SOME OF THIS MATERIAL & MORE DETAILS ALSO AN EARLIER POST

Someone sent homeless through child support garnishments after custody switch sent me the following.  This person was not merely working “poor” but for a long time working FT middle class CS-garnished wages homeless.

This person is a mother, and having trouble getting “Access Visitation” services from organization whose names say “Father,” while the supporting legislation, however, says “parents,” which she is.  By “having trouble” I mean, there has been no help whatsoever, and there is no mother-child contact at all.  the case is typical.  As far as I know this person is not a welfare caseload, though probably would qualify easily.  If the purpose of these funds is to reduce poverty, it has backfired.  However, that’s not my main argument.  That homelessness was a direct result of the supporting legislation for putting welfare funding to groups like this:

10/03/11 – ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

What grandiose and beneficial sounding words:  “Healthy Marriage & Responsible Fatherhood.”  What makes us think this can be purchased, and that by increasing centralization, then distributing without oversight, poverty and “unhealth” will somehow result?   Unfortunately the thinking is more like this:   I work, my wages are taxable, I don’t want to go to jail, don’t rock the boat too much.  Too much radical change is too much social unrest. ….    We don’t want riots, so I will continue to be obedient to the powers that be, rather than run up against them and risk losing even more..

But the closer I look at these grant awards, and the grantees themselves, the more shocked I am at the Take the Money & Run element.  And at another disturbing one.  Not including funds LOST in the system (through grantees that don’t file, states that don’t distributed funds they’ve collected, etc.), the profits are increasingly going simply to very much FOR-profit organizations that are good with PR and Media.  Three examples that come to mind are:

• PREP, from two professors at UDenver, withlongstanding relationships with grants-funded investigations.  They incorporated to form “PREP, Inc.” which your tax dollars are helping market, and I can show how and where.  These professors are both also Advisory to  the huge “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative”
• BOOT Camp for New Dads (Originating from a California professional, being marketed to hospitals, who must pay a “licensing” fee, around $3,000)
• TWOGether corporate affiliations (I’ve found so far in TX & PA, but probably all over by now)
• Dibble Marriage Institute Curricula (The Dibble Marriage Institute basically IS an off-loadable set of curricula & toolkits.

The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children

Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Children’s Bureau Rosenberg, Jeffrey., Wilcox, W. Bradford.

Year Published: 2006

Section II
8. Fatherhood Programs

Nationally and locally, there are numerous fatherhood programs that strive to meet the various needs of the many different fathers and families. These programs fill the gaps left by social service agencies, which have limited funding, suffer from case overloads, and are unable to offer activities beyond the scope of their responsibilities.

8.5 Examples of Fatherhood Programs

As the manual has shown throughout, there are numerous needs and reasons to strengthen the roles of fathers. A wide range of programs exists to meet many of the needs of fathers and their children. The following were selected as examples of programs that span the fatherhood initiative spectrum.

“The Fatherhood Initiative Spectrum,” I love it….

Dads Adventure, Inc. Provides Major Funding & Outreach Formed to reach more new fathers and help fund Boot Camp for New Dads, Dads Adventure, Inc. publishes Hit the Ground Crawling: Lessons from 150,000 New Fathers. Crash Course for New Dads: Tools, Checklists and Cheat Sheets and Dads Adventure magazine, and operates DadsAdventure.com. Together, they take full advantage of emerging media technologies to meet the various learning styles of the younger generation of men. Dads Adventure, Inc. also financed the development of Boot Camp for New Dads, and provides major funding for ongoing operations through sponsorship fees and royalties.

Maybe it’s a great product. However, this is definitely a “emerging media technology” with some of these funders — as they fund the expansion of “Boot Camp for New Dads.”

In addition to our partners Boot Camp for New Dads is fortunate to have a strong network of local supporters who share our mission and goals. They include: Boot Camp Coaches who month after month lead our workshops and prepare men to be fathers. Program Coordinators who champion Boot Camp within their sponsoring organizations and work to obtain the resources each program needs. Veterans dads who return to Boot Camp with their baby to pass on what they have learned to the next group of rookie fathers. New moms who encourage their spouses to participate in Boot Camp and appreciate the critical role they have in raising their child together. Funding Support Funding for the expansion of Boot Camp for New Dads has been generously supplied by the following organizations Annie E. Casey Foundation  {{funds other marriage/fatherhood projects, in a big way}} Irvine Health Foundation Johnson & Johnson Foundation Orange County Commission on Families and Children Pacific Life Foundation Windgate Charitable Foundation In addition, Revolution Studios has supplied substantial funding to BCND for movie rights to Greg Bishop’s life and Boot Camp for New Dads.

It’s time to say NO! to the off-roading of public expenses into private profits based on, we’ve always done it this way, at least since the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, which is when the child support system (principal funding & enabling institution got underway).   Mainstream Media discussion of these awards is nearly ZERO, although interagency, association-specific, and conference-based discussion of these awards is how to get more of them and justify getting more.boiI looked at some of the grantees, and recognized several.  Top Group:  “HEALTHY MARRIAGE”:

Healthy Marriage Grantees

“Kensington, CA” is a wealthy part of Berkeley.  Dibble is a Distributor (as I understand it) and many of the other grantees are dabbling with their materials.

The pattern they follow is similar to many grantees.  Big Talk, Big Claims on Website, Major co-collaboration, and short shrift when it comes to complying with local LAWS that charitable organizations (in CA) have to actually register ANNUALLY as charities, and as corporations.   Why is our government continuing to give major funding to groups that don’t?  Is there more than meets to the eye, is it more than just “we’re understaffed and overwhelmed,” that the Office of Attorney General never seems to catch up with these groups who don’t file — at ALL??

Dibble address is a PO Box in Berkeley, they began in 2002 (says this record) and rapidly increased both assets and income (probably through HHS and foundation grants).  NO founding documents are available on-site, no tax returns (at least in California) and unless their returns are sitting at the OAG, and there’s a shortage of data entry clerks, they are doing so illegally, from what I can see (note disclaimer).  I think I see just fine — because other groups in the similar situation, and with less “failure-to-file” history DO get scolding letters from the OAG:  “Where’s our $75 fee for registration?”

See that “No Related Docuents”?    That ought to be full, so public can look at where that $1,337,654 allegedly came from and (in the process) seeing Program Accomplishments (and costs), and how much the Board of Directors are getting paid.  Now, because this income shows, we CAN go look it up with the comforting knowledge that they probably paid federal (and probably not state/local) taxes.  If thats comforting…  And that the institutions receiving privileges and pay, charged with fixing the unhealthy marriages that (allegedly) cause poverty and trouble the public at large, because of the noble cause they are in, don’t have to play by the rules, or obey normal laws regulating corporations (for public safety from scams), although if an individual behaved like this, s/he would be at risk of jail promptly.

So, WHAT I WILL DO, on individual organizations (and you might consider doing):

Check the 990 finder:

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Dibble Fund	CA	2009	$537,324	990	23	68-0435573
Dibble Fund	CA	2008	$874,877	990	18	68-0435573
Dibble Fund	CA	2007	$696,077	990	18	68-0435573
Dibble Fund for Marriage Education	CA	2006	$161,204	990	16	68-0435573
Dibble Fund for Marriage Education	CA	2005	$94,274	990	14	68-0435573
Dibble Fund for Marriage Education	CA	2004	$78,488	990	16	68-0435573
Dibble Fund for Marriage Education	CA	2003	$92,429	990	18	68-0435573
Dibble Institute for Marriage Education	CA	2007	$721,321	990	18	68-0435573

TAGGS LISTING, meaning how much HHS grants have they gotten. Does not include contracts, just grants:

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	BERKELEY	CA	94707-0881	ALAMEDA	948592779	$ 3,679,498

At least $1 million has been Healthy Marriage// an ongoing one (above) is reaching Teens, and another 2011 grant, “Building Brighter Futures,” use “Discretionary”

WELL, WELL, WELL — another Grant Series includes grants to several of the I-failed-to-file/we changed our name/ OOPS! category of grants recipients, nationwide – – the “90FM” series.     There are 70 grants including $2,500,000 to “California Healthy Marriages Coalition,”  which does not exist as a corporation (or nonprofit) any more.

Before this (Probably leading up to the renamed “Building Brighter Futures” is the 20065-2010 grant award 90FE0024, a total of $1.7 million.  Shouldn’t this group have to send off an RRF from time to time (like ever?).  ALthough we, the public, cannot view this, it’s my understanding they have to tell the OAG their Schedule B of donors (or donors over $1K) so someone is keeping track of any improprieties, i.e. donations correlating to legislation being pushed, or to at least PRETEND to avoid conflicts of interest when, for example, someone running the local grants allocation in the county determines who gets the contract.  Or when there’s a judge on a board — or a custody evaluator — and a judge is driving business to the nonprofit, or contributes to it as well.

Interesting, The Dibble Operation has two different 990 filings with two different revenues for 2007 (Plus a few different names entered):

address 728 Coventry Road, Kensington, CA a modest (for these parts) single-family residence.  Nearby streets are named Stanford, Oberlin, Beverly, etc.   Coventry possibly named after a Cathedral in England.

What they are doing with this grant described here — teaching that cohabitation is bad to Los Angeles Teens, and other skills.  http://www.dibbleinstitute.org/

The Dibble Institute has been awarded a $794,000 grant for up to three years to teach youth and young adults in the Los Angeles Unified School District healthy relationship skills. The grant is from the Administration for Children and Families. …

THIS IS HOW IT WORKS:  Become a Nonprofit.  Get a grant, hire a curriculum designer, get more grants, and market it, helped with gov’t funding, in gov’t funded institutions.  This need not be necessarily limited to the divorce arena — why not go for the public schools, too?

The website has a store, plus some free resources, and a log-in for “Grant Instructors” (only) to access their materials:

Grant Instructor Login

Welcome! Thank you for participating in The Dibble Institute’s Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant.  Access resources to help you

• Teach the relationship skills program you selected — or —
• Report back to us on how well you did and get your benchmark payment

Login Here:Password:  Are you interested in changing the world and getting paid to do so? Then, The Dibble Institute wants to talk with you! We are looking for qualified instructors or youth workers who will teach healthy relationship skills to teens. Our program provides FREE curriculum, student materials, and a benchmark payment to you upon successful completion of the teaching and reporting. To learn how to apply and participate, please contact Natalie Middleton by phone 877-435-8033 or email:Natalie.Middleton@publicstrategies.com. Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant Number: 90-FE-0024/03.Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

Notice that PUBLIC STRATEGIES is a *.com, not a *.org — it’s a FOR-profit, and I’ll bet a very good profit, too.  The grant series “FE” is pretty evidently “Fatherhood Education.”  Not exactly gender-neutral, eh?  “PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC.” is Oklahoma-based, and if you use my “search” field on this blog, I have elaborated upon who they are. Or google “Mary Myrick.”  The HHS appears to have “made” this PR firm, very few of their clients are NOT somehow related to the major Oklahoma Marriage Institute. (OMI) and the originators of some of the product above (for example, “PREP”) are Advisory to, as I recall, OMI.

ABOUT US:  The Dibble Institute:

The Dibble Institute for Marriage Education, a nonprofit organization, helps young people learn how to create healthy romantic relationships now and in the future.

We offer tools for teaching the practical skills essential for enhancing friendships, dating and love.  Just as important, we assist teens in creating the personal vision that keeps them on a positive path.

It’s an unreporting to the state of California nonprofit organization, and as such has to be I believe operating OUTSIDE the confines of the law, while marketing materials to Los Angeles schoolchildren, as enabled by this grants system.  Charles Dibble (itself) was an aircraft engineer.  Now his Institute is designing web pages and curriculum, lots of them — perhaps young people can be taught to operate like aircraft engines, predictably, fail-safe, and perhaps all the parts of them can be organized, coordinated, and fine-tuned with attitude adjustments.  Is that desirable?  Look at the panorama of programs from this one group.  I sincerely doubt the founder was hurting for a retirement income (more likely something to do with his retirement), but certainly it’s got to be a good one.  PARTICULARLY IF NOT PAYING STATE TAXES AND ACCOUNTING PROPERLY FOR MONIES RECEIVED.

The Dibble Fund itself appears to be a curriculum which other grantees, such as TWOGether in Pittsburgh, PA, utilize:

Curriculum & Program Credibility: The TWOgether Pittsburgh High School Education Module for Healthy Relationships meets the requirement for the Pennsylvania Department of Education Academic Standards for Family and Consumer Sciences. The selected curriculum is The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education, which includes two components: Connections: Dating & Emotions and Connections: Relationships & Marriage.

(I was aware of a TWOGether in Texas, and gather they have now expanded):

TWOgether Pittsburgh is a coalition of like-minded agencies and individuals who believe in the strengthening of marriages. The coalition includes Family Guidance, Inc., as the lead agency, the Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Women’s Center and Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh, Smith Brothers Advertising, and a team of Evaluators led by Dr. Stanley Denton.

TWOgether Pittsburgh is the most intensive marriage support initiative ever in the greater Pittsburgh area. It is a five-year, $8.35 million federally funded project to strengthen marriages and families in the region. (Healthy Marriage Initiative Websitehttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage )

Apparently this is a baby corporation — only 2 years old.

Twogether GP, LLC 3916468 Limited Liability Company Active 11/10/2009 Twogether, L.P. 3916633 Limited Partnership Active 11/12/2009

Rec

Based out of a 3-bedroom, 3-bath home in Allentown, PA, whose (or which area’s) market values took a nosedive in Nov. 2011

FAMILY GUIDANCE, INC. is overtly evangelistic Christian, and hooked into the HHS/ACF terminology and grants system.

This about us page is unusually detailed and admits that in 2005, it was very much involved in ACF funding.

STATEMENT OF MISSION

Family Guidance, Inc. exists to bring hope and a future in Jesus Christ to vulnerable children and families of all cultures throughout western Pennsylvania. 

. . .  (Note federal funding, religious influence, and Fatherhood Emphasis throughout — although both men and women pay taxes that help support this, not to mention, and atheists and people of non-evangelistic-Christian religions)

In October 2000, the Manhood Mentoring program was launched to reach high-risk fatherless teenage boys, and  DADDs (Dedicated and Devoted Dads), was born in 2001. Dr. Leckie retired on December 31, 2001, and became Founder and Retired Chairman.

In 2004, Family Guidance embarked on a dramatic initiative to expand and improve the quality of the ministry’s camping program.  Check out the progress of our Camp Capital Campaign.

In 2005, Family Guidance embarked on a exciting initiative called the Learning and Mentoring Program (LAMP.)   In conjunction with the Gang Free Schools Project run by the Pittsburgh Board of Education, Family Guidance is helping to reach and mentor kids who are at risk for Gang-related activity.

In the Fall of 2005, The Marriage Works was introduced.  This is a program funded through the Administration for Children and Families which is a partnership between Family Guidance, the Center for Urban Biblical Ministry and the National Fatherhood Initiative. The program provides marriage enrichment, couple mentoring, and fatherhood and parenting classes to couples who reside in the East End of Pittsburgh.  This became a springboard for the TWOgether Pittsburgh Initiative, launched the next year.

This is a narration, step by step, of how federally-supported (faith-based) organizations collaborate and form new little babies.  As it says in Genesis, “Be fruitful, and multiply, replenish the earth.”  Only they are doing corporations & curricula, not babies.

In the Fall of 2006 TWOgether Pittsburgh was introduced.  This is a coalition comprised of Family Guidance, the Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Women’s Center and Shelter of Pittsburgh, Smith Brothers Advertising and project evaluator, Stanley Denton.  This initiative, unprecedented in scope in the Pittsburgh area, seeks to partner with 30 local congregations to provide marriage enrichment, pre-marriage preparation, couple-to-couple mentoring, and divorce prevention. TWOgether Pittsburgh will also provide education on marriage and families in high schools and a media campaign regarding the benefits of marriage. The program is funded through a five-year grant from the Administration for Children and Families.

TWOGether Pittsburgh contains a name that sounds familiar to me, but notice the phrase:  “Parents, Fathers, or Blended Families.”  Talk about “the invisible mother….

Ken MacLeod
Program Director, Marriage Preperation for Couples and
Marriage Enrichment for Parents, Fathers, or Blended Families

California Secretary of State search on “DIBBLE” Corporations.  Two pagers

HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT?  OF SUPPORTING PR COMPANIES AND OTHER WEALTHY FIRMS AS A WAY TO REDUCE THE WELFARE CASELOAD, ABUSE, ETC.?  HOW DID WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE MONEY GETS COLLECTED, THEN LOST, BUT WHAT IS DISTRIBUTED, GETS DISTRIBUTED FOR ORGANIZATIONS THAT, LIKE STREETWALKERS, LINE UP THEMSELVES AND SOLICIT BUSINESS WITH THE HHS/ACF, LOOKING FOR A “JOHN”?

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT:  RISE & EXPANSION.

I think I have evidence we need an overhaul of the HHS — not just the OCSE part of it.  Collectively, it is behaving like this, and the figure at the front of the pack does not represent a present or former President.  But it does represent some REALLY bad executive orders, and eventually, laws.  My evidence is not in this post, which is simply reminding us of some of the HOW of the expansion of the welfare state — through the child support system expansion to include non-welfare cases.  ALL of these reforms appear to have come after the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) finally was (forced?) to register with its own EIN# and incorporate, well over a decade after it apparently began operating (illegally, tax-dodgingly) in the Los Angeles County Courthouse at 111 Hill Street.   (Beware AFCC post summarizes some of this)

Everybody cheer and look to our leaders…..

On October 17, 2003, a U.S. Senator Robert Byrd  used this fairy tale for an analogy.  He is indignant and saying it’s time to stop — referring to a different topic.  I am not nearly so eloquent, so here is his, as posted the next day at “commondreams.org”:

Always make sure to have some children without tact (or Ph.D.) or conflict of interest, or fear — in your life.  Fear or public embarrassment makes for stupid behavior, and ignorance of what is a more realistic danger, to be handled.   . .. .   Is that a beautiful analogy or not?  The rogues completely understood the social order — but they forgot the kids.

Senator Byrd was talking about the war in Iraq, and how it was rushed through the Senate; I will shortly compare it to another “rushed through” legislation that has cost us dearly also, over time.  His next statement:

That tale seems to me very like the way this nation was led to war. . . .

We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen.

We were told that the throngs of Iraqi’s would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.

We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence has ever been produced.

We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy “yellow cake” from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air.

We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind.

There have been some so-called, in fact self-called, “prominent thinkers” many years ago, but they have turned out to be “vapid thinkers”  — or rogues.  I believe, rogues.  What I’m about to show is too outrageous for mistake, and certain characteristics show a similarity with the weavers in the fairy tale.   Like a recent Harry Potter movie, a swish of the hand, a little vapor, and a protesting dwarf gladly let the imposter into the vault.   Eventually, looking daft and with a silly smile on his face, he was vaporized by the resident dragon, having forgotten how to cow the beast with noise.  …. In addition to weaving wonderful tales, there was a strong-arm rushing through of the legislation:

Those who have dared to expose the nakedness of the Administration’s policies in Iraq have been subjected to scorn. Those who have noticed the elephant in the room — that is, the fact that this war was based on falsehoods � have had our patriotism questioned.   Those who have spoken aloud the thought shared by hundreds of thousands of military families across this country, that our troops should return quickly and safely from the dangers half a world away, have been accused of cowardice.  We have then seen the untruths, the dissembling, the fabrication, the misleading inferences surrounding this rush to war in Iraq wrapped quickly in the flag.

The right to ask questions, debate, and dissent is under attack.  The drums of war are beaten ever louder in an attempt to drown out those who speak of our predicament in stark terms.

Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world’s greatest deliberative body is being snubbed.  This huge spending bill has been rushed through this chamber in just one month.  There were just three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on $87 billion, without a single outside witness called to challenge the Administration’s line. ***

Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, and I quote: “I don’t have time.  I’m completely booked, and I have to get back to Baghdad to my duties.”

** that is EXACTLY how some of the marriage/fatherhood legislation, and in particular the access/visitation portion of welfare reform, got passed.

In 1996, as part of welfare reform, some legislation was rushed through (this is hearsay, but credible given how accurate the rest of her work has been, from Liz Richards of National Alliance for Family Court Justice) at the 9th hour by (none other than) Ron Haskins, creating the “access visitation” loophole to welfare reform.  I do not think even those of his party knew about it.   This legislation expanded the purpose and intent of the 1975 Child Support Law — TItle IV-D of welfare – based on a theory which has yet to be proven true.  A quick summary, I don’t want to be too pedantic, just to review the expansion:

Excerpted from the 2000 House Ways and Means Green Book, “Child Support Enforcement Program“

In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in female-headed families, the Federal Government took its first steps into the child support arena. Congress amended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) law by requiring State welfare agencies to notify law enforcement officials when benefits were being furnished to a child who had been abandoned by one of her {{interesting….}} parents. Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locate nonresident parents and make them pay child support. From 1950 to 1975, the Federal Government confined its child support efforts to these welfare children. With this exception, most Americans thought that child support establishment and collection was a domestic relations issue that should be dealt with at the State level by the courts.

Note:  “Dealt with at the State level by the courts….”

By the early 1970s, however, Congress recognized that the composition of the AFDC caseload had changed drastically. In earlier yearsthe majority of children needed financial assistance because their fathers had died; by the 1970s, the majority needed aid because their parents were separated, divorced, or never married. The Child Support Enforcement and Paternity Establishment Program (CSE), enacted in 1975, was a response by Congress to reduce public expenditures on welfare by obtaining support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis, to help non-AFDC families get support so they could stay off public assistance, and to establish paternity for children born outside marriage so child support could be obtained for them.

Well, like most institutions, why limit a good thing to the original purpose?

The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93-647) added a new part D to title IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing support obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments. Since 1981, child support agencies have also been permitted to collect spousal support on behalf of custodial parents, and in 1984 they were required to petition for medical support as part of most child support orders.

So here begins the Federal INCENTIVE influence . . . Federal AFDC already existed….     Now read the next paragraph carefully, and if you remember any of my former posts about missing in action “Undistributable Child Support” (already collected), and/or the outsourcing to private companies which then sometimes end up defrauding the public, being sued for the fraud, and paying multi-millions in settlement, then going on to get more contracts where they can do it again — then listen to this (2000) description:

Basic responsibility {{translation:  If parents ask, your screwups ain’t our fault}} for administering the program is left to States, but the Federal Government plays a major role in: dictating the major design features of State programs; funding, monitoring and evaluating State programs; providing technical assistance; and giving assistance to States in locating absent parents and obtaining support payments.

So, when the Government began to give matching funds, it also began to demand more of a role in designing the systems – – removing the center of control further from the states:  “Federalism” — but for a good cause, to reduce welfare and make the world a better place by reducing poverty .  . .  except for ONE thing:  the addition of clientele — I’ll bold the wording:

The program requires the provision of child support enforcement services for both welfare and nonwelfare familiesand requires States to publicize frequently, through public service announcements, the availability of child support enforcement services, together with information about the application fee and a telephone number or address to obtain additional information. Local family and domestic courts and administrative agencies handle the actual establishment and enforcement of child support obligations according to Federal, State, and local laws.

Actually, by 2000, the process had been removed from the courts and required (by the Federal Emperor Government) to be handled in a statewide distribution unit.  In short, it wanted more CONTROL.  I can see some sense to the idea that a parent who flees to another state to avoid supporting his offspring might require some federal coordination — BUT — that’s not what was written into the 1996 Welfare Reform law…

Alternately, the states could forfeit the federal funds to help collect. . . .The child support program generally does not provide services aimed at other issues between parents, such as property settlement, custody, and access to children.

As of the year 2000, that statement was false.  The Child Support program as a net to haul in individuals perhaps behind on it, or to help them abate arrears, also encourages (fathers) to take advantage of some new improved programming:

In 1996, Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, abolished AFDC and related programs and replaced them with a block grant program of TANF. Under the new law, each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order to be eligible for TANF funds.

The states did not have the option of the former AFDC programs, which were abolished.  THey have populations needing help — and they could either line up (see graphic above) and toot the horn, soliciting more clients for the child support program — including NON-welfare parents — or they could personally deal with hungry people, including single parents — themselves, after they had gotten used to federal help.

In addition to abolishing AFDC, Public Law 104-193 made about 50 changes to the CSE Program, many of them major. These changes include requiring States to increase the percentage of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all States to information about the location and assets of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution of past due (arrearage) child support payments to former recipients of public assistance.

Note:   locating the assets of parents.  If one is going to have a good court case, finding out where the assets are is real important.    Anyhow, “many of them major” is an understatement.

In 1998, almost $3.6 billion was spent by State child support programs to collect $14.3 billion in child support. The combined Federal-State program had 55,300 employees.  (HIRING 55,300 people– including attorneys and no doubt computer specialists — to reduce the public expense of welfare…..)

REMOVING CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM DESIGN FROM THE COURTS, AND GIVING IT TO AN APPOINTEE BY THE HEAD OF HHS, WHO IS A PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEE.  As it says, government By, Of, and For the People, as dictated by ONE person in authority.  Note:  Formerly it had been in the courts.

THE FEDERAL ROLE

The Federal statute requires the national child support program to be administered by a separate organizational unit under the control of a person designated by and reporting directly to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Presently, this office is known as the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE).The Family Support Act of 1988 required the appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Family Support within DHHS to administer a number of programs, including the Child Support Enforcement Program.  {Wonder what other programs . . .. .}

Currently, this position is entitled the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families.

Tell your grandchildren how we got the OCSE.  They should know.

As of 1996, this article shows up, Child SUpport Enforcement (CSE) officially got into custody matters –but those are matters at a state level, right?  NO matter, the centralized system had a better idea — and $ 10 million was allotted to it.

Child Support Enforcement and Visitation — Should There Be a Federal Connection?  (WIKILEAKS, “CRS REport for Congress” updated June 20, 2000)  (read at least the gray inset at the top).

In recent years, Congress has moderated its position against using federal CSE funds to promote enforcement of visitation rights. In 1988, it authorized CSE funding for child access demonstration projects in six states, and in 1996 it (1) permitted the Federal Parent Locator Service, which is under the direction of the Administrator of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, to provide information on the location of custodial parents and children to noncustodial parents and (2) authorized an annual $10 million entitlement of CSE funds to states to establish and operate access and visitation programs. Some view these recent steps as too intrusive on state and domestic court authority, while others contend they are long overdue and do not go far enough.

OBVIOUSLY not — these are now heading up towards $1.7 billion, thanks to those profiting from the $10 million and programs set up and enabled by this.

The same author, and type of report, in 2007 (spanning the years 2002-2005) has a lot to say, but I’m reporting the “OTHER” factor, which crops up only on page 9 — interesting, becasue the intent of child support enforcement is allegedly to get it to the children.  This talks about where it wasn’t happening:

Child Support Provisions COnsidered but not Enacted

Congressional Research Service Report RL33881

Child Support Provisions Considered But Not Enacted During the 2002-2005 Welfare Reauthorization Debate Carmen Solomon-Fears, Domestic Social Policy Division February 15, 2007

Abstract. This report provides a brief discussion of 12 child support provisions that were considered during 2002-2005 within the context of welfare reauthorization but not enacted in P.L. 109-171 or any other federal law. To the extent that some of these provisions had broad support, they may be considered again in the 110th Congress. The Administration has included several of the provisions in its FY2008 Budget.

(NOTE:  This was only Wikileaked in 2/2009 – not being I supposed broadcast too widely).  From page 9:

In recognition that custodial parents rely heavily on child support to meet their children’s basic needs, both House and Senate bills over the last several Congresses have included a provision that would have required the Secretary of HHS to submit to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee a report on the procedures states use to locate custodial parents for whom child support has been collected but not yet distributed.

At least our Congressmen seemed to understand that sometimes money is collected, but not distributed, in any business, and possibly was being in this system also.  The thought that that Secretary of HHS ought to show some accountability for the huge amount of control given him/her.  Obviously the measures didn’t actually PASS though, to do this.

According to the proposal, the report must include an estimate of the total amount of undistributed child support and the average length of time it takes undistributed child support to be distributed. Also, to the extent the Secretary deems appropriate, the report must include recommendations as to whether additional procedures should be established at the state or federal level to expedite the payment of undistributed child support.

Although data are available from FY1999-FY2005 on undistributed child support collections, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has stated that during much of that period the amounts may not have been accurate because state CSE agencies had different interpretations of what constituted undistributed collections.22

Possibly because the system was too complex, possibly through CSE obfuscation or poor communications.

In 2002, a former Commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Sherri Heller, said that the problem of undistributed collections has always existed. However, the Commissioner stated, “automation is helping us to quantify the problem that has always been there. I don’t think that automation or state disbursement units created the problem of undistributed collections. I think it’s shone a spotlight on it.”23

Undistributed child support collections increased from $545 million in FY1999 to a record $738 million in 2001, and dropped to $479 million in 2004. In FY2005, nearly $497 million in child support was collected but was not distributed to custodial parents; 60% of that amount was in the process of being distributed24 and 40% ($201 million) was considered unresolved,25 and thereby had a lower probability of being distributed to custodial parents.

Because I’ve picked up this image, let me quote the article too, Posted on September 26, 2011 by Bryan Thomas in “NOMIZO.com”

(posting it doesn’t mean I’ve analyzed the author’s position and agree with it — it means that, in addition to the illustration, a few choice phrases suited my purpose today…)

The emperor has no clothes, cash, credit, or credibility

Emperor is being used here as a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part is used to represent the whole. In reality, the entire U.S. government is in danger of losing the confidence of the American people and the world. In all of the debt ceiling news coverage during the past few months, one major element seems to be missing. It is the simple conclusion that our government has forgotten what leadership is and what leadership does.

Well, too many of us have adopted a “we need an emperor” mentality, forgetting who helped create the many problems that supposedly such a strong leader might rescue us from.  We also have DEFINITELY forgotten that this country came out of revolutionary thinking in the history of the world — the concept that religion should be put under restraint, and monarchs, and that certain unalienable rights — the right to live, to have liberty, and to pursue happiness, was granted to the people not by monarchs, but by a “Creator”   And that their purpose in existence is not to furnish someone else’s wealth, gotten by treachery, deceit, or force, OR abusive taxation without representation.

Fourthly, our government leaders are operating by a “Double Standard” and are not following the financial principles that all American citizens and businesses are expected to obey.  . . . Somehow, our government has developed a spirit of entitlement that enables them to operate above and beyond these financial laws and principles. In the process, they have forgotten that the money they are spending is not theirs, but it belongs to the American people. . . .

Does it?   Well, for one our leaders have put us in permanent and impossible to get out of hock to the Federal Reserve Board, and then pretend that if (the rest of us — not the leaders) tighten our belts, we might just be OK — which is called lying.    We bought our currency at interest, then took it off the gold standard, then made sure that in the local schools, most people are taught values, not math, history, literacy, or how to become financially independent in the way that people who are running the place did.  That old trend to replace law with monarchy is always there — it’s human nature when power is handed over. 

Fathers, Mothers, Nonparents, Taxpayers :  WHO are you working for?  And if you pay taxes where are they going?  What’s happening to the grants distributed, largess to the largest and smallest companies who dance to the tune set long ago from Washington, D.C.?   

I’ll tell you who cannot tell you where your taxes went, as the dollar declines in value hurting the most people who have nothing BUT dollars (no land, no assets, no offshore bank accounts, and in fact, little grasp of the economic system, just of how to last til the next paycheck and try to make sure there is one.)

My ridiculous title reflects some states a single trail led me to, these past two days, when I learned about the October 3, 2011 announcement of $119 million more in Healthy Marriage and Fatherhood Grants went.  Here’s the list:

News and Media Releases:

2011

Oct-Dec

10/05/11 – ACF awards $28 million to improve well-being for children in child welfare

Let us not forget that this version of improving well-being = putting more fathers back with the babies, and selling programs like “Boot Camp For New Dads,” or “PREP,” plus of course abstinence education material through “faith-based community organizations.”

10/04/11 – ACF announces $2 million in grant awards for Tribal TANF – Child Welfare Coordination

10/03/11 – ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

I am under 8,000 words, and not finished with this topic yet.  “To Be Continued . . . . .  ”

I am going to post the 70 recipients of the new grant series starting “90FM” (but it’s still CFDA 93.086, which is Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood category).  I am angry about the dishonesty in a number of grantees previously researched, in particular the chameleon “California Healthy Marriages Coalition.”  I sense money laundering — otherwise, they could pick an incorporation, FILE, and stick with it.

Also reprehensible is the amount and style of self-referrals; it’s basically the country-club atmosphere feeding off welfare funding, while the public at large figures someone is actually doing something about welfare, or that this money is going to help feed, clothe, house, or provide health care to needy children and families.  It ain’t.  It’s getting diverted & lost in the system, and NOT being tracked from those distributing it, or another arm of government, either!!!  If you’re not angry enough to act after some of this, you’re probably either numb from some other cause, or on drugs in order to think about it.

The AFCC recently has on their site a pretentious declaration styled after the Declaration of Independence, rather than a straight religious creed (which it, in effect, is).  They state “WHEREAS” (yada yada yada), emphasizing that there is a “CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER” from lack of resources to the courts.

This group is not unionized and doesn’t need to be — they are running the judicial system nationwide, and get activist judges in high places, and help pass legislation favorable to their particular groups.  I have caught them repeatedly at this (SB 557, Family Justice Center Alliance, or an attempt to actually write “Kids’ Turn” into the California Law — (Gov. Gray Davis vetoed it).  In Ohio, a similar action was able to write the spinoff group, “Kids First” into the Procedures and get its name on to the court from for ANY custody modification.  Citizens of Pennsylvania are onto this and have been reporting it, but I believe it’s still there.  How is this not a form of racketeering, with the exception that this group has enabled to get their activity (along with domestic violence and child abuse, kidnapping, stalking, etc.) DE-criminalized by  lobbying for laws to legitimize professional niches they have created  (Parent Coordination, and pushing Parent Education, Counseling, Supervised Visitation, etc.).

MANY of these groups including the one I just showed above, are not just “faith-based” but outright evangelistic.  What they want is your money and access to your children, for mentoring purposes.  I have dealt extensively with religious circles, and know how this works.  It comes from the conviction that a theocracy is certainly better than limiting religion to the restraints that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and others realized it HAD to be if the republic, and the country would stand.

BUT — and don’t forget this — NOT all the Marriage/Fatherhood grantees are in it for evangelization.  Money, itself (and access to young children without their parents around for “transformative” group therapies) are equally potent motivators.  And I have to acknowledge that this must be so; if they were as values-driven as they claim to be, we would see more corporate status-maintained, charitable-registrations-kept-up-to-date grantees.  WE aren’t.

Does the HHS care?  I don’t see that it does — they are still doling out the largess, as is the Ways & Means Committee and whoever rubberstamps this legislation — away from the public radar — year after year.

(GRrrrr!   !!)