There is so much really bad social policy flying around, mixed in with politics and religion, I keep having to remove chunks of explanatory material from the middle of my posts, and store them on another one by subject matter. It’s as though too many basic concepts have not been digested, indications of sleepwalking among hordes of individuals, as indicated by inability to process information and come up with a coherent framework for where it came from.
And no one has time to constantly re-diagram the wheel.
This one was introduction to a post alerting “Battered Mothers (Losing) Custody” to who’s been running their conferences. Wake up!
This summary is directed to ladies because, for reasons probably relating to the general tendency of culture to assume that women don’t need to be told about the nuts and bolts of . . . .. dollars and cents . . . . when it comes to conferences and writings on WTF happened in the courtroom. Somehow, men seem to grasp this reality a little better, even though I KNOW many of the mothers involved here actually have worked, if not run their own businesses, or someone else’s. But collectively, they also apparently thought the United States was a land of equal opportunity simply because we got the vote and some feminists made a difference back in the 1970s, and groups like “Violence Against Women Act” grantees are saying they are stopping Violence Against Women, or are just about to . . . . .
So I’m publishing something of a quick review of how we got Access Visitation and why your court hearing is an out-come based, finance-influenced matter hooked into Federal/State balances and social science theory about what causes poverty, although possibly what’s contributing to it is the concept that people are here on earth to become subjects of (OR facilitate) running social science demonstrations upon them from afar. From VERY afar . . . .
Once Again from the Top, Ladies. . . . . Wrap Your Heads Around the Business Model, Please!
ONCE AGAIN, FROM THE TOP:
FEDERAL FUNDING BASED ON SOCIAL SCIENCE THEORY IS RUNNING
STATE PROGRAMS, PARTICULARLY FAMILY COURT-ASSOCIATED PROGRAMS.
THE TWO PRIMARY ORGANIZATIONS WHICH SEEM TO HAVE FACILITATED AND DEVELOPED THIS
WERE ORIGINALLY AND ARE NOW — ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY & CONCILIATION COURTS + (THE) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS COUNCIL
OBVIOUSLY PLANS OF THIS SCOPE REQUIRE (AND OBTAIN) ONGOING FUNDING:
HOW HANDY THEN, THAT INDIVIDUALS HELPING FOUND AFCC /CRC ALSO HAD
A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING (FROM THE START) THAT A CLOSE CONNECTION TO D.C.
AND FROM THERE, THE NATION,
JUST MIGHT BE ENABLED BY EXPRESSING MAJOR CONCERN WITH THE ISSUE OF CHILD SUPPORT.
AND OF COURSE, FATHERHOOD.
I’m not spoon-feeding this information by links. It’s all over my blog, with links. One of the first organizations that (unnoticed, but unbelievably influential) which, when I saw it, the lights began to come on — was this Center for Policy Research in Denver, Colorado. Being somewhat research minded myself, I simply googled the principals and noticed who they were publishing with, which led to the understanding that CPR is the nonprofit and PSI (Policy Studies Inc.) the for-profit. One evaluates, the other operates — and many publications cooperatively bear both corporation’s names on the front page and at the bottom. People, this is NOT “rocket science.” They tell you what they do — just failed to tell you what other pies their principals have their fingers in, or how comprehensive was he original strategy, and how it’s developed:
The Center for Policy Research (CPR) is a private, nonprofit research agency founded in 1981 to work with public and private sector service providers to plan, develop, and test projects that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of human service agencies and the justice, health and education systems. …
Which is to say, they were keeping their options open — wide open! ! !
CPR provides comprehensive consulting, facilitation and survey research services and specializes in demonstration, evaluation, and basic research dealing with a broad array of services including:
- Childcare and Education;
- Child Support;
- Child Welfare;
- Court Services;
- Employment Programs;
- Health and Medical Issues;
- Incarceration and Reentry;
- Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution;
- Fatherhood and Child Access;
- Poverty; and
- Violence and Intimate Partner Violence.
To make contracting with CPR easier for federal government clients, CPR is a Management, Organizational and Business Improvement Services (MOBIS) and U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) contractor.
|
The italicized terms above are particularly fatherhood-related. I don’t know which years CPR added these fields of study; but we do know that “Child Access” is a term from an associated group, “CRC.” .. . . while these ARE listed alphabetically, I still find it interesting that “violence & IPV” is last. It could’ve been labeled “abuse” or put the “IPV” first, or used the term “Domestic Violence.” However, CPR is smart enough to know which gender is the majority in the US Congress, the Supreme Court, and most state-level governments, with whom they work closely.
As this modest website shows (“about us”) (plus, notice subdued colors — no flashy graphics or animations, such as is found at “NFI” or “fatherhood.gov” etc.) — ONLY 7 personnel are involved: (there were 6 when I first noticed them). 3 Ph.D.’s, an M.A., a MPA, a B.A. and an Office Manager. And — what’s interesting – all are female. Now THAT is unusual. There is a director, and an associated director, and everyone else (except Office Manager) is “Research Associate (or “Assistant.”). They are Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes and Jane Venohr, as to Ph.D.’s.
Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net identified long ago that Jessica Pearson was also a co-founder of AFCC :
Another AFCC founding official is Jessica Pearson, President of Center for Policy Research of Denver, Colorado, which is a primary consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services – Administration for Children & Families (HHS-ACF) which includes OCSE. Pearson/AFCC have been using ther influence for many years to create pro-father programs and protocols which are steered to the pro-father court professionals who train others in the anti-mother evaluation tactics such as PAS. She has been a frequent speaker at CRC and AFCC conferences and works closely with other fathers rights collaborators to promote PAS in government program
CPR doesn’t receive major HHS Grants — or even Contracts (USAspending.gov) — it doesn’t need to
- Total Dollars:$171,514
- Transactions:1 – 10 of 10
OTHER ENABLING ASSOCIATIONS IN THIS PLANETARY SYSTEM INCLUDE
BAR ASSOCIATIONS (ABA, & STATE/COUNTY-LEVEL), PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONS (APA)
ASSOCIATIONS OF MARITAL THERAPISTS (AAMFT) AND ASSOCIATIONS OF MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS (AAML).
HOW HANDY THAT THE FOUNDER OF CRC HAS SOME CROSS-AFFILIATIONS.
THE BASIC PREMISE OF THE AFCC/CRC COMBO IS TO FORCE COUNTIES TO PAY FOR
MARITAL COUNSELLING FOR ALL BECAUSE DIVORCE IS SO BAD FOR SOCIETY.
(TRANSLATION: FOR THE WORK LIVES OF PEOPLE DEPENDENT FOR FOOD & SHELTER ON STEADY EMPLOYMENT IN CORPORATIONS,
AND INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN + CHILD CARE FOR AFTER SCHOOL
DIVORCE HAS BEEN VERY GOOD FOR MANY OF THE ABOVE PROFESSIONALS,
BUT OF COURSE TO SHOW EXACTLY HOW GOOD, AND HOW, WOULD BE BAD BUSINESS POLICY.
PROBLEM: MARRIAGE IS NOT GOOD FOR EVERYONE
(SEE INJURY, DEATHS, POVERTY, AND TRAUMA, COMMONLY CALLED (NOW) ‘DOMESTIC VIOLENCE).
THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLETELY ERADICATE FROM THE PUBLIC AWARENESS.
PARTICULARLY WITH ALL THOSE (1970S, 1980S) GRASS ROOTS BATTERED WOMEN’S SHELTERS AND ADVOCATES (FEMINAZIS) ALL OVER THE PLACE..
THE POLICY SOLUTION TO THIS INCLUDES BUYING THEM OUT. ECONOMIC CONTROL TO SILENCE THE TRUTH.
IT USUALLY GETS DOWN TO ECONOMICS, AND IS ABOUT THAT.
THIS IS WHY IT’S SO IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE FOCUS ON PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES, MENTAL HEALTH, AND FAMILY RELATIONS.
IT CAN ALSO BE SOLD, TO TAXPAYERS, AS A SOCIAL GOOD (HOW TO HANDLE THE POOR).
SO, IT IS NECESSARY TO REFRAME THE ISSUE AND TURN IT TO A POLICY BENEFIT —
WHICH IS TO SAY – – – – — INSTITUTE MORE TRAININGS AND INTERVENTIONS.
THUS IN THIS WORLD, ANY NORMAL HUMAN PROBLEM CAN BECOME A PROFIT
AND SIMPLE SOLUTIONS TO SUCH HUMAN PROBLEMS ARE A FINANCIAL “DEBIT” ON THE
SOLUTIONS-PROVIDERS’ BALANCE SHEETS.
