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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for August 3rd, 2011

Child Support Directors Association — Children’s Funds — and Raffle Tickets

leave a comment »




Plenary 1

Imagine the Future

  1. There is a wind sweeping across this nation in the child support community. New directions and new ideas are being explored as the OCSE Commissioner leads the charge to think creatively, unimpeded by conventional constraints—blue sky thinking! This exciting session— the start of our annual training conference—will put everyone on notice that child support, as we know it, is changing.

(Nice to announce this to the families receiving child support . . . . ..)


Plenary 3

Closing Plenary – Understanding the Role of Father Involvement in the Lives of Children Can Provide Significant Information to Public Policy Initiatives

Dr. Hillard Pouncy will share studies that examine the nature of father involvement in family life among unmarried couples.


The child support professionals deal with these couples and probably know quite a bit from talking to them.  There are, actually, in most counties, literal brick and mortar child support offices where mother and father can (alternately) come in and plead their causes — “reduce my support, return my license — or collect that support, and here’s where we found Dad was working….”     However, of course’s helpful to have a true fatherhood professional put the right spin on it.

What, REALLY, is all this hoopla about?  Why did this organization pop up right after a District Attorney’s office in Southern California got caught red-handed sitting on millions of $$ of money that should’ve been forward to the parents — or returned to the payor parent?


I am still wondering why county employees (which Child Support Directors are, and usually well paid, too) would need their own nonprofit organization for as well?

In looking at the 2010 990 filing of this one — they are very unusual in actually raising quite a bit of program service revenues.   Around $603K grants, and around $433K “program Service Revenue.”

Which turns out to be primarily the conferences.   The 2011 is priced at $425 for the entire conference, or $200 for a single day (regular price).

As we note it’s a conference AND “Expo” so I presume some other materials were also for sale during the conference.


The Child Support Directors Association (see my last, obnoxiously long, post) was indeed registered in California as a Corporation around the turn of the millennium, (or was it about  decade earlier, when it came to tax-exempt fundraising?)


Results of search for ” CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION ” returned 1 entity record.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

(From the California Secretary of State).  Funny,

Corporation Wiki” doesn’t connect Mr. Oppenheim  to any organization whatsoever.  It recognizes the President, Iliana Rodriguez


In looking up when this nonprofit registered as a “Charity” (as well as obviously a nonprofit) with the Office of Attorney General — as it is required to — I made a suprising discovery that this association is quite active in raffle tickets as fundraising; and its registry of raffle tickets show how much was raised, and to what other charity the funds went, when not to CSDA itself.  As witnessed by this – I’m just showing one page out of 4 in the search results:

– – – – – –

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION EX552080 Charity Exempt – Active SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-2006 Raffle Expired SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-2006-1 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340 Raffle Registered SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
2 3 4


This page is from the first hyperlink, above (“Charity” – Exempt, Active – Charity Registration):

Their website indicates incorporation as a nonprofit around 2002, as does the Secretary of State registration.  If anyone can then explain to me this issue date of 1990, please?

Registrant Information
Type: Mutual Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2211149
Registration Number: EX552080
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/1991
Registration Status: Exempt – Active Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal:
Address Information
Address Line 1: 925 L STREET Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: SACRAMENTO CA 95814
Annual Renewal Information
Related Documents
No Related Documents
Prerequisite Information
No Prerequisite Information
IRS Return Data19



– – – – – – –

FOr example, a raffle costing nothing to do, begun around November 2005, raised a total of about $12,000 for this group:

Prereq Type: Prerequisite User Relationship: Self Automatic
Registration No: 4340-2006 Registration Type: Raffle Registration Registration Status: Expired
Date Established: Association Date: Expiration Date:
Prereq Type: Prerequisite User Relationship: Self Automatic
Registration No: 4340 Registration Type: Raffle Registration Registration Status: Registered
Date Established: 10/20/2008 Association Date: Expiration Date:
Related Documents
No Related Documents
Raffle Event Data
Raffle Report Year: 2006
Raffle Start Date: 01-NOV-05
Raffle Location City:
Raffle Location County:
Total Funds Received from Sale of Raffle Tickets: $12,376.00
Were some or all of the Funds used for the Benefit of another Eligible Organization?
Name of Recipient Organization:
Recipient Org. Street Address:
Recipient Org. City:
Recipient Org. State:
Recipient Org. Zip:
Amount of Proceeds to Recipient Organization:
Contact Person for Recipient Organization:
Recipient Org. Phone Number:
Total Expenses for Conducting the Raffle: $0.00


This time, no — but some other raffle proceeds go elsewhere; often to a Children’s Fund of one sort or another, for example::

Raffle Event Data
Raffle Report Year: 2010
Raffle Start Date: 02-SEP-09
Raffle Location City: SACRAMENTO
Raffle Location County: SACRAMENTO
Total Funds Received from Sale of Raffle Tickets: $2,020.00
Were some or all of the Funds used for the Benefit of another Eligible Organization? Y
Recipient Org. Street Address: 400 HARBOR BLVD
Recipient Org. City: BELMONT
Recipient Org. State: CA
Recipient Org. Zip: 94002
Amount of Proceeds to Recipient Organization: $2,020.00
Contact Person for Recipient Organization:
Recipient Org. Phone Number:
Total Expenses for Conducting the Raffle: $0.00

This appears to be part of a County itself:

Human Services Agency
400 Harbor Blvd, Bldg B, Belmont, CA, 94002
(650) 802-5018 – Venue Website
The County of San Mateo Human Services Agency strives to promote self-sufficiency, increase family strength and stability, and improve community health. Together, our dedicated staff and community partners work tirelessly on behalf of our clients and working families to help them reach these goals.

San Mateo County Seal: Back to San Mateo HomepageHuman Services Agency Home

Teal circle with woman holding baby

A long list of functions (including “Family Resource Centers” — see my Footloose in Tuscaloosa post…)

on the left side includes “The Children’s Fund.”:  (the Circular logo to right  – adult and child inside olive crescent) is the “Children and Family Services” logo.  Everyone gets a nice logo. …and motto

Childrens Fund

Mission Statement

Children’s Fund History

The Children’s Fund began in 1973 as a “grass roots” effort by social workers to assist foster children and other children in San Mateo County. They wanted to provide goods and services that were not available through public funds. The Children’s Fund benefits children and teens being served by the County of San Mateo’s Human Services Agency, probation and mental health departments, as well as any children living in poverty throughout San Mateo County.”


Basically raffles are like the lottery and are a form of gambling — but certain nonprofits can do this.  As the California code reads:

(c) For purposes of this section, “eligible organization” means a private, nonprofit organization that has been qualified to conduct business in California for at least one year prior to conducting a raffle and is exempt from taxation pursuant to Sections 23701a, 23701b, 23701d, 23701e, 23701f, 23701g, 23701k, 23701l, 23701t, or 23701w of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

Secretary of State would show the incorporation record.  But under the DOJ / Attorney General’s Offices is more information about charities etc.:

Secretary of State or Franchise Tax Board Number – Organizations that are incorporated in California are assigned a corporate number by the Secretary of State’s office upon approval of the filing of their articles of incorporation. Organizations that are not incorporated but are required to register and report to the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry), such as unincorporated associations and charitable trusts, are assigned an organization number by the Franchise Tax Board. Either of these numbers can be used to search the Registry files for information about a specific organization.

State Charity Registration Number – Once an organization registers with the Registry, it is assigned a registration number (also called a “CT Number”). If you know the registration number, you may enter it in the search criteria.

The CT number for this group is: 2211149 and the EIN# 680450141

They have to register for running raffles annually.

If one were to click on ALL of those raffle reports above, to the Children’s Fund in San Mateo County, amounts could range anywhere from $19 to a few thousand.  I decided to use the same registry to look up the Children’s Fund, and found this:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
THE CHILDREN’S FUND OF SAN BERNARDINO 100979 Charity Delinquent SAN BERNARDINO CA Charity Registration Charity


The second one is apparently the same one that CSDA is raising money for, and I hope they finish registering properly, as they are doing quite a bit of business yearly.  They are at the same address, with “Rebecca Stafford, Executive Director” which is how I made the connection:

Registrant Information
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1383946
Registration Number: 062080
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 6/30/2006 Renewal Due Date: 11/15/2011
Registration Status: Current Date This Status: 11/13/2007
Date of Last Renewal: 1/14/2011
Address Information
Address Line 1: 825 E HOSPITALITY LN 2ND FL Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: SAN BERNERDINO CA 92415
Annual Renewal Information
Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-01
Fiscal End: 30-JUN-02
Total Assets: $2,210,576.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $2,572,683.00
RRF Received: 18-FEB-03
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

THey are filing 990s and Founding Documents show this started (with a different name) at the Juvenile Court (Patrick Morris registered agent) with a contract for $110,000 with the County of San Bernardino and $80,000 in public donations — around 1986.    (See founding documents).   I’d say they’re doing OK…

00023AB2 Founding Documents
00023AB3 RRF-1 2009
00023AB4 IRS Form 990 2009


This is very good reading — Nonprofit Integrity Act of 2004.  I note that (bottom of first page) there is an accountability exemption for groups with receipts over $2 million (gross) IF they are receiving some of this from government grants AND those grants require that they account how the funds were used.   Hmmm….  Is this why there was such a proliferation of hugely successful charities partnering with government grants?

. Charitable Organizations Have 30 Days, Instead Of Six

Months, To Register And File Articles Of Incorporation

With The Attorney General’s Registry Of Charitable Trusts

[Government Code section 12585]

►Charitable corporations, unincorporated associations and trusts must file with the Attorney General articles of incorporation, or other documents governing the organization’s operations, (e.g., articles of association or trust instrument) within 30 days after initial receipt of property.

2. Independent Audit Of Annual Financial Statements Now Required For Charities With Gross Revenues Of $2 Million Or More [Government Code section 12586(e)(1)]

Charitable corporations with gross revenues of $2 million or more must prepare annual financial statements audited by an independent certified public accountant (CPA). The statements must use generally accepted accounting principles. The independent CPA must follow generally accepted auditing standards.

UNLESS — UNLESS – they are teamed up with a government grant!

►The audit requirement applies to charitable corporations, unincorporated associations and trustees required to register and file reports with the Attorney General, whenever such organizations accrue $2 million or more in gross revenue in any fiscal year.

►The $2 million-threshold excludes grants received from governmental entities, if the nonprofit must provide an accounting of how it used the grant funds.


How detailed an “accounting”  — anything?  Or detailed?  Because I’ve already seen about how well the government accounts for, say, child support collected and not distributed!

What’s really funny — is this on-line display bears Bill Lockyer’s name (as then-attorney General) and I found several pieces of documentation about the nonprofit his wife (Nadia) was CEO of, i.e., the Alameda County Family Justice Center (ONE-STOP SHOP, remember?) requesting this nonprofit to PLEASE register and start filing tax returns!   I then looked up the Articles of Incorporation (Nancy O’Malley, District Attorney, executive director).  There was some back and forth, and then what appeared to be a retroactively dated document? shows up.  NOTE:   There are exceptions to accountability when nonprofits combine with government grants (and/or contracts?) — perhaps this is why we are seeing such an onslaught of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (high-level) FORMING NONPROFITS to do the work that their public offices, one would think, should be compensating them for to start with.

JUDGING BY THIS, the Children’s Fund, Inc. of 825 E. Hospitality Lane, 2nd Floor, San “Bernerdino” is doing OK with the raffles, too:


I just clicked on one that earned $15,000 – maybe we should FORGET about child support enforcement and all do raffles.  FOrm a nonprofit for the purpose of feeding one’s family and relieving the government of the burden of fundraising bureaucracy to collect money for the poor:


Prereq Type: Prerequisite User Relationship: Self Automatic
Registration No: 421-2003 Registration Type: Raffle Registration Registration Status: Expired
Date Established: Association Date: Expiration Date:
Related Documents
No Related Documents
Raffle Event Data
Raffle Report Year: 2003
Raffle Start Date: 09-JUN-03
Raffle Location City:
Raffle Location County:
Total Funds Received from Sale of Raffle Tickets: $15,000.00
Were some or all of the Funds used for the Benefit of another Eligible Organization?
Name of Recipient Organization:
Recipient Org. Street Address:
Recipient Org. City:
Recipient Org. State:
Recipient Org. Zip:
Amount of Proceeds to Recipient Organization:
Contact Person for Recipient Organization:
Recipient Org. Phone Number:
Total Expenses for Conducting the Raffle: $0.00



Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2003 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2005-11 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2004-13 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2005-8 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421 Raffle Registered SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 062080 Charity Current SAN BERNERDINO CA Charity Registration Charity
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2002 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2004 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2005 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2002-1 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-07-16 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2002-3 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2003-5 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-08-15 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2007 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2006 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2005-10 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2003-4 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2004-7 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2006-12 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2004-9 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2002-2 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2004-14 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2003-6 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle



Funny how















Not even No commute costs, uniform costs, no meals out, and not printing costs — and it’s tax deductible.  A cool tax-exempt $15,000.     Remind me to work on my networking skills and contact a tax attorney!

Repeat, frequently and perhaps I, too, can pull in $2 million a year.  I’ll publicize it like this:  The purpose my charity is to reduce the $4 billion overhead for eliminating “Welfare as we know it” (and, “Child Support as we know it.”) — and it’s an innovative, demonstration project, for sure! 





 I should be nice and support some of my wisecracks about the “Alameda COunty Family Justice Center” (or ACFCJ, “Inc.”) so here you are:



Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type


              Explore that a bit.  It has no FEIN listed here, yet.   APparently it started 2007, registered as a charity — finally, upon a few requests to do so — around 2010.  And the founding documents are here, which are very interesting:




First Notice to Register First Notice to Register
Confirmation of Registration letter Confirmation of Registration letter
1350 founding Founding Documents
97812355 Miscellaneous Documents





 The Attorney General’s office writes them in May, 2010  (First Notice to Register):









May 27, 2010





We have received information indicating that this organization may be subject to the registration and reporting requirements of the Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act (Government Code sections 12580, et seq.).


Under “Miscellaneous Documents,” they respond.  Keep in mind, again, that the CEO of this agency (from the start) is the wife of a former Attorney General and an attorney working out of the District Attorney’s office, which naturally is under the Office of Attorney General to start with.   Do they really not know which end is up (even after there is a bill pending in the California Legislature (last I heard) to make this a model training center for other justice centers, which I blogged….)

The response in August 2010:

Alameda County ronily lustice Center

Zi9!.\ FF’Ztr) A collaborative of law enforcement, govemment,. and non-profit agencies ensuing thr gll

heating of abuse vrctiii tniigh

August ll,2010

F. Gonzales Staff Services Analyst Registry of Charitable Trusts Califomia Department of Justice

P.O. Box 903447 Sacramento, CA 94203 -447 0


cootdinated, accessib,,

“‘o ^–t-:l g F-

Re: Alameda county Family Justice center cr File # cr0r63s26 Dear Ms. Gonzales,

This is in response to your letter of August 6tr (copy attached).

The Alameda County Justice Center (ACFJC) has operated as a government agency since its inception. The C.ounty of Alameda,bistrict auorneyis office obtained a federal grant to establish the Center. It is located in a county-owned and maintained building, housing governmental and non-profit agencies working in collaboration to provide services to victims and families who have experienced family violence. It has and still operates under the administration of the District Atto*”y’, office and funded under the budget of the county of Alameda. It has no assets, all utilized assets belong to the County of Alameda.

2′ With the ever-shrinking county-budget and the need to ensure the continued operation of the A-cfJC and expanding services, a decision was made to incorporate as a non-profit and thereby maximize the potential for obtaining grants and receiving donations normally not available to government agencies. An application_for Recognition of Exemption (InS Form 1023 copy attached) has been submitted to IRS and we are awaiting their decision.

There is no annual gross revenue for these periods, as all funding is provided within the budget of the county of Alameda.


4- IRS form 990’s have not been submitted as the ACFJC is awaiting IRS an determination of exemption.

If you need further information or clarification, please contact me at (xxx) xxx xxxx. Thank you.  (SIGNED, Harold Boscovich….)


Guess the IRS will get around to this in another five years or so?  Assuming that what he said above is true.

ANYHOW, food for thought, eh?






Pursuant to section 12585 and 12586 of the Act, every charitable corporation incorporated or doing business in California, unincorporated association and trustee holding assets for charitable purposes or doing business in the State of California is required to register and file annual reports with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, within thirty (30) days of receiving assets (which includes cash or other forms of property). Some entities, such as educational institutions, religious corporations and hospitals, are exempt from registration and reporting under section 12583.


In order to determine if the captioned entity is subject to registration and reporting, please submit a completed Initial Registration (CT-1), together with the required attachments, and $25 initial registration fee, payable to the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts. Please include the“CT number” noted at the top of this letter in the memo portion of the check, and mail the completed form and check, together with a copy of this letter, to the Registry at the address set forth above.










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

August 3, 2011 at 8:24 pm

“One Program, One Purpose, One System” — Contrary to purpose of OCSE, California Child Support Training Conference includes how to INcrease the Title IV-D Welfare Caseload!

with 2 comments

“One Program, One Purpose, One System” — Contrary to purpose of OCSE, California Child Support Training Conference includes how to INcrease the Title IV-D Welfare Caseload! (case-sensitive short-link ends “-OC”)

(First published Aug. 3, 2011; prior look it shows, Aug. 19 2016.  I referenced this post in another blog (mostly written early spring, 2012) on similar topics and  because it identified key players and situations so many years ago (as of April, 2019), I’m thinking to block-copy the whole post and provided a reformatted (“cleaned up”) version of this information as a new post. //LGH Apr. 5, 2019)


So I guess it makes sense that the Commissioner for Child Support, Vicky Turetsky, got an award for “reinventing government.”

(Am I the only person who thinks that’s a strange concept, especially in the hands of an agency which has the legal clout to incarcerate people if they don’t pay up, or bankrupt them into homelessness, if they do?)

The motto “One Program, One Purpose, One System” – is on the logo here.  This pdf is brimming with interesting information, and I hope you take a look at it.

From the “2009 California Annual Child Support Training Conference and Expo

That year, the sub-motto was:  “Supporting Family Self-Sufficiency.”

For next fall’s  Sept. 2011 Conference, the sub-motto  — part of a childish, politically correct multiculti-cartoon of 3 children wearing potential future hats (Fireman, Doctor, Construction) is “OUR CHILDREN” (large print):   “Today’s Investment, Tomorrow’s Future

WHOSE children, again?    Interesting, there are zero parents in the image, although the theme is always about improving “Family” relationships.

Oddly, California being a Pacific Ocean state, no representative of an Asian child made the cut.  And of course, there was no child wearing any sort of hat indicating a business owner, stockbroker, a venture capitalist, or say, multi-million$$ multinational government contractor as a future livelihood, even though many noncustodial parents this conference is targeting, are.   These children subject to child support orders (even Rep. Joe Walsh’s first three kids) are going to be funneled into employee work, perpetuating the stream of easier-to-garnish wages (or tax refunds to intercept) for the next generations…

Also, think about it:  “Today’s investment (are they people, or an investment for the child support professionals?), Tomorrow’s Future.”   Is there another kind of future, like the movie about Time Travel, “Back to the…” ?    When tomorrow gets here, it will no longer be “future.”   Did an AFCC member come up with this motto, or is the mentality contagious, to come up with inane phrases for conferences and themes, such as “Parental Alienation” and “High-Conflict Families”?  The phrase is redundant and makes no sense, a little frightening when one considers how powerful the group is….

While “Fatherhood” may not help Decent Dads,* OCSE has absolutely become a “Fatherhood” agency; this is obvious and has been for years.  Once the context of the word “fatherhood” is understood not from common usage — but from court-based and OCSE-based, and profit-based (and/or hating women-based) purposes — I think we can clear the air that decent mothers and decent fathers have a LOT in common in opposing the expansion of this industry.

(*as opposed the genuine article, good Dads, whether still with, or divorced or not married to their kids’ mothers Dads —  interacting with their children and maintaining a decent — if distant — relationship with the mothers of their children).  Do any of us REALLY want to be defined by our gender only, as a stereotype? I know I don’t!  That’s abusive — every human being has more than one characteristic, and differs from others in their gender.

Then why allow any governmental institution to exploit a stereotype?   Failing to protest some of these GROUPS & POLICIES is allowing a governmental institution — and a very dishonest one — to do exactly that. WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?   The Child Support Agency’s?  The nonprofit contractor with the local child support agency’s?  The top-notch, Ph.D.’d (often Ivy League) graduates with an unending source of professional work and income — who talk about poor people as if they were children — or, at times, dogs, or material for human (social science) experimentation?

In 1993, Liz Richards (who lives in the D.C. Area, from what I understand was a former stock broker, i.e., can read the trends & markets) formed the “National Alliance for Family Court Justice” and “out-ed” one group after another running various operations from a basis in the U.S. Department of HHS and/or from associated nonprofits working through the courts, and through the child support agency in particular.  Although her writings and work deals with the critical issues of criminal behavior towards women and children, her ANALYSIS is economic in based, and addresses conflicts of interest, and abuse of power within governmental offices.  MOreover, she has done something about it, being instrumental in getting Ron Haskins (who wrote up the “Access Visitation” code as a 9th hour add-on to Title IV legislation) booted out from doing more damage at the HHS.  Of course, he’s doing similar work now at the Brookings Institution (Some day, I am going to have a Ron Haskins post; the guy seems to have cloned himself and is “everywhere.”)

No one in the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INDUSTRY  or CRISIS IN THE COURTS INDUSTRY (which are basically grants-supported) has been inviting NAFCJ or Liz (recently, that I know of) to participate in a conference (such as Battered Mothers Custody Conference) or write a chapter in a large book on “Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody” (Mo Hannah/Barry Goldstein, eds.).   If I were in those industries, I wouldn’t either — the information this one person and the activists on-line have been discussing and privately publishing, i.e., for free — if I may be crude, and this is probably a military phrase — would “tear ’em a new hole.”

Why? Because she addresses the use of federal grants as BRIBES in the custody case.  She talks about what appears to me to legitimately be Mafia-style systems working within government — only at many levels, it cannot be prosecuted under “RICO” because elements of the group simply get laws re-written to accommodate their policies.  And RICO is by definition “Criminal,” and “Criminal” by definition, breaking a law.

I originally came to the decision to do this blog after seeking help in a custody case with a batterer seeking to eliminate me from my kids’ lives (and have me pay him child support).  He succeeded in the first part not because of any merit in the case, but because of how the system is set to shuffle women from Restraining Order via Mediator to Family Court.  So, there is a HUGE elephant in this room, and not enough people are talking about it.   After I’d been battered and buffeted — and while they were living with me and because of this family court AND OCSE dysfunction (local child support agency wouldn’t do squat when it fell behind, despite my efforts to request they do so).   Not knowing about this system is like not knowing that your (traditional, not electric, obviously) car needs oil, has an oil filter and what kind of oil you put in it matters.

There’s a saying in Proverbs, “let a man meet a bear robbed of her whelps than a fool in his folly.”  It makes two points — foolishness will tear you up worse than a bear attack.  And the point is clear — the fiercest animal is that mother bear protecting her young.  NOT the “father.”   The father can indeed go out and propagate again, elsewhere, and usually for longer than the mothers can (as to fertile years).  The mother (talking humans), no matter HOW you look at it, takes about nine months to come up with a child, and if nursing is also happening, has a lot more physically invested in its well-being.

I believe this is why there is such a huge movement to subdue and suppress the feminine population, lest it really say, we are going to starve the funding of your system in one way or another — by going on strike at work, by refusing to have children, by refusing to marry — by whatever means necessary — this tyranny over our growing children WILL stop.

Here’s what the NAFCJ site says — and it’s blunt, as it should be:

The National Alliance For Family Court Justice, founded in 1993 by Elisabeth Richards of Annandale, Virginia, is an international group of volunteers dedicated to addressing system failure in the courts and social services resulting in retaliation against non-offending parents who complain of family abuse, especially mothers of children who disclose sexual abuse.

NAFCJ activists are dedicated to creating synergy and power through networking and lobbying for change for those caught up in the vast web of custody corruption involving such court chicanery as political pork barrel cronyism, guardian ad litem kickbacks, fraudulent psychological testing by GAL appointed evaluators and local Bar Associations who run MCLE seminars with judges (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) concealing contributions “coffee and flower” slush funds through County Court Judicial Associations.

Through the efforts of various highly financed Fathers Rights groups affiliated with secret judicial associations of family, conciliation, mediation and juvenile courts, who are united under the guise of promoting non-litigious domestic dispute resolution along with other smoke-screen covers such as responsible fatherhood, millions of middle and lower income citizens have been deliberately cheated of their legal right to due process. The efforts of  “well-oiled” fathers rights activists who tap into “deep pockets (in their own words) of federal and private grants while traveling North America, Europe and Australia promoting pedophile friendly syndromes  such as Parental Alienation Syndrome, have effectively silenced women and children’s outcries of brutality, rape and incest to a vast array of professionals in the divorce industry.

In their lust for power and control, these bad dads have reaped a plethora of praise and manna from federal heaven through DHHS (Access/Visitation programs,  DOJ (Arbitration/Mediation) programs, Responsible Fatherhood Programs, Co-Parenting Programs, and other mislabeled Court-Based federally sponsored “Family Services.”  

Considering that the recipients of the bulk of the money goes to pay well-off guys who spend most of their time recruiting new members for their custody switching scheme and lobbying legislators for presumptive joint custody (the demise of child support enforcement for all time) and easing restrictions on incest and family violence — this sinister “snake oil” has more to do with power, lust and money than their insincere pretense for the best interests of children.

Open Letter to the Fatherhood Movement, Liz Richards’ challenge to Fathers’ Rights Leadership to admit their true agenda.

Read Liz Richards’ Letter to Ron Haskins, former staff director for the House Ways & Means Subcommittee [which has jurisdiction over a wide variety of family programs] and a co-founding Children’s Rights Council official, misused his Congressional authority to write into legislation, programs and policies which benefit Fathers Rights membership while concealing his own conflict of interest.

Liz Richards lobbied leading Congressional offices about Haskins misdeeds and conflicts of interest. Within months, Haskins quit and is now with the Brookings Institute.  Now his protégé and CRC supporter, Wade Horn, has been installed as Assistant Secretary of HHS, in charge of all DHHS “Family Programs.” See Liz Richards’s letter to Horn, as NFI President, charging him with being a CRC front.  

{{that’s a broken link — contact her if you want it, I guess.  “NFI” = National Fatherhood Initiative, a nonprofit formed in 1994}}

CRC and the Fatherhood Initiative hype claims of educating dead-beat dads how to be “responsible” in exchange for providing federally funded assistance to enforce their visitation rights through programs including the “access/visitation” program and Responsible Fatherhood programs which is nothing but disingenuous drivel, a bogus cover story for their real agenda of switching custody and giving legal advantages to fathers willing to instigate litigation for their judicial kick-back scheme

{{AND of course ongoing funding to the programs themselves.}}

If “FATHERHOOD” as practiced in these contexts is understood in a few basic terms as having very LITTLE relationship to the dictionary definitions, the clouds will begin to clear.  As practiced, it PARTICULARLY has almost nothing to do with the second definition, below.

fa·ther·hood  (fär-hd)


1. The state of being a father.
2. The qualities of a father.
3. Fathers considered as a group.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

fatherhood [ˈfɑːðəˌhʊd]


the state or responsibility of being a father

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

There is so much on “fatherhood” on-line any more, that in order to get a plain definition (and not all the various groups, nonprofits and associations) I had to basically add “Dictionary” to the search.  Even then, one definition came up with “as to the first person of the Trinity…..”

Fatherhood might better be characterized as the select group of people starting certain organizations which have now branched out throughout government — and “reinvented it” — which makes a whole lot of (NON)sense when the U.S. President is required to swear an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution before taking office.  Here’s that oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,

and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

We can do our part to hold any sitting President to that oath (for what any oath is worth these days) not by complaining about our hurts and distresses (there are legislatures for that) and asking him to intervene (what, is he a god, an emperor, or an elected official?) –thereby justifying further expansion of the Federal clout over individual states — but by insisting that certain practices be stopped because THEY VIOLATE THE CONSTituTION, including the bill of rights.  And exposing financial corruption in policy-making circles which (see Declaration of Independence) are generally closed to the public, or the intent being the general public is not invited, or made aware of their existence.

The “Fatherhood” emphasis is a religious one — and few of the founders of the US (including George Washington, who first made the oath) believed in the patronizing, condescending, and domineering vision of “fatherhood” which the religious groups now in on the grants stream have been promoting.  They believed the exact opposite and fought for it too.    Some of them were Freemasons, many were Deists, and they were literally fleeing religious threats in England, and the associated thought-tyranny which took the form of burning people at the stake, and banning their books.   See Thomas Jefferson and Reasonable Deity for a SHORT summary of some of the influences of Locke, Paine & Priestley on his thinking:

Thomas Jefferson’s religious philosophy was most heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke. Two works by Locke, A Letter on Toleration (1689) and The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), specifically shaped Jefferson’s bill for establishing religious freedom. Locke presented a philosophical justification for religious toleration, one that Jefferson advocated in his writings and actions. Locke’s belief in toleration, that “no man, even if he would, can believe at another’s dictation” induced Jefferson’s internalization of religion. Jefferson emulated this doctrine of toleration, advocating that privacy and freedom meant everything in a personal relationship with the Supreme Creator.

Locke coupled his emphasis on toleration with intellectual support of an eventual day of reckoning before a just God, further influencing Jefferson’s understanding of religion’s role in society. Even though Jefferson rejected many orthodox Christian beliefs, he sided with Locke and whole-heartedly envisioned this day that God alone would evaluate one’s life. It was this belief in the future judgment that naturally led to increased incentives for morality linked to self-interest. The future judgment provided impetus for a society to function cohesively under the premise of universal accountability. Jefferson found this argument both reasonable and necessary to the success of United States (and the world) at large.

(from the same site):  Islam vs. Deism:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

Thomas Paine,
Age of Reason

by Lewis Loflin


English and American Deism, Unitarian Christianity, and Socinian Christianity emerged as heretics of the Protestant Reformation. All applied various degree of reason to the Bible producing faiths that combined reason with a Jesus centered ethical outlook. All rejected the Trinity, Original Sin, the Elect, Nicene Creed, predestination, and other church dogma. Like the Anabaptists they all advocated separation of religion and state which is well within Christian traditions. All advocated religious tolerance.

Given upcoming events in TEXAS, this weekend! and a Texas Governor’s public involvement — I think we’d all better read up some on the origins of the late 20th-century-OVERT switch from the U.S. Constitution to a “faith-based” government.    We are asked to “take it on faith” that the child support professionals and the marriage-mongers are good people and just love children, that’s what motivating them, even when they themselves can’t be faithful to their own wives (plural) or mistresses (plural)

Governor of Texas:

“Fellow Americans,

Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.”

Under “WHY”:

Who knows what can happen in our generation when we gather together to worship Jesus, fast and pray, and believe for great change in our nation?

The “Historic Precedence for National Prayer” quotes occasions from 1775 through 1841, NOT ONE of which even mentions Jesus.  While, if someone, or a group of people, can PRIVATELY pay for a Texas stadium and collect people to worship Jesus, let ’em do it — but I think it’s highly inappropriate for a Texas Governor to be involved.

Under FAQs — “What does The Response Believe”:

The Response is a non-denominational, apolitical {{??}} Christian prayer meeting and has adopted the American Family Association statement of faith.

  1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
  2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons:  Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
  4. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
  5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

They had better pray for a spirit of blindness, that no one follow through on what some of us have been posting — and the connection of parts of the national debt crisis to policies endorsed by the American Family Association…which is, first and foremost, a nonprofit corporation.   It’s Philosophy indicates clearly that it does not consider itself subject to the United States laws primarily, not to mention a very poor understanding of the “founding documents” it refers to, in addition to the history of the Christian faith and the Bible:

The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.

Here’s the American Family Foundation (another charity) formed in 1994 (FUNNY COINCIDENCE — same year as VAWA and NFI) to raise money for other charities it approves of:

(Can girls say this pledge, too?)

The ACLU at least, is following up with some FOIA’s to find out how many tax dollars are going into this Texas Prayer Rally to worship Jesus because our founders, after all, did, too (??).  I wish them well.  The FOIA results are due out tomorrow.  They are holding a rally, with “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” to counter this one, which is indeed protected (apparently) under the First Amendment that the prayer leaders do not, themselves (apparently) subscribe to, and at least one other Congressperson is participating (from Ohio, as I recall).  See blurb here from SecularNewsDaily which indicates that the “Southern Poverty Law Center” has designated the AFA a hate group.

So, in response to “THE RESPONSE” – I have to say:

ExCU U U U se me???  First Amendment:   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

ExCU U U Use me?   This Governor hasn’t been reading his Bible recently, or perhaps he uses an alternate Bible (and Constitution):

John 16 (ESV):  “25“I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father. 26In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf;

{{Just a little detail — he was speaking figuratively, not literally about so many things}}    .Also …” 22So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. 23In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.

So, if a group wants to go ask Jesus instead of the Father, when the Jesus they refer to said, ask the Father and NOT me — let’em go ahead.  AFter all, some of us asked the Child Support Enforcement Agency (local) to enforce child support orders — so what’s the difference?  Both indicate a tendency towards worsshipping gods that don’t deliver……Except that there’d better not be any public $$ going into that rally, and the OCSE already has our money, for the most part — because its employees are public employees, government signed, sealed and delivered.

And . . ..  as I keep saying, if this is how people read the Bible, understand basic US history, and see their position in the world — how do you expect them (when in official capacity) to be reading their local laws?    

Now, back to this CHILD SUPPORT $4 billion year enforcement industry and the nonprofit CSDA.org’s place in it:

There’s also more than one meaning to the phrase “I LOVE children.” . . . . . .    Notice, they don’t recognize parentage even on the front page of the 2011 brochure, but declare (deceitfully) that these are “OUR” children.  If they truly believe that the children’s parents (both genders) had some “Stakeholder” interest in the kids, then how come Fathers and Families was invited to speak at a child support conference, but no contingent representing Mothers (using the word ‘Mothers’) — and no contingent representing custodial parents with open child support cases?

The brand of religion that then-President George Bush opened the floodgates to by Executive Order (not popular vote) in 2001 was not the Constitution / Reason / Dialogue based kind — is entirely different in quality than that of those who wrote the Constitution. It’s dogmatic and rhetoric-based, parading around with phrases like “evidence-based” (i.e., that fatherlessness puts someone at risk of the life from hell…..)

By contrast, the doctrine of “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” backed by FORCE (through OCSE) and billing the public for it — has been, on closer examination of “Undistributed Child Support Collections” and practices which are easily eddies, private backwaters, of embezzlement opportunity, cronyism, and case-steering — is hardly in the same flavor.

Well, I supposed I’d better get down to the main points of this post

1.  OCSE literally IS a “fatherhood” organization (understood as used in practice, not common usage); in order to be a “fatherhood” organization, government has to be changed (and protections removed), and..

2.  Assuming it was ever true that the OCSE was formed in 1975 to help REDUCE welfare burden by pursuing child support to either keep families OFF welfare, or recoup funds expended FROM welfare (public burden)…that is most certainly not even the goal, or agenda — of the OCSE as it stands now.

For one, let’s look at VICKY TURETSKY’s background:**

**note — in talking in very strong, and sometimes sarcastic terms, about people with major responsibility and work experience to qualify the for it, I am not meaning personal insult (with possible exceptions of Wade Horn, Ron Haskins, and (any AFCC judge or mental health professional) etc. who are just “too much…”).  This huge bureaucracy exists, and someone has to head it up; Vicky Turetsky does.   HOWEVER, on the other hand, I represent people at the complete opposite end of the spectrum — as first a mother in a violent relationship which I finally escaped from, then a single mother with a child support order started by the County, not me.  I have years of first-hand observation across a LOT of fronts, and have seen mothers go homeless after custody-switch + wage garnishment; I have come close to it myself.  I also know that the system of welfare addresses the poor throughout as if poverty were a character flaw and certainly not a system flaw, or having an identifiable cause, one that points to any of the welfare systems’ associates (did I say “family law” yet?)   I also know that physical and economic control go together; there is rarely the first without the second, and if the second is good enough, it’s not “necessary” to beat up the person being controlled.  Fear of homelessness, starvation, and/or loss of children through loss of income to support them — will spring the trap quite well, once it becomes abundantly clear that NONSTOP LITIGATION can eradicate a work life, and quickly.

Therefore, I make no apology for talking blunt, strong, disgusted, or sarcastic — about these systems and practices; doing so will of course name names.  Just understand that I haven’t met many of these people — and if I had, it wouldn’t change my stance.  It’s the practices that are the problem.  Since people in these circles are CONSTANTLY talking about “Promising Practices” or “Evidence-Based Practices” I’m sure they’ll understand….it ain’t the people, it’s the practices, although whoever would design some of them certainly had a character problem, by not changing practices when it ends up with dead families, or kids with neither mother nor father in their lives, sometimes over child support.

Vicky Turetsky

“Vicki Turetsky was appointed as the Commissioner for the Office of Child Support Enforcement {{“OCSE”}}in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families {{HHS/ACF}}. As Commissioner, she oversees the child support program operated by each state and by many tribes.”

U.S. Territories also?   Let’s not underestimate the scope and power of this position, and the responsibility.  “each state” kind of downplays the significance.

United States (still “leader of the free world”?) has FIFTY (50) state, and territories, and the displaced Native American tribes are a different government category; in some ways they have a little more influence over their own affairs than residents of the states do.   However, that is basically ALL of the United States.  ANYONE who has a child support order may come under OCSE oversight, although the original purpose of the Program Office was to REDUCE welfare (TANF) by collecting money from one parent and getting it to the other one who had care of the children – or, to the state, if the state had grabbed the kid(s) and stuck them in Foster Care, or another institution.   (Not to be confused with Phil Garrido and Nancy Garrido’s California operation, although there seem to be a few similarities, i.e., hijacking innocent kids’ futures one way or another.)(They were on the news again recently; with Nancy relating how she encouraged little girls (evidently) to do their gymnastics for her, especially the splits, for filming purposes; while the prosecutor gave a damning report on how the system failed Jaycee Dugard and her two kids).

Ms. Turetsky brings more than 25 years of experience as a public administrator and advocate for low-income families. She is a nationally recognized expert in family policy, and has been instrumental in efforts to boost child support payments to families and to establish realistic child support policies that encourage fathers to work and play an active parenting role. Prior to her appointment, she served as the director of Family Policy at the Center for Law and Social Policy, where she specialized in child support, responsible fatherhood, and prisoner reentry policies. The author of numerous publications, she was a visiting lecturer at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and has received several national awards.
She also has held positions at the U.S. Corporation for National and Community Service, MDRC, Union County Legal Services in New Jersey, and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. As a division director at the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, she received one of the state’s first “reinventing government” awards. She received her B.A. from the University of Minnesota and
her J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School.

Another speaker at this 2009 conference was Michael Hayes of the TEXAS Attorney General’s office.   As I blogged earlier this year, he is a fatherhood type of guy (although it’s called “Family” in his department) and was also found in Minnesota Fatherhood Summit (or some similar title — after all, it IS challenging to keep all the fatherhood summits, corporations, conferences, “Incs.” *.govs and Institutes straight), which I thought odd for a public servant based in Texas; had he attended any motherhood conferences also?  (Oh, I forgot — Big Brother isn’t into Motherhood…)..  Perhaps this is the Minnesota Connection, I don’t know).

I looked up a bit about Vicky Turetsky at the Center for Law and Social Policy.  Here’s a 1999 summary of her Testimony on the “FATHERS COUNT act of 1999:

Testimony of Vicki Turetsky

Senior Staff Attorney,

Center for Law and Social Policy 

before the Subcommittee on Human Resources,

Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives

The proposed legislation creates demonstration grant projects that focus on low-income fathers and their children, increases the flexibility of the Welfare-to-Work program, and provides needed penalty relief to states that failed to meet the deadline for implementing the State Disbursement Unit (SDU) for child support payment processing.

The goals of encouraging marriage, promoting good parenting, and improving the economic status of low-income parents are shared by CLASP. CLASP supports a demonstration project approach to new fatherhood funding.  . . .

Chairwoman Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today about the proposed “Fathers Count Act of 1999.” I am a Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Law and Social Policy. CLASP is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization engaged in analysis, technical assistance and advocacy on issues affecting low-income families. We do not receive any federal funding. My focus at CLASP is child support. Before working at CLASP, I was employed by Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), and helped implement the Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) pilot project for unemployed noncustodial parents of AFDC children.

among her calls for much more flexibility in these Fatherhood Demonstration Grants — she advocates that the child support agency should be a partner (naturally) and, for example, let noncustodial clients who participate in these projects get “expedited modification of arrears” (i.e., compromise — or reducing — arrears), and of course let’s not get TOO specific in actually requiring specific behaviors from the projects that help the Dads get their custody arrears modification expedited if they show up for these projects and/or classes:

Instead, the legislation should be written more broadly and flexibly to require projects to take actions designed to encourage or facilitate the payment of child support, without prescribing a specifictypeofaction. The following actions might be listed as examples in the statute:(1)full distribution of pre- and post-TANF arrears to families, (2) distribution of support while the family is receiving TANF, (3) incentives for paying support, such as TANF disregards and matching payment policies, (4) setting the initial orders of project participants based strictly on ability to pay, (5) expedited review and modification procedures for orders and arrears, (6) compromising, forgiving, or suspending arrearages upon project participation or when the parents marry; (7) dispute resolution mechanisms, (8) dedicated child support staff assigned to project participants, and (9) community-based outreach and “house call” policies.

Wow — there’s even a matchmaker facet; and as of 1999, the person now running the child support NATIONALLY had already figured out to trade project participation (by fathers) with reduction of arrears.   I’m not clear how reducing arrears for Dads showing up for classes is supposed to help the children — or for that matter adding a marriage bribe incentive — like forgive the arrears!  I won’t work off my debt, I’ll just marry her?    This is a short piece, worth reading to see where the OCSE has been coming from — set child support arbitrarily, sometimes too high; arrears racks up, and then offer the father TROUBLE (jail) or “COME JOIN OUR PROGRAM” and then help him reduce the arrears.

The segment is testimony in front of the House Ways and Means Committee requesting input on the actual legislation from a fatherhood advocate — in 1999.  At this time, with the anti-VAWA forces in full swing, most domestic violence nonprofits didn’t even bother to tell mothers that fatherhood grants (or, the CRC-AFCC partnerships) existed — at all.  Nor have they very much in the first decade this century, 2000-2010, but I’m working hard with SOME others to push back the envelope on that.  Were any battered mothers advocates up there offering testimony also?

CLASP is a nonprofit, and so is CSDA.


ALL THAT’S MISSING FROM THE CONFERENCE IS A CONTINGENT OF CUSTODIAL PARENTS, including Mothers that could laugh at the proceedings and fathers that would relate how the payments they provided (wage-garnished in excess at times) got lost in the mail (“UDC” balances, by state).   In 1999, a single COUNTY in California was sitting on $14 million (Silva v. Garcetti).   Who knows what the totality of 58 counties were and still are sitting on.  One thing  is for sure — neither the OCSE nor the GAO (Government Accountability Office) nor the Local Child Support agencies nor the Welfare law mandated SDU (State Distribution Units) seem to know, and I believe I made that point that they have ALL admitted this a few posts ago.…  May show a few more links to support that the counties don’t know.  (Apparently monies got lost in transit in the transition to Statewide Distribution Units, also.  What’s LOST for the intended recipients (children, while they are still children) is going to be a “found” for someone else that realizes the benefit of no paper trail to the $$.

– – – – – – –

What is “CSADA”?  Sounds official right?  This is their self-description

That’s wonderful, collecting billions (where’s their head at?) but can we talk about also DISTRIBUTING it to the households the children are living in?  When an agency can’t find a U.S. (Tea Party) Representative with over $100,000 arrears and simply (VOLUNTARILY) enter a wage-garnishment order, I have to question its efficiency.  Perhaps because this was not a Title IV-D case, it didn’t count?

Please note — the CSADA is a nonprofit group formed in 2001, same year as the “Office of Faith-Based and Community…”  A keynote speaker in this year’s also has a history in the Obama version, “Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood….””

The Child Support Directors Association of California (CSDA) was established in 2001 as a non-profit association to represent the local child support directors of California’s 58 counties. The association strives to be of service to local child support agencies (LCSA) in their effort to provide children and families with the financial, medical, and emotional support** required to be productive and healthy citizens in our society.

CSDA Annual Child Support Training Conference & Expo

When: September 19-22, 2011

Where: Doubletree Hotel, Sacramento, CA

Registration is now open for the CSDA Annual Child Support Conference and Expo! Please visitWWW.CSDAEVENTS.COM to register for the early bird rate by July 1, 2011. For more information download theCONFERENCE BROCHURE or visit our CONFERENCE WEBPAGE. Any questions, please contact CSDA Deputy Director NATALIE DILLON.

(Maybe I should go…. as an interpreter for fellow-parents, and of course to hear what the keynote speaker from Fathers and Families has to say….)

**by now, we should know the key-phrase, when a group whose purpose is to get — by force if necessary — money from noncustodial parents refers to their intent to get “emotional support” for the children, we are talking about access visitation grants (among plenty of others) AND about fatherhood; i.e., relationship counseling.

Actually, what the relationship counseling does, anyhow, is direct program monies to certain nonprofit programs (usually) run by — typically — an AFCC member, and part of their personal retirement plan (called affiliate marketing).    Like the logo on the 2011 brochure, the courses (from what I can tell) appear to be elementary, if not infantile; but the marketing plan most definitely is not.  When it comes to counseling parents, from the AFCC perspective, it’s clear that there is a fatherhood emphasis and motherhood hostility, as we see in the parenting coordinator materials from New Hampshire (see my 4-part post).

Don’t kid yourself that a “fatherhood emphasis” is actually father-friendly overall in practice.  After all, fathers and mothers pay taxes.  Fathers AND mothers pay child support (for that matter, while I’m there).  And fathers AND mothers who are having their wages garnished sometimes find that the remaining money they earn, if they are employees and have taxes withheld (AND wages garnished) AND are watching the US$ “tank” affecting their purchasing power with what’s left — are ALSO supporting hordes of professionals IN the government agency-level (County payroll) AND in the nonprofit sector who contracts for government also.

Not when groups like Maximus, caught with their hand in the till repeatedly, (caught in fraud and embezzlement and paying millions to settle — a cost probably passed on to the consumers — and in at least one case, we saw billing by estimate, not actual work performed, which the local agency didn’t even check up on) continue to get contracts.

Of course it helps to get a contract if you help sponsor a child support director’s conference….

The welcome letter to the upcoming 2011 CSDA Conference shows that the Arizona-based FATHERS AND FAMILIES has a keynote speaker in there also.  The letter is signed by Stephen GoLightly, president of the nonprofit CSDA organization AND head of the Los Angeles Department of Child Support:

On behalf of the entire CSDA Board of Directors and the 2011 Conference Planning Committee, I am pleased to announce that our plenary speakers will include Federal Child Support Commissioner Vicki Turetsky; Federal Director of the Office of Family Assistance, Earl Johnson; Ron Painter, CEO of the National Association of Workforce Boards; Dr. Hillard Pouncy, from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University; James Rodriguez, CEO/President of Fathers & Families Coalition of America and several executive level representatives from the California Health and Human Services Agency and the California Department of Child Support Services. To say that this array of speakers will be inspiring and informative would be an understatement!

WHO SHOULD ATTEND THIS CONFERENCE?  Custodial mothers, or noncustodial fathers, wondering when the UDC will be distributed, or wondering when the HHS/OIG/OAS is going to actually audit ALL of the local child support agencies in California to see which ones have been holding on to $14 million balances (like the Los Angeles DA’s office was until Richard Fine & John Silva caught up with them) — and why we should continue letting our wages be garnished when the federal government is wanting to EXPAND Title-IVD cases while failing to account for WHERE’d the MONEY GO? Apparently at least 3 California Counties lost track of funds during the transition to a SDU, and from what I can tell, there’s not even been a slap on the wrist (or a follow up audit).

So shouldn’t some actual parents with small children be invited?  But they weren’t:

The annual conference is designed to afford all child support professionals from local, state and federal government agencies, tribes, and vendors providing services to the Child Support Program with a meaningful and relevant training experience.** California and national staff, including directors, child support officers, attorneys, clerical staff, supervisors, managers, trainers, customer service staff, and account and fiscal staff will gain useful information and resources.

We invite IV-D funded court personnel including commissioners, Family Law Facilitators, and court clerks; IV-A agency staff involved with the IV-D program or interface; and other Health and Human Services staff to join us and derive the benefits from our annual conference.

**will “meaningful and relevant experience” detail exactly how to spend funds on encouraging fathers to emotionally connect with their , as opposed to sending the money TO the kids’ household, so they can have plenty of warm blankets and good food in their tummies in addition to warm and fuzzy experiences with Dad?

The Association strives to be of service to local child support agencies (LCSAs) in their effort to provide children and families with the financial, medical, and emotional support required to be productive and healthy citizens in our society.

The membership of the CSDA includes many public employees — isn’t it just part of their normal responsibilities to do some of these legislatively-mandated things?  Why form  a nonprofit to do their assigned, paid  jobs?

You know how much the CSDA costs?

Who is it, really?  Good place to start is their nonprofit filing, and an 990 or so — “NCCSdataweb.urban.org” or “Tax-Exempt World.”  WHile the former gives us more (free) information, the listing for this group at Tax Exempt world is revealing:  notice (despite all the talk about kids) what it’s Classified as:

(Promotion of Business)
* * * 06/200

and this is how active nonprofits are in Sacramento County (Note for the out of state:  State Capital….)

Location Sacramento County CA (California)
Number of Organizations in this County 8,637
Total Income Amount from Tax Exempt/NonProfit Organizations in this County $10,060,802,090
Total Asset Amount of Tax Exempt/NonProfit Organizations in this County $22,835,419,512
Number of Zip Codes in this County 137

Maybe one solution to the trillion $$ debt the US faces is to make a LOT harder to become a nonprofit (and keep churches out of

that tax-exempt status, too — they control a LOT of $$ and are part of the problems other nonprofits are formed to help fix anyhow!)  It would also make it harder to form a nonprofit front group (but would be much less entertaining, reading the “program purpose” statements, for example, establishing world peace, eliminating violence and prejudice against everybody or — in the case of California Healthy Marriages Coalition — targeting all fertile & infertile people in the state from the age of 15 up for marriage education and teaching them probably something along the lines of how to assemble in stadiums at public expense and call upon Jesus to solve the financial crises of the rest of the country, and or course absolve them for any participation in the problem)

(just kidding…. sort of….)

National Center for Charitable Statistics

Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
2010  680450141 Child Support Directors Association CA 2002 06 1,070,614 1,362,005 990

FY2010 990 shows 12 voting directors and David Oppenheim as the principal officer.  A nice general purpose to this nonprofit:

TO SUPPORT LOCAL CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS IN THEIR MISSION TO PROVIDE FOR THE FINANICIAL AND MEDICAL SUPPORT OF CHILDREN.”  And in the section where people normally actually describe services provided, and the expenses, and if any grants were involved (i.e., page 2), this organization simply states:


Only 2 of the 12 directors are paid, Mr. Oppenheim, ED, about $130K, and Natalie Dillon, Deputy Director, $100K.  (plus hefty benefits packages).



Always look up the addresses; it’s informative:

925 L Street
Suite 1402
Sacramento, CA 95814

Apparently a very nice address.  THis is important, because collecting Billions for California’s Children can be very stressful….

925 L Street

925 L Street is located in the center of downtown Sacramento, directly across from the State Capitol.

The building is one block from the Light Rail station and Tenants enjoy close proximity to numerous restaurants, banks, hotels, parks, the K-Street Mall and Downtown Plaza. Offering sweeping views of the State Capitol and downtown Sacramento, 925 L Street puts you in the center of everything.

925 L Street’s lobby features cast bronze door handles, European Afyon marble walls, and unique wood finishes. The building was refurbished in 1997 and common areas are continually updated on a rotating basis. There is a state-of-the-art security system with an on-site officer and day porter. Direct cable television and audio links are available to the State Capitol building. A pedestrian bridge connects the building to a 7-story parking garage next door.

The state of the art security I’m sure would be important in such a volatile field as child support, which can produce irate noncustodial parents.  However, probably most of them don’t even know about this association anyhow….. nor do many of the custodial ones, I imagine…..


Hmm– this says that Suite 1402 (1,821 square feet) is immediately available (?) — here’s the floor plan:

It shares its [evidently 4-office] address “Suite 1402” in Sacramento — with Barger & Wolen, LLP, a mid-sized law firm that holds 3 (other) offices in California, and New York and London

And a “Meeting Professionals International” group who has an Event Planner of this Child Support Directors” Association on its board of Directors:

Lisa L. Bispham, CMP
Event Coordinator
Child Support Directors Association
925 L Street, Suite 1402
Sacramento, CA 9581

ALONG the lines of this CSDA group being for sure a “Business Promotion” type of nonprofit (the business, however, simply being supported by the Federal Government) — here’s a 2011 NCSEA (the National Child Support Enforcement Association) in January, with Executive Deputy Natalie Dillon presenting alongside known fatherhood promoters Michael Hayes, Ron Haskins, and in general talking about Child Support Payors as if this did not include mothers, still, despite about 15 years of zealous fatherhood promotion, resulting in sometimes sole custody to fathers and Moms on supervised visitation paying child support.

National Child Support Enforcement Association 2011 Policy Forum & Training Conference

DETAILED SCHEDULE  (Presenters confirmed as of January 20, 2011)

ACF Initiatives and the Evolving Mission of Child Support Kick off the conference with an engaging description of the federal vision of the child support program over the next year. The conference opens as Acting Assistant Secretary of ACF, David Hansell, shares plans for initiatives and administration priorities in the coming year. OCSE Commissioner Vicki Turetsky will describe the vision of OCSE as it relates to the larger ACF goals. NCSEA President Kim Newsom Bridges will share NCSEA’s role in implementing strategies to achieve IV-D goals. Presenters: David Hansell, Vicki Turetsky, Kim Newsom Bridges, Kelly Peiper

Who is David Hansell?   For more detail, check (at any given year), your local Fathers and Families Coalition annual conference — here’s 2011

Acting Assistant Secretary David Hansell Speaks at FFCA’s 12th Annual National Fatherhood and Families Conference

In short, he is carrying on in the tradition of Wade Horn, who helped found the original National Fatherhood Initiative by using his position at HHS in channeling grants to it from HHS.  As late as 2006, Wade Horn is also found highly involved in Child Support, along with Ms. Turetsky, who has continued to carry the torch…. (Scroll down to the LAST page of this pdf, bottom right — Wade Horn was at this time Assistant Secretary for ACF; this 2006 Child Support Report also has a nice detail on some Special Improvement Projects and SEction 1115 grants waivers to help — families, of course, who else?), including at least two to help quickly reduce child support payments, for example, if the parent (Dad, presumably) is in jail:

Section 1115 Grants

Two 2-year projects are designed to reduce the number of cases in which large child support arrearages accumulate by quickly reviewing and adjusting child support orders when the circumstances of a parent changes.

• Maryland—to establish a program for promptly reviewing and, if appropri- ate, modifying child support orders of incarcerated noncustodial parents.

• District of Columbia—to increase services to incarcerated parents by identifying and offering assistance to those with current support orders.

Meanwhile (same year), California NOW issued an official letter crying out against some of these practices and specifically naming Wade Horn.  I think it appropriate to quote here — and then we’ll go back to how, as of 2011, the Child Support Agency and ACF leadership could give a damn:

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, {{have I proved that point yet?}} 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, {{have we proved that point frequently enough, yet?}} which often results in high conflict litigation against perfectly fit mothers. CA NOW believes many fathers {{NOT “all”}} 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.  {{case in point, yours truly, and it’s a fairly typical case, also!}}

I just noticed that California NOW listed its headquarters as

926 J Street, Suite 424 — so perhaps they coulda, shoulda, walked over to 925 L street, Suite 1402 and had a conversation….


10:00 AM – 10:30 AM – BREAK

10:30 AM – 12:00 PM PLENARY II Fragile Fathers: Their Behavior and Engagement with their Children Leaders from both the left and the right have derided unmarried men for failing to “take responsibility” for their progeny. New survey evidence shows that 8 in 10 unmarried fathers are still together with the mother when the baby is born, and nearly all intend to remain involved with their child. Come to find out why five years later only about half of these men are still seeing their children every week. Presenters: Cynthia Osborne, Natalie Dillon

More theory, here:

:30 PM – 3:00 PM PLENARY III From Rags to “Riches”– Turning Unemployed NCPs into Consistent Payors A noncustodial parent with a steady, decent paying job is a noncustodial parent who pays their child support obligation. ** There have been multiple attempts to develop programs to put poor NCPs to work. The early efforts had tepid results*** and many child support and labor/workforce administrators questioned whether it was possible to implement a cost-effective program that successfully increased child support payment and employment outcomes for NCPs.

**YEP, like Congressman Joe Walsh (arrears, $117K, salary $175K, but a persistent wife finally caught up with him, the federal government, who employed him, apparently didn’t…)  or Nicholas Soppa (was spending weekends in jail after running up an arrears while being paid — by the OCSE! as I recall! — to head up “Project Save Our Children.”   Apparently when it’s POOR fathers, then the Pygmalion Complex people come out of the woodwork.

***Tepid results may indicate that some analysis might have been off about WHY noncustodial parents as a whole are not paying?

And they haven’t figured out which percentage of men literally withhold payments in order to punish their ex for leaving them — or on general principles.  Or because wife/girlfriend #2 is jealous and doesn’t want it affecting THEIR relationships ,or crimping the lifestyle…

(One can see why the general public is not invited to these conferences — we’d been in the audience making catcalls and asking difficult questions….) . . . 

Today there is a new generation of NCP employment programs that have been quietly producing results, big results in fact, for child support and workforce outcomes. Find out how it works, who it takes to make it work, and why it’s worth it. Panelists will discuss the rationale for an expanded approach to child support that includes a well designed and carefully measured employment program for low-income obligors as an allowable child support enforcement strategy. Presenters: Ron Haskins, Vicki Turetsky, Gerri Fiala, Michael Hayes, Reagan Miller

(For “Michael Hayes,” just type the name into the search field of my blog — or of “randijames.com”‘s blog.  Self-explanatory…)

Nothing like a “new generation of NCP employment programs” introduced by the OLDER generation of fatherhood practitioners, such as Ron Haskins — this Brookings Bio here doesn’t acknowledge his membership as Family Law Advisory to the CRC (Children’s Rights Council) — was in this position when he drafted the Access Visitation law?  Because CRC is the “Access Visitation” provider, at least a main one….)




Ron Haskins

Ron Haskins

“A former White House and congressional advisor on welfare issues, Ron Haskins co-directs the Brookings Center on Children and Families. An expert on preschool, foster care, and poverty—he was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.

(I just wanted to confirm he was indeed instrumental in PRWORA reform…snuck it in at the last minute, without running it by his colleagues even.   Liz Richards also related that he was a batterer, and one daughter, now adult then about 13, wrote an intelligent letter to a judge pleading with the judge NOT to give her younger siblings to this man.  However, that’s hearsay; but it would make sense with the manner in which welfare reform HAS been overhauled, as to father-access no matter what, including even from prison).

Ron Haskins is a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program and co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution and senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore. From February to December of 2002 he was the Senior Advisor to the President for Welfare Policy at the White House.”
Prior to joining Brookings and Casey, he spent 14 years on the staff of the House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee,** first as welfare counsel to the Republican staff, then as the subcommittee’s staff director. From 1981-1985, he was a senior researcher at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.**

Another House Ways and Means subcommittee is “Appropriations.”  They decide to actually enact legislated grants (etc.) by funding.  For example, if you want to go beg for more fatherhood funding, whatever the economic climate, that Appropriatens Committee is a good place to start.  David Hansell put HIS testimony in for that Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood Bill right alongside several of us noncustodial mothers who said, “enough is enough!  STOP! — until we have some proof these programs are actually helping, and are responsibly administered!”  So Mr. Haskins staff position here is significant.

**I found a real old document by Mr. Haskins from his North Carolina days.  First, browse a resume, showing the historic sequence of positions he’s held..  From 1978 – 1985 (when CRC was formed incidentally) he was Associate Director of the “Bush Institute for Child and Family Policy” at the “Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.”  Yes, Mr. Haskins has always loved children…

Among earlier publications:

Parent education and public policy : a conference report by Ron Haskins( Book )
2 editions published in 1981 in English and held by 45 libraries worldwide
1 edition published in 1983 in English and held by 5 libraries worldwide
He also taught and lectured on history and education at UNC, Charlotte and developmental psychology at Duke University.  Haskins was the editor of the 1996, 1998, and 2000 editions of the Green Book, a 1600-page compendium of the nation’s social programs published by the House Ways and Means Committee that analyzes domestic policy issues including health care, poverty, and unemployment.

Ron Haskins in CRC Family Law Advisory Capacity, from CRC website:

“Preventing Child Abuse in an Age of Budget Deficits,” a Brookings event featuring moderator Ron Haskins, a member of CRC’s Family Advisory Board.  Held at The Brookings Institution, July 20, 2010. 
Audio and video of the event are available here on Brookings’ site. Some reaction from CRC staff and interns to the spirited debate and dialogue at Brookings:
as it says, they need plenty of studies, because as a Rev. said, “People need to keep pushing even if we do not have evidence-based findings but we know it in our gut that’s it’s working,” he said. “But people writing checks won’t continue to write checks without the studies.
The religious version of this could be phrased “Take it on Faith — and pass the collection plate.”  In chapter 10 of a book put out by The Urban Institute Press a collection of smart scholars (all of who probably royalties, if not professorships and real steady jobs) continue to ask scholarly questions about what to do with poor, undereducated black men.  Here’s Ron Haskins’ take on it, which apparently hasn’t changed much over the years:  I gave the introductory paragraphs from Wendell Primus, characterized (i don’t know him) as the partner “across the aisle” in these themes:

Over the past two decades, Wendell Primus and Ron Haskins have observed and shaped income security policy, as key staff to House and Senate committees of jurisdiction on both sides of the aisle. Their discussions of policy options in chapters 9 and 10 build upon federal and state policymakers’ increasing interest in the role of both parents in reducing child poverty.

In chapter 9, “Improving Public Policies to Increase the Income and Employment of Low-Income Nonresident Fathers,” Primus culls lessons from welfare reform to propose incentives (operating principally through the child support enforcement system) that might help increase the employment of less-educated young men. First, he describes how onerous child support enforcement has become for low-income noncustodial parents, most of whom are fathers. Child support orders can push low-earning noncustodial parents far below the poverty level, especially if they have unstable employment. Many low-income fathers do not pay child support regularly because they are poor. Many accumulate large arrearages, which deter them from seeking stable employment, encourage them to move into underground economies, or limit their employment to jobs that pay cash. They may also be subject to license suspension and incarceration, which sever ties with their families.

Primus proposes a new vision for child support enforcement that corresponds with the transition of child support from a mechanism for cost recovery to a potential source of income for poor families.

Actually, I’d be more interested in REAL sources of income for poor families. Are these men aware of how much UDC is hanging around collecting interest, from state to state?  LIke an average of over $2 million per state — but of course, no one knows for sure….  Perhaps they should go find some of that and get it distributed, then set up procedures to eliminate that accumulation of large pools of untracked monies in the control of agencies that have the authority to go get some more, across a multitude of invasive ways….

He argues for supplementing standard enforcement activities with services for low-income noncustodial parents who cannot pay child support regularly. All child support payments would be passed through to children in custodial families, and the government would supplement the child support payments of low-income noncustodial parents.

Government (i.e., the public) will supplement child support payments, the purpose of which is indeed to reduce reliance on government.  This makes sense HOW? You can’t play it both sides — OCSE is to reimburse welfare, which was Ron Haskins’ original idea — no more welfare Moms, get ’em back to work — and then, in the same breath — increase welfare by supplementing child support payments…

In chapter 10, “Poor Fathers and Public Policy: What Is to Be Done?,” Ron Haskins argues that low marriage rates and higher child poverty rates are among the most important consequences of the poor labor market outcomes of less-educated men. He suggests that the adverse effects of paternal absence on child development and the dismal performance of less-educated black men require “substantial and long-term solutions.

And who better to analyze, propose, and evaluate them than this divorced? aggressive man whose daughter didn’t want her younger siblings to live with him.  Are we working out something personal here, perhaps?   ….?? As with others of the same theme (Ronald Mincy, Ph.D., President Obama….) desiring to reinvent government and fix the world to compensate?

Haskins comments that congressional interest in disadvantaged men is no longer confined to the difficulty with collection of child support payments from them. Instead, consistent with congressional interest in rebuilding the traditional family in America, there is now more legislative support for helping disadvantaged men marry and become responsible fathers.

Haskins lists many policies that could be reformed to ameliorate some of these problems, especially policies intended to increase marriage and fathers’ financial and emotional contributions to children

. . . .
And, ever revealing that at heart he’s a “Bush” type of guy:  This appears to have been published about 2002, i.e., many years after his work as Associate Director of the institute named after Bush in North Carolina:
Perhaps Haskins’ most extensive recommendations arise in relation to welfare and child support. First, he suggests that state and federal income security programs should be reviewed to identify barriers to serving fathers and married couples, …
Any particular reason for continuing to exclude mothers?
especially in welfare-to-work programs. Second, while not mentioning subsidies for child support payments, {{his partner Wendell Primus already did that…}} he echoes Primus’ recommendations about passing all child support through to custodial mothers {{Anyone going to stand around and actually make sure that happens??}} and offering job services to fathers who are unable to meet their child support obligations. Third, he endorses the Bush administration’s proposal for healthy marriage demonstration programs, through marriage education and relationship skills as well as programs that attempt to reduce barriers to marriage.
Why shouldn’t he?  These are definitely money-making activities for those who run them, with low overhead and infinite marketing possibilities through both welfare and the courts.
While I’m on that Urban Institute Press book review site, let me point out that the Hillard Pouncy (Chapter 11, I guess) is also a presenter at the current CSDA conference I have been talking about.  Birds of a feather flock together..

In “Toward a Fruitful Policy Discourse about Less-Educated Young Men,” Hillard Pouncy points out the current obstacles to initiatives that would assist less-educated young black men. Opposition comes from advocates for low-income women, {{smile….}}  who believe that limited discretionary spending should be reserved to move former welfare recipients out of working poverty. Opposition also comes from some conservatives who use the results {{a.k.a. failures…}} of previous employment programs to argue that less-educated young black men face so many barriers that further investments in their education and training would be unwise.

Incidentally, the book is by Ronald Mincy:  “Black Males Left Behind, edited by Ronald B. Mincy, is available from the Urban Institute Press (paper, 6″ x 9″, 344 pages, ISBN 978-0-87766-727-8, $29.50).


While I’m on the theme of Religion mixed with Government, and Ron’s CRC connection, here’s the new head of CRC, an Episcopal priest.  Somehow that’s less than assuring to me.  The bio/blurb also explains CRC’s role in providing exchange centers for children, and the behavioral health interest:


Rev. E. F. Michael Morgan, Ph. D.

President of the Board of Trustees E. F. Michael Morgan
The Rev. E. F. Michael Morgan, Ph. D. was elected President of the Board of Trustees of the Children’s Rights Council on November 1, 2010.
~ ~
He has been affiliated with the work of CRC for nearly a decade; and was presented the CRC Community Service Award in 2006.
~ ~
Dr. Morgan was instrumental in establishing the first “Safe Haven” Child Transfer Center/ Access Visitation program in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at St. John’s Episcopal Church, Lower Merion, PA working alongside the Children’s School jointly sponsored by Saint John’s Church and Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA.
Dr. Morgan also served as a Behavioral Therapist at the Child Guidance Resource Center, Havertown, PA in 2007 providing mental health services to autistic children using “clinical wrap-around” treatment modalities. He functioned as a mobile therapist visiting homes, schools, and community agencies.
~ ~ ~
As a Court Appointed Special Advocate – Guardian ad Litem in Athens, OH from 2000-2003 Dr. Morgan held a judicial appointment responsible for conducting court assigned investigations of child neglect, abuse, and parental abandonment. He recommended custodial placements, educational programs, and treatment plans. He also provided sworn testimony as a witness in Probate and Domestic Relations court hearings.

~ ~ ~

In other words, he was VERY activist in the family law arena:

Dr. Morgan is currently serving as Priest-in-Charge of Grace Episcopal Church, Hulmeville, Pennsylvania.  He previously served churches near Philadelphia and Boston, and was rector for 23 years at the Church of the Good Shepherd, Athens, Ohio, a university-parish on the campus of Ohio University. He was a 2001 Merrill Fellow at Harvard University, and his Ph.D. is in Communication Studies.

Doesn’t he kinda look like Ron Haskins (at least as to age, complexion and hair….)?


MORE Plenary Session from the 2011 NCSEA conference shows an interest in promoting Title IV-D to, well, reduce Title IV-A (allegedly).  Similar cast of characters.


3:30 PM – 5:00 PM – PLENARY IV

Child Support Enforcement: It’s the Government Program That Works, and We Can Prove It!**

No you can’t!  See my next to last post, and I’m quoting an HHS-based audit, and a USGAO report in affirming this.  Sounds a little defensive.  Unless the definition of “works” is a little bit of an alternate version…

The child support enforcement program is not immune to the impact of budget pressures, but it is widely recognized as a highly cost-effective program with national bi-partisan support.

Catch the logic on this one, and the order of priorities:  State Coffers FIRST, families SECOND:

It returns money to state coffers, it keeps families off of costly subsidy programs,** it enjoys support from employers,

Do employers actually have a choice in reporting their “new hires” for wage garnishment potential?

it gets reliable income and health insurance coverage to families, and it demonstrably brings in more money than it costs.

You mean it brings in more than the $4 billion a year it costs – but where does that $4 billion GO, and what about hidden impacts, such as actually putting more people ON the welfare roles, if nothing else by increasing custody litigation?  And highly stressing them because, in essence, it externalizes the family court process to an administrative agency with visions of expansions, redefinitions of its purpose (i.e., emotional support) and a clear gender bias, despite the fact that it’s more and more Moms paying child support….including sometimes to their former batterers or their kids’ molesters….

National experts will discuss the unique program features that drive the demonstrated successful outcomes of the program, and IV-D will present their strategies for educating state elected officials and media about how the program works, how it is financed, and how it helps state budgets by keeping families self-supporting. As new governors and state cabinet officials take office and new Congressional leadership comes to Washington, it’s a good time to review the many documented successes of our program.

i.e., salesmanship.  REMEMBER, the stated classification of the California CSDA at least, is “PROMOTION OF BUSINESS.”  (the CHILD SUPPORT business, that is….)

Presenters: Kim Newsom Bridges, Ron Haskins, Deborah Weinstein, Jan Sturla, Alicia Key


Kim Newsom Bridges is NCSEA, Ron Haskins (see above), Deborah Weinstein (Maybe another time), Alicia Key I recognize the name and here is Jan Sturla from “Total Capital” site.

Dec. 17, 2009: Sturla was confirmed by the state Senate as director of Department of Child Support Services.http://www.childsup.ca.gov/

Nov. 21, 2008: Sturla was appointed by by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as director of Department of Child Support Services.
Statement from Gov. Schwarzenegger’s office: Sturla, 62, of San Clemente, earned a Juris Doctorate degree and graduated cum laude from Pepperdine University School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics from California State University, Fullerton. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $142,965. Sturla is a Republican and will take office on January 1, 2009.

1999-2008: Sturla served as director for the Orange County Department of Child Support Services.
1992-1999: Sturla worked for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office.

Source: http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/11125/   Here’s another News Release (2008) on the appointment of Mr. Sturla and another woman to head up DCSS.

A blog called “Child support musings” (came up on searching Sturla) notes that she (presumably) was given the run-around, couldn’t reach Sturla’s office and couldn’t get a hold of her own file.  Sounds familiar.  On the same blog, here is a 2007 record (though from NY) of a deadbeat Judge, father of 3.   While earning $136,000/year as a judge, he ran up $250K of arrears, and finally got booted off the bench from it, spending four months in jail.  His wife, tired of this, settled for $30K.  But — when he was on the bench, was he paying?  What’s up with that?   Also, re: Orange County, CA:

I was told today by the ombudsman unit at Orange County Child Support Service that they regularly review non custodial parents who are in arrears for bank accounts. I seriously doubt this, but that’s what was said. They also said they submit each month to the DMV and the DMV sends out a letter that gives the “deadbeat” a 6 month deadline to get it situated with child support before licenses are suspended.

6 months leeway – interesting.  {Reminds me of the 180-day allowance for holding onto income tax refund intercepts}
Here’s another very sensible musing (date 2007) from the same person — showing that we KNOW the state pockets a lot of this money, and also likes to delay addressing late payments for 30 days (accruing interest) — she has a few very sensible recommendations which are totally contrary to the “promotion of Business” purpose of the nonprofit above, comprised of child support directors throughout California.  Check it out!
Because so little of the support money actually goes to children, the system discourages fathers from paying child support. And because it turns out to be better financially for their kids, many of these fathers work in the underground economy and slip money under the table to the mothers of their children. Because they get so little of the support payments, the mothers — and the majority of custodial parents are mothers — have little incentive to help the government find absent fathers or establish paternity.
And here’s her record of an attempt to get through to Jan Sturla, and a copy of her file, which she’s told she can’t have:

Jan Sturla








Apparently the Child Support Directors NONPROFIT organizations are very  much aware the effectiveness of their programs (gut instinct or no gut instinct) is being challenged, so they are conferencing to come up with some actual evidence, something that must feel a little odd for any very large governmental institution.  Perhaps (in 2001) that’s why a need to form a NONPROFIT was felt…

10:30 AM – 12:00 PM


A Different Set of Evidentiary Rules: A Research Driven Approach to Child Support Program Innovation Child support programs consistently face the dilemma of whether they can afford to implement new strategies because it “seems” like they should work, or whether they should continue to use the same strategies because “if it’s not broke, why fix it?” This dilemma can only be solved with more evidence and evaluation of both current and innovative practices. ACF will set the stage on the Administration’s focus on evidence based practice. State IV-D directors with their university partners will highlight how they use— and how they collaborate with researchers to obtain evidence to improve child support operations. The discussion will consider how evaluation of current and innovative strategies, as well as evidence-based practices, can affect change throughout the child support agency and community and ultimately better serve families and children. Presenters: Martha Coven, Carolyn Heinrich, Elaine Sorensen, Susan Pfeiffer, Lee Sapienza


That’s cute:  Current and Innovative ” strategies, “as well as evidence-based”

And outreach to NCP’s (makes sense, as program funds to get them into training has federal support):

From the 2011 (upcoming, Sacramento) conference:

Fatherhood Programs (p. 15 of brochure)

Local child support agencies (LCSAs) continue to reach out to noncustodial fathers through various fatherhood programs. This workshop will focus on the process of working  with fatherhood groups, share successes, and emphasize the importance of educating noncustodial fathers who have child support obligations. We will also hear from counties currently in partnership with fathers’ groups.

and as part and parcel of that, is COAP:

How to Process COAP Adjustments in CSE

Qualifying for COAP is difficult enough, but once a COAP agreement is executed, how do you adjust the accounts in CSE? This interactive workshop will take you step-by-step through this process, including the COAP Tracker. LCSA and State developers of this collaborative project will be available to answer both general and technical questions about COAP.

COAP = COMPROMISE OF ARREARS PROGRAMS; and it comes in more than one flavor.  Should be a separate post, but has been ongoing for many years obviously — you’d think that the child support levels might be made more reasonable so COAPs weren’t necessary, throwing off a custodial parents’ budgeting plan.  Besides which, CUSTODIAL PARENTS AREN”T TOLD ABOUT THIS, or NOTICED WHEN THEY HAPPEN!  (I sure wasn’t!)


Well let me show some of the conference contents here, and how the plan to put more people on Title IV-D is a real plan:


Page 18:  Outreach to Non-IV-D Customers:

How can we attract customers with private child support orders to expand our customer base? Will these new customers help or hinder the goal of increasing our federal performance measures? Are you ready for the customer service demands of these customers? Do you understand the restrictions on expenditures for Outreach? Discover what you have to do to attract and retain new customers.


My post “let’s boycott child support” was inspired by one of the very public outreach efforts in my area.   Child Support orders that were actually between the parents and a judge — and not a result of someone being on welfare– cuts too many players out of the loop, it eliminates some serious middle men.  There is no 66/34% split, to my knowledge when Title IV is not involved.  After all, the purpose of the entire OCSE department hinges on eliminating “welfare as we know it.”  (Silly us, we thought that meant eliminating a NEED for welfare, when actually the emphasis on “as we know it” was the more relevant part of the phrase.  Here’s a nonprofit Child Support Director’s Agency seeking to expand its customer base!


And a little more fatherhood promotion — too bad they don’t see fit to help the MOTHERS who are actually caring for the kids with this type of service!


Asset Building for Noncustodial Fathers in the Child Support System

The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) recently launched an initiative together with the Office of Community Services (OCS) to promote financial education and asset accumulation among fathers in the child support system. Building Assets for Fathers and Families will help fatherhood programs and child support agencies connect to Assets for Independence (AFI) projects in their areas. AFI projects help low-income people save earned income in special savings accounts that match every dollar deposited by a participant with an average of $2 – $3 in government contributions. Savings can be used to buy a first home, finance a small business, or pay for post-secondary education. All AFI Projects offer education on issues such as credit repair, debt management, personal budgeting, tax preparation, and other financial issues.

Come to this session to hear from AFI, fatherhood, and child support program managers about how AFI can help fathers—both custodial and noncustodial—strengthen their economic standing, and about how fatherhood programs across the country can become involved in this initiative.


I rest my case that the OCSE is actually a Fatherhood Agency, any more.

But in case you are still not convinced; here are the Keynote Speakers in order:

1.  Ms. Turetsky

2.  Dr. Earl Johnson

Earl Johnson

Dr. Earl Johnson is the Director of the Federal Office of Family Assistance, the agency with administrative oversight for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Prior to his current position, Dr. Johnson was senior Policy Advisor to Oakland, California Mayor Ron Dellums, where he was responsible for helping set policy and program goals for the city in the areas of workforce, health and urban affairs. He also worked with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships on fatherhood initiatives.

Before serving in Oakland he had significant state and non-profit sector experience, having served as Associate Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the California Health and Human Services Agency, (HHS….)

3.      James Rodriguez

Mr. James Rodriguez currently serves as CEO/ President of Fathers & Families Coalition of America, Inc., (FFCA) a premiere professional development and membership non-profit, providing services throughout Arizona since 1994 and nationally since 1999. Mr. Rodriguez spearheads the day-to- day operations in the support of national capacity building services for health & human services providers for fragile families.

The phrase “fragile families” refers to a study, and generally indications foundation support, in addition to government.

Under his direction, FFCA has collaborated to serve at-risk young fathers, welfare-to-work participants, at-risk youth, incarcerated parents, re-entry programs, best practices program development and other special programs statewide and nationally.

If all this firepower were truly helping fathers so much, how come one in Ohio filed a class action suit to get back finance he overpaid, yet the computer didn’t reflect the credit, but a zero balance?

After a few more keynote speakers, here’s

6.       Dr. Hillard Pouncy

(the “Center for Research on Fathers, Children, and Family Well-being” Connection out of Columbia.  CRFCFW (say that three times fast and notice the initial “M” is absent) is run by Dr. Ronald Mincy — whose book Dr. Pouncy had a chapter on, and it says here he also consults for them.  Blurb as follows:

Hillard Pouncy

Hillard Pouncy has been a lecturer at Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs for the past 10 years, teaching on race, poverty and public policy. He has written dozens of articles ranging from studies of the African colonial past, present-day American politics and the future of the American family.

Currently he consults with the Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being at Columbia University’s School of Social Work on an evaluation of a Baltimore, MD fatherhood program and how well it helps ‘underground’ fathers navigate governmental systems.

Previously Dr. Pouncy directed two Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) projects looking at (1) how well three federal family policy efforts meshed with each other and (2) how federal policies might even out child support enforcement outcomes for minority and non-minority families.

He is co-author of a book in progress, “Strengthening Fragile Families: Reforming Income Security Policy for Modern American Childhood Poverty” with Ronald Mincy, Columbia University. The book advocates a strategy for addressing the needs of poor and disadvantaged children based on new data from the Survey of Fragile Families at Princeton University.

He has also been Principal Investigator on projects with the following organizations: the Ford Foundation; the Mott Foundation; the Academy for Educational Development; Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies; National Center on Fathers and Families and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

He has taught at Swarthmore College, PA and Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.

Dr. Pouncy holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (MIT!) Cambridge, MA and an MA in Journalism from Columbia University’s School of Journalism.


NCOFF - National Center on Fathers and Families

The National Center on Fathers and Families (NCOFF) is an interdisciplinary policy research center dedicated to research and practice that expands the knowledge base on father involvement and family development, and informs policy designed to improve the well-being of children.

And if we probe JUST a little bit further, we find out it’s (yet another) “institute” housed at a University, paid for by one wealthy (conservative) foundation, Annie E. Casey. . ..


The National Center on Fathers and Families (NCOFF) was established in 1994 at the Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania with core support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. An interdisciplinary policy research center, NCOFF is dedicated to research and practice that expands the knowledge base on father involvement and family development, and that informs policy designed to improve the well-being of children.

Developed in the spirit of the Philadelphia Children’s Network’s (PCN) motto, Help the children. Fix the system., NCOFF seeks to increase and enrich the possibilities for children, ensuring that they are helped and that the system allows for and encourages the positive participation of fathers in their children’s lives.

NCOFF’s primary goals are to:

  • Expand the knowledge base on father involvement, family efficacy, and child well-being within multiple disciplines through research and development, integrated discussion, and information building. ..
Poke around some more on the website, and they are of course promoting the Arizona-based, HHS-connected, Fathers and Families as well, who are presenting at this CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA 9/2011 conference.

Guess who is funding the NCOFF that Dr. Pouncy has been Principal Investigator for, when not consulting for the Columbia group or speaking to audiences of child support professionals:

Funding for NCOFF has been provided by:


The reality of the matter is that foundations such as these are restructuring the workforce (and government), intentionally, and unapologetically.  Does Annie E. Casey Foundation have a “motherhood” component — when mothers are single parents?  Ford, Mott, Casey and Hewlett seem to have endless funds for propagating the term “fatherhood” — but what at one level I think it really is, is workforce development — making sure most people go for EMPLOYEE futures, and steer clear of the ways of making a living that some of these foundation’s originators, for example, managed to — and hence positioned themselves to help run the world — or at least the United States.  “Who pays the piper calls the tune.”


A bit more on Title IV-D from this conference brochure, funny wording:

Attorneys and their Impact on Performance

Created, regulated and measured by statute and regulation, the IV-D program experiences a constant challenge to balance its legal requirements with sound business practices.

On one hand, legal requirements — on the other hand, “sound business practices.”  There you have it!


This is entirely too much post (and soaked up most of my day, today) — I hope you learned some things; I certainly did.  For one, when the word “PARENT” comes out of the mouth of a child support professional, they really mean Fathers.  This also goes for the words “families” or “children.”  Outside of a man in the home, mothers are invisible except when a scapegoat is needed, apparently, or more kids to justify another “OUR CHILDREN, OUR INVESTMENT” policy.


There’s a lot more — relating to the nonprofit financials, but not for this post.


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

August 3, 2011 at 5:04 pm

%d bloggers like this: