servants who work in the justice system (judges, mediators, court administrators, court commissioners, and some categories of attorneys — i.e., child support attorneys, county-paid GALs, etc.) — some are not.  The category “researchers” & “Academics” is definitely broad.  Although many of these people certainly have been through divorce or custody issues, or are themselves parents please notice that “parents” is not a category.

In this worldview, then, the “PARENT” (regardless of what profession(s) any parent is in, including sometimes even some of the above categories) is the plebian, the novice, the uninstructed, the person that the professionals must handle.  One thing many parents are definitely “uninstructed” in is that this organization exists and runs conferences to strategize how to handle THEM and their flawed selves.

AFCC personnel, when judges, are often highly placed (including state supreme courts) and activist.  A look at the membership in this 2007 conference brochure shows an opening PLENARY session hearing;

The Presumption for Equal Shared Parenting: Pros and Cons There seems to be increasing support throughout the United States for a rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting. Proponents say that such a presumption brings the best interest standard into comportment with parents’ protected and privileged status under the Constitution and will apply only to those situa- tions in which 1) parents cannot reach agreement; 2) both parents can present realistic parenting plans for the responsibility they seek; and 3) neither parent can present convincing evidence that the other parent is unfit. They say that this presumption will change litigants’ and practitioners’ expectation that gains are produced by proceeding to adversarial judicial hearings, will decrease post divorce conflict, and will uphold each parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his/her children. Opponents, while often sympathetic to shared parenting, argue that the presumption would seriously impede the Court’s ability to tailor custody determinations to the needs of each particular child.** Presenters: Michael McCormick; Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.; Honorable Robert Schnider


[The 2003 link points to an article from a Journal of CFCC (Center for Families & Children in the Courts, put out by Ca. Judicial Council:    

Effective Intervention With High-Conflict Families / How Judges Can Promote and Recognize Competent Treatment in Family Court “The emotional and psychological risks to children resulting from conflicted custody disputes and the varied needs of separated families have led to the increased involvement of mental health professionals in child custody cases. …But though treatment services can be expensive, high-quality treatment may be a more cost-effective intervention than continued litigation. …   Courts can also maximize resources by appointing a forensically sophisticated therapist to fill a child- centered role (e.g., to provide the child’s treatment or child-centered conjoint or family therapy) and by allowing the therapist to confer with other therapists about the case. “

Sorry, but actually AFCC was founded to bring on the mental health professionals.  It’s typical to talk in passive terms of needs that arose and demanded their services, however, this is a very aggressive organization that lobbies for constant expansion of the involvement of its professionals, as does this particular article.  Some of the topics of conflict include economic depletion by constant involvement of custody evaluators and therapists to start with …

The Hon. Robert Schnider apparently one of the originals in Los Angeles area, born into a family law practitioner family — or at least working in his father’s practice.  Purely for entertainment purposes, here’s a 2004 article in which this judge was going to possibly unseal (unsavory) parts of a divorce record affecting an Illinois Republican Senatorial race — Jack Ryan against . . ..  Barack Obama.   The author questions why any judge would be allowed to do this for high-celebrity cases, and notes that “To Unseal or Not to Unseal” (My terms) would either affect a political race, and might be called “child endangerment.”  Jack Ryan was being compared to Bill Clinton as to his sexual habits at the time….]

((**including totally eliminating contact with the mother, in “interventions” when she has alienated the children — which would mean sole legal & physical custody to the father, i.e., “Tailored custody determinations” The fact that no opponents UNsympathetic to shared parenting (presumptions) are mentioned tells us how unlikely that either feminists or people advocating for domestic violence victims’ viewpoints were considered).

Many of the conflicts within marriages and sometimes causes of separation actually can come from violence by one partner towards another; it can be a dealbreaker in any relationship (and can and does sometimes turn lethal).  AFCC positions itself at the crossroads and in this little paragraph above, has borrowed? the phrase “rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting” from the rebuttable presumption AGAINST custody going to a batter” legislative language in many states.


“Rebuttable Presumption” talk:

For example, a quick search comes up with Delaware Code.  Even this Delaware Code, as strong as it is, has several loopholes to allow joint or sole custody of a child to go to a perpetrator of domestic violence — but even so, AFCC and others wish to change this to presumption for equal shared parenting (see above):



(a) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no perpetrator of domestic violence shall be awarded sole or joint custody of any child.

(b) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no child shall primarily reside with a perpetrator of domestic violence.

(c) The above presumptions shall be overcome if there have been no further acts of domestic violence and the perpetrator of domestic violence has: (1) successfully completed a program of evaluation and counselling designed specifically for perpetrators of family violence {{aka “Batterers Intervention Program” — a thing marketed by the Duluthmodel.org philosophy}} and conducted by a public or private agency or a certified mental health professional; and (2) successfully completed a program of alcohol or drug abuse counselling if the Court determines that such counselling is appropriate; and (3) demonstrated that giving custodial or residential responsibilities to the perpetrator of domestic violence is in the best interests of the child. The presumption may otherwise be overcome only if a judicial officer finds extraordinary circumstances that warrant the rejection of the presumption, such as evidence demonstrating that there exists no significant risk of future violence against any adult or minor child living in the home or any other family member, including any ex-spouse.

(i.e., RISK ASSESSMENT PROPHETIC UTTERANCES.  How can anyone demonstrate no significant risk fo future violence when people have walked out of batterers intervention programs, with flying colors, and gone on to murder the same person that got them in there?)

Along with “best interests” is of course if the other parent might “alienate” the child, allegedly.

An AFCC judge is going to oppose anything “high-conflict” and be favorably inclined towards shared parenting.  Note presenter Mike McCormick, whose bio is:

Michael McCormick. Mr. McCormick is Executive Director of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children and has written exten- sively and spoken throughout the United States on family law reform.

No presentations by NOW members or feminists in this association, that I’ve seen.  Mr. McCormick is MORE than active in fatherhood issues, and complained that even Obama’s and Evan Bayh (Indiana) fatherhood and healthy marriage promotion just didn’t go far enough.  It was too little carrot and too big a stick.  He hangs out with Glenn Sacks and friends.  I note that the acronym “ACFC” (below) is “AFCC” re-arranged.  Coincidence?

 I (Glenn Sacks) co-authored the column, which appears below, with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood Bill–Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Wisconsin State JournalBuffalo News, 6/30/07

U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) recently introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007, which they say will address our “national epidemic of absentee fathers.” Obama and Bayh are correct that fatherless children are dramatically more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, use drugs, or get pregnant than children who have fathers in their homes. The Responsible Fatherhood Act is explicitly a carrot and stick approach. The problem is that the carrot is too small and the stick is already too big.

Readers Every Year
Are you looking for an affordable way to reach over 6 million readers a year with your business or organization? My blog and my websites GlennSacks.com andHisSide.com receive over 10,000 unique visits a day. My weekly E-Newsletter has over 50,000 subscribers, and is by far the world’s largest regularly distributed E-newsletter devoted to family law reform, fatherhood and fathers’ issues. Contactus for more information.
(Note he’s not complaining about fathers being treated like animals & mules, which is where the “carrot & stick” reference comes from.  He wants the bribe, the incentive, and less regulation.  Personally, being a mother, I’d be offended — and have been — when anyone came to me implying or saying that I needed federal intervention to attempt to maintain work to support my kids.  This article was written 5 months after his presentation at AFCC, same year, or published then.

So one factor to remember about AFCC — they have no problem with conference presentations run by activities fathers’ rights leaders.  They are definitely a father-friendly organization, at least certain kinds of fathers.   They are also typically influential within the courts they preside over, when judges:

Another factor is that they are quite interested if not obsessed with redefining (and narrowing the definition) of domestic violence; they are going to discredit domestic violence as having primarily male perpetrators upon females, even though homicide data consistently shows this is who kills the most.  This is consistent with Mr. McCormick (above)’s membership on a group called ‘RADAR’ who pushes this theory.  Read on, same conference:


Rethinking Domestic Violence

This presentation will review research studies on the relationship between domestic violence and custody assessments. The domestic violence paradigm presented in many studies consistently suggests one model of domestic violence, that of male perpetrator and female victim; the argument is then made that this male-abuser model will extend to child abuse.

In other words, let’s consider a different paradigm, the “theory” (“argument”) that male abusers often extend to child abuse is just theory ……just an argument…

The data on gender differences in both intimate personal violence and threats to children indicate, however, that the male-perpetrator model is only one of several models of domestic violence, and that risk to children occurs equally from mothers and fathers. The ethics of presenting a gender biased perspective for custody assessors are discussed.

Presenter: Donald G. Dutton, Ph.D.

I have posted on the Dueling Duttons (just for fun — there is a Donald Dutton, of this premise, and a Mary Ann Dutton also Ph.D., who deals more with the resultant trauma from abuse).

FINALLY as to “AFCC JUDGES” , AFCC is a very activist organization seeking to reform family law and lobbying for changes in laws, practices etc.  They also have foundation sponsorship for conferences on “Domestic Violence and the Courts” as below:

Task Forces and Initiatives

Child Custody Consultant Task Force

Child Custody Evaluation Standards Task Force

Family Law Education Reform Project

Parenting Coordination Standards Task Force

Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project

Child Welfare Collaborative Decision Making Network

Brief Focused Assessment Task Force

Court-Involved Therapist Task Force

And, of course, I believe I have made the case that many AFCC members are actively promoting their own products, curricula, and nonprofits are not at all above utilizing their positions as judges to direct traffic (through court-ORDERED participation into the programs, for example, see posts on Kids’ Turn. Questionable financial practice appears to be part of the territory..  See Johnnypumphandle on some of the Nonprofit Organizations:

Many non-governmental organizations exist to reap profit from the Family Law system. Most are identified as Non-Profit and are exempt from taxation. You may have contacted some of these organizations for help, only to discover that help is not available – particularly if you are seeking justice.

Many organizations have been established by professionals in the Family Law system for conspiracy and protection of these professionals. Thus we have many Bar Associations, whose members are lawyers and judges; Psychological Associations for classifying family members syndromes, so that none will be overlooked; and other associations established merely to act as a conduit for family member’s money collected in the process.

The Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a good example of one of the latter Non-Profit organizations whose stated purpose is “promotion of judicial profession pursuant to section 501(c)(6)”. (see form 3500 – Exemption application). The Association boasts a budget of over $100,000 – none of which will be received from members dues – and most of which will be funded by “Professional Education programs for the legal community“. Unlike most professional organizations, this organization was granted(?) the use of County premises, complete with facilities for it’s office space and management of it’s business within the County Court facilities at 111 North Hill Street.

He is talking about private and/or nonprofit associations with judges as members using public buildings and premises to run their own businesses.

It appears that this “Los Angeles Superior Court judges Association” is quite likely the predecessor of the AFCC. See this:

Update 4/11/99Published in Washington, D.C.. . . . Vol. 15, No. 16 — May 3, 1999 . . . .

Insight Magazine

Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

An alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association {“LASCJA”} is at the heart of a scandal involving possible income-tax evasion and gifts that may affect judges’ rulings.

Dozens of checks, obtained by Insight, deposited in the LASCJA account were made out to several other institutions, including the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund, the Judges Trust Fund, the Family Court Services Special Fund and the Family Court Services.These organizations are not registered with the IRS or the California State Franchise Tax Board, and if the Bank of America has accounts for any of them, the checks were not deposited in those accounts.

So, what was up with that?
. . . . Not only were attorneys who argue cases before the family court making payments to the judges’ fund, but so were the court monitors — appointed by the judges and paid a professional fee of as much as $240 a day as observers during child visitations.
 Bringing in the topic of supervised visitation, and what’s up with tracking usage of those funds.
These monitors qualify for their jobs by paying to take a training and certification course from the judges, with the check going to the fund, whereupon they are placed on the exclusive list the judges use when assigning monitors.
Sounds like kickbacks to me.  That’s definite conflict of interest.  The supervised visitation monitors paying the judges’ account  and those judges funneling them business from the courtroom, from the bench….

“. . . . The Los Angeles County Bar Association’s contributions to the fund were payments to the judges run through a joint partnership with the court on MCLE classes. They split the proceeds from legal and professional seminars. . . . . So, in addition to the ethical issues involved in how the bank account has been maintained, its funding also raises numerous legal issues, according to attorney Richard I. Fine, a taxpayers’ advocate. “If a private group [the LASCJA] is using a public building and everything associated with that private group is being paid for with taxpayers’ dollars, then it is clearly fraudulent,” Fine contends. He adds that “unless the public entity has passed an ordinance specifically allowing the private group to exist and specifically stating that the public will bear the costs — separate phones, leasing office space, furniture, computers, etc. — then it should be paid for by the private organization.”. . . . According to Fine, “If the judges have provided false information on official financial statements submitted to government agencies or financial institutions [the Bank of America account], then they have defrauded the Internal Revenue Service and the county and the people of Los Angeles by receiving tax-free status under fraudulent means. … This would be the same as if a person lied on their tax return. It is incredulous to me that something like this could have happened and the IRS, state attorney general, county district attorney and auditor have not acted over all these years.”

Unless they, too, were in on it somehow.

OK, now I think we’re ready to consider why, when a judge that Wayne County, MI child support workers want OUT goes to privatize child support contracting — although I realize this issue is larger, and different (child support collections is multi-million$$ business within most states) the behavior of doing this is common to AFCC personnel from the outset.  “BEWARE AFCC” “Court Cancer Metastasizes” summarizes it in this timeline (to review):

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 (“AFCC”)

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 {the public} 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.

(Meyer Elkin awards and memorabilia are all over AFCC entitities and spinoff organizations).

(NOTE:  Visit “AFCCnet.org” History page and you’ll see it claims to have begun in 1963.)

I continue to be amazed how little reported this powerful lobbying group is even spoken about. It’s like talking about the air — taken for granted, you inhale and exhale it, with little consciousness of the content.


My last post:   Privatizing Child Support (and the courts) in Michigan; County Workers picket.  Judge was AFCC

Showed county workers picketing against the privatization and outsourcing of Child Support Enforcement, particularly as the companies bidding on the contract already had a history of fraud and other legal issues.  Particularly as it would reduce workers’ salaries to $8 to $9 per hour, and more.  People in Wayne County MI picketed to remove the judge (Marybeth Kelly) that did this.

This response shows how simple it can be to look up some basic data on a court situation.   I’m simply pasting what amounts to a fast-track search of some information on the judge in question.  I did not handle the issue of grants systems possibly going to county workers to bring marriage, fatherhood, or other program funding to them rather than the custodial parents, which may have been involved in part.  This is an “off-the-cuff” response, minor phrasing perhaps re-arranged for this different format.

I wrote:

I’m not a Michigan native, and came to this posting because I am investigating some of the privateering in the child support industry, particularly Maximus, but in the course of this, Lockheed-Martin and Tier Technologies do come up.


 As Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor noted in a statement thanking Kelly for her service, “What about the children whom the Wayne County Friend of the Court is supposed to serve? What about the families for whom a timely child support check makes the difference between survival and not being able to buy groceries?” ***
Excellent questions. 
{{** this reply doesn’t address what the picketing and rally did– that at least one of the firms bidding for the contract had a known history of corruption, including fraud and conflicts of interest. }}
Actually nice appeal, but wrong questions.  The child support system probably needs to be shut down at this point, because it is so corrupt whether done through public agencies OR farmed out.  I have been blogging at http://familycourtmatters/wordpress.com, and if you search OCSE (or read 06/29/11 posts), it’s clear that Federal Funding (HHS — and OCSE is under it) has been co-opted by special interest groups, and is a $4 billion-a-year industry.  
In California, where I live, a respected attorney (Richard Fine, Esq. at the time) with a record of confronting fraud and taxpayer waste, took on “Silva v. Garcetti” where the L.A. District Attorney was sitting on $14 million undistributed, collected child support.   In return for exposing this, and other financial corruption, Mr. Fine was tossed into coercive solitary confinement (age, 69) and of course disbarred, and his settlement monies compromised, his family had to foreclose on the home, etc.   
Whether it’s done through the Friend of the Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, or otherwise, these grants carry incentives to the states, which impacts custody outcomes, and also provides a wide range of action for various money-laundering and other corrupt practices.  
Tier Technologies is (I think) run out of a Northern California area where the local child support agency  literally advertises and recruits commuters  (targeting at the noncustodial parent) to open a child support case.  Title IV-D child support cases are handled differently than others, and the entire system is I believe more of a public burden than a public waste.  It has undermined the family law process entirely, and introduced outside agents into play, which only ONE party is informed of.   
I note that Judge Kelly (Whether she be good, or not so good, I hold no opinion — don’t know her.  I know systems) — reduced the budget by $30 million and added family law judges.  Just check which of these judges are AFCC members.  If so, this is going to expand, not contract, services needed ,and introduce more players into individual court cases.
Maximus sounds horrific, and I REALLY thing anyone else who lands on this page should check out my blog in it.  I am a DV survivor and custody wars survivor.  I am sure there are hardworking, honest, decent office and administrative people throughout the child support system — but when it injected promoting marriage and fatherhood into divorce court, or social science demonstration projects, etc. — it has created a system parallel to the IRS (and working alongside it), and it’s polarizing our society.  I KNOW that without the influence of this group, my court case could’ve closed much sooner, and I could’ve as a single mother handled life without child support and allowing the father regular contact.
Because of these incentives our case, and many other moms cases (I now advocate and report) went south; the children were switched to the non-caretaking parent, many times an identified abuser or molester — and thereafter there is no “Shared parent” or anything close to it.  Child Support gets immediately eliminated if the switch was after a considerable arrears ran up (in my case it was about $10K).  Everyone BUT the children literally gets a piece of the action, and some of the grant moneys.  Double-billing exists.  Like the national debt, one cannot forever support a nationwide infrastructure this large — who will be left to pay the IRS to pay them?  Or are the poor just going to be starved out, or left to kill each other over money from the pressure. 
My judges are on this courthouse forum too, but I’m not commenting on them.  I comment for example, HERE:  
Plenty of links and data on the blogroll to others who follow this.
Judge Marybeth Kelly I see (at least 2002) was on the child support leadership council appointed by a governor, and is AFCC — meaning, she has an agenda.  Mothers (=/= 2nd wives stepmothers) should be alert to this.   There are fathers’ activities on that council too it seems.    
Even a brief look, 2010 article about her run for Supreme Court, shows AFCC tendencies (read article, pls):

Judge Mary Beth Kelly: Family law bench stint aids high court bid

Published: Sunday, October 03, 2010, 3:13 AM 
As she is Republican & Right-To-Life, she is probably not too sympathetic to women leaving violence, few religious groups are.  While she’s boasting about dealing with runaways, including from kids in foster care, a lot of those children I bet were inappropriately placed there (bet MI gets incentives like others states, see Georgia, Nancy Schaefer).  Notice:

She came under fire for acting too independently and trying to privatize the Friend of the Court.

That privatization effort was among the issues that prompted a labor-led coalition in 2007 to call for her resignation. Lawyers representing children under the supervision of the county’s juvenile court sued her the same year.

The lawsuit alleged Kelly violated the children’s right to counsel and effective representation when she removed hundreds of individual attorneys and replaced them with hand-picked “attorney groups.” **The lawsuit argued she created a “fixed-fee” system that resulted in far fewer attorneys for a growing number of children.

(**hand-picked, aka sounds like cronies to me. Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is a PRIVATE trade association of judges, mediators, evaluators and the type of personnel who mean courthouseforum sites have plenty of horror stories to post.  They get positioned in high places, including state supreme courts, or Friends of the Court associations, and then influence policy, try to and do get laws passed to direct more business to themselves, meaning it’s harder for people to conclude their own court cases.     PRIVATIZING — the complaint is that the courts are jammed, overwhelmed, but the logic behind that fails to say why.  Privatizing removes protections including oaths that Judges are under as to not having conflict of interest, and their required statements to disclosure that have to be filed. )

The suit was filed in April 2007, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case three months later.  (Who is on the Supreme Court?)

Julie Hurwitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said changing the system was politically motivated and leaves her concerned if Kelly is elected to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t think that political ambition has any place on the bench,” she says. “One has to look at the history.”

Kelly says she wanted to reduce deficits and improve services and wasn’t motivated by politics. And even as a conservative endorsed by Right to Life, she says she aims to keep partisanship off the bench.

{{ANYTHING BELOW HERE NOT IN “{{…..}}’s” is quoted material:}}
Article from Aug 2010, from RIGHTMICHIGAN (note: this isn’t a left/right political issue when it comes to this venue):

Judge Mary Beth Kelly a Rule of Law Judge? Obviously not.

By Maryland Farmer, Section News
Posted on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:28:35 PM EST
Tags: Judge Mary Beth KellySupreme Court (all tags)

~ Brought out front, as it is good debate. ~

I believe that the rule of law requires judges to be impartial and not decide cases based on their own personal, social or political views. Judges must take the law as it is written: we should neither add to it nor subtract from it, and apply it equally to everyone alike.

When the State of Michigan seeks to terminate parental rights, it is more than a mere temporary disruption of relationships: it is the forced, irretrievable, destruction of family life. It is an awesome power. “When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” The Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply with full force to parental termination cases. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-759, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982)

The Role of A Judge in A Parental Termination Hearing

A parental termination case is essentially no different from any other kind of case. Both the parent and the State are entitled to a “rule of law” judge who faithfully applies the Constitution and the plain language of the statute, one who is unbiased, impartial, fair minded, and principled. The judge must give each party a fair opportunity to present his evidence. The judge should consider the evidence with an open mind. The judge must render a decision that is just, according to the evidence viewed against the plain language of the law.

In the Matter of Felicia Alicia Clemons, Minor – a Chilling Story of Abuse of Judicial Power

When Tamara Alicia Clemons appeared before Juvenile Court Judge Mary Beth Kelly in August of 2007, Judge Kelly was no rookie; she had been on the bench for eight years.

The Court of Appeals opinion details a chilling abuse of power, an abuse that conservative Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan later labeled, “disturbing.” See In re Hudson, 483 Mich. 928, 938, 763 N.W.2d 618, 627 (2009) (Corrigan, concurring)

A Petitioner had requested that the Court terminate Tamara Clemons’s parental rights to her daughter, Felicia. The Petitioner, that is, the person who filed the complaint against Ms Clemons, did not appear for the hearing. Neither did an attorney for the State of Michigan. Although Tamara appeared, she did so without a lawyer to represent her. Astonishingly, Judge Kelly did not dismiss, or even adjourn the case. Instead, she decided to abandon her role as an unbiased judge and take on the role of accuser.

Judge Kelly called witnesses to the stand. Instead of being fair minded, her questions displayed, according to the Court of Appeals, “an accusatory or prosecutorial bent.” Judge Kelly only elicited information that could be used to support termination. She assiduously avoided obtaining information that might help Tamara’s case.

After compiling the one-sided evidence, Judge Kelly refused to allow Tamara to introduce any evidence of her own. Judge Kelly used her power as a judge to deny Tamara the right to even defend herself!

At the conclusion of this inquisition, Judge Kelly wrongfully terminated Tamara’s parental rights to her daughter.

The Court of Appeals naturally reversed the decision. But the Court went one step further: the Court of Appeals, appalled by Judge Kelly’s lawless conduct, actually removed her from the case:

Given the egregious violations of respondent’s constitutional rights that occurred in this case, this case shall be assigned to a different judge on remand to preserve the appearance of justice.

This action by the Court of Appeals, removing a trial judge from a case, is extraordinary. It is reserved for conspicuously bad conduct on the bench.

These are not the actions of a Rule of Law judge. 
Here is the case:http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcehb&searchTerm=eUiQ.GeLa.UYGU.IbTY&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652,*

In the Matter of FELICIA ALICIA CLEMONS, Minor. CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES OF OAKLAND COUNTY, Petitioner-Appellee, and LATRECHA ADELL FOX, Guardian, Appellee, v TAMARA ALICIA CLEMONS, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 281004


2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652

August 19, 2008, Decided

– – – – – 

[ENDQUOTE / start LGH comments]:

Again, the thing is the systems; get a grasp of that, and how individual judges act will be clearer.  California, alas, is responsible for spawning that AFCC organization decades ago, and a lot of the trauma now going, plus excessive removal of kids from one parent or both parent is going to include 2nd and 3rd generations of people affected by policies run through the child support & welfare system, and pushed by AFCC judges in their conferences.  This is privatizing not just the Friends of the Court, but in effect, the entire family court system (and associated ones), court proceedings are seen as problem-solving rather than being subject to justice, and new generations of law students are being coached and trained into this line of thinking, but highly placed AFCC judges, as in UBaltimore School of Law’s “Center for Children & Families in the Court.” (“CFCC”).   Just check out their conference agenda and materials, under-reported situation.

I’d have to side with the county workers in the Wayne County issue because, their being public employees, I can do FOIAs and get payroll information, have a shot at any money trail in individual cases (if I were living in Michigan).  Besides, no low-paid FT employee should lack benefits – if they didn’t have benefits, what’s the motivation for FT employment?  It’d be better to work somewhere else…..

No charge for this PSA.  If you read it, please pass it on, I doubt this is a high-traffic post!

I attach 2008? Annual report (from IN) of a private nonprofit group entrenched in the court system:  Fathers & Families.  Scrutinize who is on corporate donors (Indiana Dept. of Child Support services).  Look at how many court officials and public employees are on the board of this group — which is focused on ONE out of TWO sides of the parents in most custody issues.  Conflicts of interest, much?

Other states (Ohio, PA) have noted copying practices from Indiana.  I even found Ontario, Canada, copying some US practices — the link was AFCC membership (international).

The courthouse forum where I found this had a “reply” button, but my reply has not shown up yet (that I can see), so here it is:

%d bloggers like this: