What About that 66/34 effect?

Several times on this blog (and another forum or so), I have promoted the “AbuseFreedomLive” blogtalk Tuesday Night radio show, (and been on it once, called in sometimes) because there are simply so few people around actually that actually seem to understand the role played by the welfare/child support system’s incentives in the domestic relations / family law system.

And to understand this to get a pretty good measurement of where this country is overall.  It’s a HUGE issue.   It is also part of how the well-to-do and corporations exert control over the poor (and make sure there are plenty of poor around) to help regulate the middle class and employ (for now) a large sector of said middle class, including white AND blue-collar professionals, in regulating and administratively studying, tabulating (etc.) the huddled masses that either started in the US, were imported in the bottom of ships for free labor (see “corporations”), or fled bloodshed, famine incited by theocracy and religious prejudice, in other countries.  And their descendants.

As the rich tend to understand money (and more forms of it, and more ways of accumulating it, and more ways to not pay income taxes, and more ways to write off taxes, and more tax shelters) than people raised, drilled, and limited to ONE form of (above-the-radar) income production called JOBS, which the rich are supposedly always creating more of, which is why Congressmen should continually give them more tax breaks.  And let them pass adjustments to welfare requiring the poor to get and/or stay married (etc.).

MSM agrees with this on me.  I didn’t hear it on  Dr. Phil (because I don’t watch Dr. Phil), however, for once I agreed with Michael Moore (on Tavis Smiley, recently) a show with about a dozen guests that I caught a fragment of.  Mr. Moore pointed out that, f the wealthy wished to get rid of poverty, they could — however it’s handy to have the poor around to keep the middle class in line (and vice versa — my opinion).    So no, this is not too esoteric a subject.  It cuts to the heart of “whose kids ARE they?” and for that matter, “Whose am I?  Do I belong to myself?”  Most people would say yes — or wish to say it, which then puts them in conflict with others who have.

So when I am talking about federal incentives, meaning what the IRS distributes, to something as basic as the States and what they do with it to handle the poor (which allegedly is what welfare and child support are THERE for), I am cutting to the heart of the American experience, and to any matter dealing with child custody, visitation — including visiting by parents when the state has the child, or visiting with parents when parents don’t cohabit, and so forth.

This 66/34 matter has so many influences on our culture, it qualifies as PRIMAL .

And we know which sectors of society baked up:  once married always married, joint custody recommendations, and the pro-marriage/anti-feminazi movement– and how.  Well, at least I do and if not totally, at least the picture is fairly clear, and these are father-friendly organizations, so-called.  The “few prominent thinkers” and “Close to Washington D.C.” and Think Tankers.  The Heritage Foundationers, Family Research Council-ers, Focus on the Families-ers, and so forth, plus the parallel on the progressive side (there IS a parallel to the fatherhood movement in the non-faith-based sector).   AFCC/CRC etc.

These are the “Expensive Remedy In Search of a Legitimate Problem” that certain mothers (primarily) groups have been protesting for years, and protested again in front of the ways and means/ appropriations subcommittee in June 2010 (Liz Richards article, re-blogged recently here).

• Typically fathers protest VAWA and Some mothers protest Fatherhood Funding/Access-Visitation/Marriage (etc. promotion).  You do not have, typically, fathers groups PROtesting the fatherhood funding — which sometimes comes with pro bono help to increase noncustodial (father) parenting time.  More typically, while vigorously protesting bias against men in the family courts –and doing something about it — these are standing in line to form groups to get more grants to preach this gospel.  Or just evangelize in general, when it comes to “faith-based” only through marriage counseling and relationship classes.  etc.
• Activist Fathers’ groups also lobby alongside conservative groups (married women and second wives as well) against anything removing children from their home, or forcing them to, in their eyes, pay exorbitantly to support the mothers of their departed (or in some cases abandoned) exes.  That’s the general breakdown.
• Although some of us (I’m never quite sure where my “us” begins and ends, but I have a flexible concept of the juicy center of it) wish to inform some of the fathers’ groups who’ve been extorted (for real, not for “if I can’t see my kids I sure as heck am not going to support them” group) that there is a middle ground here, and we have more in common in wishing to eject program fraud from ALL sectors, and in fact to reduce, curtail if not STOP TANF diversions to Designer Family Building programs.
• In other words, not every father is a Jeffrey Leving, a Glenn Sacks, or a Warren Farrell (or, for that matter, a Richard Warshak, although I don’t know if he’s a Dad).  Some Dads are simply living their lives, or trying to, and are not out for blood & guts fame in reforming government.

 I’ve blogged plenty on the welfare/child support system’s incentives in the domestic relations / family law system, and on the Federal/State % incentives built into it.  I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed’s ex), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups.*

(*I’ll repeat the italicized part several paragraphs later to connect this point below to my concerns, below):

This post addresses a concern — or question — I have about the direction of the 66/34 Effect show, and particularly one section of it seen in today’s news alert.   I think it’s relevant, because it’s showing up as new light on a difficult situation; high-profile speakers from various industries (not only court-related, although that’s the focus) are producing a lot of information and food for thought.  And in an information age — no information is neutral, it all has values attached.  And above all, it should be honest.  No one is 100% accurate (and I try to correct my factual mis-speaks when I see them or it’s brought to my attention.  Not typos, but where I got my facts wrong, due to error in recall, or error in attribution — but never is it intentional.

I don’t state the issue until near the bottom of the post; scroll if need be, or read the post for context, reasoning, explanation.  Then again the troublesome part is at the very, very bottom of the email alert, and probably most people missed it.  But it seems to be a clue.

And while here, I’ll drive home this two-thirds/one-third (66/34) matter, which I think bears teaching, re-teaching, and explaining the import of, weekly (at least) until people get it:  Stop Federal Incentive Welfare-related Diversionary Programs (in order to stop widespread waste &  fraud) and Face It — this is Fascism in the Making, if not just about ready to come out of the oven!

(“Fascism” meaning, the combining and centralization of government by degrees — hey, Obama wants to merge agencies, but ALL agencies are already to encourage fatherhood promotion (Clinton, 1995), pay for more noncustodial FATHER involvement in the families (Welfare reform 1996, see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative for how to jumpstart a statewide program) and Faith-based Inclusionary Activities (see Bush, 2001 January).  Don’t ever forget, Hitler considered himself a Christian, too. So did pastors on BOTH sides of the Rwandan massacre (see “Left to Tell” or the book on which “Hotel Rwanda” was based).  Christian groups from United States –including some on the marriage movement take — had to quick, dissociate themselves with a “kill-the-gays” law in Uganda, but I assure us (and it’s seen) that some of these US evangelical groups love to test their material on sub-Saharan Africa, or other places too distressed to properly resist. . . .I distinguish “fathers” from “fatherhood” the way I distinguish “religion” from spirituality, which is a lot closer to ethics and what’s in the center of a person.)

This phrase (and its position, likely not to be noticed, on the very bottom of the email alert) really concerns me:

Which then shows the link to a “Change.org” petition posted by a noncustodial MOTHER who is now paying her ex child support; this petition (I also have the link on blogroll, or did for quite a while) was originally assembled by Athena Phoenix (prior to that username which is associated with the blogtalk radio show) anyhow — who is also female, not male and not a father.

This is an excellent petition, and speaks in detail of some of the areas of consistent program mismangement and waste.  I feel it is very well written.  However, it’s not whichever responsible father hosted the show’s petition — it was written by a very smart woman who’s become famliar with this material through research.

It goes, in part, like this (no link to the budget is provided, but people can look the data up) (in pink font):

Why This Is Important

This letter is to request that you take action to cut spending on pork barrel spending on certain TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4 billion untraceable dollars that no one keeps track of. These funds meant for needy children were diverted and wasted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to non needs based programs available to all fathers engaged in the family court litigation industry—no matter how wealthy they are. These parents now ask Congress to take a stand to hold ACF’s defective leadership and the programs destroying families accountable by demanding the following budget cuts:

1. TANF Contingency Fund authorized under 403(b) Social Security Act for payment to States and other non-federal entities under Titles I, IV-D, X, XI, and XIV “to remain available until expended.” (p. 474)

2. ID Code 75-1552-0-1-609, lines 0005 and 0009 [$990 million] (p. 473)

3. ID Code 75-1501-0-1-609 lines 0002, 0003 [Access and Visitation] [$1.7 billion] (p. 474)

4. Discretionary “Child Support Incentives” to States [$305 million] (p. 475)

5. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Healthy Families” [$1.7 billion] (p.476)

6. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Abstinence Education” [$1.7 billion] (p. 477)

7. Line 0129 “Faith Based Initiatives” [$1 million] (p.479)

Struggling parents want things like jobs, housing, education, childcare, and access to medical care to help them weather the current economic crisis. Instead, these hard working families are forced to invest $4 Billion in irresponsible, extortion based, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) programs that promote widespread Medicaid and child support fraud, protracted high conflict litigation, and bogus therapy programs.

Child support agencies deliberately withhold and mismanage billions of paid collected support, which starves children onto TANF and causes parents to be falsely prosecuted for nonpayment.

Good parents are being exploited, bankrupted, and emotionally destroyed while their kids are needlessly placed on the welfare, Medicaid, and foster care system rolls. Billions of dollars of child support remains unaccounted for nationwide.

This petition was posted by Liora Farkowitz on Change.org, who also presented at the last BMCC conference (July 2012):

See “Cut TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4Billion of waste.”  While Ms. Farkowitz may be very responsible, it’s evident she’s not a father.  Was this just a mistaken link?

The wording indicates that a responsible father asks people to sign “this” (not “his”) petition.  Yet no mention is made of the responsible mother who posted it or its actual author, who also is female.  The programs they re protesting specifically are stated to target and help noncustodial fathers increase custody share (whether or not this actually takes place); is it more true and more credible in the eyes of men if a man points to it?  Well, probably — but is that the important message?

Is anyone on the program tonight (which includes a number of nonprofits in the juvenile corrections and preventing human trafficking practices, with an emphasis on Georgia) receiving possible program funding from HHS?

Possibly:  And in fact two posts (from the last two days of blogging) I’ve been drafting in regards to the organization ALEC, showed me how that even in this matter of very legitimate problems related to racist lockup policies (harsher sentencing for males of color) and the attendant (multiple) nonprofit juvenile justice foundations focusing on DIVERSIONARY programs — has some overlap, but a lot of conflict — when the same principles affect custody courts — which they do.  And they affect custody courts the MOST when it comes to matters of attempted separation from abusive parents, including some parents in lockup rightfully, from violence.

For example (see program flyer for tonight, if you’ve received on, or if my last link was accurate):

LOCKING UP KIDS WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIME COULD COST GEORGIA MILLIONS IN FEDERAL FUNDS,   By Jim Walls, JJIE Journal, 1/12/2012 Original content found here.    Every week, Georgia locks up juveniles who’ve committed no crime. A new study contends Georgia risks losing millions of dollars in federal funding if it continues doing so at the current rate.   They are runaways, truants, curfew violators, underage smokers and drinkers. They’re called status offenders because their actions are only an issue due to their status as juveniles; if an adult did the same thing, it wouldn’t be a crime. Now, a report commissioned by the Governor’s Office for Children and Families warns that the practice could cost the state about $2 million a year in federal funding, particularly if Congress follows through with plans to tighten guidelines for placing status offenders in secure detention.

Let’s look at the HHS grants to this office:  I see two streams, one which has no DUNS#.  Although I suspect that the funding they are referring to is more likely to be DOJ funding, let’s see what the same office is getting, here:

If you click on both those, you’ll see grants that (I’ll wager — and see if I can check quickly here) sound like “AE” Abstinence Education and FR (Fathers Rights), one from a FYSB (Youth bureau) and the other from CB (Children’s Bureau):

Going to USASpending.gov with the one DUNS# we have here, it seems that this DUNS# could refer to either the above office, the office of “Children and Youth” (see “Abstinence Education”) or simply the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.  The DOJ/OJJP projects show up there (some, close to $2 million) under delinquency prevention.  ALSO clear is that this DUNS dates to 2009 and no earlier (on this database anyhow).  For example (that’s just one award):

1.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States

$1,897,000

Or, a slice of these grants (26 in all, total receipts $23 million, with largest sector in 2009 — which tells me, “ARRA” or “recovery.gov”

Transaction Number # 24

While the AbuseFreedomLive 66/34 Effect host show claims  (clearly) it may not share all the viewpoints of the guests, the host also selects the guests.  I take it with a grain of salt — the HHS also disclaims some of the viewpoints of groups it links to on its site, but it still links to them!

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Home Page

Notice the paragraph at the bottom, following all the various ways readers can get to fatherhood promotion pages:  This is just for reference, if you don’t like it, caveat emptor – don’t blame us!

Nevertheless, this is a US Government Agency page, and its sustenance paid for by the public.  The same standards also go for MONITORING the program funds and effectiveness after it’s distributed.  The GAO, or the HHS/OAS/OIG gets in their sporadically, but basically once started, they’ll sample audit, they’ll report back, but there’s so little teeth — that this black hole of (for example — only one example) program fraud and “undistributable child support collections” is –unknown in extent.  Don’t blame us — we’re only overseeing.

This “we’re only overseeing” rebuttal has also (call and ask) been used repeatedly to people investigating grant usage as individual citizens, i.e., particularly members of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice.  I’ve seen some of the letters discussing how to deflect inquiry on the funds usage; they may show on a discussion group (yahoo) or you can contact the website owner for more info.   The point is – NO ONE is really responsible, which is bad news for John and Jane Doe.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The “66/34” reference refers to the Federal/State relationship towards programs.  This excerpt comes from a brief written (years ago) by an attorney (I think it’s the same one, at least) found receiving a diversionary child support award in California.  The brief explains:

PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION SURVIVES SUPREME COURT’S BLESSING V. FREESTONE DECISION by Leora Gershenzon

The United States Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in Blessing v. Freestone1 that custodial parents may not sue in federal court to force a state to comply substantially with the general requirements of federal child support law found in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.2 Significantly, however, the Court refused to limit in any way the right of individuals to sue government officials who deprive them of statutory or constitutional rights while acting “under color of state law.” The right to bring such lawsuits, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is commonly referred to as a “private right of action.”

The plaintiffs in Blessing v. Freestone had filed a class action lawsuit against Arizona’s Department of Economic Security, the state’s child support agency, contending that it operated the child support program in violation of federal law

Statutory Framework

Under federal law, any state that receives federal funds to operate a Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program3 also must operate a child support enforcement program. To be in compliance with statutory requirements, states must locate noncustodial parents and their assets; establish paternity; and establish, modify, and enforce child support orders. These services must be provided to families receiving TANF benefits and, for a nominal fee, to all other families who choose to participate in the program.
The detailed statutory and regulatory scheme contained in Title IV-D sets strict time limits for performance of the specific duties imposed on the state child support agency. For example, states must open a case within 20 days of an application or a referral from the welfare office, use appropriate locate sources to search for a noncustodial parent within 75 days and repeat every three months, if necessary, and, within 90 days of locating a noncustodial parent, establish paternity and obtain a support order or attempt to or complete service of process on that parent.

The federal government pays over two-thirds of the costs of the program in every state, and up to 90% in some states. Due to welfare savings resulting from child support collection as well as to other factors, more than half the states experience a net gain from their child support collection programs

[{OTHERWISE EXPRESSED: THIS WORKS IN BARELY OVER HALF THE CASES, DESPITE FEDERAL SUPPORT APPROACHING 2/3 OF THE COST. TRY AND RUN A PRIVATE BUSINESS LIKE THIS, AND YOU’D BETTER HAVE PLENTY OF CAPITAL FOR START-UP. WHICH OF COURSE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT, IT JUST EXERCISES ITS PRIVILEGES TO INCREASE FEDERAL DEBT LOAD, HENCE WE ARE NOW TALKING IN TRILLIONS, WHEREAS THE CHILD FAMILY SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM COSTS “ONLY” IN TERMS OF BILLIONS, AT LEAST THE PART THAT WE’RE COUNTING…}]
.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services is responsible for reviewing and evaluating state child support programs to ensure compliance with federal law and regulations. In general, a state will be found to be in substantial compliance if it provides necessary and timely services to 75% of the families (90% in some instances) who seek child support assistance. If a state is found to be out of compliance, the Secretary can impose a penalty of up to 5% of the state’s TANF block grant. However, a state can avoid the penalty by submitting a Corrective Action Plan, and only a couple of states have ever been penalized.

The Arizona Litigation

By any objective standard, Arizona’s child support program has been failing children and parents. Between 1985 and 1991, the state failed every federal child support audit. With each failure, the agency submitted a Corrective Action Plan and the Secretary waived any penalties

Child Support itself if a highly contentious issue, with some damaging afterglow when pursued, or modified:

Sometimes they kill, sometimes they just abduct, sometimes they engage in prolonged custody litigation, and sometimes (far too much and far too often), the money is collected, held (collecting interest for the agency — not the household the child support is for) and for each and every scenario, there is an option which profits court-connected professionals, including judges, and increasingly impoverishes families.   Having thus collected sufficient funding (and being salaried, without judges causing THEM to lose their jobs with unfair or frivolously ridiculous rulings), these court-connected professionals have a system enabling them to fly around the country to various vacation locales to communicate with each other about how to do it better next time.

Some of these tax-write-off, public-funded (i.e., dues for the professional membership AND travel/hotel can be written off under one from or another of education, including continuing CLE education (providers and or participants, probably).  For example, I read (and yes, it’s on the blog here) about a Task Force or commission in Indianapolis which was considering flying their membership out to an AFCC conference.  The decided instead to simply approach AFCC about holding a nice conference IN Indianpolis next time, saving the air fare, and putting it into hosting.  I believe this has already happened.

One of the most demonstrative states around in pushing parent education, fatherhood promotion, all kinds of diversionary programs around openly on the website, and I’ve repeatedly referenced it here, is the Kentucky Courts.  On examination of SOME of their 11 divorce education programs (which is only part of the offerings), we can find one company based in Scranton, PA area (where the FBI is examining case-steering, overbilling, or whatever evidence they hauled off for Lackawanna County) marketing through Kentucky books written (many of them) in California, and some in Massachusetts, or recommended by a nice AFCC Massachusetts Judge.

California, where much of this baloney originated, IS truly the “Golden State” if you’re in control and in the right profession (or three) within government.  Ask Mr. Gwinn, the Lockyers, the Thorns (Kids’ Turn), Dr. Carolyn Curtis (Sacramento Healthy Marriage, or whatever its current title), the Past, Present, and Future Boards of Director Judges of some of these Access Visitation Subgrantees (Kids Turn San Diego being one), ask almost anyone in the Los Angeles Court System, and ask those cycling between positions in the legislature, and CEO of domestic violence organizations.  Ask the heads of Futures Without Violence, etc.

The system is FAIRLY straightforward in operation, though diverse in execution.  Form a nonprofit.  It’s not necessary to completely stay incorporated, file tax returns with the IRS OR the State annually, as required by law.  To fire up the ignition a little further, call yourself Faith-Based, and connect up with the NARME or other chameleon organization to study how to Take the Money and Run.   For an example, see Ohio Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Initiatives, which is still around, and see how the original staff did it, and got some CYA report from Baylor University Texas, from a person who just also happens to be a member of the nationwide “CJJDP.”

For an example of how to double-bill and wipe your mouth saying, “I see NOthing,” even after you’re caught at it, this has been going on so long, we can now reference old-school and new-school versions of this, most of which involves switching a child from a known decent parent to the other one, often abusive, thereby causing the decent one to fight for custody, rather than simply abandon the child.  I’m naturally thinking of situations of over-billing and program fraud such as is reported in:

Visitation Fraud Reported in Amador County(Complaint filed 9/7/99)

The following is a copy of a complaint filed to the Judicial Council of California regarding federal funding fraud by Amador County Superior Court. It exemplifies how federal “family” programs are mis-used to protect incest offenders/batterers in the family law courts. Liz Richards, of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice has contacted you regarding these abuses in the courts. These family programs, and those who abuse them, need to be fully investigated by competent persons who have no vested interest in protecting any involved in the abuses. . . .

(the Karen Anderson case) . . .

Through an initial contact with Senator Jackie Speier’s office, I was directed to Lee Mohar (sp?). During my conversation with Mr. Mohar, I explained to the best of my ability my concerns about how the public funds of the state Family Law Facilitator Program (hereinafter “Facilitator”) and the Federal Access to Visitation Program (hereinafter “A/V”) were directly involved in my private family law matter before Amador County Superior Court (“Court”). At Mr. Mohar’s request, you contacted me about this issue to more fully understand my concerns.

During my conversation with you, I explained the following: The Program Director for the federal Access to Visitation grant, Helen O. Page, represents my ex-husband in my private family law matter 98 FL 0084, and continued to do so through all of the dates inclusive, in which the Court was accessing A/V funds through this program. I have obtained records from the county auditor, as well as from the Court, in the form of payment vouchers, the grant application, and the grant contract. These documents declare that that the intent of the A/V program is to “encourage contact between children and both parents,” to “facilitate contact between non-custodial supervised parents and children” with a criteria for a “step-down” in supervised visitation.

{She then goes on to relate how custody was reversed to her, and she was put on Supervised Visitation based on “PAS”, the collusion of a minors’ counsel with a supervised visitation business owner, and how she was forced to pay cash for it! To see her kids!}}:

During the term of the A/V contract, the program director, Helen O. Page, under the authority of the Court, violated the entire intent of the program and specific terms of said contract for the gain of her private client, who is my ex-husband. Payment vouchers to herself and to other participants who are/have been involved in the private litigation of case 94 FL 0084, namely Larry Leatham, Marsha Nohl, and Nohl’s supervised visitation program A.F.T.E.R., prove that while mandated to comply with the terms of the A/V contract, all the forenamed have collectively engaged in accessing these public funds under a conflict of interest, thus violating the terms of the contract.

Here’s a few more of the players and the interrelationships – notice, some were made grant sub-contractors.  All of this comes under “Access/Visitation” grant programs — which are only a fraction of the other diversionary programs coursing through the system, and diverting parents from their primary purposes in life, which is to raise children, provide an inheritance of possible for them, and to be able to focus their lives on their kids — not on self-defense from abusive systems and program fraud by people working (some, as public employees aka “civil servants”) IN those system.  Remembering this is from 1999 — 12+ years ago!

The court orders which have obstructed my liberty interest in parenting my children and left my children at risk of continued molestation, along with the continual harassing litigation perpetrated by Page for her private client, cause the case to be categorized as “highly contested” for which Page/Court is able to access the A/V funds according to the grant application. While Page fights through private litigation for her client, my ex-husband, to keep me on supervised visitation, this also causes the case to fall into the category that provides the necessity for the A/V funds according to the grant application, which in turn personally benefits her financially through payments she receives from the grant. In order to maintain the case in the category that provided access to the A/V grant money, Page used Marsha Nohl (who Page made into a grant sub-contractor) and Larry Dixon (state funded minor’s counsel), as allies in support of the original grossly negligent evaluation and testimony of Leatham (who Page also has made a grant sub-contractor). I have been maintained on supervised visitation and the case itself is maintained as highly litigated, through acts of perjury, misconduct, intentional misrepresentation, willful obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, by Page, Nohl and Dixon

It’s known — and has been known for years, but not blogged enough for “the common women” (fathers’ groups tend to be told this) that the funding can come from BOTH the parent (in cash, as per Karen Anderson, and now parents in Lackawanna County, PA have been protesting the same issue, as I recall, with both supervised visitation, and/or parenting coordinator).  They had to pay cash for services.  To a decent parent, not seeing one’s offspring after removal from the home is NOT an option, so they paid AND the federal government funding stream, which is OCSE diversion.

And I showed readers recently that for FY2012, the HHS requested that — in light of how important continuing to promote “fatherhood” (whatever this is), they want mandatory access visitation orders for EVERY child support order, which then moves custody and visitation matters further out from a judge’s decision based on facts (allegedly, or at least potentially) to an administrative boilerplate (generally speaking) managed by a court-connected program manger or designated professional.

This is called Double-Billing.  “Don’t Ask.  Just Do it for your Kids.”

In years since, others have continued to research the same topic upwards and downwards, namely, taking it to the source:  The funds come from the HHS (grantees recorded in TAGGS database, and some other places), and child support TANF diversions.  At around the same time (post-1996, late 1990s, early 2000s) California along with other states was under a federal “centralize into a Statewide Distribution Unit (“SDU”) system for child support distribution — or give up your welfare assistance.  Of course, if you don’t need food stamps, cash aid, (Medicaid?) and other help from Big Brother, then don’t.  YOU put up 34$, we’ll put up 66% (not mentioned:  this 66% comes from funds previously collected through taxes etc. from the public, or interst/investment gains on it).

So yes, it does matter who baked THAT cake, because it’s got a little “leavening” in it which makes it a high-rise profit system for those in the system, and a debt production machine for stressed-out parents who eat from it.  How many people know going IN to the courts that any child support order, and EVERy child support order, and I’ll hazard a guess, in EVERY State and US territory, has as 66/34 effect called INCENTIVE.   In fact one of the hard lessons I learned (obviously) was to find out WHO is speaking to you whenever help or relief from injustice or danger is offered, in response to one’s cries for help, or without even those cries.

Who Bakes the Domestic Violence Group Cakes?  The same supplier — it may not be the 66/34 effect as to DV programs, but we’ve seen they are heavy into HHS funding (not just DOJ) and collaborating with fatherhood-oriented groups when protective mothers aren’t watching, while teaching them distracting information lest they DO watch.  See Loretta Frederick, who I’ll bet did NOT highlight her connection with AFCC (or teach women who AFCC was) at the last BMCC (“Battered Mother’s Custody Conference”).    In 2011, access visitation was mentioned from the podium by someone WITHOUT some product to market (after the conference was — like it appears to have been this year, too — well over an hour behind schedule on the last segment of the conference)  but as soon as the speaker went to the podium, a lunch break was called.  Un believably, I saw the same thing happen again this year — a break was called, and a woman’s voice at the mike (Ricky Fowler, search my blog) was surrounded by noise of coming and going, but when someone protesting what she said spoke up, another grabbed the mike and told everyone to quiet down and listen, because “this is important.”  (like the previous comment wasn’t?) and tried to counter it.

So, your Domestic Violence Advocacy and Protective Mothers Advocacy groups have, as it were, pre-baked cake mixes from pretty much the same source.  They have — amazingly coincidental — the same blind spots; which a little experience has shown is not blindness – it’s a “no-fly-zone.”    

I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed, ex-wife of D.C. Sniper, “Scared Silent” ca. 2002/John Muhammad, a Devoted Dad?
Connecting the Sniper case to family court corruption and federal fatherhood program fraud.  (Part 1)
by Cindy Ross © October 28, 2002), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups, plus trials that follow).

It is VITALLY important, in other words, that more people understand and protest the continued funding of a system of “evolving purposes” all labeled’ family” which are resulting in habitually increasing scenarios involving roadkill.  This scenario claims that the family is the basic unit of society, anything that threatens “family” is itself (by definition) a threat to society, and women’s right to live alone versus live with constant domestic terrorism based on the fact that they’re female, or vulnerable and happen to get paid less per $$ then men overall — and are not represented even halfway proportionately in our primarily white male Congress & Senate.  Sorry to put it that way, but one hellish marriage, and an equally long hell in the court system simply leads me rationally to acts of Congress designed to promote fatherhood.  I didn’t promote or pass these at the time, and am simply reporting their existence, and in part, their costs.  Plural.

This is the rationale which (if it’s bought & believed, or tolerated) which priorities “family” over Bill of Rights in EVERY case where there is a custody dispute.  That philosophy then enables passage of programs in which we find fraud, and incentives — which have zero (NO) place in promoting justice.  If courtrooms are not neutral — meaning, they are bribe-free — and they are “OUT-COME based” versus PROCESS-based” — they are kangaroo courtrooms.  So we need to report honestly — Let’s get Honest — about this facet in particular.  At the annual price tag of approximately $4 billions, and for the Jessica Gonzales’ the Dawn Axsoms, the Catalina Torres’, and the Officers shot in the line of duty during domestic dispute hostage situations, let’s defuse the need for the Federally Sponsored (with corporate help) “Special Interest Resource Centers” Publish, Design a Logo, Link to GroupThink, or We Perish industry.

It’s important.    Look at the site (probably not most current, for general idea only):

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

[HHS/ACF — and ACF is one of the largest OpDivs [Operational Divisions] of HHS)

PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY 2012

BUDGET PAGE APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 269

AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION …………………………………………………………………………………………. 270

APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY TABLE ………………………………………………………………………………… 271

AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION ………………………………………………………………………… 273

OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 274

SUMMARY OF CHANGES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 275

JUSTIFICATION:

GENERAL STATEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 276

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ……………………………………………………… 276

BUDGET REQUEST……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 278

OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES TABLE ……………………………………………………………………………… 280

RESOURCE AND PROGRAM DATA ………………………………………………………………………………… 282

STATE TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 287

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here are selected states (fairly whimsical, but I tried to honor Republican Primary Candidates, and Kansas gets a mention because it so recently re-organized the SRS department (which gets the OCSE funding) and is recommending women marry their way out of poverty, too bad for domestic violence (see Topkea) and as advised behind closed doors by some ultra-conservative experts, i.e., Wade Horn, etc.  Marriage & Fatherhood promotion are diversionary programs enabled under welfare law, and typically recruiting or program enrollment often happens at the child support level).  Look at some of the program titles and which branch of government gets the funding (or most of it), which varies by state:

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS	KS	11IAKS4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 535,121
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES	KS	0904KS4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 698,875
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES	KS	1104KS4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 27,012,837
Kansas Dept of Social and Rehabilitation Services	KS	90FD0145	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MONICA REMILLARD	$ 15,469
PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI INDIANS	KS	11IBKS4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 250,000

IOWA, TEXAS, UTAH

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	0904IA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,535,162
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	1104IA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 18,224,176
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	90FD0183	MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS	1	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JOE FINNEGAN	$ 95,214
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services	IA	90FD0144	LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	HAROLD B COLEMAN	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	0904TX4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 1,735,514
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	1104TX4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 193,122,346
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	UT	0904UT4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 446,019
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	UT	1104UT4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 22,067,247

Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA:

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	0904IA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,535,162
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	1104IA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 18,224,176
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	90FD0183	MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS	1	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JOE FINNEGAN	$ 95,214
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services	IA	90FD0144	LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	HAROLD B COLEMAN	$ 50,000
LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	11ICMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 143,405
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	07IDMN4004	2007 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 14,098
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	11IDMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 217,386
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	0904MN4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 490,616
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	1104MN4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 101,786,892
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0127	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	PATRICK W KRAUTH	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0127	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	PATRICK W KRAUTH	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0140	OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JILL C ROBERTS	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0140	OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JILL C ROBERTS	$ 69,684
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0147	OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	KAREN L SCHIRLE	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0147	OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	KAREN L SCHIRLE	$ 50,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR **	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED		$ 198,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	0904OH4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,961,680
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	1104OH4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 111,207,241
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	90FD0142	OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	ATHENA RILEY	$ 50,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	90FD0174	OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, COMMISSION ON FATHERHOOD, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL EDU	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	ATHENA RILEY	$ 75,000
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE	PA	0904PA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 4,560,291
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE	PA	1104PA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 150,800,949
RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS	MN	11IAMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 403,801
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL	MN	11BIMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 307,298
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL	MN	11IBMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 230,371

Results 1 to 25 of 25 matches.

**This “demonstrates” that at least browsing where money from the Dept. of HHS/OCSE is going from time to time, can be illuminating.  When one sees an unexplained acronym, it may be worth a closer look.  I figured “HMHR” had something to do with “Healthy Marriage” and was right.  Here’s the rest of the Ohio “HMHR” grants (spent for What?  Ohioans should look up) and found $198K per year for several years.  I also figured this is going on in more than one state, i.e., it’s some federal policy — and was right:

OHIO only (see grant award number has “OH” in it)

Fiscal Year	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2011	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2009	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2008	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2007	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2006	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$ 198,000

Results 1 to 5 of 5 matches.

$1.194 million so for — hope it’s a good program!

From the web:

1. Chapter 2: Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids …

   www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/eval…/grand_ch2.html

   The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement … TheHMHR project proposes to reach at least 2500 people over 5 years with direct …*   
   

   
   

   
   

2. More Specifically (and predictably):

1. Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids (HMHR) is a community-based initiative that delivers relationship skills-building services intended to encourage healthy relationships between parents, and between parents and their children, and to increase the financial well-being of children in a low-income urban area of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement Demonstration Section 1115 waiver in October 2003. The Federal funding required a non-Federal match, and HMHR received a private grant from the Grand Rapids Community Foundation in November 2003. Community needs assessment, recruitment, and relationship building with partners and service delivery planning led to the delivery of relationship skills-building services starting in June 2004.

(Grand Rapids is something of a faith-based community to start with, Dutch Reformed, I seem to recall.  But this could be done anywhere).

 

2.1 Project Goals

The HMHR project proposes to reach at least 2,500 people over 5 years with direct family-strengthening activities such as training in parenting and relationship skills. The initiative has established goals that are broad-based and comprehensive—they encompass improving couple relationships and the parenting skills of low-income parents in the community. Ultimately, HMHR aims to “enhance the financial and emotional well-being of children” (Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004a; Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004b). The specific goals of the initiative are to

• increase the number of prepared healthy marriages among low-income couples in Kent county.
• decrease the divorce rate among low-income couples in Kent county.
• increase the active, healthy participation of noncustodial fathers in the lives of their children.
• increase the responsible and effective coparenting skills of married and unmarried parentsto include improvement of the relationship between low-income adults parenting children.{{I.e., Marital Counseling = Child Support Enforcement (diversionary waiver…) philosophy — typical!!
• facilitate, in Kent county, the measurable increase in agreement with the perspective that healthy marriages, healthy relationships between parents, and responsible parenting are criticalto the financial well-being of children.***SERIOUSly?? ?????   Governor Gray Davis (abou 2002 or so) vetoed an attempt to endorse Kids Turn programs to help children navigate the rocky terrain of divorce on the basis that he (as Governor of California) didn’t feel — although the legislature (which probably had a better idea of how this system works) that it was the place of the California Judicial Council to measure mental health matters.  Obviously persistent program promotion works.{{I.e., brainwashing, excuse me, attitude adjustment, typical favorable to religious views of independent mothers as dangerous more as wombs than full-status humans.  “HERE:  Take my classes, and afterwards sign this agreement (survey) saying you believe this stuff, so we can get our grant next year, too!  Hungry?  well, go to the childs upport office and seek a modification, or to get it enforcement; that’s not a service we offer (directly) here”}}

Taken together, achieving the above objectives are intended to support** the following Title IV-D child support enforcement goals:

• Improve compliance with support obligations by noncustodial parents, when needed.
• Increase paternity establishment for low-income children born to unwed mothers (HMGR, 2004a; HMGR, 2004b)

**the road to hell has always been paved with “good intentions.”  It’s only in recent times? that merely expressing intent to “facilitate” attitude adjustment in order to reduce poverty (i.e., by increasing sales of relationship skills programs has been so well (federally) rewarded with so little justification.  See “Smartmarriages.com” and acknowledge how very smart that corporation’s founder indeed was! (place of incorporation, Washington, D.C., which is where conferences are also held yearly, or were? from 2000-2010, as I recall).

About these SIP programs (from HHS) — This is another place for marriage/fatherhood programs to come in. For the novice, a marriage promotion program (as we’ve seen the HHS organizations doing this, not one of which is truly feminist) IS a FATHERHOOD program. the same is practically true of programs called “CHILD” any more.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/funding/child_support_past_projects.html
ACF-FUNDED HMI DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND GRANT ACTIVITIES:
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)

2003 SIP Grants  (see above link for active links to these).
2005 SIP Grants
2006 SIP Grants

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) facilitates State and Tribal development of programs that locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity when necessary, and obtain and enforce child support orders..

Special Improvement Projects (SIPs)

{{isn’t that “special”?}}
SIP grants fund faith- and community-based organizations, as well as state, local, and tribal agencies, to improve child support outcomes such as paternity establishment and child support collections and improve the well-being of children.

These grants are authorized through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. During 2003-2006, the following projects received funding to provide child support and marriage education services to improve outcomes for children.   

While it reads “to provide child support services” we can see the “roundabout” reasoning, meaning, Tour de Marriage Enhancement, and possibly — well, we hope — this will result in more child support payments.

Several States (award goes directly to states) got these awards, all are marked “budget year 1” all are “Demonstration” and none have a “principal investigator” listed.   MOST of the funding is as “Administrative Supplement” and this has been going on since 2003 or 2004.   Here’s a list omitting grantee institution so it’s alpha by state, “NEW” only, which is 27 awards out of 68 (a little less than half of them):

All of these are under straightforward CFDA 93563, “Child Support Enforcement” (although a separate category even exists for “research and demo).  These relationship mongering skills are Special Project Waivers.

State	County	Award Number	Action Issue Date	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Sum of Actions
CO	DENVER	0604COHMHR	01/06/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 276,726
FL	LEON	0504FLHMHR	07/15/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
FL	LEON	0604FLHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
GA	FULTON	0504GAHMHR	05/27/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 192,000
GA	FULTON	0604GAHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 192,000
ID	ADA	0404IDHMHR	10/03/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 110,880
ID	ADA	0404IDHMHR	12/01/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 110,880
IL	SANGAMON	0504ILHMHR	11/29/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 273,003
IN	MARION	0804INHMHR	07/16/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
KY	FRANKLIN	0504KYHMHR	07/15/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
KY	FRANKLIN	0604KYHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0404LAHMHR	09/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0504LAHMHR	08/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0604LAHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
MA	MIDDLESEX	0504MAHMHR	11/29/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 324,939
MI	INGHAM	0404MIHMHR	10/03/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MI	INGHAM	0404MIHMHR	12/01/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0404MNHMHR	09/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0504MNHMHR	08/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0604MNHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0704MNHMHR	08/07/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
OH	FRANKLIN	0604OHHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
TX	TRAVIS	0604TXHMHR	10/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 499,092
WA	THURSTON	0604WAHMHR	03/15/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 200,000
WA	THURSTON	0605WAHMHR	04/20/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
WA	THURSTON	0704WAHMHR	08/08/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 200,000
WA	THURSTON	0705WAHMHR	08/07/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000

Results 1 to 27 of 27 matches

For comparison — in ONE year (nationwide) 772 OCSE grants (including, but not limited to these), totalling:

Total of 772 Award Actions for 171 Awards

Total Amount for all Award Actions:

$ 3,176,826,043

This doesn’t include important federal programs like abstinence education, either. . . . . .

Anyhow, click around TaGGS some, look at CFDA 93564 and find out just how much experimentation is really going on — plus get at least a few principal investigator’s names together to figure out what’s up.   Here’s a segment (no years selected) showing just how active TENNESSEE & TEXAS are, not to mention showing that sometimes people write “TEXAS” or “TX” or “State of” when it comes to state name format and sometimes, unbelievably, the word “Mr.” is entered under the name category, as I found out as to California, “Principal Investigator” for a $29,000 grant to help connect Title IV-A (TANF) and Title IV-D (Child Support). I hope the person making all these clerical errors (?) isn’t earning much more than $29,000 of my money to do so. Who’s training the database submission personnel at HHS, anyhow?   Howsabout some basic filing protocol, eh?  For reference, see phone book.

http://www.certain.com/event/accounts/register123/judicialcouncil/cfcc/events/20080006/Descriptions_8.25.pdf

What this tells me is that these states are fairly busy in “Child Support Research and Demonstration”  These are all CFDA 93564 (not 93563, and not 93597, which is Access/Visitation — which also promotes some of the same things.

California:

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	90FD0003	PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYST	3	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	PEGGY JENSEN	$- 73,983
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0083	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PRIORITY AREA 4	1	09/15/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LEORA GERSHENZON	$ 60,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	1	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DANIEL LOUIS	$ 150,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	2	09/19/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DANIEL LOUIS	$ 75,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	2	08/29/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	LESLIE CARMONA	$ 0
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	3	09/09/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	LESLIE CARMONA	$ 75,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	3	10/22/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHY HREPICH	$ 0
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0158	SERVE OUR IV-A/IV-D PROGRAM COLLABORATION	1	09/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR BILL OTTERBECK	$ 29,000

STATE OF TENNESSEE	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	1	06/23/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 82,853
State of Louisiana, Department of Social Services	90FD0125	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-2)	1	08/23/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ROBBIE ENDRIS	$ 59,983
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	1	07/20/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,112
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0077	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 60,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0102	TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	1	09/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LINDA CHAPPELL	$ 62,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	2	07/31/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 101,427
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	07/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 100,688
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	03/06/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	02/24/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	1	09/20/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 54,612
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 52,034
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	07/12/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	05/13/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	09/01/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 50,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	05/18/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 100,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	09/01/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 71,240
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	03/14/2011	OTHER	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	3	08/08/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 47,500
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	09/01/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	03/14/2011	OTHER	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	08/14/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	1	09/25/2010	OTHER	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 85,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	2	08/14/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 75,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0177	INTEGRATING WORKFORCE STRATEGIES WITH CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES IN TENNESSEE	1	09/24/2011	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 55,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0052	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III)	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	WILLIAM H ROGERS	$- 8,058
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0073	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-P.A. 2	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	MICHAEL HAYES	$- 6,976
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0078	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #5	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 80,040
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0085	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	1	08/29/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	WILL ROGERS	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	2	09/27/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PATRICIA CAFFERATA	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	2	01/08/2005	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KAREN HENSON	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	3	08/16/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KAREN HENSON	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0092	TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	1	09/09/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL D HAYES	$ 125,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	07/27/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,400
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	03/19/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	07/31/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,400
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	06/27/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	1	08/29/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	HAILEY KEMP	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	2	08/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TED WHITE	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	3	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TED WHITE	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	3	03/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	TED WHITE	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0134	OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER	1	09/29/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 703,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	1	08/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAMMI SIEMENS	$ 100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	09/07/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	01/13/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	3	09/25/2011	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	1	09/25/2010	OTHER	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 85,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	2	08/29/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	90FD0141	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MARILYN R SMITH	$ 99,348
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	90FD0141	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	09/19/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MARILYN R SMITH	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	1	09/01/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOHN BERNHART	$ 150,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	09/26/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOHN BERNHART	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	08/10/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	06/15/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	3	08/31/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOHN BERNHART	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	3	06/22/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
UT ST DIV

RE:

 

The 66/34 Effect Show with Athena Phoenix was sponsored this week by a responsible father who wishes to assist us in carrying out o[u]r mission to improve the way the family courts do business.  He asks that you please consider signing this petition to tell Congress and the President to stop wasting money on HHS programs that lack oversight and harm families and children caught in the family courts:

 

The shows bring up consistently valuable speakers, and it’s true some segments have featured the effect of the TANF budget, and the 66/34 effect.  The press-releases prior to show are jam-packed with links and information and shows in themselves.

My perspective and purpose differs somewhat, and I believe that given the urgency of the times, it is vERY necessary to locate people (particularly mothers) who are willing to blow the cover on the DV industry sellout AS MOTHERS in custody challenges, and FATHERS who are willing to blow the cover on how these program diversions are actually conceived with intent to divert profits to already profiting individuals in various institutions, and expand welfare until it blankets the United States with relationship education, whether or not this entails poor and needy families on the “take our program” side.  I have a general idea of what kind of people are drawn to the “give me a grant, I’ll push your product” side — whether at the professional level (the two professors from UDenver who have PREP, Inc. thing going), and other contracting organizations (MDRC, Maximus, etc.) who defraud (allegedly, judging by how often they get sued) and the judges etc. with their retirement plan & income supplementation at public expense plans (the Kids’ Turns and Family Justice Centers of the world) and the “let’s do a NICE conference business.

 

In recent days/weeks, I’ve had an absolutely wonderful looking, articulate, attractive intelligent mother (a widow) and grandmother in her sixties come up to me, at a loss regarding finding work.  She was downsized after twenty-nine (29) years in what sounds like very responsible, executive responsibility support staff in an engineering firm for a huge company.   What is she to do?  I looked at her with my court-custody-DV-strewn work life scenario and was thankful that at least this disaster prepared me for handling more of the same; my disadvantage working to my survival advantage in a rapidly changing world.

And I prefer to bake my own cakes at many points.  Years of having social / community relationships compromised by court filings and sudden disappearance of my kids (I don’t think a mother EVER gets over that, no matter what else she does in life), not because they served in Iraq, but because they were born in this country and in that decade of Jim Crow times regarding civil rights for women, too.

(and here’s the end of my 11,000 — so far — word post.  That includes the tables, of course):  A person working to stop child slavery in California is on:  here is the nonprofit description of HOW children girls are kept in line:

 

Director of this Chino, California organization, The Faces of Slavery, is “Juana Zapata.”  It’s site has tremendous graphics, and “FACES” is an acronym:  Fight Against Child Exploitation And Sexual Slavery    of AMERICAN CHILDREN.  “Amber’s Story” deals with a runaway (my mind immediately thinks of reasons a child might run away, one of which is violence or abuse in the home, including molestation.    So why not do better at stopping that to start with?)

Please read this site.  The problem is real!  (see “Franklin Coverup” also)

 

The Problem of Child Sex Slavery, http://www.facess.org/problem.html     Today there are at least 20,000 slaves under the age of 18 in the United States. According to the Department of Justice, the average of these children is 13 years old. 80% of these children are girls and 80% of those girls are sexual slaves like “Amber”. The life expectancy of girls like “Amber” is 7 – 10 years from the time of their abduction and the start of their enslavement. Amber and countless other girls experience on a daily basis: Rape Assault Neglect Starvation Torture False imprisonment Exploitation Drugging Emotional, physical And mental abuse Slaveholders will send “testers” in to the girls to pretend to rescue the girl. If she engages with the tester she will be beaten. At some point the girl gives up and becomes resigned to her new life – her hell on earth. Survival mode will kick in and she will quickly become hardened, disconnected, hopeless, angry, and isolated – trusting no one, which is the slaveholder’s goal. Why Don’t These Girls Try to Escape? There are many different methods these slaveholders use to manipulate and control their slaves. These impressionable and dependent children want to be accepted by someone. The slaveholder is the only one they really know in their new reality. Between the abuses and in an effort to keep the children the slaveholder will also tell the girls he loves them, buy them gifts, and take them to exciting places in order to keep them submissive, producing a Stockholm Syndrome where the victim actually thinks they are being loved – thus skewing their concept of love. What Is Our Government Doing About Slavery? The answer to that question is, “Not much.” F.B.I. recovery numbers are 900 children per year. Typically, the recovery rate is less than 1% of the actual trafficked population. And what happens to a child like “Amber” when she is rescued? The Department of Justice has confirmed that care facilities specifically designed to support these trafficked children can give shelter to less than 100 of them. F.B.I. policy is to place these rescued victims into juvenile hall which sends the message to these children that they are criminals. The cost of a child in juvenile hall is $250 per day. Government agencies cannot give these children what they need most – love.

See the bullets above?  Sometimes many of those features happen WITHIN nuclear families — sometimes even within families that have biologically related Mom, Pop and Kids.   And yet still the building block of society has to be families?

for the healing process — imagine this:

 

How We Can Make a Difference

What does a child like “Amber” need to heal from the deep mental, emotional, and physical scars that have been inflicted upon her? She needs a warm, safe, peaceful, place. She needs to be surrounded by people who will gently guide her, support her, encourage her, and show her what real love is. We can provide these very things.

Our property in California is tucked away in a beautiful, quiet and safe place. We are surrounded by trees and ponds and mountains. We have the ability to provide fun and “normal” activities such as hiking, swimming, other water sports, museums, dining out, movies, playing games so she can regain her childhood.

 

Similarly, after severe violence IN the home — although surely this must be worse — children who grew up “Exposed to Violence” including watching one parent beat the other (adjust to accommodate step-parent, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc.) — they too need a healing and detox period.

But they are not getting it for long — and primarily they are not getting this because the custody courts, with their AFCC, their Access Visitation (CRC theory), their incentives to prolong war (while claiming they stop it) and their assets-stripping, bone-chilling, never ending encouragement of the worse parent when “worse” is obvious — will not allow for, our society is just not ready to accommodate and SAY NO TO  custody — ANY type of custody and particularly not joint, and not shared — when one parent has already demonstrated assault and battery, threats, economic oppression & “pimping” (this happened to me.  I worked, he got the checks, I got threatened and slapped, kicked, choked, etc., sleep-deprived anyhow.  I provided the job reference for the credit application — he got the credit! etc.  Once you start one of these relationships, if you are not committed to IMMEDIATELY terminate it, it’s very hard to get out.

And in this climate, once you get out, here comes “conciliation code” and a bunch of people who are not “rich enough” yet to defraud people of their rights to exist, legally and simply live, as INDIVIDUALS in this country.   See “Ohio Fatherhood Commission” (targeting counties with single mothers) for a nice example.  It is ONLY going to get worse until this is stopped, and I know that I alone cannot stop this.

 

Here is a facebook page which states Government Agencies are looking to F.A.C.E.S.S. but we also need your donations

 

REGISTRATION, Secretary of State?  I don’t know:   I see these (after FACESS and “Fight Against” searches didn’t turn up a registration) or “FACESS” with or without the periods:

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx

Results of search for ” F.A.C.E.S. ” returned no entity records.

Record not found.

As to those initials for Charities (i.e., nonprofits) in California, the only ones I see (both delinquent) relate to Autism, i.e., that’s what the “A” in the acronym stands for.  Our F.A.C.E.S.S. doesn’t show in California as a nonprofit:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type F.A.C.E.S. FOR KIDS, INC. 099503 Charity Dissolution Pending REDWOOD CITY CA Charity Registration Charity F.A.C.E.S. OF THE EAST BAY 116862 Charity Delinquent OAKLAND CA Charity Registration Charity 1

 (facebook logo’ FB shows 392 followers on the page)

These would be the corporate registrations.  Only one (formed about a year ago) is left standing here in California:

 

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2439255	03/01/2004	SUSPENDED	CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION	DAVID REPLOGLE
C1229360	10/12/1983	DISSOLVED	FAMILY AWARENESS OF CHILD EXPLOITATION – IN-TRUDERS	CHARMAINE DENNIS
C3367022	03/17/2011	ACTIVE	FOUNDATION AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION & HUMAN TRAFFICKING	ERIC BUSH
C1195950	03/06/1987	SUSPENDED	PEOPLE AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION	JAMES D DAVIES

So far, I see a facebook page.  The website direcst people to the Facebook page, and the law enforcement link (on the website) is by password only, understandably.

 

Just that if someone is seeking donations, we seek an EIN# and registration.  It’s that simple.  So perhaps I will call in and simply ask — is there an umbrella organization?:

There are “10 people” names Juana Zapata in California, and 1 (with 1 connection only) on LinkedIn.  There’s the mother of a young man whose car crahsed into and killed a police officer in Freson, listed as his 47 year old mother (the young man not living at home at the time, and being the youngest of 5 at age 19)

http://www.kristieslaw.org/fresno.htm  This is a hard story to hear, and probably a different woman involved, as apparently this mother needed a translator.  It’s undated.

 

Featured here, protesting (it seems) an “adult” page in a paper, or on-line, from “The Majestic Dreams Foundation”

http://www.themajestic.org/blog/2011/10/07/Press-Release-The-Daily-Titan.aspx

”The advocates of anti-slavery held signs that read, “Hey Ortega! Real men don’t buy girls” and “I am the key to free,” while protesting Ortega and the conglomerate which owns BackPage.com.Lizeth Sebastian, 21, pioneer of the anti-human trafficking club at Chapman University called Set Captives Free, said many people are unaware that sex trafficking is happening in local areas.Juana Zapata, from Faces of Slavery, said for the past three years her organization has been rescuing and protecting girls who have been victims of human trafficking and who were advertised on BackPage.com, averaging one girl every six weeks.“We are a permanent residential place for them (the victims),” said Zapata, who was invited to the protest by Cenedella. “For us it’s very important that the public knows that this is actually happening right here; it’s not international. Students have to be fully aware what’s happening with their generation and they are the voice.

This is a GRIPPING story of Aimee, and what happened after she reported abuse from the ages of 8 to 12 by a priest, a friend of her aunt.  She reported it at age 17 to a minister, then to law enforcement, and was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, a 51-50 psychiatric hold (without her mother’s knowledge) with resulting lasting damage, and in general was treated as the criminal  .

Her report went from minister to law enforcement to hold, to hospital in short order.  Her family which refused to believe the story are estranged — BUT she was able to make a film.

 

The Majestic Dreams Foundation is a  nonprofit organization located in Southern California.  It was formed and created byAimee Galicia Torres on January 8, 2010.

The Majestic Dreams Foundation aims to provide aide to sexually abused survivors as well as promote awareness for all forms of abuse. The Majestic Dreams Foundation teams up with film production company, Trinity Alliance Films to provide films that reflect this growing epidemic so that we as a society can bring about a change.

 

This day forever changed the rest of her life.  That very day, Aimee underwent hours of questioning by the local police department as the suspect, Honesto Bismonte, was placed immediately in jail.  After a long interview, receiving scrutiny from the police department, Aimee was sent to undergo a psychological evaluation by a county psychologist.  However, to her surprise, when she was being escorted by two police officers, they admitted her into the hospital without her knowledge.  She was placed on a 51-50, hold, which means she legally must remain admitted for psychological evaluation for up to 72 hours. . .

When Aimee was 16,** she fell into an abusive relationship with her boyfriend of 3 1/2 years.  He would physically abuse her and attempted to kill her on various occasions. Through the numerous years of psychological, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse Aimee has received, she decided to turn everything into a positive learning experience.  She wanted to show abused victims and survivors, that despite any obstacle, you can succeed.  Aimee is proud to say, that throughout it all, she has never smoked or taken any drug of any kind. “Just because horrible things happen in our lives, we must be strong to not let it get the best of us.”

Relationship, much? from sexual abuse ages 8-12 by a priest, and from 12-1/2 through 16, sought “refuge” in another relationship with at least a non-priest, but another abuser?

Aimee has been a strong advocate for victim’s rights.  She is an avid supporter of RAINN (Rape, Abuse National Network), Rescue & Restore Victims of Human Trafficking, ACF Trafficking, SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), Perverted Justice and more.

This young woman is a graduate of the NY Film Academy, apparently her mother also was a producer?  Here’s a company she founded in “2004” (January 2005).  I did not find the foundations, yet, but I see the high energy that sometimes people who get OUT of abuse have afterwards; they/we are simply so excited to be free, and creativity is at an all-time high, plus speaking to the cause.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
200501110252	01/10/2005	ACTIVE	AIMESTER PRODUCTIONS LLC	AIMEE GALICIA TORRES