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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

When “Domestic ViolenceSpeak” becomes irrelevant, almost… Let’s talk, in Duluth, then Denver…

with 3 comments


This post is dedicated to any parent who’s lost custody of her children to a batterer* through the United States system of Family Courts.  As did I.  My message is, we can change this — but it will take making a choice of who to listen to.  Possibly a hard choice.

*When I say “to a batterer” I don’t mean, that’s the only personal characteristic of the father of her kids, but that that their children did, indeed, witness violence against their mother by their father and thereafter, getting out of the situation, eventually (or immediately) had the courts switch the custody to the father.

ANYONE would like to believe that reporting domestic violence, having laws to prevent it, and even having a restraining order on, would protect you, and surely enable an escape — and that all the agencies and nonprofits talking and writing about this will hold sway and save your family & kids.

Maybe, times was — they did — but that time is LONG since gone.   Judge for yourself what to do in a climate where Washington, D.C. has strong policymakers that have believed (since at least the early 1990s) that it’s GOOD ppolicy to fund research that declares the real solution to child abuse by fathers is a father in the home.  And, as to domestic violence, the real solution to that, too, is to use the children as bait (and your tax dollars) to fund hopeful social change projects that end up — asserting (according to who pays the most) — that the REAL way to stop men’s abuse of women — is to promote fatherhood.  In fact, WHATEVER the social problem is, more training of family members who can’t get OUT of that training, is the solution.

It’s a sad day in my book when the National Organization of Men Against Sexism (“NOMAS”) which historically partners with the NCADV — has really gone down the same road.  Indeed they have, as I saw today from their site.

Someone made a wisecrack on my post Who Is Evan Stark?  BOth these authors deal with domestic violence, in fact, an Orange County Therapist with a clear AFCC and Parental Alienation tendency (which being AFCC generally entails) felt free to include both these authors in her DV section — although one has to scroll down pretty far to get to that section:

California Divorce Therapist

Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Interpersonal Violence)
By Evan Stark

Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody:  Legal Strategies and Policy Issues
By Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D. and Barry Goldstein, J.D.

Handbook of Domestic Violence Intervention Strategies: Policies, Programs, and Legal Remedies
By Albert R. Roberts, Ph.D. and Marjory D. Fields, J.D.

Family Interventions in Domestic Violence: A Handbook of Gender-Inclusive Theory and Treatment
By John Hamel, LCSW

Those links, and a few more indicating (one would think) some sensitivity to DV issues, are right alongside the left column of the website, which includes:

Parent
Co-Parent Couseling & Education
Divorce Education
Parenting Plan Coordination (Special Mastering)

I believe I have demonstrated pretty much what “Parent Coordination” is about.   This website is pretty clear where its allegiances lie, yet have no problem posting both these books.  i wonder why:

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
Mission Statement of AFCC:
AFCC is an interdisciplinary, international association of professionals dedicated to improving the lives of children and families through the resolution of family conflict.

AFCC is a tremendous resource for professionals, including Standards of Practice for: Parenting Plan Coordination, Brief Focused Assessment

ANYHOW, in answering the comment on my Evan Stark post…

I ran across yet another analysis of this system by Mr. Barry Goldstein, who is on the National Leadership Council of “NOMAS” — has been from that platform {and several others….) promoting the book I love (anymore) to make fun of, not because it didn’t take work to assemble — but for what it doesn’t talk about.    (Graphic and link below….)

Don’t know who NOMAS is?  You should:

NOMAS | National Organization for Men Against Sexism

Pro-feminist, gay-affirmative, anti-racist, enhancing men's lives.

Very positive group.  Until some more reflection, today, I thought they were right-on.  As a survivor of a relationship which defined me by my gender and function, ONLY, and then a court system which did pretty much the same thing, it’s refreshing to be around people who are not obsessed with their masculinity, or afraid to let a woman speak.  Who’s not against sexism, right?

Also, every mother who has ever been put improperly on supervised visitation after reporting DV should at least remember the contribution of Jack Straton, Ph.D. who is still NOMAS National Leadership, to this topic — although his sound advice has in practice been completely ignored; as “Supervised Visitation” is now an established part of the family law landscape.  This is good to review, so we can understand WHY sound advice got drowned out with reform-the-world theory, and a good deal of infrastructure report for it, too….

  • Jack Straton Assistant Professor at Portland State University. Founder, Men Against Rape groups in Eugene, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and Manhattan, Kansas. He has published extensively in professional journals from his research in Quantum Scattering Theory, Gender Equity, and Diversity Training Methods. He has served as co-chair of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) and, as co-chair of the NOMAS Task Group on Child Custody Issues, is recognized as one of the leading writers and speakers in the country with expertise on ethical and public policy issues related to the overlap between child custody, child abuse, and woman abuse.

I could almost kiss the guy {gay or straight) for writing “What’s Fair to Children of Abusive Men?” I carried it around for quite a while, throughout the family law case in fact.  I copied it to close, er, people in my life who knew about the abuse —  who didn’t “get” the concern I had when my ex sued for sole physical and legal custody before my restraining order had expired.

Not that it made a bit of difference.  But it’s at least logical — providing a reference point that the courts AREN’T.  This dates back to 1992, 1993:

Too late to “get back to Jack’s advice?”

originally presented at
What About the Kids? Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence
National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project – Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota
from the Journal of the Task Group on Child Custody Issues*
of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism
Volume 5, Number 1, Spring1993 (Fourth Edition, 2001)
c/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751
503-725-5844, 503-725-5977 (FAX) , straton@pdx.edu

What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?
by Jack C. Straton, Ph.D.


INTRODUCTION

I want to express my deep gratitude to Ellen Pence, Madeline Dupre, Jim Soderberg and the others from the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project for giving me this opportunity to speak with you. The State of Minnesota should be proud that, quite literally, the world looks to this program for guidance on understanding and ending domestic violence. I also want to acknowledge how much I continually learn from Barbara Hart, of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

I will first critically examine the criterion at the base of all custody laws today, “What is in the best interests of the children?” I will the talk about children’s choice in these matters. Then I will examine the actual effects of wife-battering on children, and develop an alternative paradigm for custody based on those effects. From this I will examine the question, “Is it ever appropriate to ever give a batterer custody of a child?”

In the process, I am going to talk today about the effects of male power and control over children, not about parental power and control. I know that it is popular these days to de-gender family conflict, to talk about “spouse abuse” and “family violence” rather than “wife beating” and “rape.” I know that we want a society in which men nurture children to the same extent that women do.

I know that fathers and mothers should both be capable parents. But if you ask “What about the kids?” I want to give you a serious answer. I cannot seriously entertain the myth that our society really is gender neutral, so to consider “What about the kids?” while pretending such neutrality is to engage in denial and cognitive dissonance. I cannot hope to arrive at an answer that will positively affect reality if my underlying assumptions are based on fantasy.

So I am going to talk today about the effects of male power and control over children, not about parental power and control.

YEP — that’s a good talk.  But — and after enough eyars of realizing who didn’t give a crap about logic, or truth (or the kids being able to heal from a very violent relationship by maintaining a solid relationship with their NONbattering parent) — I finally realized where it was originally presented — and once I realized this I realized that it was just talk, anyhow, as far as that project was concerned.    Look at the heading…

WHY?  Because — well, because they chose a different direction, called CONCILIATION with the fatherhood extremists, with the obvious result of catapulting to the top of the domestic violence advocacy heap, when it comes to funding:

National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project – Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota
(actually this should be “Duluth Abuse Intervention Project” it seems, “DAIP” — because “DAP” (also of Duluth) is a different group.

SO, LET’S TALK DULUTH, again:

In fact, DAP began in 1979, and here comes DAIP in 1980.  DAIP got much larger because? it learned how to tap into federal funding, and kept up pretty well with the marketing component as well, which we can see HERE, in their updated website which is even more upfront about We Want to TRAIN you, and here’s how to get an OVW grant so you can afford it.  Alternately, you can also Donate, or purchase some of our products for this great cause:

These are color-coded, I notice:  GREEN for trainings (GO get some trainings, that’s “growth” i suppose)

TRAININGS

Be more effective. Learn new skills!

There are many options for getting the training you want and need:

CUSTOMIZED TRAININGS FOR YOUR COMMUNITY

DULUTH MODEL TRAININGS

FUNDING IDEAS (click on this one…..)

FAQS

…And RED for STOPPING VIOLENCE, which supposedly some of these programs will — starting with “SAFE VISITS” i.e., SUPERVISED VISITATION.

Red is the far-right link, called “CHANGE HAPPENS, HERE’S HOW

SAFE FAMILY VISITS

DAIP’s Duluth Family Visitation Center (DFVC) works to restore safety and repair harm in the lives of women and children after abuse. The DFVC supervises visits and exchanges with the child and the parent responsible for the abuse. Our focus is building safe and positive relationships.

“My child witnessed fighting and abuse for three years before we started coming here. Using the center has made a huge impact on my child in that way. If we didn’t use these services he would have continued to abuse me, mess with me, etc. If exchanges were elsewhere I know he would still pressure and manipulate me. I’d be vulnerable and he would use that to his benefit. Now he has to re-learn how to deal with our relationship appropriately. Since he can’t see me or talk to me he has no choice but to focus his energy on our child.” –Parent using the Center for monitored visits and exchanges over the last six months

Give to the families at the Duluth Family Visitation Center and give them a ticket to safe communications and exchanges of their children for years to come.

On all four of the top rows of tabs at DAIP, on the left, there is a nice and simple column with only two choices:  “DONATE NOW” (preferable?) and TRAININGS (which can be purchased — including at government grant costs).  Just in case we missed the point, on the top ALSO, the first word is “DONATE NOW” followed by “TRAININGS.”  Apparently the reader is being trained by repetition to Donate and go get some Training, even if this also getting a nice OVW grant to do so.

Great website design.  Completely puts mine to shame.  But then again — they have great FUNDING.  I put the FEDERAL (two streams), STATE (MN) and COUNTY (St. Louis County — where Duluth is) in bold; and besides this, plenty of foundations also.  Success likes success and surely any group that could get THIS amount of federal HHS funding must be the good guys (besides which, contributions are tax-deductible):

FUNDERS

We are very grateful to the following federal, state and local funders whose support enables DAIP to bring DAIP strategies to end violence to communities throughout the US and around the world:

  • Ben and Jeanne Overman Charitable Trust
  • Beverly Foundation
  • Department of Health and Human Services
  • Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women
  • Duluth Superior Area Community Foundation
  • Junior League of Duluth
  • Lloyd K. Johnson Foundation
  • Mardag Foundation
  • Miller Dwan Foundation
  • Minnesota Department of Public Safety – Office of Justice Programs
  • Northland Foundation
  • Ordean Foundation
  • St. Louis County
  • United Way of Greater Duluth

The many individual donors and local businesses that make financial contributions and donations of goods and services.

I’ve blogged the Minnesota Program Development Inc. (which is this group) before — I guess they are REALLy into developing programs, especially trainings  Just for fun, although at that time, MPDI had $18 million of HHS awards, let’s look and see what’s up to today’s date:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 55802-2152 ST. LOUIS 193187069 $ 18,901,530

  (Yep over $800K higher than last time, from HHS that is):  Categories:  “FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  (5 yrs, so far — this probably helped spiff up the websites) and  “FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES ” (5 years) and FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  (5th year of THAT series being 2000); and VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MULTIFACETED COMMUNITY-BASED DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (began 1995, which is as far back as that database goes).  Heres’ from USASpending.gov, which will pick up any contracts, and other sources, such as DOJ:

Looking (Same DUNS#) at USASPENDING.gov — this shows 17 grants totaling $64,000 (roughly) which turn out to be training materials and video, plus some psychiatric services — often for Homeland Security or military related. If I don’t stipulate to contracts only the figure is closer to $12 million – plus.  So obviously something to lost in translation between the two databases.  But a typical grant is going to be over $1 million.  The last one listed on this databse was in 2008 and for close to $2 million for “comprehensive technical system.”  It’s definitely a going concern:

Transaction Number # 1

Federal Award ID: 2004WTAXK073: 02 (Grants)
Recipient: DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
202 E Superior Street , East End, MINNESOTA
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 15-0409:Violence against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.008 : VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE TECH. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Description:
Comprehensive Technical Assistance


SUPERVISED VISITATION IS VERY PROBLEMATIC, BUT THE SYSTEM IS HERE AND FUNDED.

IT’S ALSO STATED in federal law (Title IV) AS A WAY TO INCREASE NONCUSTODIAL PARENTING TIME, SO I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY DROP THE CONCEPT OF DESIGNATING IT AS HELPING MOTHERS AND CHILDREN IN VIOLENT SITUATION.  IT HAS ALSO SHOWED UP A NUMBER OF TIMES AS BEING ABUSED BY DOUBLE-BILLING, OVER BILLING, USING FOR NON-GRANT-PURPOSES (I.E., WHEN THE PERSON WHO’S VISITATION IS BEING SUPERVISED HAS NO HISTORY OF ABUSE, I.E.. A MOTHER IN A CUSTODY SWITCH) AND IN GENERAL, SOMETHING OF A “RACKET.”   Fathers don’t like being supervised — no one does, and it’s quite artificial situation for the children — they ALL know an act is going on, and moreover, it’s a grants-bait situation.  I do not (in case you haven’t guessed) appreciate Dr. Pence’s early work in this regard, and also don’t appreciate the flexing of $$ might to the detriment of protective mothers and the children they are attempting to protect.

Supervised Visitation is billed in Access/Visitation grants as a means to increase noncustodial parenting time.  Look it up, I’ve certainly also written it up often enough.  The theory behind this is that involved parents will be better at paying their child support and so help reduce the welfare load.

What does this have to do with NON-Welfare families?  Well, powerful forces in Congress and around the country ALSO maintain that promoting Fatherhood (which “noncustodial parent’ basically means in policy-speak) will reduce the children’s risk of growing up to be drug-users, prostitutes, victims of violence, and teen pregnancy.  Yep, even around the Dugard/Garrido case and around multiple indicators that men do, indeed, molest and rape their own children, this line is still sold — and bought.

Also buying into this theory is great for business if you are in the training business or the fatherhood business.  Formerly being in the business of helping battered women, or dealing with them in their shelters, you would know better, but those days are gone.

Let’s go back to Jack Stratton’s speech, that he gave on behalf of NOMAS , but the forum and platform was from the DULUTH program:

WHOSE BEST INTERESTS?

I want to begin by instilling in you a healthy skepticism about the “Best interests of the child” criterion that underlies custody laws today. It is important to acknowledge that the term “the best interests of the child” is so vague that some adult must state what constitutes “best interest.”

In practice courts rely on social and psychological professionals to make this determination. While such individuals are surely skilled and caring individuals, it must be admitted that they operate out of a set of professional norms that are never openly discussed, and are subject to professional fad.

I WONDER who present there, actually believed this and made a commitment to assert and follow through on this?
I believe most of us could agree with this, not including social and psychological professionals.   By the way, the subtitle to the Duluth Website is:  “Social Change to End Violence Against Women.”   This is hardly surprising:  Ellen Pence (who I gather is probably not a parent) has her Ph.D. in Sociology from Toronto, and is interested in Institutional Ethnography.
So am I, however, before that I was much more interested in staying alive and making sure in my lifetime, and in this family line, my kids understood there is NO excuse for abuse, and if you’re in it, you can get OUT.  This provided difficult, given certain institutions beliefs that if EVERYONE gets trained (at public and/or private expense) the world can  be trained to think so differently that people will stop beating up on women because they are women, and because they can get away with that.
I didn’t major in sociology, and I don’t believe that “Social Change” is going to end violence against women, because I see no evidence that it has ,and a LOT has been poured into this during the decade i was being battered at home, and the subequent decade, where the forum of family court was added, without completely removing the original danger.  And I converse with enough people to know how commonplace this is.
But I have learned eventually that I’d better get pretty smart at “INSTITUTIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY” myself, particularly the sort of change-the world — and because I have a great vision, and got my institution ethnographically aligned with the federal grants system, pay me for it, too, forever, we’re going to go with MY (and my colleague’s) vision which has taken MY KIDS’ child support and other peoples much needed TANF funds and diverted it to unproved theories and unaudited projects, in short, which has drained the resources I might’ve used to retain custody, or escape in one piece within 10 years or less.
Where’s the PROOF? (Is anyone still looking for it?) that Dr. Pence’s CCR (Coordinated Community Response ) model  as good or better a deterrent as allowing the victim to LEAVE the presence of the criminal, and/or other deterrents such as self-defense weapons and training in how to use them legally! for 2nd Amendment purposes, and a low-cost weapon,  should your particular batterer flunk out of his anti-violence training (or, for that matter, pass it with flying colors, without a change of heart).
JACK STRATON, again — remember, this is OLD< and Ellen Pence, Madeline DuPre and Jim Soderburg, the Duluth People, at least, HEARD this:

Children’s right to choose vs. abuser’s manipulation of a child.

I want to talk about the question of children advocating on their own behalf. As one who would like to see the rights of children recognized and affirmed, I am tempted to say that, yes, a child should have some input into a decision about with whom they will live.

Yet in the present case we have a man who, though he beats his wife, is often very charismatic to the rest of the world, and perhaps to his kids. And even if he beats his kids as well, it is known that intermittent affection can be a stronger binding agent than consistent affection. We also have a man who has demonstrated his power over another human being through brutality.

It is known that older children will sometimes join in the abuse of their mother. Since it is the older children to whom we might be tempted to accede some measure of choice, I find this mirroring of the father’s brutality disquieting. I do not ask you to take one side or the other of this question, but to be cautious until someone more wise than I can resolve the knot for you.

AND (skipping further down in the article):
BUT WHAT ABOUT VISITATION?You will note that my remarks imply that demonstrable harm to children has as its rational consequence not just termination of custody, not just requiring supervised visitation, but termination of visitation. I want to acknowledge that this is really what I mean to say.[If a child wishes to visit with the father, an affirmative attitude toward children’s rights would lead one to allow this contact, even knowing the harm it may cause, and even knowing that further contact on the part of a male child might increase his indoctrination into abusive behavior himself. However, knowing of abuser’s abilities to manipulate children’s attitudes it would be prudent to enforce a cooling-off period of 6 months or so, after which time the child might find that he or she is happier without visitation 

BUT, Jack knows that just ain’t a gonna happen, and if complete no-visitation ever happened, it wouldn’t survive appeal, i.e., in court.  Around the time he was saying this in Minnesota, I (in my state) was beginning to experience the receiving end of wife-slapping (etc. and I don’t want to review it, here), not knowing how long ago my right to safely leave the situation WITH THE KIDS was being sold under, in a different part of the USA:

I also want to acknowledge that it is a political reality of today that visitation between an abusive father and his children will not often be severed, even when the child is unwilling to go. In particular, although a judge would be in the right to establish a “no-visitation” policy in an ex parte hearing for an order of protection for the abused mother, it is unlikely that a permanent “no-visitation” order based solely on the statistical likelihood of harm to the child would survive appeal.  {emphasis mine…}

So, criminal matters get addressed in the family law system.  And this man states that he really DOES assert that NO VISITATION is appropriate to abusive fathers (and in context, this means, having been physically abusive to the wife).  But that our hands are tied by a political reality.  By 1996, this became even more of a political reality, through welfare reform, as we now know (or you do, if you read my blog!).

HOW SAD.  AND, NOW, the SUPERVISED VISITATION INDUSTRY has its genesis, and its fertilization, through the same US Government that women pay taxes to as well as men —  because very few people understand things the way this person did, long ago.
And what we have — we have the “conflation” (merging) of the policy concepts of “VIOLENCE PREVENTION” with MUST_HAVE VISITATION with SUPERVISED VISITATION INDUSTRY, so professionals can function fully in all of these fields at once, or in fast sequence, such as Karen Oehme, @ Florida State University.  Read the description carefully:  (WOW.  I notice this website got a facelift recently, too).
FSU HomeInstitute for Family Violence Studies
Does this say STOP FAMILY VIOLENCE? or STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN?  or CRIMINAL RESPONSE TO FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?  NO!  It’s housed in the college of social work, and its FAMILY violence (not violence against women, and this is significant) and it’s yet another institute to STUDY these things.    Ms. Oehme, an attorney obviously, looks like a nice person, and I’m sure she is against violence of all sorts.  Here’s her level of involvement:

Karen Oehme, J.D. 
Institute Director , Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation

  • Karen Oehme was named the Director of the Institute for Family Violence Studies in 2007, after serving as the Director of the Florida Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation, within the Institute, for nine years. She has provided technical advice and assistance to Florida’s supervised visitation programs and has served as liaison to judges, the Office of the State Courts Administrator, the Department of Children and Families, and the Florida Legislature on child abuse, visitation, and family violence.
She, too, believes no doubt in the  “Coordinated Community Response” model from Duluth, which apparently spearheaded this.
  • Oehme received her law degree from Florida State University in 1987. Formerly a staff attorney at Legal Services of North Florida and the Guardian ad Litem Program of the Second Judicial Circuit, she is a current Board member of SVN, a two-time recipient of the Judith Wallach President’s Award for Outstanding contributions to the Field of Supervised Visitation, and the chair of the SVN Training Committee.
  • In her new role as Director of the Institute for Family Violence Studies, Oehme continues the traditions of Drs. Maxwell and Crook in providing technical assistance and training for service providers and advocates, and conducting research that increases the knowledge base about violence interventions that work.
  • Oehme believes that by collaborating with public and private organizations, by disseminating knowledge, and by advocating for effective policies & programs, the Institute will continue to serve as a catalyst for the elimination of all forms of domestic violence.

One way to intervene with an ongoing violent situation, where this involves criminal behavior, is to treat it as criminal behavior, and jail the perp, and then help get the mother and children the hell out of there; they will survive somehow, if this means briefly TANF, then let it be TANF without calling in the Fatherhood Promotion Dogs to give her opponent free legal help to switch custody back!.    We already KNOW the likelihood exists that a pissed-off perp may come back, not abashed and ashamed, but angry and ready to get revenge.  The climate is indeed ripe for this, also…..

SOON ENOUGH, when the grants and technical assistance operations are enough collaborated and entrenched in the grants stream, it eventually boiils down to the Administration’s collective solution to domestic violence is to put the father BACK in the home.  AFter all, fatherlessness leads to increased risk of domestic violence.  The language changes from taking care of violence which HAS happened with a serious deterrent that sends a message to WHOEVER tries it next — but to “FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION resulting in hybrids like THIS.  Again, if you read this blog, this is review for me — only the last time I posted on this (Like about January 2011) “ENDABUSE.ORG” had a different website, nonprofit name, and physical street address.  Nice to have federal help fro shape-shifting and purpose-expansion:

Working With Abusive Men & Fathers

Working With Abusive Men & Fathers

Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children.
As a national leader in engaging men to end violence against women, Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund, believes that it is critical to develop new strategies to motivate abusive men to renounce their violence and help heal their families. To that effect, we have developed several projects to support practitioners from different fields that engage abusive men and fathers.

Fathering After Violence

Fathering After Violence is a national initiative developed by Futures Without Violence and its partners to enhance the safety and well-being of women and children by motivating men to renounce their violence and become better fathers and more supportive parenting partners. This groundbreaking project is based on the premise that men who use violence can be held accountable for their behavior and, at the same time, be encouraged to change it by using fatherhood as a leading approach.

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

Futures Without Violence developed the National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence (NIFDV) to train and provide technical assistance to professionals who work with abusive fathers in different fields, using the Fathering After Violence framework. In partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women, we have trained practitioners from over 40 communities across the US, including: DV advocates, supervised visitation, batterers intervention and fatherhood programs, judges and other law enforcement, and child protection workers.

Of course they, too, believe that supervised visitation is a good thing, and perhaps may help train violence out of the (male) human nature by appealing to the father instinct wherever possible (?).  They are marketing to the PROFESSIONALS — not the fathers.  Because this is where the funding goes….

Fathering After Violence: Working with Abusive Fathers in Supervised Visitation (PDF)  This bears the old organization name (FVPF) — by the way, FVPF was, like MPDI, I gather, one of those “FOUR SPECIAL RESOURCE” centers above, along with the NCJFCJ in Nevada, and the Domestic Violence National hotline (in Texas) and another one up in South Dakota, though it was less influential. I think — don’t quote me on that too hard.

“This project is supported by grant #2004-WT-AX-K046 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

© 2007 by Family Violence Prevention Fund. All Rights Reserved.

Acknowledgements go to certain visitation centers, including one in Minnesota:

The Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) is extremely grateful to the many people who made this publication possible. In particular, we extend our deepest gratitude to the Safe Havens Supervised Visitation Program Fathering After Violence “Learning Communities,” who took a chance and partnered with us to explore new paths of engagement and service delivery with men who have used violence in their families. Staff from the Advocates for Family Peace *** in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, the City of Kent Supervised Visitation Center in Washington State, the San Mateo County Family Visitation Center in California, the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center in Santa Cruz, California, and the YWCA Visitation Centers in Springfield and Northampton, Massachusetts, made great contributions to this emerging field of work.

FYI, here’s “ADvocates for Family Peace” in Grand Rapids Minnesota.  First of all, the URL reads stopabuse, not stop domestic violence, which is one indicator — it’s no longer violence, it’s “abuse” which is a much softer term.  Here:

1611 NW Fourth Street

Grand Rapids, MN  55744

(218) 326-0388

 1-800-909-8336

Fax (218) 327-4052

horizontal rule

NOW AVAILABLE

Addressing Fatherhood with Men who Batter – 1st edition

Written by: Melissa Scaia, MPA, Laura Connelly, and John Downing

Forward by: Ellen Pence, PHD

Consultants: Ellen Pence, PhD, & Sylvia Olney, MA, LMFT

To order the curriculum and/or DVD click here ** Non Profits must also complete and submit a ST3 form with their order to avoid being charged sales tax click here

To preview the DVD click here

To sign-up for the September 2010 training offered in Duluth by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project click here

 SOUND FAMILIAR?  Men Who Batter don’t forfeit being fathers — they just get a lot of resources dedicated to reforming them.  This is a win/win for the trainers and for male supremacists  (I’m not quite sure whether for the fathers, but if a man thinks he can go beat on women — I don’t care so much about how well things work for him!)  Notice they lead with MARKETING, just like (probably) Melissa Scaia learned at  or with the Duluth people.

I RECOMMEND STOP THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SPEAK WHEN CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED AND YOUR EX MIGHT GO FOR CUSTODY — which if he’s an abuser, he has a motive to do and the pathway is paved for him, too…  this includes if y0u’ve had to go to a shelter.

I am not personally responsible for you, Dear Reader (?), nor an attorney, so take it with a grain of salt, and maybe just be forewarned; is there another option?

SO — IF YOU SPEAK “DOMESTIC VIOLENCE” IN A COURT OR LEGAL SITUATION, WHAT YOU WILL GET — EVENTUALLY — IS A WELL-INTENTIONED (?) FATHERHOOD PROGRAM, whatever other name it may have on the label, AND NOT LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES FOR HIM AND SAFETY FOR YOU.  AND, YOU MAY UNINTENTIONALLY FLAG YOUR CASE FOR CHILD REMOVAL ALSO. OR FOR PROTRACTED CUSTODY LITIGATION, WHICH IS A FORM OF VIOLENCE AGAINST YOUR KIDS AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD EMOTIONALLY AND FINANCIALLY, AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY, BEING BASED ON FALSEHOODS….

We have fully evolved, 10 years after Access and Visitation (from the HHS angle) and “Safe Havens” (from the DOJ angle) into an apparent professional belief — or at least so they say — that the REAL way to stop violence against women is to pay people to promote fatherhood and hope it takes.  This publication is 4 years old; I wonder what’s next – tell women to get down on their knees again and try harder to please their abusers?  Because the courts are already in their own way telling women that protest or have resistance to whichever program is up next, that they are problematic, high-conflict and just perhaps ought to be punished by watching the ex-batterer or molester walk away triumphant with SOLE custody, and bill her for it, not including the public expense that went up to creating the situation to start with.  Here’s how they worded it, in that pdf.  I’ll “green it up” since FUTURES WITHouT VIOLENCE now has a green theme::

This publication takes as a point of departure the minimum practice standards outlined in the Guiding Principles of the Supervised Visitation Program (Guiding Principles or GP)1 and builds upon that document to propose a continuum of more advanced interventions for the engagement of abusive fathers in visitation centers. These interventions are based on the learnings from the Fathering After Violence Initiative,2 developed by the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) and five current and past SVP grantees with funding from the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW).

Fathering After Violence is a national initiative that aims to help end violence against women by motivating men to renounce their abuse and become better fathers (or father figures) and more supportive parenting partners using fatherhood as a leading approach.

Too bad they aren’t still taking adequate feedback from women who might’ve spoken about how well trying to “motivate” an abuser to change works.  Moreover, if an individual is somehow motivated and has a spiritual epiphany that it’s better to be nice to your wife and kids — what do they expect might just happen to that “epiphany” if said father goes back to his local church, which believes, for example, that “Men are from Dirt” and “Women are from Men” and should be silent in the congregation?  And because the churches, too, are re-arrnaging their cultures to attract more men and push marriage (who do we actually think was behind the healthy marriage/fatherhood movement to start with?) they tend to have a fresh stock of marriageable (trained to submit) divorces, sometimes with ready-made families, or they can help get the kids from woman#1. . . . . I mean, this talk is RIDICULOUS — but it’s funded!

No doubt, explored a little further, these too would have federal funding behind them.

Here’s what Mr. Goldstein had to say, at whatever date this was written (pre-publication of his book, though):


NOMAS | National Organization for Men Against Sexism

Pro-feminist, gay-affirmative, anti-racist, enhancing men's lives.

Here’s the article, at least part of it.  Intro and Part 1:

10 Ways Anti-sexist Men Can Help Reform the Broken Custody Court System

By Barry Goldstein,

NOMAS Child Custody Task Group

Research has now established that the custody court system’s response to domestic violence cases is deeply flawed.  Courts’ use of outdated practices, unqualified professionals, inadequate training, gender bias and other mistakes has resulted in thousands of children being sent to live with abusers.  This article explores the role anti-sexist men can play in reforming the custody court system.

Extremists who control “fathers’ rights” groups have developed powerful tactics to help abusers maintain what they believe is men’s privilege to control their partners and make the major decisions in the relationship.  Abusive fathers with little involvement with their children during the relationship are seeking custody as a way to pressure his partner to return, punish her for leaving or obtain a favorable settlement of economic issues.  Judges and other professionals, happy to see a father interested in his children have been slow to recognize abusers’ legal tactics.  The male supremacist activists have created an illusion that they speak for most fathers.  This is why it is particularly important that good men speak out for the safety of protective mothers and their children.

How are they to speak out?  What are they to say?  We’re glad you asked that — read on:

Garland Waller is an award winning producer of documentaries and professor of communications at Boston University.  In her chapter for the forthcoming book DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, she describes the failure of the media and particularly the national media to expose the crisis in the custody court system.  Professor Waller suggests that there is a “tipping point” for this issue and once enough of the public is aware of the problem, the media will cover the issue and the public will no longer tolerate the outdated practices that have ruined so many children’s lives.

I know that’s a common theory — and it IS a theory.  It fails to account for many factors (which I just communicated to NOMAS separately this morning) for example — on what basis are we to presume that being AwARE of a problem is going to translate to outrage which will then somehow be intelligently directed to stop the situation?  As we just heard that in Syria about 2,000 protesters have been mowed down, including a baby (see recent TV news, I saw Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talking about this; it’s front-line news) — how do we imagine the increasingly totalitarian USA might handle public “intoleration” of “outdated practices.”

Here’s a JUDGE, for Peet’s sake.  Judges are also members of the public as are those who have been molesting children right along.  Also members of the public are people with certain religious backgrounds (including Christian, Muslim, and can you spell Warren Jeffs (LDS)?) — who practice and whether or not inpublic, in private most certainly do NOT have a problem endorsing sex with kids, or abuse of women: (Someone forwarded this, I don’t follow the 9th circuit….)

Aug-01-2011 23:59printcomments

9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Kozinski’s Porn Site and Legal Justice

Tim King Salem-News.comCivil Rights Attorney asks Reno Bishop Asked To Head Up Kozinski Porn Review Committee.

Porn art involving Christ and religion
Kozinski didn’t act fast enough to prevent Internet users from recording the images on his public porn site.

Here’s some data on that.  Again, the context is the that general public is generally speaking, moral — and will protest immorality.   And the article talks about what happened when a civil rights attorney protested this behavior:

(SALEM, Ore.) – The L.A. Times reported the most interesting story three years ago, about a porn site owned and operated by Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. At the time, Kozinski was presiding over an obscenity trial in Los Angeles.

Judge Alex Kozinski

He would later claim that he believed his publicly accessible Web site featuring sexually explicit photos and videos was for his private storage and claimed he was not aware the images could be seen by the public, though he admitted he shared some material on the site with “friends”.

The 57-year old judge did acknowledge in an interview with the LA Times, that he had posted the materials including, a photo of a naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal”.

Kozinski admitted that “some” of the material was inappropriate, but defended other sexually explicit content as “funny.”

Did the woman agree?  What about when that branches over into Children, if painting women as cows on all fours loses its capacity to stimulate?  For example, what about the Nebraska scandal called The Franklin Coverup, in which a number of people (like witnesses and investigators) DIED after some trafficked children reported who was trafficking them? And, incidentally, I have no idea why someone thought that asking a Catholic Bishop to address this would make a difference; the post overall  is hardly untainted any more….

Randolph Calvo

That was June 2009, and more than three years later Kozinski is still one of the region’s most important judges.

BACK TO Mr. GOLDSTEIN’s SUGGESTIONS — evidently he thinks like Garland Waller, that we just need to keep doing the SAME thing — only more – and it’ll change the courts.

The suggestions in this article are designed to help society reach this tipping point.

1.  Learn about the subject:  In order for men to play a role in ending these avoidable tragedies, they have to first make themselves knowledgeable about the subject.  Fortunately there is much up-to-date research and information available to refute the myths and stereotypes commonly used by those unfamiliar with this research.  On the web, good information and links can be found at web sites for the Battered Mothers Custody Conference (Batteredmotherscustodyconference.org), National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV.org), Leadership Council (Leadershipcouncil.org), Stop Family Violence (Stopfamilyviolence.org), Liz Library (thelizlibrary.org) and my web site (Barrygoldstein.net).     This is not a complete list and many other good sites will be found in the links available on these sites.

Many good books and articles containing up-to-date research and information are also available.  Men who wish to read about this topic should consider work by Lundy Bancroft, Dr. Jay Silverman, Peter Jaffe, {{URL — CLICK ME!}}, Claire Crooks, Nicholas Bala,***  Joan Zorza, Evan Stark, Michael Lesher, Dr. Amy Neustein, Dr. Maureen Hannah and Barry Goldstein.  These writers in turn cite research from other good sources.  Men should avoid articles based on flawed and biased research such as those cited by male supremacist organizations or Parental Alienation Syndrome propagandists.  

 

 

Apparently we don’t know that Nicholas Bala is AFCC and AFCC IS a “parental alienation syndrome” Propaganda organization!  Now matter how much I blog it, and before me, (like, since 1993) a woman close to the DC area with networked mothers nationwide (and overseas) ALSO have.  However these women are not habitually forming nonprofit organizations, publishing books, or trying to make a name for themselves by conferencing all over the place — and not enough of them go to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, either.  Mo Hannah knows QUITE well about that material, but has chosen not to continue publicizing it.

For the record here it is:

For the record, the 2010 conference still will incorporate “alienation” — although it appears they are addressing the “junk science” accusation.  To show the scope of attendees, and what roles they fulfil in the courts:

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Ontario Chapter
Second Annual General Conference

THE FUTURE OF FAMILY LAW
Thursday October 14 & Friday October 15, 2010

What is the future of family law in Ontario? What will families and family law look like in 2020? Over 230 participants joined us for the second annual general conference of the Ontario Chapter of AFCC to discuss and debate these questions and more with an interdisciplinary group of judges, mediators, legal scholars, mental health professionals, lawyers, assessors, and child protection workers.

The workshops focused on topics such as maximizing the effectiveness of expert testimony, the pros and cons of presumptions {{this could also include the “rebuttable presumption against batterers getting custody, though I don’t know if Canada has this one, like much of US does}} {{it could also refer to the presumption of shared custody}} in determining custody and access arrangements, how to distinguish reliable research from “junk science”, alienation and the new DSM V, practice management in a new Legal Aid world, and the future of child protection, mediation and arbitration.

NICHOLAS BALA WAS HONORED IN 2009.  Barry left himself open to this by recommending his writings. Here’s a sampler:

Tribute to Professor Nicholas Bala
Kingston, Ontario

On May 8, 2009, AFCC’s second major event was held in cooperation with Queen’s Law School—Special thanks go to Dean Bill Flannigan, the Queen’s Alumni Folks, Dianne Butler, Deanna Morash, and Amber Ooman and everyone who participated in making this a truly amazing event and celebration to Nick.

The Tribute included an educational conference, reception and dinner. The conference showcased 4 areas of law that Professor Bala is especially passionate about, including family law, child protection law, youth justice, and child witnesses and evidence. 


Speakers included Professor Rollie Thompson, Professor Nick Bala, Dr. Barbara Jo Fidler, Mary Jo Maur, Justice Jennifer MacKinnon, Justice Emile Kruzick, Dr. Peter Jaffe, Justice Anne Trousdale, Martha Downey, Jane Long, Justice Brian Scully, Dr. Dan Ashbourne, Dr. Rachel Birnbaum, Dr. Joe Hornick, Pamela Hurley, Professor Sue Miklas, Dan Goldberg, and Justice George Czutrin.

What did Dr. Barbara Jo Fidler speak about?  In front of all those judges (justices) ?  Well, let’s first set the scope of the celebration of Professor Bala that men against sexism and domestic violence who want to reform the broken custody courts should read about, and what kind of notables were in attendance, both judicial and law enforcement, and a law firm (“LLP”).  SOunds like quite the party:

Following the conference, a reception and dinner was hosted by Justice Harvey Brownstone. The speakers included: Professor and Dean Bill Flanagan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Ann Meritt, Justice R. James Williams, Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Family Division), Justice Jennifer Blishen, Brahm Siegal, and Phil Epstein, QC, Epstein Cle LLP who entertained the audience with a roast to Nick and those “Bala Notes”. Nick’s 4 children (Emily, Katie, Andrew and Elizabeth) treated everyone to the song, For Good, from the musical Wicked, with amazing harmony and grace—well done!

The evening was capped by the announcement of two awards in honour of Nicholas Bala:

(1) The Faculty of Law, Queen’s University is sponsoring the Professor Nick Bala Fund for Family Law; and

(2) AFCC Ontario Chapter is sponsoring the Professor Nicholas Bala Award for Excellence in Children and Family Law. For more details and how you can contribute to the AFCC Ontario award to a law and/or social work student in family law, please contact: (name omitted: you wanna contribute, go to the website and look it up!)

Keeping in mind that we (I mean, men who want to help fix the poor, broken courts) are to investigate authors like Professor Bala and NOT “Parental Alienation Syndrome Propagandists” we read:

In addition, Professor Sanjeev Anand, University Of Alberta is editing a book with academic scholars, judges and practitioners on children and the law in tribute to Professor Nicholas Bala and his scholarly achievements.

See attached links for a taste of just some of the wonderful papers and speeches in tribute to Nick.

Professor Nick Bala’s summary paper on alienation (a full paper will be coming out in January 2010):

Excerpt — the whole PAPER is about alienation.  Some form of the word occurred 35 times.  As to abuse, as in child abuse — the word “abuse” occurred 3 times, and never in context of actual child abuse, whether molestation, neglect, assault & battery, or anything similar, which is telling.  Of the 3 times that occurred, it was initially dismissed in a phrase as to “feminists” and then, the other two times, “abuse or poor parenting” as a cause of “alienation.”  I guess in Canada — or at least Ontario, child abuse and domestic violence threats post-separation (or threats carried out) JUST DON”T HAPPEN.  You can’t tell from this company that perhpas they do — and  they LOVE Prof. Bala, clearly:

Here’s the opening statements:

Parental Alienation – Myths, Realities & Uncertainties: A Canadian Study, 1989-2008  (note: THAT’S ALMOST 20 YEARS WORTH!)
Nicholas Bala, Suzanne Hunt & Carrie McCarney Faculty of Law, Queen’s University
 
Alienation cases have been receiving a great deal of public and professional attention in the past few months in Canada. As with so many issues in family law, there are two competing, gendered narratives offered to explain these cases.
[1] Men’s rights activists claim that mothers alienate children from their fathers as a way of seeking revenge for separation, and argue that judges are gender-biased against fathers in these cases.
[2] Feminists tend to dismiss alienation as a fabrication of abusive fathers who are trying to force contact with children who are frightened of them and to control the lives of their abused former partners.

(I added the numbering above, and emphases).  OK, he’s taking the professional approach, so-called, and presenting the Pros (MEN claim) and Cons (WOMEN claim) — and pay attention, because this is the FIRST of only 3 uses of ‘abuse” in the piece.  He has correctly stated the positions, too.  But a sharp reader will notice that he’s going to play off these two opposing viewpoints without characterizing either one as wrong, or right.  He’s AFCC, and this is where a real AFCC activist can get a LOT of business for his colleagues. But before then, he has to position himself as neutral (which he’s NOT!).  He has 100% entirely skirted the issue that some mothers protest contact with the Dads because the Dads were violent towards them, and/or have abused their children during post-separation visitation, raising HELL for all concerned, especially the child:

While there is some validity to both of these narratives,    {{IS THERE?  THEN SHOW ME! — Oh, I forgot – protective mothers not invited to this assembly; its for the professionals}} each also has significant mythical elements.  

In reality, these opening paragraphs are his positioning himself as neutral, fair, and the professional in the scene.  However, where is the acknowledgment of actual child abuse EVER happening in a custody case, in this presentation.  He’s covering a 19 year period, and we all know there have fatality reviews in Canada….

The reality of these cases is often highly complex, with both fathers and mothers bearing significant responsibility for the situation.

Notice how the possibility that a child has been abused, or a mother threatened — is already eliminated.  It is not going to come up for the rest of the paper either — check yourself.  Now, if there was no abuse, and there is alienation (etc.) that’s one matter — but he has not cleared the deck yet in that matter.  Where there IS abuse, then a mother who is protesting it is functioning as a protective mother and for the best interest of her child, for which the courts and these august professionals will criticize her behavior.

Many high conflict separations are characterized by both parents denigrating their former partners and failing to support their children’s relationships with the other parent
 
Many so-called “high conflict separations” (a key AFCC phrase.  When you hear it, AFCC is here, or was recently) are indeed about some legitimate issues — and those issue ARE the topic and not the conflict per se, divorced from them.
It is THE function of AFCC (other than business expansions, etc.) to put roadblocks to discussing such legitimate issues in the face of those who need to discuss them, often a mother.  Reader further, we can see how much court involvement is warranted once one parent, or child, protests visitation.
 

Court-appointed mental health experts testified in 83% of these cases, and if they expressed a clear opinion about whether or not there was alienation, the court agreed in over 90% of the cases.

Well, just take a look at who is in attendance:  “The Court” are in many cases, AFCC members!  So naturally there will be a tendency to agree with one’s colleagues in a trade profession! !!

Party-retained experts testified in less than a fifth of cases; judges are much less inclined to agree with these experts; in only 2 cases did the court prefer the opinion of a privately-retained expert to that of a court-appointed expert about whether alienation occurred.

Party-retained experts are less likely to be AFCC members. . . . .

Where the court found parental alienation, the most common response was to vary custody to either give the rejected parent sole (47/89=53%) or joint custody(14/89=16%); whether the father or the mother was found to be the alienating parent, there was not a statistically significant difference in the rate of variation of custody.    

I’d like to SEE those stats, but don’t suppose I’m about to.  HOWEVER we see that “finding alienation” tends towards ALTERING CUSTODY, if not switching sole custody to the alienated party.   Calling “alienation” then — when it’s called (i.e., when COURT_APPOINTED MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS testify, i.e., experts the court (justices) have some close affiliation or preference for) will tend to jeopardize custody, or certainly change it significantly.  In more than half the cases, too!

• In more severe cases, courts may both change custody and suspend contact with the alienating parent; this occurred in 9 out of 89 cases (10%).

That’s incredible, because at least in the United States I can say, even if a father has been a batterer, caused serious injury and is in JAIL, there is a program to encourage visitation.   Alienation being much more nebulous a diagnosis (depending on whether the person diagnosing was a court appointee or a private choice of one of the parties . . . . . . ) for it to cause a total cessation of custody in even 10% is more than typically happens with identified domestic violence.

This IS the crisis in the courts Mr. Goldstein wants the public to be consciousness-aware of, and for a few good men (or even lots more) to speak about  – – -and he suggest they read Bala!

• The court ordered counselling or therapeutic intervention in 37 of 145 cases in this study (26%). These orders were made both in cases in which alienation was found, and in cases in which the court rejected the claim of alienation. The most common orders were for court ordered counselling for the children (19 cases) and for the entire family (12 cases).

So much the more money for those providing it, and sometimes even potential double-billing if it’s government funded AND private billed.  See more on KIds’ Turn posts…. – – by the way, did I mention, that Kids’ Turn San Francisco’s business license just got suspended?  I wonder if conflicts of interest (and my blogging it consistently) had anything to do with that.

The (2-page summary of almost 20 years of court cases) paper concludes without a single reference to domestic violence as a cause of a child not wanting to visit the other parent, and offers its recommendation on “alienation cases.”  NOTE:  Child Protective people, apparently, were present:

Changes should be made in the family justice system to ensure that alienation cases are addressed in a way that better meets the needs of children, including:

• Education programs for parents on the effects of separation on children;  (the “KIDS’ TURN” factor — yep, in canada, too)

• Early case management by one judge of high conflict family law cases;**

**I’m going to go out on a limb here, and state why they want ONE judge in so-called “high-conflict” family law cases:  Because there are still probably some NON-AFCC judges in the courts who might see things differently, rule differently, and break up the AFCC case-switching, parental alienation racket!  AND any financial benefits associated with it.

• Early assessment by a court-appointed mental health professional;  {{translation:  AFCC member}}

(AFCC exists to bring in the mental health professionals from the start — see my page on the foundations of the family law arena, not to mention Meyer Elkin and Judge Pfaff in Southern California).

• Detailed court orders that are effectively enforced;

{{HOW?  by throwing a parent in jail who refuses to produce a child?  Do they know about the Nathan Grieco case, who hung himself over visitation, or the Wisconsin Case where Lorraine Tipton’s daughter (against whom CPS had already found child abuse, two CPS entities in two different geographies also) went to visit her father to get her MOm out of jail, or about the Cabrillo case in Maryland, where the father drowned 3 kids in a tub, despite mother (a pediatrician’s) warnings that he’d threatend to do something like that?  Or the two little boys who got kidnapped then killed (Illinois — I forget the name now)?  Or in another Northern California town, where the Mom dropped the children off at the house (unsupervised) and suddenly disappeared, resulting in one of the strangest convictions for murder around — there was no body.  Hans Reiser plea-bargained himself down, claiming innocence until he was convicted – and then showed police, while handcuffed to his defense attorney– where he’d buried his wife.   SHE wasn’t interfering with visitation.   There are so many cases like this!  In Arizona, a mother of a young child pleaded to leave the area because Dad had threatened to kill her; judge refused, bang, bang bang – mother and HER mother (as I recall) gone, another orphan for the state (Dawn Axsom).   ANOTHER one, the mother, during the week with the children, was IN a battered woman’s shelter, but they HAD to make sure the children were not alienated — FOUR children were shot over that one.  Let’s JUST not talk about it?  (or do I assume this never happens in Canada, although AFCC is quite strong here also….}}

Detailed court orders that are effectively — and for BOTH parents — enforced is a great thing.  There are already civil codes in our state mandating that — but we still don’t gt them, leaving DV victims to bargain endlessly with vague court orders, or go repeatedly to court and try to get them more specific, fi they are smart enough to figure out that their court-appointed professional had chosen to disobey his or her own rules of court.  Then, there is the matter of who will enforce?  Because the law enforcement has no duty to.  A woman lost THREE children over that one in Colorado, Castle Rock — and took the case international for help.

• Prevention of delay in resolving cases where alienation is alleged; and

Yep, nip that alienation in the bud!

• Provision of effective counselling and support services.

Although there is clearly a need for more research about the best methods of intervention in alienation cases, {{Richard Warshak’s Reunification Therapy isn’t good enough?}} there is a growing body of literature that documents the long-term emotional harm to child from being alienated from a parent.

And guess who is writing it, publishing it, and where a lot of these professionals get their money from?  Can you spell, government grants.

Nicholas Bala is a Professor Queen’s University, specializing in Family and Children’s Law. He can be contacted at bala@queensu.ca . It is hoped that the full paper will be published in the Family \Court Review (January 2010).

IN THIS SAME 2009 AFCC ONTARIO CONFERENCE< WERE SEVERAL MORE P.A. Pdfs:  here:  As I have already explored parental coordination movement in several US states, and how it got established and standardized — as well as what it’s for — I will not be reviewing these.  But to underscore the point of what AFCC is about, basically, here they are for the very curious:

Dr. Barbara Jo Fidler on parenting coordination in high conflict disputes, alienation, and interventions in alienation cases:

The “growing body of literature” is definitely growing in QUANTITY, but on having read a LOT of this, I don’t see that it’s growing much in depth — mostly in how to further spread the theory and apply it from top to bottom of the family law system, and internationally.  As we see in this conference, these professionals are constantly referring to themselves, congratulating themselves, honoring themselves ,and planning among themselves how to pull an ALIENATION CUSTODY SWITCH wherever possible and with as MANY court-associated professionals as possible.  For example ,the suggestion to get in there QUICKLY if alienation is smelled would naturally mean more years of business for any prospective parenting coordinator — the younger the child, the more years til they turn 18, which is about all that will ever end this circus, besides one parent “offing” the other parent, or kids, or both, and/or him or herself.   Or, the children just losing it, or ending up in state care (there’s such a variety of opportunity, isn’t there, in this field?).

I think I made my point there.  Now, when, exactly, and how, are Mr. Goldstein and NOMAS going to mention AFCC, please?  If they care about PAS, they should care about who is promoting it.  Is there a particular reason for forgetting to mention this, please?

Another good source of accurate information about the crisis in the custody court system is domestic violence advocates and protective mothers.

What’s meant by this is protctive mothers who follow this crowd, or someone recommended by this crowd.  For example, Lundy Bancroft (who also presents at BMCC) has a nonprofit group — closer to a cult, from my understanding of it, they are often recruiting members, and have made significant attempts to co-opt other grassroots organizations mothers have individually organized– is “PROTECTIVE MOTHERS ALLIANCE.”  They also sponsor Barry Goldstein book-promotions by blogging them.   Several women I know have had difficult dealings with this group and/or been thrown out.  An attempt was made at a BMCC conference (this is hearsay, I was not present) by PMA to collect dues from the attendees and persuade them to sign a no-compete, legally binding agreement of some sort with PMA.

Another one is called CPPA and is based in California.  This group has been made aware (and before me, too!) of many of the things I blog, but has chosen not to, probably for publicity’s sake, as they are working in concert with some of these groups whose theme is the “Crisis in the Courts.”

Domestic violence advocates are the only professionals that work full time on domestic violence issues. 

One might think that “domestic violence professionals” means basically women working at the shelters, or going to court with battered mothers, and so forth.  This is false, which a look at the activities of the leading organizations — for example, NCADV — spend their time doing.  The grants enabling them to work FT, where they do, are often for resource centers, technical assisstance, or conferencing, etc., etc.

Their information is often minimized based on the belief that they are partisan.  The advocates have the expertise to recognize domestic violence and understand the best approaches to preventing it.  Domestic violence advocates always oppose domestic violence just as firefighters are always against arson and doctors against disease.  No one considers them partisans because it is society’s policy to prevent arson and disease just as it is our policy to prevent domestic violence.  Anti-sexist men can learn from the advocates in their community and support their work.

I wish I could agree with this statement, however, I absolutely do not.  A close look at their work and work product, and their funding shows that it has increasingly become a mainstream industry with a focus on getting the grants, getting websites up and running, selling product, and utilizing DISCRETIONARY (so often) funding, while failing to inform distraught motehrs even the most basic elements of HOW the family law system really works and who (besides attorneys, judges, and custody evalutor-types) are it’s real players and who controls the game.

I do respect the work these professionals have done.  However, they are STUCK in a loop, and they have compromised women by failling to report the funding, and DO something about it when funding steers a custody case south.  Besides which, most of them are not informed, for example, that things such as “fatherhood commissions” exist, or the AFCC, or any details of the fatherhood grants network they might actually act on — by protesting. What results is a class system, in which the professional ranks higher than a reporting protective mother; like many male-based systems, it’s a hierarchy.

There are FEW things more empowering to anyone who has been through these things than actually looking at the elements, and understanding how they fit together in a clear enough way to explaint it to others.

Maybe someday I will get to have a dialogure (whether email, mail, phone, or in person) with Mr. Goldstein and NOMAS, however right now, I most certainly – as a “protective mother” cannot endorse this approach.  How do you ignore — completely — a $4 billion industry which admits that it doesn’t even know where millions of child support already collected IS, state by state?  And then admits that it’s not even going to complete auditing because it can’t afford to?

I didn’t mention very much on Denver, however, here’s a parting little diagram.  DENVER is where NCADV is, and where at least one NOMAS National Leadership person (Douglas Gertner) is — and he is quite active, apparently, in fatherhood groups.  SO take a look at this:  I chose “COLORADO/ DENVER/ Sort by RECIPIENT TYPE):

Fiscal Year = 2011
State = COLORADO
Summary = Recipient Type

Showing: 1 – 15 of 15 Recipient Types

Recipient Type

Number of

Award Actions

Number of

Awards

Amount

Community Action Organization 

98

49

$113,945,152

Educational Department 

1

1

$285,344

Environmental Organization 

2

1

-$93,510

Health Department 

153

80

$2,235,003,110

Hospital 

48

30

$38,609,460

Junior College, College & University 

23

18

$4,999,557

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

12

4

$8,156,719

Other Educational Organization 

3

2

$696,932

Other Health Organization 

91

68

$24,960,622

Other Social Services Organization 

44

24

$15,416,686

Other Special Interest Organization 

7

5

$483,690

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

5

5

$959,017

Research Institution, Foundation and Laboratory 

6

2

$1,008,553

Supplier Organizations ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipment ) 

4

4

$896,116

Welfare Department 

139

38

$508,566,203

Report Total:

636

331

$2,953,893,651

Where do you think the NCADV clocks in — and, while we are in Denver, why is no one writing about the critical organizations, Center for Policy Research (CPR, nonprofit) with Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes, and Policy Studies Inc. (PSI, for-profit) with Jane Venohr, and founded in part by David Price?  These are very, very active in child support and marriage/fatherhood, and have been for DECADES.    They command policies and many grants, and are all over the country affecting where our kids grow up (with which parent).

Let’s look at (within Denver, this is) — in a few different sorts — again, 2011 only.  This is by “Award Class”
City = DENVER
Fiscal Year = 2011
State = COLORADO
Summary = Award Class

Showing: 1 – 5 of 5 Award Classes

Award Class

Number of

Award Actions

Number of

Awards

Amount

BLOCK 

56

10

$357,600,522

CLOSED-ENDED 

58

23

$40,083,727

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

99

61

$25,851,853

DISCRETIONARY 

342

212

$227,029,109

OPEN-ENDED 

81

23

$2,303,328,440

Report Total:

636

329

$2,953,893,651

Notice that  the largest class is OPEN-ENDED, and after that BLOCK, then “DISCRETIONARY.”  (funny, aren’t we trillions in debt.  Well, guess I’ll take it on faith that this is wellspent).

AWARD ACTIONS SUMMARY

Printer-friendly Version

Fiscal Year = 2011
State = COLORADO
Summary = Recipient Class

Showing: 1 – 10 of 10 Recipient Classes

Recipient Class

Number of

Award Actions

Number of

Awards

Amount

City Government 

26

12

$8,290,618

County Government 

29

16

$11,242,186

Federal Government 

1

1

$0

Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations 

184

106

$104,486,965

Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations 

125

70

$133,607,667

Other (Towns, Villages, American Indian Tribes) 

30

14

$3,873,800

Private Profit ( Large Business ) Organizations 

1

1

$99,395

Private Profit ( Small Business ) Organizations 

184

132

$31,902,721

Special Unit of Government 

1

1

$469,737

State Government 

1,209

780

$2,984,340,913

Report Total:

1,790

1,133

$3,278,314,002

Notice the nonprofit PRIVATE and nonprofit PUBLIC together have quite some clout — $238 million together, more than city of County combined.

Now, I sorted by “recipient” which comes out (160 lines) in 4 pages:   Here’s page 1, and note that a “$0” entry indicates a grant in previous years:

Recipient Number of
Award Actions
Number of
Awards
Amount
ABLELINK TECHNOLOGIES INC 1 1 $ 447,666
ADA TECHNOLOGIES, INC 4 4 $ 242,715
ADAMS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 3 1 $ 3,126,726
ADAMS STATE COLLEGE 1 1 $ 75,721
AEROPHASE CORPORATIION 1 1 $ 0
AKRON UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 3 1 $ 363,665
AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION 1 1 $ 0
BLUESUN INC 1 1 $ 265,431
BOLDER BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC 1 1 $ 300,000
BOULDER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 1 1 $ 146,250
BOULDER NONLINEAR SYSTEMS INC 1 1 $ 343,966
CATHOLIC CHARITIES, ARCHODICES 1 1 $ 807,495
CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY 11 4 $ 975,896
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  $ 0
CHAFFEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 2 1 $ 0
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL 10 2 $ 6,247,659
CITY OF LAKEWOOD 1 1 $ 978,068
CLAYTON/MILE HIGH FAMILY FUTURES PROJECT 1 1 $ 1,608,719
CLINICA CAMPESINA/RURAL HEALTH CLINIC 5 2 $ 9,543,260
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 104 27 $ 441,207,205
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1 1 $ 285,344
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS 5 1 $ 6,633,747
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS 10 3 $ 6,157,102
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 22 6 $ 62,206,167
CO ST DEPT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY & FINANCING 28 11 $ 2,178,285,580
CO ST DEPT OF HEALTH, DIVISION OF ALCOHOL & DRUG ABUSE 3 1 $ 523,152
CO ST DEPT OF STATE 2 1 $ 83,737
CO ST DEPT PUBLIC HLTH&ENVIRONMENT 104 55 $ 50,637,370
CO ST DEPT PUBLIC HLTHENVIRONMENT 13 10 $ 5,133,015
CO ST Judicial DEPT Denver Juvenile Probation 2 2 $ 668,173
COLORADO CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM, INC 2 1 $ 1,008,553
COLORADO CENTER FOR NURSING EXCELLENCE 1 1 $ 296,955
COLORADO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS 8 3 $ 5,878,928
COLORADO COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK 3 1 $ 1,084,406
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 3 2 $ 423,993
COLORADO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COALITION  $ 231,771
COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH  13  $ 1,584,051
COLORADO LEGAL SERVICES 1 1 $ 300,000
COLORADO RURAL HEALTH CENTER FCHSD-RPH-A4 1 1 $ 180,000
COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES 3 3 $ 1,088,067
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 129 91 $ 28,997,195
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY PUEBLO 2 2 $ 67,614
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE HEAD START 90 45 $ 96,150,863
COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF MOUNTAIN PLAINS STATES 3 1 $ 469,942
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT 3 1 $ 9,274,313
CORGENIX MEDICAL CORPORATION 1 1 $ 295,053
COSMID CORPORATION LLC 1 1 $ 27,168
CRESTONE INC 1 1 $ 496,897
CRIPPLE CREEK/VICTOR SCHOOL DIST R1 2 1 $ 149,736
Colorado Department of Agriculture 2 1 $- 93,510
Page Total: 619 313 $ 2,925,205,824
Report Total: 1,790 1,137 $ 3,278,314,002
WAIT Training 1 1 $ 0
  (WAIT training is marriage/ fatherhood promotion, guess none this year so far);
I’m going to run the year 2010 (which has only 82 receipients):

City = DENVER
Fiscal Year = 2010
State = COLORADO
Summary = Recipient

Showing: 1 – 50 of 82 Recipients

Recipient

Number of

Award Actions

Number of

Awards

Amount

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Colorado, Inc. 

1

1

$250,000

CATHOLIC CHARITIES, ARCHODICES 

4

2

$1,132,906

CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY 

6

4

$1,011,863

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

4

1

$50,000

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL 

11

3

$7,511,604

CLAYTON/MILE HIGH FAMILY FUTURES PROJECT 

5

3

$3,407,902

CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

117

42

$497,398,864

CO Dept of Insurance 

1

1

$1,000,000

CO ST COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

2

2

$984,407

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

3

2

$1,250,779

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS 

4

1

$6,560,592

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS 

5

1

$6,043,816

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

35

12

$62,925,197

CO ST DEPT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY & FINANCING 

42

14

$2,689,815,580

CO ST DEPT OF HEALTH, DIVISION OF ALCOHOL & DRUG ABUSE 

3

1

$579,341

CO ST DEPT OF STATE 

1

1

$173,995

CO ST DEPT PUBLIC HLTH&ENVIRONMENT 

159

73

$86,731,149

CO ST DEPT PUBLIC HLTHENVIRONMENT 

12

9

$5,198,375

CO ST Dept of Human Services, Div. of Behavioral Health 

1

1

$3,352,000

CO ST Judicial DEPT Denver Juvenile Probation 

3

3

$992,490

CO ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

9

5

$3,118,899

COLORADO CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM, INC 

2

1

$959,745

COLORADO CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC 

1

1

$222,750

COLORADO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS 

7

3

$5,678,037

COLORADO COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK 

1

1

$874,080

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

5

3

$489,123

COLORADO DEPT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

1

1

$140,212

COLORADO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COALITION 

1

1

$245,382

COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH 

2

1

$42,857

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

16

11

$2,177,115

COLORADO LEGAL SERVICES 

1

1

$275,000

COLORADO RURAL HEALTH CENTER FCHSD-RPH-A4 

4

4

$1,152,037

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE 

1

1

$299,258

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE HEAD START 

108

55

$125,495,857

COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF MOUNTAIN PLAINS STATES 

1

1

$314,637

College Invest 

3

1

-$207,000

Colorado African Organization 

1

1

$197,308

Colorado Department of Agriculture 

1

1

$195,497

Colorado Nonprofit Development Center 

1

1

$95,700

Colorado Regional Health Information Organization 

3

2

$22,106,777

DENVER CITY AND COUNTY MAYORS OFFICE 

9

3

$16,706,595

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

9

6

$709,016

DENVER HEALTH & HOSPITAL AUTHORITY 

35

23

$18,546,785

DENVER INDIAN HEALTH & FAMILY SERVICES, INC 

3

3

$455,942

DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE 

2

1

$176,757

Denver Indian Family Resource Center 

2

1

$203,603

Dept of Defense Def Fin Acct Svc 

3

1

$2,206,282

EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM 

3

2

$850,000

FAMILY STAR 

6

2

$2,101,571

Hands and Voices 

1

1

$0

Page Total:

661

316

$3,582,200,682

Report Total:

877

470

$3,661,831,141

And page 2 shows that “WAIT training” got some money, this year:

Recipient

Number of

Award Actions

Number of

Awards

Amount

ISOGENIS INC 

2

2

$851,668

LOHOCLA RESEARCH CORPORATION 

1

1

$0

LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF COLORADO 

1

1

$119,000

METROPOLITAN STATE COLLEGE 

2

1

$408,076

MILE HIGH COUNCIL ON ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE 

2

1

$399,977

Mental Health Corporation of Denver 

7

5

$1,773,332

Mercy Housing Colorado 

2

1

$400,000

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 

9

6

$1,717,208

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION 

2

1

$25,000

NATIONAL JEWISH HEALTH 

84

65

$32,527,156

NATIONAL JEWISH HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER 

2

1

$431,000

NATIONAL JEWISH MEDICAL & RESEARCH CENTER 

33

17

$8,675,826

PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC 

1

1

$525,000

PHARMATECH INC 

1

1

$154,707

PHASE 5 INC 

1

1

$311,324

REGIS UNIVERSITY 

2

2

$164,077

ROCKY MOUNTAIN SER/JOBS FOR PROGRESS, INC 

5

2

$15,318,004

SPRING INSTITUTE FOR INTERCULTURAL LEARNING 

2

2

$520,000

ST OF COLORADO DEPT OF INSURANCE 

2

2

$280,000

STATE OF COLORADO 

2

1

$566,734

THERAPY HELP, INC 

1

1

$550,000

UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF COLORADO, INC. 

3

1

$3,523,809

UNIV OF COLORADO AT DENVER 

2

1

$0

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER 

1

1

$0

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER 

30

24

$6,621,326

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER (COLORADO SEMINARY) 

4

2

$934,479

URBAN PEAK 

1

1

$100,000

URBAN PEAK COLORADO SPRINGS 

2

2

$200,000

URBAN PEAK DENVER 

3

3

$266,586

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 

1

1

$70,000

WAIT Training 

4

2

$1,196,170

colorado Community Managed Care Network 

1

1

$1,000,000

Page Total:

216

154

$79,630,459

Report Total:

877

470

$3,661,831,141

ANYONE REMOTELY CURIOUS ABOUT ANY OF THESE RECIPIENTS?   Colorado Coalition against domestic violence isn’t getting too much.  Marriage promotion is getting MUCH more.   ….  (search my blog for this group, they’re on it):

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

ACF 

WAIT Training 

90FE0051 

HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 

93086

Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants 

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JONEEN MACKENZIE 

$1,010,330

CDC 

WAIT Training 

U58DP000452 

BUILDING CAPACITY FOR EFFECTIVE COORDINATION & SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL HEALTH PROGRAMS 

93938

Cooperative Agreements to Support Comprehensive School Health Programs to Prevent the Spread of HIV and Other Important Health Problems  

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

ANNA VANDERKLEED 

$185,840

Notice:  over $1 million for “discretionary” and “demo” and Noncompeting Continuation.”
I wonder what the Judicial Branch is doing with its grants (breaking it down from this database will tell a few things).
Here they are 16 categories and the Access Visitation grants at the bottom.  I see from this that a single investigator is managing a LOT of grants here.  Anyone curious about what?

Program Office

Grantee Name

Award Number

Award Title

CFDA Number

CFDA Program Name

Award Class

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

ACF ACYF 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1001COSCID 

FY 2010 DATA STATE COURT IMPROVE 

93586

State Court Improvement Program 

CLOSED-ENDED 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

NEW 

 

$179,560

ACF ACYF 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1001COSCIT 

FY 2010 TRAINING STATE COURT IMPROVE 

93586

State Court Improvement Program 

CLOSED-ENDED 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

NEW 

 

$176,485

CB 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1001COSCIP 

FY 2010 BASIC STATE COURT IMPROVE 

93586

State Court Improvement Program 

CLOSED-ENDED 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

 

$33,615

CB 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1001COSCIP 

FY 2010 BASIC STATE COURT IMPROVE 

93586

State Court Improvement Program 

CLOSED-ENDED 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

NEW 

 

$176,146

CB 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

90CA1777 

HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS TO PREVENT CHILD MALTREATMENT 

93670

Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CB 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

90CA1777 

HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS TO PREVENT CHILD MALTREATMENT 

93670

Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$149,791

CMHS 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

SM059629 

THE TRAUMA PROJECT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CMHS 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

SM059629 

THE TRAUMA PROJECT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

HEALTH SERVICES 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$399,457

CSAP 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

SP014018 

DENVER JUVENILE AND FAMILY METHAMPHETAMINE PREVENTION INITIATIVE 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI019277 

SAFE FAMILIES TREATMENT AND RECOVERY PROJECT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI019913 

PROJECT HOPE (HEALTH, OUTREACH, PREVENTION AND EDUCATION) 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI019913 

PROJECT HOPE (HEALTH, OUTREACH, PREVENTION AND EDUCATION) 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$442,579

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI020910 

MOTIVATION FOR ADOLESCENTS IN TRANSITION (MAT) PROJECT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI020910 

MOTIVATION FOR ADOLESCENTS IN TRANSITION (MAT) PROJECT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$299,258

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI020921 

DENVER YOUTH DEVELOPMENT COURT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$198,915

OCSE 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1001COSAVP 

FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 

93597

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs 

CLOSED-ENDED 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

NEW 

 

$121,309

Ms Rajaee- Moore is helping with Drug Court and substance abuse issues:  http://www.reclaimingfutures.org/sites_colorado_denver
Lilas Rajaee-Moore
<><><><><><><><><><>

About Us

According to the 2009 Annual Report to the Governor by the Colorado Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council, of the youth committed to the Division of Youth Corrections 2007-2008, more than 60 percent needed treatment for substance abuse disorders. Also, according to this report, a growing crisis in Colorado has been the influx of youth with serious mental illnesses and emotional disorders entering the juvenile justice system.

At Reclaiming Futures Denver, we are working to improve the quality of alcohol and drug treatment services available to youth in our justice system. We are doing the following to help young people in our area:

  • Strengthening our Denver Juvenile Drug Court by implementing the Reclaiming Futures model
  • Focusing on teens ages 12-17 who are involved with the court and need treatment for substance abuse and co-occurring mental health issues
  • Providing evidence-based assessments, service delivery and case management for 50 families per year over a four-year period.
They sound like a nonprofit or for-profit working for the courts, these are the partners
In general, there is room for a LOT more curiosity.  Now, out of Denver is Center for Policy Research — and while the grants you’ll see below are small, the influence of these two particular personnel and this company, is EXTENSIVE in the family law system.   As Jessica Pearson started ONE of her groups ( DNR if it was this one, or part of AFCC) with a few pages of Richard Gardner, it’s relevant to pay attention to what it does.
So far, Mr. Goldstein and friends don’t even blog or write about AFCC (which makes me feel the cause is hopeless, at least as to encouraging them to!), those whoa re at all concerned about the Family COurts, whether they are FLAWED & BROKEN, or just chugging along nicely churning out profits until the whole country goes under (which at this rate it’ going go anyhow), at which time this crowd already has influence, international connections, and probably money to get there, too.
Now, NOMAS has a leadership member in Denver.  NCADV is located in Denver,   Plenty of NOMAS activity entails some fatherhood-funded things (see their site).  They are involved in custody.  So WHY would they not report on what other influential groups (by name) are, literally, doing to affect custody in EXACTLY the oppostie direction recommended here?  Is the goal informed advocacy, or just publication?
Notice that Jessica Pearson’s name, below, was misspelled, so one has to sometimes search on other fields.  The Pearson/Thoennes combo (and the companies they represent, when Thoeness — excuse me, another CPR leadership staff, “Jane Venohr, Ph.D.” — is wearing her PSI hat — are FAMOUS in the Access Visitation field.  And — for some reason — half the domestic violence groups don’t even bring this up, or even notice it much! !!!  That’s insane, IF we are concerned about batterers getting custody!

So, here’s some food for thought.  Do a little homework, OK?

Fiscal Year

Program Office

Grantee Name

Recovery Act Indicator

Award Number

Award Title

Budget Year

CFDA Number

CFDA Program Name

Award Class

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

2011

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PHEARSON 

$0

2011

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

4

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PHEARSON 

$0

2010

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

2010

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

2010

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$50,000

2009

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DR NANCY THOENNES 

$0

2009

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DR NANCY THOENNES 

$0

2009

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

4

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DR NANCY THOENNES 

$124,863

2009

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$50,000

2008

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$124,829

2008

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

1

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$99,908

2007

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0073 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

2007

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$124,820

2006

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0073 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$24,730

2006

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$198,664

2005

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0073 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$100,000

2004

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0059 

EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTAC

1

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DR JESSICA PEARSON 

HERE (since it came up when I googled “Jessica Pearson Richard Gardner” is what I think is Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net)’s 2010? testimony (written) before the June 2010 House Ways and Means Committee meeting on appropriation for the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood bill.  People and agencies were lined up at the trough to get their two bits in (and I have a post or two on it from about that time).
Id’ like to post over a page of her testimony here — in this context that Dr. Pearson’s organization is still getting federal grants to tweak the courts.  It’s time to start talking about this.  If I as a traumatized broke mother WITHOUT a J.D. could figure this out, why cannot (or IS it a “cannot”) other reformers even bring this up?  Either they have been personally threatened (which didn’t appear to stop Richard Fine talking about financial corruption and government monies used as bribes, although he focused on county-level) — or they are IN On something — or they just plain old don’t care.  There IS no more excuse for leaving it to people at the botto of the food chain to talk about these issues, in part because we’ve just about already lost everything important there IS to lose in these matters, and so will speak fairly freely about what we see!
(complete with any misspellings).

Protective Mother’s Response to Ways & Means Income Security & Family Support June 17, 2010 hearing for re- reauthorizataion of Responsible Fatherhood program funding.


AN EXPENSIVE REMEDY IN SEARCH OF A LEGITIMATE PROBLEM!

The June 17th 2010 “Responsible Fatherhood” hearing testimony supporting the administration’s reauthorization request for $150,000,000 for a program which has failed to offer any verifiable data on program implementation or specific outcomes, such as the easy to verify job skill training and improved child support compliance factors. Program promoters have become defensive, or hostile, when their operations or intent is questioned. They reject complaints from protective mother advocates who describe serious systemic problems occurring with divorcing and “absent” fathers. In short – the Responsible Fatherhood program advocates have never shown any interest toward the very people who they purport to be helping- divorced or separated mothers of the fathers enrolled in their programs..

Responsible Fatherhood programs have been funded since 1996, but have yet to offer any outcome data or analysis verifying positive impact on mothers and children. Instead they rely on vague claims of involvement of domestic violence specialists to claim there activities are not causing mothers any problems. HHS ACF officials confirm they do no requirement for collecting or reporting program enrollment or outcome data.

Why should they be getting millions more if they won’t verify the millions already spent are producing positive results, or any other performance or outcome information? Why don’t the fatherhood promoters know anything about the protective mother movement, or show any interest in the concerns of divorcing and separated mothers?

I am the founder and leader of the oldest (established in 1993) and largest protective-mother grass-roots groups (WWW.NAFCJ.net) We have researching the problems associated with divorcing parents for many years. We believe their data omissions are done deliberately to cover up another agenda – which our members observe and are negatively affected by – which is recruiting dead-beat and abusive men into lucrative high-conflict litigation. I alone have over 2000 victim intake contacts from nearly all US states. NAFCJ has state leaders, in over 15 states collaborate with other protective mother leaders. I have been communicating with fathers’ rights and fatherhood leaders and activist since as early as 1992, have attended their conference and have determined the two movements are one in the same.

The DoJ Office of Violence Against Women is very much aware of the protective mother problem and is preparing a grant study program to remedy them. (DoJ /OVW staff have confirmed to me that they are not aware of any partnering agreements between the shelter professionals and responsible fatherhood program managers. They also are aware of the negative activities of the fathers rights movement)

My research and findings have been included in a DoJ study on the negative impact of the fathers rights movement on domestic violence victims. My group is also listed on the Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Resource Center (NCJRS) web site as an official resource. (http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/topics/Topic.aspx?topicid=36 )

All the evidence I’ve observed indicates the Responsible Fatherhood programs are merely a cover for recruiting bad dads with offers of child support abatements into high-conflict litigation, giving sole custody of the children to the father and getting the mother out of picture and forcing her to pay excessive child support obligations to him. The Responsible Fatherhood promoters claims of being entirely separate from the father rights is not valid and I have plenty of documentation to prove otherwise – that the founders and have been collaborating with for years and work together and in some cases are the same people and share some of the same protocol and tactics. HHS-ACF support their agenda since the beginning and has been colluding with them every step of the way

In the mid-1990’s there was a Responsible Fatherhood program “kick-off” conference at NYC Mt Sinai Hospital which some of our group attended and observed fathers rights leaders and notorious anti-woman /pro-incest and now deceased Dr.Richard Gardner leading the conference discussion on how inner-city men would be recruited into theirgroups and activities. Gardner was observed telling the fatherhood audience how they would collaborate with responsible fatherhood people. Getting men sole custody was an important part of the plan.

The US Senator who sponsored the earlier $150,000,000 Responsible Fatherhood earmark in the 2005 deficit Reduction Act has been a fathers rights supporter since he was a state legislator and has been collaborating with the fathers right leader and founder from his state from state since the start. This fathers’ right founder also has collaborated with Dr Richard Gardner on specific case litigation. Gardner’s writings included heinous remarks – such as ( in paraphrase): “mothers who complain about father’s sex abuse of children should be told to get a vibrator and become more sexually responsive to her husband so he won’t have to seek sex from his daughter.” This and other sick and deviant opinions from Gardner and other publish pro-incest men (e.g Ralph Underwager and Warren Farrell) are the reason why Responsible Fatherhood promoters conceal their relationship with the father rights people.

In order for the Responsible Fatherhood promoter to conceal their history of collaborating with the deviant fathers rights movement, they use domestic violence counselor as a “heat shield” to make themselves look pro-woman. But our movement of litigating protective mothers, many of whom have been in domestic violence shelters, have never observed any officially designated fathers representatives collaborating with domestic violence representative or producing and positive actions or outcomes for them. What we do hear from d.v. victim mothers who have gone from her home into shelter with her children – only to be arrested and put into jail a few days later for “kidnapping” the children. Most not allowed any contact with their children, because they are then deemed to be a flight risk. An ex- parte sole custody order is establish for the father is without any notification or hearing for the mother. The d.v. shelter people refuse to support them or testify for the mother and ignore her concerned about the father’s abuse of the children. Many of these falsely arrested mothers don’t see their children again for months on grounds she is a flight risk. Unfortunately our movement is very dissatisfied with the d.v. movement and believe they also need reforming. However, some of their leaders are working with us to correct this part of the system failure.

OFFICAL HHS-ACF JUNE 2000 – RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM REPORT CONFIRMS INTENTIONAL MISUSE OF PROGRAM FOR PRO-FATHER LITIGATION ACTIVIES

Many reports including the HHS-ACF Responsible Fatherhood June 2000 program evaluation report done by Jessica Pearson of Center for Policy Research (CPR) states clearly and repeatedly states that program activities and objective include reduction or elimination of child support obligations and free program paid custody attorneys for fathers who enroll in the program, indicating the program is more about increasing custody litigation in exchange for not enforcing fathers’ child support obligations and providing free attorneys for father to litigate for custody. I found nothing in this 105 page report which describes program counselors dealing with or stopping negative conduct by fathers against mothers. Instead the document language shows it is all about giving the father legal advantages.

Jessica Pearson does not disclose she is founding official of the AFCC judicial organization, whose other co-founder and leaders are also co-founders of the leading fathers rights group Children Rights Council (CRC), which has many differently named local subsidiary groups- some of which are also Responsible Fatherhood program groups. The AFCC, the CPR and the CRC are essentially the same group of people and some of the started the Responsible Fatherhood groups. These programs have been developed by their people for their benefit and only their benefit. They are the local program managers and are getting referrals from the local child support and other agencies for enrollment into the Responsible Fatherhood program, with their people serving as program counselors. Some fathers web site openly solicit men into their litigation scheme with guarantees of having all their support and family abuse obligations dropped.

State program web sites and flyers displayed in courthouse openly recruit men into groups with offers of Free custody attorneys and reductions in child support obligations. Most of these flyers include reference to funding from Access- Visitation AND Responsible Fatherhood program as if they were joint programs.

HHS-ACF program managers have confirmed their department has no implementation or outcome reporting requirements for these programs and the ACF managers have a history of being outright hostile to citizen complaints of widespread program misuse for pro-father custody litigation. While posturing themselves as experts services providers for troubled families, they revert to excuses that program “oversight” is not responsibility. My extensive communication with both current and past ACF program supervisors and managers, indicates they know they are running a “beat-the-system’ scheme for abusive and dead-beat men, at the expensive of victimized mothers and children. Per their internal emails and other FOIA’d document, they meet with fathers rights leaders and collude with each other on how to block our complaints – using words such as “its not our responsibility to root out evil” and “read and delete their emails – we don’t have to worry about what happens to them” Meanwhile fathers rights emails talk about secret closed meetings between their leaders and AFC officials and program managers to plan program strategy for their benefit. The ACF Responsible Fatherhood and Access-Visitation (the fathers rights / Gardner custody program) are managed by the same ACF officials and there is close collaboration between them and the fathers rights leaders who infiltrated this agency years ago. They issues waivers and other stipulations which make it access services (which is the fathers rights custody program ) “allowable” for other ACF programs including the Responsible Fatherhood program.

Note:  The word “RESPONSIBLE” is apparently in there to distinguish the group between the more extremist and radical men’s groups around.  However, she is saying — at the policymaking level– they are NOT different, they are the same crowd.
I still believe there is a lot for women and men to collaborate on — namely, the role of this child support system in screwing up our lives and helping fund ongoing custody litigation.  I certainly will not be speaking with any fathers who have been identified and/or convicted as batterers or molesters and talk “feminazi” and redneck — however, if we can lay aside our rhetoric and solve some of the due process problems that a system of federally -funded bribes, and NO system of accountability or auditing presents — I’m thinking we can help clear out the place without violence to ANYONE, and also clear the air some.
Repeating rhetoric isn’t going to do it — we need the analysis, and a person who has examined the data him and herself, versus “follow the professional”  — will be a strong force for reform.  ANd we ALL need to be open to learn more, constantly!
My greatest learning came this year, when I made a determination to separate myself rom the “listen to my sad story” people as well as those who are selling their stories in one form or another.  Let’s talk “INSTITUTIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY” and measure it with a healthy scoop of accounting skills!
. . . . .

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 5, 2011 at 8:53 pm

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well, Hey, it’s me with more Grants info — from “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” up in Duluth, MN, source USASPending.gov. Note: Use DUNS#193187069 (may not be the only one to apply) to search is better — in TAGGS this same org. is called “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.”

    As we can see, they are DEFINITELY developing programs; what these programs are actually accomplishing, I don’t know yet. If anyone can tie them to reduced DV homicides, child abuse, or parental kidnappings, let us know, OK?

    This is better viewed on the site, but one can see they are receiving funding from a variety of:
    CFDA’s (program codes, such as 93.086, of 16.526) purposes (Technical assistance, resource centers, etc.) and from different Program Sources, for example, “CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES” (for the HHS-originated) or “VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN” (for the DOJ originated). There is also some work with the military and “probation assistance.”

    Once you have a good electronic database going, it can be used a number of areas, I’m sure.

    If you then click on the organization’s name (at this website) it then gives some summaries:

    “Assistance Data Only
    Top 5 Prime Award CFDA Programs
    1.
    OVW Technical Assistance Initiative
    $999,357

    2.
    VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE TECH. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
    $748,881”

    the Recipient type (i.e., DAIP) is “OTHER”

    Transaction Number # 1
    Federal Award ID: 2011TAAXK012: 00 (Grants)
    Recipient: DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
    202 E. Superior St , Duluth, MINNESOTA
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 15-0409:Violence against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
    Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
    CFDA Program : 16.526 : OVW Technical Assistance Initiative
    Description:
    Comprehensive Technical Assistance for the Community Defined Solutions Program
    Date Signed:
    May 11 , 2011

    Obligation Amount:
    $1,312,500

    Transaction Number # 2
    Federal Award ID: 2010FWAXK003: 00 (Grants)
    Recipient: DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
    202 E. Superior St , Duluth, MINNESOTA
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 15-0409:Violence against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
    Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
    CFDA Program : 16.529 : Education Training and Enhanced Services to End Violence Against and Abuse of Women with Disabilities
    Description:
    Duluth Multi Disciplinary Collaborative
    Date Signed:
    September 17 , 2010

    Obligation Amount:
    $450,000

    Transaction Number # 3
    Federal Award ID: 90EV0375: 0 (Grants)
    Recipient: MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
    202 EAST SUPERIOR STREET , DULUTH, MINNESOTA
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
    CFDA Program : 93.592 : Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants
    Description:
    FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
    Date Signed:
    September 15 , 2010

    Obligation Amount:
    $1,178,812

    Transaction Number # 4
    Federal Award ID: 2004WTAXK073: 03 (Grants)
    Recipient: DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
    123 hgdh , Langley Park, MARYLAND
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 15-0409:Violence against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
    Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
    CFDA Program : 16.526 : OVW Technical Assistance Initiative
    Description:
    Comprehensive Technical Assistance
    Date Signed:
    August 23 , 2010

    Obligation Amount:
    $700,265

    Transaction Number # 5
    Federal Award ID: 2007TAAXK015: 01 (Grants)
    Recipient: DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
    202 E. Superior St , East End, MINNESOTA
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 15-0409:Violence against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
    Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
    CFDA Program : 16.008 : VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE TECH. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
    Description:
    Probation Technical Assistance
    Date Signed:
    September 28 , 2009

    Obligation Amount:
    $200,000

    Transaction Number # 6
    Federal Award ID: 2006WTAXK055: 01 (Grants)
    Recipient: DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
    202 E. Superior St , East End, MINNESOTA
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 15-0409:Violence against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
    Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
    CFDA Program : 16.008 : VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE TECH. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
    Description:
    Provide technical assistance to and provide oversight of the implementation … (View More)
    Date Signed:
    September 28 , 2009

    Obligation Amount:
    $300,000

    Transaction Number # 7
    Federal Award ID: 2006WTAXK047: 02 (Grants)
    Recipient: DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
    202 E. Superior St , East End, MINNESOTA
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 15-0409:Violence against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
    Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
    CFDA Program : 16.008 : VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE TECH. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
    Description:
    National Center on Full Faith and Credit
    Date Signed:
    September 25 , 2009

    Obligation Amount:
    $500,000

    Transaction Number # 8
    Federal Award ID: 90EV0375: 1 (Grants)
    Recipient: MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
    202 EAST SUPERIOR STREET , DULUTH, MINNESOTA
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
    CFDA Program : 93.592 : Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants
    Description:
    FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
    Date Signed:
    September 17 , 2009

    Obligation Amount:
    $50,000

    Transaction Number # 9
    Federal Award ID: 90EV0375: 0 (Grants)
    Recipient: MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
    202 EAST SUPERIOR STREET , DULUTH, MINNESOTA
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
    CFDA Program : 93.592 : Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants
    Description:
    FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
    Date Signed:
    August 27 , 2009

    Obligation Amount:
    $1,178,812

    Just browsing some of these databases, one gets interesting information. This group is also selling videos & DVDs, for example, to Homeland Security, FEderal Training purposes — a noncompeted bid.

    LetsGetHonest

    August 6, 2011 at 11:34 am


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

iakovos alhadeff

Anti-Propaganda

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: