The Budget Speaks Clearly — Years of Incest (“Collaboration”) Between Fatherhood Promotion/Domestic Abuse (and Batterers Intervention/Child Abuse Prevention, etc.) Programs Have Produced Inbred Blindness to Their Ongoing Operating System Failures
Alternate proposed titles (after coughing up this post):
Shared Silences on Family Secrets among DV and Fatherhood Groups show who’s their Real Daddy, in some cases, Sugar-Daddy.
This is from an acknowledgement in the Duluth Tribune, forwarded to me from a Batterers Intervention Program group:
Pence helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project and is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, which uses an interagency approach involving police, probation, courts and human services. The primary goal is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. The project also included the start of Duluth’s mandatory arrest policy, which says an arrest must be made if there is an injury and police have evidence of an assault.
Linda Riddle, executive director of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, said the Duluth model is used in all 50 states and at least 17 countries.
“No one has done more to end violence against women than Ellen Pence,” Riddle said. “She has been a teacher, mentor, friend and sister to countless women and men across the world.”
Organization Name DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS Organization Type CHARITY Contact Person LINDA RIDDLE, DIRECTOR Address 202 E SUPERIOR ST City DULUTH State MN Zip Code 55812 IRS Code 501(c) 03 Purpose or Description To provide educational services, training, program planning assistance, direct services& other support serve to orgs to improve status of women.
Organization Name DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS Federal ID# 411382134 For Fiscal Year Ending 9/30/2010
Income Direct Public Support $126,626 Government Grants $4,006,451 Other Revenue $551,543 Total Revenue $4,684,620 Expenses Amount Spent for Program or Charitable Purposes $4,490,647 Management/General Expense $256,142 Fundraising Expense $24,229 Total Expenses $4,771,018 Excess/Deficit $-86,398 Total Assets $1,496,037 Total Liabilities $356,451 End of Year Fund Bal/Net Worth $1,139,586
Organization Name DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS Federal ID# 411382134 For Fiscal Year Ending 9/30/2007
Income Direct Public Support $76,123 Government Grants $3,781,785 Other Revenue $516,113 Total Revenue $4,374,021 Expenses Amount Spent for Program or Charitable Purposes $4,389,481 Management/General Expense $27,898 Fundraising Expense $0 Total Expenses $4,417,379 Excess/Deficit $-43,358 Total Assets $1,887,120 Total Liabilities $509,078 End of Year Fund Bal/Net Worth $1,378,04
|Recipient Name||City||State||ZIP Code||County||DUNS Number||Sum of Awards|
|MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC||DULUTH||MN||55802-2152||ST. LOUIS||193187069||$ 19,901,530|
Renewal History (of DAIP — not MPDI, which doesn’t show under a business name search; apparently it’s a fictitious name or such).
|12/6/1990||Annual Renewal – Nonprofit Corporation (Domestic)|
|9/9/1996||Annual Renewal – Nonprofit Corporation (Domestic)|
A short search led to a sample “2007 summer institute” at the Muskie School. Read ALL these bios and understand the close-knit (if web-based/conference-based) community of DV professionals, just a sampler:
And here’s Barbara J. Hart’s — like Ellen Pence, also a remarkable woman who has changed society by the organizations she has founded. Yet, not proved “coachable” to the problems caused by the policies of these organizations, and I did try. I believe it must be simply a mind-set affected by professional associations over the years, and by dramatic success in expanding the influence and reach of this “interlocking directorate” of organizations which have just about collectively filtered out and out-PR’d, out-maneuvered, and silenced mothers talking about AFCC, CRC, and other things which specifically finger serious holes in logic, and programming.
Please notice the various organizations include PCADV, NCADV, and BWJP, among others:
“LAPTOP” new to me is not about obtaining laptops for domestic violence survivors (although like phones, they sure are helpful, including in job search, research, and maintaining free internet access when economics don’t provide enough funds for it in the home, or where the home may still not be a safe place for such survivors. Guess why I mention that . . . . . ). It stands for:
LAPTOP is an acroynm. Read the link to see a complete “logical discussion” of the conflict between noncustodial parent visitation rights versus survivor’s right to continue surviving. As did Mr. Goldstein (former attorney, or perhaps his license has been reinstated, I didn’t check), the reasoning utterly failed to mention the access/visitation fundings incentivize and subsidize noncustodial contact through public welfare law (i.e, TANF reform) which gives a person driven ONTO TANF by DV in the first place the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” Option).
The LAPTOP Update
Dedicated to enhancing the capacity of LAV advocates and attorneys addressing the civil legal needs of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking survivors.
LAPTOP Listserv LAPTOP is pleased to bring you an updated version of our listserv that is designed to ensure the transmittal of information with greater ease. To post messages or responses, send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Also, if you are not already subscribed to the listserv, please send your email address to email@example.com.
Newsletter shows this posted at “CSAJ” or “Center for Survivor Agency & Justice” out of Maryland. Nice logo. I went to Maryland — not listed as charity (Attorney General Site), but does show up on Maryland’s “Department of Assessments and Taxation” as a newborn:
(from CSAJ Website)
Erika A. Sussman
Erika Sussman is the Executive Director of the Center for Survivor Agency and Justice. For the past four years, she has served as an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School where she teaches a class on Law and Violence Against Women. She was previously a staff attorney and Women’s Law and Public Policy Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center’s Domestic Violence Clinic, where she supervised law students and litigated cases on behalf of domestic violence survivors in the District of Columbia. Prior to that, she was a litigation associate at Swidler Berlin Sherreff Friedman, LLP, where she provided pro bono representation to domestic violence survivors in conjunction with Women Empowered Against Violence (WEAVE) and co-counseled a race profiling class action suit against the Maryland State Police Department. She has published several articles and served as faculty for various academic and practitioner workshops related to violence against women. She obtained her B.S. from Cornell University, her J.D. from Cornell Law School, and her L.L.M. from Georgetown University Law Center.
We see the community of advocates in the LinkedIn profile (“180 connections”) of Ms. Sussman, which shows CSAJ has been around for six years now. So the MD address is a move?
Executive Director at Center for Survivor Agency and Justice
- Washington D.C. Metro Area
- Law Practice
- Executive Director at Center for Survivor Agency and Justice*
(EXPERIENCE:) Center for Survivor Agency and Justice
2006 – Present (6 years) Washington D.C. Metro Area
- Adjunct Professor of Law at Cornell Law School
- Senior Attorney at Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence- LAPTOP
- Teaching Fellow- Domestic Violence Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
- Georgetown University Law Center
- Cornell University Law School
- 180 connections
*TIL FURTHER NOTICE, I AM GOING TO ASSUME THIS IS ANOTHER GROUP WHICH WAS OPERATING UNDER SOME OTHER UMBRELLA, FOR HOW LONG “TBA” WHICH FINALLY INCORPORATED ON 2/28/2011 IN MARYLAND (JUST OUTSIDE D.C.) AND AS SUCH, WITHOUT FORKING OUT SOME $$, IT’D BE QUITE A PROJECT TO GET THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, AND PRE-2011 FINANCES FOR, INCLUDING ANY SALARY MS. SUSSMAN’S OBVIOUSLY HIGH CREDENTIALS MIGHT BE PULLING IN FOR HER.
This link says it’s at an address in D.C. 1802 Vernon St NW
Washington, DC 20009
Here’s that address: (google maps)
Here’s a Washington, D.C. Corporations Search One has to go through the Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs:
DCRA’s Corporations Division serves as the Office of Corporate Registrar for the District of Columbia. The Corporations Division registers all entities, domestic (DC) or foreign (non-District) that conduct business in the District of Columbia.
This is the first step in business regulatory compliance. This registration is separate and must be done before entity applies for a business license, permit, tax registration or any other registration within the District.
If you would like to operate in the District of Columbia as a nonprofit and for-profit corporation, limited liability company, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, general cooperative association, limited cooperative association, statutory trust and general partnership you must register with Corporations Division of the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.
This brings up the situation that Washington, D.C. is not a State, and we can’t just hop over to the Secretary of State site to look things up. Apparently businesses that incorporate here understand that, too? There’s also a movement to give our national’s capital Statehood Status — because currently its residents have no elected representatives that can VOTE in the nation’s Congress! (I’ll put on a comment after publishing the post). If Center for Survivor Agency and Justice is doing business IN D.C., it has to register, but looking that up is not something I’m going to invest more time in — today. As a citizen of a certain state (on the other coast) and as someone affected by what this group does in concert with many organizations which ARE registered in various states — I and everyone else should be able to check, if this is a nonprofit, its articles of incorporation (in MD it’s listed as holding stock). You can search for free — IF you register — but to view an image, is not free! (http://otr.cfo.dc.gov/otr/frames.asp?doc=https://gov.propertyinfo.com/DC-Washington/ -and this may be property records, only. It’s the OFFICE of TAX and REVENUE)
This link (from CSAJ) describes how it coordinates with other DV professionals (like NNEDV and the state coalitions) and while I approve of acknowledgement of “economics” in ability to leave a battering or abusive relationship content — of course survivors need economic justice — this is the same behaviors that organization after organization has done, year after year (including crossing from 20th to 21st century). IN response to a problem, this is what they do: They NETWORK — they RAISE AWARENESS (for what that’s worth..) THEY FACILITATE PARTNER CONFERENCES, TELECONFERENCES, LISTSERVS and USING GRANTS, THEY HELP SPRUCE UP EACH OTHERS’ WEBSITES TO ANYONE LOOKING FOR HELP WILL MISTAKE THEM FOR A SOURCE OF IT, THINKING: ‘LOOKS PROFESSIONAL, CAN PROBABLY HELP MY KIDS!”
THEY ALSO PRODUCE BROCHURES AND TOOLKITS FOR MEMBERS OF RELATED COMMUNITIES – MOST OF WHICH BECOME “MOOT” THE SECOND ONE IS IN A CUSTODY SITUATION! and they do NOT TALK ABOUT “dangerous liaisons” which others of us have been, some, for many years.
NNEDV is uniquely positioned to bring its membership, including 56 state and territory domestic violence coalitions and nearly 2,000 local domestic violence programs, together around these issues. The goal of the initiative is to raise awareness and understanding of the complex consumer law and economic justice issues that affect the long-term physical and economic safety of domestic violence survivors.
The previous grant facilitated sessions at partner conferences, hosted multiple skill-building teleconferences, ran a listserv, and dedicated sections of partner websites to address the intersection of consumer law and domestic violence. We also produced two brochures, “Building and Repairing Your Credit History” and “Prioritizing Debt” and produced a “Domestic Violence Screening Tool for Consumer Lawyers.”
In other words, they understand and utilized the combined firepower of access to grants, being nonprofits (and forming them, something few — SOME, BUT FEW — battered women in prolonged litigation / custody challenges get around to doing, or can easily maintain) — and the internet — to dominate the conversation on these topics.
(This is pretty much also what the fatherhood grantees and outfits ALSO do.)
Attorneys tend to think and act like attorneys, which is to argue points, eloquently and well-cited, to support their point of view, and when needed, without inviting their clients to the table. While these people will continue — pretty much from safe distances — to argue these points and produce more and more “technical” (electronically-based) consultation and services, forming nonprofits to do so — people in survival mode really DO have a shorter frame of reference, and as such, knowing this, I say our senses and perception (despite trauma) might JUST be a little sharper than the policy-setters and organizers. I am “eff-ing tired” of listening to the over-interpreted but selectively silent So-called Experts on the Elephants in the CourtRoom talk about situations I and plenty of mothers are absolutely familiar with and recognize for what they are — compromise of our rights.
One might ask me — if it bothers you, why listen? After all, who told you to dig up all this information in the field?
The answer to that is simple. I’m a US Citizen and I’m a mother. I don’t endorse censorship and am sounding an alert about this internet-based “cult of the experts” when it comes to matters of who lives, and who dies; who eats and at what sacrifice of civil rights, and who doesn’t. I don’t think there is a much more important discussion to have in a $15 Trillion Debt County than who is spending our nonexistent (as a country) profits for what kind of talk.
And that is our right to exist as an individual so long as we are not in violation of criminal law regarding assault and battery, sexual abuse of minors, kidnapping and thieving behaviors, fraud, perjury and other things which are uniformly understood to represent a threat to society.
The existence of single-parent households, while sold as this, does NOT per se represent a threat to national security. As such, the Conciliation Court’s insistence that it’s “for our own good” that we NEVER be able to safely engage in life post-abuse; and all these groups debates on the matter when there IS no real debate — when many of these men are not just beating up on women, but beating up on pregnant women —
(This post probably went a little downhill after some passion got involved here, but nevertheless):
INTRO: THE ACF/HHS PROPOSED 2012 BUDGET SPEAKS:
Last post I came down hard on DV groups, particularly one in Pennsylvania, for receiving around $40 million from HHS to date, not including anything received from the DOJ. I did not compare this to what fatherhood funding is receiving, at around the same time, and through TANF diversions and Child SUpport related matters.
For a little clue, here’s a link to an ACF/HHS/GOV Programs budget request for 2012. I searched “fatherhood” (20 occurrences) on it, to excerpt this. People should READ this document — it’s not too long, and it’s your money!
Budget Request – The FY 2012 request for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support programs of $3.8 billion reflects current law of $3.5 billion adjusted by +$305 million assuming Congressional action on several legislative proposals, including those supporting a newly proposed Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative.
The Budget promotes strong family relationships by encouraging fathers to take responsibility for their children, improving distribution policies so that more of the support fathers pay reaches their children, and continuing a commitment to vigorous enforcement.
The Budget increases support for states to pass through child support payments to families, rather than retaining those payments**
and requires states to establish access and visitation arrangements as a means of promoting father engagement in their children’s lives
**which, as I have reported (and so has the GAO) has been instead retaining lots of those payments. IN fact, a taxpayer advocate Richard Fine (many years ago), graduate of (to my recall), Harvard, Chicago, and London School of Economics and an attorney, with help from others, sued the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office for ILLEGALLY withholding approximately $25 million of collected child support funds (accumulating interest I’m sure), for which his own attorneys’ fees were depleted, he was incarcerated and thrown into solitary COERCIVE confinement in one of the worst jails in the state, his arrest record apparently feigned (according to some — see FullDisclosure.net and/or Joseph Zernik, DDS) and he was disbarred! The California State Leigslature shortly before this immunized the entire judiciary retroactively from prosecution for conflicts-of-interest payments from the county, and an attempt to BREAK Mr. Fine’s spirit was thereafter instituted. Another set of bribery/conflicts of interests he also uncovered consisted of commercial real estate developers, county commissioners (Los Angeles county) influence on legislation at (to my recall) the Superior Court Level — see Sturgeon v. Los Angeles. These two cases seem to have been what caused Mr. Fine the MOST trouble.
By prosecuting the improper withholding of child support ALREADY COLLECTED (industry enforcement apparatus size, $4 billion/YEAR, as I keep reminding us), Mr. Fine was in essence advocating for both mothers AND fathers. ALthough it received extensive California Coverage — it received virtually (I think, literally, not just “virtually” but am covering my behind in case I missed a single occasional and obscure mention of this at BMCC, CJE, CPPA, NCADV, PCADV, DV-LEAP, or anywhere else that so loves to help mothers) ZERO mention by these advocates. If there’s anything that appears to enrage some of the worse kinds of men (not Mr. Silva, evidently) — it is to be forced to pay for his ex after she left his behind.
OCSE reported that the amount of undistributed collections for fiscal year 1999 was $545 million and $657 million for fiscal year 2002; however, these amounts may not be accurate. State agencies had different interpretations of what comprised undistributed collections and data reported by several state agencies were found to be unreliable throughout this time period. OCSE revised the reporting form, but data accuracy concerns remain, in part, because OCSE does not have a process to ensure the accuracy of undistributed collections data.
((CUTE, huh?? No process to ensure accuracy for an authority of this size over the lives of virtually ALL divorcing or separating parents in the state with child support orders?))
Based on state agencies’ survey responses,* GAO determined the median value of the undistributed collections from joint tax refunds was about $1.8 million and the median value of four other types of undistributed collections exceeded $350,000.
And that’s from SIX agencies they sampled at the time — across the nation. And this is NOT being done annually. FYI, we have 50 states, D.C. and territories ….
State agencies GAO visited took steps to better understand and reduce undistributed collections. Of the 6 state agencies visited, 5 had analyzed their undistributed collections cases, 4 adopted performance goals, and officials from all 6 state agencies stressed the importance of researching collections that were missing information. In addition, officials stated that using automated processes to receive and distribute collections helped reduce the number of collections with missing or inaccurate information.
Conclusion, in part: NO ONE KNOWS HOW MUCH ALREADY COLLECTED SUPPORT! IS NOT DISTRIBUTED ON TIME — or AT ALL
Receipt of child support is critical for many custodial parents and their children. However, no one is certain about the amount of child support collections that are not distributed to families on time, if at all.
This report’s 2004 letter to The Hon. Charles E. Grassley on this matter:
March 19, 2004
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Committee on Finance United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In 2002, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), in the Department of Health and Human Services, reported that billions of dollars in child support were collected but that payments totaling $657 million were delayed or never reached the families for whom they were intended. These undistributed child support payments are a concern because child support is an important source of income for many families. According to a 2003 report, for 36 percent of poor children living in families headed by single mothers, child support payments comprised almost one-third of the family’s income in 2001. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)1 generally requires state child support enforcement agencies to disburse child support collections within 2 business days, if sufficient information identifying the recipient is provided. In addition, portions of child support collections must be distributed to state government programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), to reimburse them for cash assistance provided to families.
Although state child support enforcement agencies administer the child support program, the federal government plays a major role.2 OCSE funds two-thirds of the program’s administrative costs; establishes policies and guidance; provides technical assistance, such as designing curricula and providing support for staff training; and oversees and monitors state agencies.
Here’s a 2001 link to some fatherhood group complaining because Senator Grassley voted for VAWA. To demonstrate how “extremist” this viewpoint is, the writer is complaining about George W. Bush (see faith-based initiatives, right?) courting the vote of — in order — Feminists, Homosexuals, and “the NAACP,” i.e., blacks:
The Fatherhood Movement: A Constituency In Search of a Representative
Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
June 14, 2001
In the last presidential election the outcome was largely determined by the male vote. And in customary political fashion, the victor is now courting the groups that worked hardest to secure his defeat – feminists, homosexuals and the NAACP.
AHEM! The majority of the US Population is female, not male. And there still remain people who assert this was a “stolen” election, such a rare event in US history, which played out in a state where the winner’s brother just happened to be a Governor, and where the Supreme Court had the final say!
(Never mind that as U.S. President, feminists and homosexuals are citizens in the country he’s responsible to lead, and whose constitution he swore to defend and uphold on taking oath of office. NAACP being an organization, doesn’t hold citizenship, but just to make it clear, in priority order, this group hates the most: 1. Feminists (independent women) 2. Homos (Lesbians didn’t even get a passing mention — guess it’s understood that all feminists must be lesbians too?) and 3. African-Americans. Link on the same website expresses distress of a disenfranchised, I”m going to hazard a guess, white, male on the devolution of the power heirarchy, which apparently started with Martin Luther King, Jr.? “From M.L.K. To N.O.W. To NAMBLA; Devolution & The Abuse Of Power” is a 2002 essay by this guy, who I guess lives in Iowa.
Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D. (in psychology?) (where, TBA) actually founded this “DA*DI,” :
About the Author Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D. [Clinical Psychology] is the founder and president of the DA*DI a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit. Since founding DA*DI in 1994, he has been devoted to researching, advising and disseminating information on the issues that he believes threaten to engulf and diminish the American culture; the same issues that are driving the divorce industry and the deconstruction of the family and fatherhood. DA*DI’s latest campaign proclaims Dads Have The Right Stuff.
Disenfranchised fathers (co. 2002 by Gerald L. Rowes, first published in MensNews Daily)
In my experience working with more than 8,000 divorced fathers, and in some cases their second families, through the DA*DI network, I originally outlined what I then called the Defeated Father Syndrome. In listening to their personal experiences and emotional responses to the experience of divorce and the attendant loss of their child or children, these fathers almost universally shared a symptom cluster that bridged those symptoms associated with both Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Their depression derived from loss of positive reinforcers, a sense of helplessness, and a growing negative world view. Their PTSD derived from the battleground of the adversarial family court system in which they repeatedly found themselves on the losing end of a losing proposition — attempting to maintain their roles as Fathers. It is not hyperbole to associate this experience with the battleground. A 1995 headline in the Detroit News blared: “Declaring War on America’s Deadbeat Dads.” The war is real, as are its casualties — children and fathers, but the “deadbeat dad” is largely fictional.
Recently, Dr. Sanford Braver published the results of his exhaustive 8-year study of divorce. And in that account, he not only “shatters” the many myths surrounding America’s divorced dads, but he also explores the notion of the disenfranchised dad. In a glaring refutation of cultural perception, Dr. Braver found that “men have more trouble recovering emotionally” from divorce. He notes that “most often the man — feels utterly powerless because he can do nothing to prevent the breakup of the marriage.” This is entirely consistent with my experience in dealing with the DA*DI dads. Hence, I attached the label Defeated. But this is an outcome-based label. It fails to encompass the whole of the divorced, battle-weary father experience and what precipitates that sense of defeat.
Dr. Braver more adequately captures the precipitating event in using the label Disenfranchised. He reports, “Fathers are often obsessed with what they perceive as the profound bias against them displayed by the courts and the legal system.” And the fact is that such a bias does exist, including the presumption that all divorced dads are or will become deadbeat dads
The most recent California murder outside a courthouse, to my recall (Hemet, California, I blogged it, Riverside County) was at a hearing for CHILD SUPPORT! (not custody). I am explaining to you why when you read, the Federal Budget “encourages states to pass through child support payments” — it’s been pretty negligent (hands-off) in making sure they do, (so long as the Feds get their percentage — about 66%! back) year after year. Now read the next part of the sentence, again:
and requires states to establish access and visitation arrangements as a means of promoting father engagement in their children’s lives
This constitutes federal control of state courts in order to receive continued funding for a huge apparatus already in place on the theory that father engagement is going to increase child support payment which will reduce welfare which is good for everyone. The language elsewhere has described “access and visitation arrangements” for EVERY child support order. To comprehend this, the “Access Visitation” grants are described in slightly more public forums (ones that mothers are more likely to run across) as helping PARENTS — not just fathers. However, these programs have been abused in purpose to do the opposite, which we know — and, again, when the DV groups don’t even say “access and visitation” anywhere in public while in front of mothers, how can they develop understanding enough to fight back?
Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative
The CSE program plays an important role in facilitating family self-sufficiency and promoting responsible fatherhood. Building on this role, the FY 2012 budget includes a new Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative to encourage non-custodial parents to work, support their children, and play an active role in their children’s lives
Ensuring that when non-custodial parents do the right thing and pay child support, their children benefit. The proposal includes $1 billion over eight years (FY 2014 – 2021) to encourage states to pass through the current child support collections they receive on behalf of TANF families to the families, rather than
Administration for Children and Families Page 278 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programsretaining those payments. The proposal would no longer require states to reimburse the Federal government for any part of the current child support payment that the state chooses to distribute to the family, estimated to cost $543 million during the eight-year period. To encourage states to take up this policy, the proposal also includes a short-term five-year pool of funds to offset a significant share of states’ costs in implementing this policy, estimated to cost $454 million between FY 2014 and FY 2018.
As we can see, this is exponentially larger than any domestic violence organization funding, nationwide. The purpose of the Domestic Violence organizations on the HHS take is, I have only got to conclude, to MAKE SURE that information such as this budget requirement, is NOT disseminated to mothers so they make INFORMED choices about whether to engage services, thereby also justifying the $39 million. Also not told mothers — not really clearly — police to not have to arrest, and prosecutors do not have to prosecute (that’s talking DA) however, police, prosecutors, family law professionals, child protection people, and others (counselors of course) are only too willing to “collaborate” in “Justice Centers” when it entails getting MORE federal fundings. I didn’t finish exploring this topic on my blog yet (HEY!– I am only one person here!), but initial explorations from the California Charitable Registry show that at least one of these centers wasn’t too great at filing annual returns with the state, either.
So, the Feds are saying, we will PAY you (that’s with public money, right?) to release some of the funds you’ve been habitually, and unaccountably withholding from needy families, on behalf of those families. It then says, that states no longer HAVE to require parents to relinquish their child support rights to the (county) when accepting TANF — but in the next paragraph shows that there’s going to be another proposal which probably more than counteracts this “gift” from above — which is to further expand the reach of Access and Visitation services. (Parent Education, Supervised Visitation, Mediation, Counseling, etc. — the precise areas where fraud and overbilling/double-billing, plus a few other horrors (can you spell “bestiality” in a supervised visitation provider? or child-rape of basically an infant/toddler IN a facility set up to handle such visits?) (not to mention the practice of assigning mothers to supervised visitation on “alienation” theory because they’re reluctant to “facilitate” father/kid contact after child sexual abuse, or other forms of abuse such as violence, neglect, etc. has been reported by the children and/or verified).
“THE FED GIVETH:”
. . . In addition, the proposal grants states additional flexibility to discontinue the requirement that child support payments be assigned to the state when a family receives TANF assistance ($122 million), and provides limited resources to help states makes the necessary adjustments to their computer systems ($100 million). Taken together, these policy changes are estimated to result in an additional $1.9 billion in child support payments reaching the children the payments were intended to support.
Who’s going to track those estimates? Because so far, ain’t much real-time monitoring of grants to states for OCSE going on from the Feds. That’s the beauty of the system: “it’s out of our hands” to fully monitor.
“AND THE FED TAKETH AWAY — in the form of INCREASING the most DANGEROUS PORTIONS OF THE PROGRAM BASED ON FATHERHOOD THEORY”
Promoting Access and Visitation. The budget provides $570 million over ten years to support increased access and visitation services and integrates these services into the core child support program. The first step in facilitating a relationship between non-custodial parents and their children is updating the statutory purposes of the CSE program to recognize the program’s evolving mission and activities that help parents cooperate and support their children. The proposal also requires states to establish access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support orders. The proposal also would encourage states to undertake activities that support access and visitation. Implementing domestic violence safeguards is a critical component of this new state responsibility. These services not only will improve parent-child relationships and outcomes for children, but they also will result in improved collections.** Research shows that when fathers are engaged in the lives of their children, they are more likely to meet their financial obligations. This creates a “double win” for children – an engaged parent and more financial security.***
Short-term Increase to Incentive Pool. The FY 2012 proposal includes $600 million for short-term incentive payments to states; $300 million in FY 2012 and FY 2013. These payments are to be based on state performance, which continues an emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency while also helping states overcome short term fiscal stresses.
**THE PORTION IN RED IS WHAT I CALL “GOVERNMENT BY BULLSH*T.” WHICH IS WHY WE REALLY DO NEED TO STOP THIS DOG-TRAINING, CIRCUS BETWEEN THE FEDS AND THE STATES, IN WHICH THE TOP DOG IS WHOEVER HAS THE MONEY TO DISTRIBUTE, BACKED BY POWER TO INCARCERATE (IRS, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT). ABUSIVE SPOUSES USE THE SAME MEANS OF RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER.
I STILL BELIEVE THAT ALL PEOPLE FUNCTION BEST IN THE MOST FREE ENVIRONMENTS, WITHOUT SYSTEMS OF CONTROL THROUGHOUT SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY ONES THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW ABOUT! Systems which think of and treat people as a pack of dogs, or sheep, to be herded and managed, are going to end up sacrificing the weak and vulnerable in order to feed the rest and keep expanding the business enterprise of the shepherd and dog-trainers!
The entire THEORY of fatherhood is based upon a false theory frosted with “research indicates” quotes — which research was itself paid-for — that XYZ circumstance leads to ABC cause and only ABC cause. Most of this discussion is carried out OUT OF EARSHOT of the “herd,” in self-selecting “think tanks” (etc.) It is based on the need to bribe or extort aggressive men into settling down and obtaining jobs (not running businesses) while collaborating with some of the MOST aggressive men around (and women) who themselves have a better handle on how money works, and how to get a hold of it without holding down a regular job. Some of these people buy and sell businesses, and indications are, a few or them, people too. Their version of reality bears little resemblance to the reality of people whose futures they are deciding.
Back to this budget’s talk of “Implementing Safeguards.” Let’s discuss real safeguards, not the lip service to the fact that a prime source of inappropriate early death by women is at the hands of men they have had sex with, and/or sometimes married and had children with.
“Implementing safeguards” doesn’t save lives after there have been death threats, stalking, injury and in general the same property-entitlement attitude towards (sorry to say it like this: Females one has impregnated, and what comes out of them afterwards if they don’t abort or miscarry). TWO OR THREE THINGS SEEM TO:
1. Absence. Leave the area, WITH THE KIDS, and no contact, and severe consequences for any dude stalking.
2. A bullet proof vest or a well-timed bullet can sometimes (not always) stop home invasion male on female intended violence, as an 18 year old mother of a 3-month old proved in Oklahoma recently. She had a shotgun AND a pistol, and got on the phone with 911, being entirely within her self-defense rights. One man was shot to death and, amazingly, the other intruder (who both must’ve known that her husband had just recently died) is being charged with, as I recall, murder. This woman received moral support from the public. I really wonder if it’d been her ex violating a protective order and claiming he loved her and just wanted to talk — with the same result — the public support would’ve been there. After all, she protected HER child from Strangers, not THEIR child from HIM at the time. We know from other instances where even trained, bullet-proof-vested police died in DV incidents, that this is not viable for all situations. Moreover, the home-invasion scenarios doesn’t handle a victim leaving DV that might want to, on occasion, simply leave her home, where her legal rights to self defense using a weapon are pretty well eliminated, seems to me.
3. Abuser STAYS in jail (and doesn’t have means to call a colleague or helper on the outside to commit a crime FOR him). We see from the Toms River, NJ case, that no one is really willing to do this, seriously — and allow the mother to stay in her area and continue a normal life. Possibly if it could be employed long enough for her to relocate SAFELY? But this is NOT going to happen while the Family Law and Fatherhood dynamics (programs) still exist, even if by leaving this determined single mother could support herself and the children, absent ongoing abuse and threats, without public welfare assistance other than to get out of the situation and established in some other STATE, if not geography.
What we have determined does NOT work is protective orders, for the most part. Also plenty of incidents tell us that batterers intervention Programs are NOT foolproof ways to stop domestic violence — they are, however, foolproof ways to bring funding to whoever is recommending this father-friendly solution to intimate partner femicide, etc. — see MPDI, DAIP, etc.
Again, here’s that Budget Proposal. That the ACF is even still thinking and talking in these terms tells us where its head is at: MORE PROGRAMS and MORE CENTRALIZATION THROUGH FUNDING. The role of the DV organizations in here is definitely, I’d have to say, as heat shields to the same policies.
WHERE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAMS PLAY INTO THIS THEORY:
This blog, August 5, 2011, looks at some of the organizations, and their funding. I have now been saying since October 2010 (at least) based on Investigation AND Experience AND Networked Narratives from around the country (some narratives I was also able to look at court dockets to validate or invalidate, in part, which led to the “Whacko in Wisconsin Series).
Towards the bottom of this VERY informative post, I again reference THIS testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee, Appropriations Subcommittee — objecting to more Fatherhood Funding. NB: I DO get email alerts from all kinds of DV groups, including some I’ve been criticizing that present at BMCC — and NONE of them alerted mothers to speak up on this matter, to my recall. The fact it even has a mention took years of writing, blogging and re-blogging, commenting in rebuttal to press releases on others’ sites and on PR-type releases put out by NCADV, CJE, and CPPA (See last post, or google them, i’m speaking shorthand now). Others in my on-line and personal networking on this topic also reblogged my posts, including some that get much higher traffic. My approach has never been the same as the groups mentioned above, because these approaches to not protect women in custody challenges, and when they DO take a high-profile, “poster child” case (and almost never drop it), that case often represents a failure – -not a win — causing women to identify with losing causes, or causes at such a high cost, they cannot follow the same path.
These circles almost NEVER report honestly on who they are up against, and when something gets out in print regarding at least VAGUELY who that is, it’s not prominent, and you will not hear it mentioned on a Dr. Phil, Oprah, or such. It is also diluted, doesn’t often show backup resources, and many times out of context. My plan has been by reblogging and researching NAFCJ.net to FORCE other groups, despite my poor social media skills, to confront this information and start to acknowledge it, or be left looking foolishly negligent (which they have been) in these matters. I have before going this public about it attempted repeatedly in private conversations to explain this to the leaders, question why they don’t simply follow the clear leads until the FIND something, and why their approach that “judge just don’t understand” and “they don’t have the RIGHT kind of training” is not only ridiculous — it can only (at this point) be linked directly to financial motives — on those who are promoting their brand of training.
I am now going to warn people (particularly “protective mothers”) to watch out for groups which have RECENTLY decided to spice up some of their traditional DV Rhetoric about “Batterers” psychology, and talk of Parental Alienation WITHOUT talk about things like AFCC, or the “Parenting Coordination” movement (which has already been faced with investigation for fraud, from my understanding of at least SOME of the Lackawanna County, PA cases) — and which is evidently hostile towards mothers — with acknowledgement (belated) that, “Oh, yes! And the fathers’ rights groups are getting federal money!” and point you to some offshoot or segmented piece of it — when it’s widespread throughout the federal government in programs ranging from early childhood, the criminal justice system (Prison re-entry), welfare system (see “NPFN.org”) and custody system, and is working on middle school and high school levels as well, alongside (still!0 things like “Abstinence eduction” for kids at, probably, their reproductive prime years, whether or not they are ready to function as good parents.
State of the Union:
The Republican Primary Contents and Coverage show how little variety is available to “Responsible Single or Divorced Mothers” throughout the land. We have an Opus Dei-style conservative who actually boasts about his role in welfare reform (which is in my view a disaster), Mormon millionaire, a Newt Gingrich (who dumps wives when they’re sick) and another one from Texas. Or, we have President Obama, who actually did as much for “fatherhood promotion” as any President before him, but (true to the style of the movement) “Enough is never enough!”
Things are at an all-time low for not just mothers, but for women overall, in this country — and we have in part some of the DV movement’s silence on the “Fatherhood Funding” and operations (which some of the groups are benefitting from, FYI) — that this entrenchment has simply not been stemmed earlier. Confused underinformed traumatized BROKE women are a lot easier to preach at than empowered women who have gotten corrupt judges off their cases when bribery was found, or at least slowed things down some.
Where IS a safe place to raise children, in the hopefully unlikely event (but we know it happens) the other spouse was dangerous to them and/or oneself? Is marriage advisable even if one wishes to have children together a good idea? If my daughters asked me, could I honestly recommend the USA? When our taxes are being used to oppress women as a gender on the theory that welfare is just too friendly to women, as is everything governmental, especially the custody courts — should they be looking to work jobs (and pay more taxes), or run businesses or add to the nonprofit burden of the country until it goes under, and structure their entire futures by creating nonprofit corporations (honest ones, let’s hope, unlike so many that I investigate)?
What can I model or demonstrate for them (and others) in this environment? Other than sheer continued resistance and protest to the limits of safety and economic survival?
RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & HEALTHY MARRIAGES PROMOTION**
(not to mention, in my opinion — not necessarily the next author’s — & RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION, ABSTINENCE PROMOTION, AND (ADDING TO THE FUEL) FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES, along with the mainstreamed (not the pockets of remaining grassroots) DV Rhetoric and Rationales)
WAS ALWAYS –and IS STILL —
(This is from Liz Richards, who for reasons probably self-evident, is not on the “conference circuit” among DV professionals, and used to be listed (from my recall) on the NCJFCJ Family Violence Resources pages. Perhaps the link has moved, but on browsing them, I see the same grantee recipients — anyone who will produce a judicial training or a technical assistance initiative of some sort can get on the train.
Point being — when federal funding enters a national dialogue, it tends to crowd out equally creditable, equally experienced — but not-on-the-take (HHS/DOJ funding) voices. Then those on the take ingratiate themselves on-line, through facebook, social media, and personal contact (supported financially by their organizations), for example, to visit mothers’ reform groups and make sure their progress is “Headed off at the Pass” before it gets (like I have, and now, SOME others), to accountability at the economic analysis level, and provides women some actual tools to do their own look-ups, which do NOT cost $150 or $250++ per hour!)
NAFCJ is listed as a resource (then again, so is “AFCC”) here, 4th under “Related Links” on “Family Courts” — under the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, which is likely how I ran across the site (I was definitely searching high and low for assistance, after local DV nonprofits had NO help for either the current stalking, the increasing child support arrearage, and pretty much for even someone to come with me to the multiple court events as an observer. In about eight years of such motions (most with more than one hearing), some of them my attempts to renew or regain a restraining order status, only one person came by once for one hearing from the DV agency in my county, which hearing was continued anyhow. So I was looking for actual – -not virtual — assistance, including reading, emailing, and making phone calls. While being also a working mother whose work was rapidly being compromised by lack of protection from the ex, and digesting, comprehending the culture and dynamic of the custody courts, ALONE except for connections I could personally locate. So, here’s those “Related Links”:
That’s to let you know that someone outside this blogger and the person involved validates this groups/person’s work as worth linking to on a National CRIMINAL Justice Reference site:
And here’s what this person had to say in 2010 about more funding for “responsible fatherhood”:
(any font changes here are mine).
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?
**”Protective Mother’s Response to Ways & Means Income Security & Family Support June 17, 2010 hearing for re- reauthorizataion of Responsible Fatherhood program funding.” The still-active link shows by URL that this is from the US Government Site. Looking at some of the arguments PRO one can get a virtual lineup of people and groups already receiving funding from the movement.
Have you ever wondered why the word “Responsible” had to be added to this grants series? That’s to distinguish it — at least in name — from the most objectionable extremists groups, some of which are also overtly racists and anti-Semitic, in addition to sexist. it is an attempt to “clean up the image” as the more recent attempt to engage “Women In Fatherhood Inc.” is also an overt attempt to portray the movement as not sexist, and anti-woman at its core:
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.
More evidence that most problems simply result in Judicial Trainings. That’s the culture we are in.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
From NCJFCJ site — more Judicial Training in DV cases:
Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases Workshop
April 15-18, 2012, San Francisco, CA
The National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence (NJIDV), a partnership of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, offers three-day, hands-on, highly interactive workshops that will provide an essential foundation for new and experienced state court judges to enhance their skills in handling civil and criminal domestic violence cases.** Judicial participants will leave the workshop with greater knowledge and skills for handling cases involving domestic violence.
For more information, please contact Jenny Talancon at (775) 784-1662 or
That should be interesting, as the Family Violence Prevention FUND no longer exists, although fundings for its face-lifted, new-named “Futures Without Violence” sure seems to have survived the transition, with applause from Joe Torres et. al.
**In SF, the California Judicial Council (which is headquartered there) is the prime recipient of access/visitation funding and a whole lot more. It also, through AOC/CFCC, houses a lot of AFCC professionals (Depner, Diane Nunn, etc.) presiding over and helping spearhead the transition of the United States from a system with separation of powers, and a functional justice system, into a network of problem-solving courthouses (taxpayer supported) dispensing “solutions” to family problems. One consistent family problem they are still facing in the “FAMILY” courts (notice training is for civil and criminal DV cases — not custody matters) is that, family or no family, most women don’t like being stalked and beat on — or men, and most kids still don’t like having intimate relations with either an immediate relative, or a parent’s parent, sibling, boyfriend, or replacement spouse.