HENCE IT’S IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS TO FORM COALITIONS
PART OF THE DEAL OF “COALITIONS” IS THAT WHAT IS REALLY A ONE-THEORY ORGANIZATION
CAN SEEM TO VALIDATE THE THEORY BY MULTIPLE MEMBERS AFFIRMING EACH OTHER
EVEN IF THE THEORY OBVIOUSLY SUCKS.
NEWS-FLASH (From last Friday, Pennsylvania):
The bullying and extreme terrorism in the family court realm has really gotten out of hand. That ongoing judicial incites some people to kill each other, or blow up their houses with little boys inside, who might not otherwise have done so is just collateral damage in a good cause, fewer mouths to feed, sells newspapers:
“This all happened just days after a judge denied Powell custody of his boys. Leach said there was what he called an online cyber bullying effort to keep Powell from getting custody. Leach said he believed this should have played out in the courtroom not online” . . .
ACOMA, Wash., (ABC 4 News) – A judge ordered that the children of Josh and Susan Powell will stay with Susan’s parents while Josh undergoes psycho-sexual evaluation. Attorneys also discussed pornographic images discovered by West Valley City Police on Josh’s computer, KOMO-TV reported.
“Psycho-sexual evaluation” and Supervised Visitation for the father . . . . after his (missing) wife’s parents got custody of the two boys:
Authorities placed Josh’s two sons in the custody of Susan’s parents after their grandfather’s arrest. The Cox’s attorney, Steven Downing, said that the children were at risk living in Steve’s home with child pornography. However, the judge did grant Josh supervised visitation rights with his son. (just one, or both?)
In a separate issue, a judge issued an injunction forbidding Josh or Steve from publishing the missing woman’s journals.
Here’s the skinny on “supervised visitation” — SOMEONE gets paid, but NO ONE really wants this situation — not the person accused of abuse or (as it also can turn out) the person accused of “alienation” for protesting abuse. The house always wins — but just imagine if instead of this situation, they had finished their investigations, stayed consistent — and either clear the Dad or don’t — but no, here was some nice supervised visitation in an UNcontrolled environment.
Supervised visitation situations are off the chart BAD & a form of extortion, no matter which state one is in.
We had one in California (speaking of missing mothers — Nina Reiser — who went missing on a court-ordered exchange of the children; after her ex was convicted of murder (despite no body) he plea-bargained it down by showing authorities where he’d buried her.). Another involved an SV person who was under investigation for criminal sexual assault of an animal! (incidentally, the Commissioner (not Judge) assigning this person, at recommendation of a trusty local Ph.D. custody evaluator — happens to be a prominent AFCC judge and at least formerly on the board of the SF based Kids Turn, which is a “parent education” & access/visitation type nonprofit, see my blog. DOn’t you think this represents great wisdom? Having a child supervised by a person who was into sex with animals and a slave/master relationship (being the slave)? ??
Alternately, there’s the run-of-the-mill simply overbilling and financial fraud of some supervised visitation monitors, running nice side businesses, courtesy the local county courthouse and a nice judge.
One in California (1990s),
One in New York, 2004?, I’ve mentioned these before; in the second case, it’s clear the judge was referring business to a supervised visitation monitor who was also robbing elderly people’s estates (including after their deaths), more than $30,000. Or, 2011, Pennsylvania — and THIS time the FBI got involved. Hover cursor for the gory details, which include parents being overcharged (($65 vs. $20/hour), being forced to pay cash, being refused receipts, etc. “
FBI Investigates Lackawanna County Family Court.”
In part — because what’s up next involves what happened last weekend (Friday) in the same courthouse, where the GAL under investigation is STILL taking cases and charging parents, despite best efforts to stop it on their part: From WNEP.com (and there’s also a video on the link above)>
By Dave BohmanAction 16 Investigates 4:52 p.m. EST, November 17, 2011
More information has been learned about why federal officials are investigating a program in the Lackawanna County family court system.In September, and again this week, FBI agents confiscated records from family court.The guardian ad litem is a court appointed lawyer who represents a child while its mother and father try to settle custody cases.
One or both parents are required to pay the fees for the guardian ad litem’s services. Now, sources tell Newswatch 16, federal agents are looking to see if parents were cheated and the fees were pocketed. A woman who does not want to be identified because she`s testified to law enforcement agents claims she was cheated out of thousands of dollars during supervised visits with her young son. . . . Court papers show a federal grand jury directed the Lackawanna County courts to give investigators every case supervised by attorney Danielle Ross. She runs the Lackawanna County guardian ad litem program, and assigns caseworkers for supervised visits.
The woman said Ross was the guardian ad litem for her son. The woman claims she was overcharged between $1,500 and $2,000 in the last two and a half years.
From the Lackawanna County Bar Association, I note that (Parent Coordinator Promoter) Anne Marie Termini is Administering the GAL program?
Lackawanna County Guardian Ad Litem Program
ADMINISTRATOR:
Ann Marie Termini, Ed.S., M.S.
Lackawanna County Family Court (963-6512) and Clarks Summit, PA (586-5669)
HISTORY:
The current Guardian Ad Litem Program has been in effect for approximately five (5) years.
and, . . . .
SUPERVISED VISITS
The Scranton Area Family Center offers supervised visit services based on the availability of funding. . . . (my link shows the State-Contracted “Family Centers” and an * by this one shows it also has a Promoting Responsible Fatherhood program. Someone should look those contracts up!
People willing to go to “DohertyDeceit.com” and look under “Cases” will see that Mr. Pilchesky challenged the hiring of this particular GAL, found out that it was by a certain Judge’s court order, who also happened to be a Child Support Speaker, an AFCC person, and who had, from what I recall, pushed for a Unified Family Court. ….
Pilchesky v. [GAL, Commissioner, Comptroller & Judge]. Here’s the Hon. Harhut’s order (unsolicited, apparently — at least no grassroots requests for it and CERTAINLY not run by voters first)
simply appointing Ms. Ross to get an $18,000/year salary as GAL — dated January 2008. And on Scranton Political Times/Doherty Deceit section, Kids4Cash AND “co-parenting/Termini” threads you, too, can look at their receipts, thankfully!
So we see three playahs (well, public employees here — although one had no competitive bid, no contract, and no lease for occupying public office space, let alone office staff) — Harhut (the judge), Ross (the GAL and an attorney), and Termini (See degrees — not an attorney, or Ph.D. she has an M.S.) — and this compromises pretty clearly what I call one’s basic “AFCC operating unit” (you need a Judge, an Attorney to order services, and a psychologist sort to provide them). And, voila — here are exactly these 3 presenting at NACC conference in Brooklyn, NY (NB Ross was appointed the previous year) 2009:
** the AFCC buzz-word. Actually, it seems they would rather simply get rid of the term “Domestic Violence” (and, particularly, child abuse) and assign conflict moderators, such as themselves, to everyone.
The Hon. Harhut was appointed by the Governor in 1987 and in 1996 he got “administrative and judicial responsibility” for the Newly Created Family Court. This summary shows a “Classic” AFCC judge, besides which he was also on the “Commission for Justice Initiatives” on “Changing the Culture of Custody” — which it’s clear has been done in this county! . . . for example:
In his role as Family Court Judge and President Judge, Judge Harhut moved to integrate human services, mental health and drug and alcohol treatment into the legal setting with the objective of alleviating conflict while helping families achieve a permanent solution to family issues. He established a categorical system of conflict with concomitant programming and services to help families in each level of conflict. The theory is that families coming through the court system are in crisis. They need patience, understanding, cooperation and services to help them overcome these difficulties and move them into position to resolve their own disputes.
For certain fees . . . . . and the theory is rather patronizing, don’t you think?
In addition, Judge Harhut is one of the state’s foremost proponents of resolving family conflict through alternative dispute resolution. He is a strong advocate of mediation as an alternative to litigation. Since the introduction of this interplay between the courts, social services, and the community, very positive results have occurred for families and the community.
(that must be why the FBI had to come in to moderate the “conflicts” parents of both sexes were having with the court professionals! GAL and others who insisted on cash payments and refused to give receipts, plus possibly overbilled . . . .. )
SO, part of this “level of concommitant programming” would naturally be supervised visitation (see father blows up house, killing self and two sons, above), like or not, if you have “conflict” you just might be ordered onto Pay-Per-View of your kids.
The request for the mandatory budget is $34.5 billion, an increase of $1.1 billion from the FY 2011 current law level and includes policy increases of $1.4 billion in FY 2012 and $6.4 billion over five years. The mandatory budget:
• •
Invests an additional $2.billion over ten years in a new Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative designed to encourage non-custodial parents to work, support their children, and play an active role in their children’s lives. [[$2 billion/10 years = $2,000,000,000/10= $200,000,000/YEAR . . . ]] {{A/V grants have been $10 million/year at least, since 1996, but that’s not enough yet ….}}
OR, stated at American Humane Association.org: Summary of the President’s Proposed FY 2012 Child Welfare Budget
Child Support Enforcement
The Budget includes a Child Support and Fatherhood initiative to promote strong family relationships by encouraging fathers to take responsibility for their children, changing policies so that more of fathers’ support 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. The Budget also provides a temporary increase in incentive payments to States based on performance, which continues an emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency and will foster enforcement efforts. The initiatives would cost $305 million in FY 2012.
**just in case any women thought that access/visitation grants funding went two ways, and might help a separated, child support paying mother regain contact with her estranged children . . . .. And, in the White House site, this is called “
Giving a Hand Up to Low-Income Families” which I call, helping create new low-income families where none existed before:
Promote Fatherhood. The Budget promotes strong family relationships by encouraging fathers to take responsibility for the emotional and financial well-being of their children, changing policies so that more of their support reaches their children, and continuing a commitment to vigorous child support enforcement.
{{There seems to be no awareness here that mothers are now paying child support as a result of previous generations of this same theory}}
The Budget provides $1 billion over 10 years to encourage States to pass through child support payments to families rather than retaining those payments. The Budget also provides $570 million over 10 years for States to provide access and visitation services, which can strengthen a father’s relationship with his children and facilitate the payment of child support.
To help states through difficult fiscal times, in FY 2012 and 2013, the Budget provides an additional $300 million per year for State performance incentive payments, which continues an emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency. The Budget also provides for $75 million in Responsible Fatherhood grants and $75 million in Healthy Marriage grants in FY 2012.
Our President loves families JUST as much as any Republican contender, and says so on the “issues” link for “Family.” And of course the best way to strengthen a family is to prop up a father (not a mother, or help HER develop some “assets for independence” — that’s old school):
A strong nation is made up of strong families. Every family deserves the chance that so many of our parents and grandparents had – to make a better future for themselves and their children. Strong families will always be front and center of President Obama’s agenda.
Progress
Strengthening Families
President Obama was raised by a single parent and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. He is committed to responsible fatherhood, by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways
Well, anyhow, among the funded services are supervised visitation and parent education, plus counseling. That’s where these AFCC tactical units come in to “help” more families resolve their conflicts the right way — or the highway. Did I mention where this money comes from, and can you spell, besides, the public — TANF?
Anyhow, perhaps that’s why we have this multinational SVN (SUpervised Visitation Network) so excited about making sure families are never fully separated, and running nice conferences sbout this, too:
Vision
The Supervised Visitation Networkchampions a world in which all vulnerable families have access to safe and quality visitation services.
Mission
Mission Statement: The Supervised Visitation Network is an international membership network that establishes standards, promotes education and advances professionalism in the field of supervised visitation.
Robert B. Straus, DMH, JD, a founder of this network, his bio reads in part: (note the years and the connections)
He is a founder of the Supervised Visitation Network. He was President of the Network in 1993-94, helped draft the Network’s Standards and Guidelines for practice, and has served several terms on the Board of Directors.
From 1995 through 2000 he was Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Supervised Visitation, and in that capacity worked with the Governor’s Commission on Responsible Fatherhood and the Supervised Visitation Task Force of the Probate and Family Court, helping draft the Guidelines for Court Practice for Supervised Visitation.
Dr. Straus has a private psychotherapy practice, working with couples and children, and remains the Program Consultant to Meeting Place.
Other source of grants for Supervised Visitation include from the Office of Violence Against Women, “Safe Havens” grants series.
LOOK — the parents are literally crying out under these grants, they are a farce, and keep people’s tensions very, very high. They also expand and dilute (at the same time) the authority & responsibility of the courts. They are a RIDICULOUS concept — and unbelievably egotistical. Their failures do not seem to stop the funding the next year under “fatherhood promotion = better child support payments = less welfare.” That’s, sorry, “BS.”
From the California Site, a little more on their “fact sheets”
Purpose of the Grant Program
The purpose of the federal Child and Visitation Grant Program is “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become actively involved in their children’s lives.”
In effect, it increases opportunities for extortion of parents by providers, and fraudulent billing practices, plus the occasional unbelievably avoidable familicide by a variety of creative means from the parent upset at being put on this form of visitation.
LOOK at this description (from California, again) which shows HOW THE MONEY GOES (I can’t speak for other states):
The overarching policy goal of the grant program has been to ensure accessible and available services statewide for low-income families.
Grant Funding Eligibility
- •Family courts throughout California are eligible to apply for and receive Access to Visitation Grant funds. The family law divisions of the superior courts are required to administer the programs
- COMMENT: This is unbelievably relevant — the courts get the money for the programs — and they also administer it. This money in California comes (last I heard) to the California Judicial Council, and the next bullet confirms that it’s the AOC who distributes. There just so happen to be a few AFCC people on California’s AOC….).
- •Nonprofit agencies desiring to participate as the courts justice partner for direct service delivery are not allowed to apply directly to the AOC for these grant funds but must do so as part of the individual court’s Access to Visitation Grant application. Contract agreements are made only with the designated superior court.
- •Under the state’s grant award allocation process, funding is awarded to the superior courts through a statewide request-for-proposals grant application process. The funding preference has been for multiyear funding.
- •The recipients of Access to Visitation grant-related services are low-income separated, separating, divorced, or unmarried parents and their children who are involved in custody and visitation proceedings under the Family Code.
That’s how it works in California. Let’s see what it was in 2011 — not the largest segment of Marriage/Fatherhood promotion, but it’s still there:
=
This is kinda funny because The California Judicial Council – -and the Various Trial Courts throughout the state — are engaged in strident “high-conflict” relationships with each other and protesting a recent Bill (passed) that distributes more funding actually FOR the trial courts TO the trial courts.
While funding grants to help parents get along with each other better fueled by AFCC personnel whose first words upon joining the group arenot “Ma-ma” or “Da-Da” but “High-Conflict!”
(Hot off “Courthouse Forum News” – this is 2/9/2012…) (Thank you, Courthouse Forum News. You are a good resource!)
Overholt Quits as Top Court Admin Followed by Longtime Insider Patel
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – At an emergency meeting of the Judicial Council Thursday, regional administrator Jody Patel was chosen to replace Ron Overholt as interim director of California’s central court bureaucracy.
Overholt quit suddenly on Thursday morning, saying the job has “become a lightning rod for controversy.”
Overholt had been in charge of the Administrative Office of the Courts for five months, after working 11 years as deputy director of the agency.
Patel had worked six years as a regional director after working as the head clerk for Sacramento County Superior Court for five years. Before that, she worked in the lobbying office for the AOC.
“The position of Administrative Director of the Courts has become a lightning rod for controversy, impacting the focus on budget discussions, Judicial Council governance of the judicial branch, and the AOC itself,” said Overholt in an email sent to the Judicial Council Thursday.
The former head of the bureaucracy, William Vickrey, left in September of last year (2011), after becoming a focus of criticism on a range of issues, including an ambitious and costly IT system that is used in only a few courts. Overholt had served as his deputy for 11 years, and was said to be in the hunt for the director’s job on a long-term basis.
. . .
Overholt’s departure could take some of the pressure off of the administrative office, which bore the brunt of criticism in floor speeches in the state Assembly before last week’s passage of AB 1208, a measure reforming the financial structure of the courts and diminishing the bureaucracy’ power.
. . .
A group of reform-minded judges called the Alliance of California Judges has often been critical of the agency run by Overholt. They welcomed his departure, saying it opens the door to a “systematic overhaul of a bureaucracy that has caused many to question its competence and ability to spend public dollars prudently.
A little hard to keep track of, however the sequence is: William Vickrey Quits, leaving Ron Overholt, who lasted 5 months, now it’s Jody Patel.
Here’s from one day earlier — Wednesday:
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye slammed the state Assembly in a recent speech to about 100 judges and court clerks, saying the legislators had made “false claims” about the court’s big and powerful bureaucracy.
The chief justice said she met with the Assembly Speaker John Perez before the Assembly voted last week to pass a bill that would reduce the power of the Administrative Office of the Courts, an agency criticized by trial judges as arrogant and spendthrift.
“I had frank discussions about what was happening in the judicial branch in 2011,” said the chief justice, “and so was quite surprised to hear on the floor of the Assembly all of the meritless, false claims that were made about the judicial branch and the AOC.”
{{{ . . . This gets interesting, when I learn that the head of Alliance of California Judges is from San Diego (see PLENTY of my blogs), who ought to pay better attention to some of the organizations doing business with their courts, like Relationship Training Institute, Kids Turn SD, and what’s left of the Leucadia-based California Healthy Marriage Coalition (CHMC). Not to mention, isn’t this where this whole one-stop-justice-shop {{Family Justice Center Alliance or whatever it’s called that’s supposed to be a state and national model for “One-Stop-Justice”}} thing got started too?}}
The chief justice spoke last week in the auditorium of the State of California Building that serves as headquarters for the central court bureaucracy and is located in downtown San Francisco. The audience of roughly 100 was made up of presiding judges, assistant presiding judges, head clerks and their lieutenants.
Her speech was videotaped and then a link to the online video was circulated as part of an email newsletter to all the judges in California this week. It is part of a campaign by the bureaucrats to, in their eyes, set the record straight, and, in the eyes of their critics, to continue a pattern of propaganda.
AB 1208 would require that 100% of the money allocated by the Legislature for operation of the trial courts in fact go to the trial courts. That money totals roughly $1.8 billion a year.
. . . Yes, in our state it WOULD be necessary to write a law insisting that all the money allocated for its intended purpose actually go for that purpose. I think that’s what the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is about, isn’t it?
The bill would also require that 2/3 of the trial courts approved any major projects started by the central bureaucracy, with voting power apportioned based on population. The provision is driven in large part by an extremely high-priced IT system that is considered a fiasco by many trial judges.
“AB 1208 helps restore funds that the Legislature designates for the trial courts,” said San Diego Judge Daniel Goldstein. “It’s a systemic approach to having fiscal sanity so trial courts aren’t running out of money.”
Goldstein is a director of the Alliance of California Judges, a group that supports the bill. His points reflected a frequent argument by trial judges who say the bloated bureaucracy dominates proceedings of the policy-making body for the courts, the Judicial Council.
“The Judicial Council lacks oversight of the AOC,” Goldstein said. “AB 1208 actually helps the chief. It translates into fiscal reform of the branch in that it gives the chief justice the tools to make sure the trial courts have enough money to operate.”
Anyhow, Access Visitation grants are distributed from this court as described above, for the purposes put into law, and who are we to protest if several of the grantees also just happen to be nonprofits started by AFCC family law judges + AFCC family law attorneys to start with?
AOC Programs and Services
Approximately 750 staff members, with offices in San Francisco, Sacramento and Burbank, serve 11 divisions. These divisions, as the administrative arm of the Judicial Council, are tasked with delivering the following programs and services to the entire California court system, the largest in the nation.
Under the “Service for Families and Children” division, among other paragraphs, we see:
Distributes and administers over$70 million in grants to local courts and court-connected programs. Administers funding for dependency counsel and DRAFT program, Equal Access Partnership grants for legal services agencies, federal and foundation grants for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Office of Violence Against Women, and the Archstone Foundation. {{WHO???}} Manages and implements interagency agreements with the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Department of Child Support Services, Department of Mental Health, Department of Social Services, Office of Emergency Services. Co-administers state drug court dependency counsel collections program.
Supports expansion and enhancement of collaborative justice models through cost effective state and local collaborations with justice system partners.
Finally — in case someone is tempted to say< “what’s CALIFORNIA’s model got to do with my state?” I notice that (our) CFCC — “Center for Families and Children in the Courts” — is listed in the MacArthur Foundation-sponsored “MODELS FOR CHANGE” –which I discovered when looking up a radical restructuring of Washington State (around an DSHS and nonprofit started by a judge collaboration); it’s listed HERE as a Model For Change.
So sounds like this MacArthur Foundation is very influential in “Driving” change. So much for states’ individual involvement with normal, non-aligned citizens. . . .
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
January 26, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Office of Justice Programs (OJP) January 26, 2012 (202) 307-0703 http://www.ojp.gov …
Amazing what the combo of internet (for communications platforms and dissemination of information) + a nice foundation working with networked nonprofits can do to change society. . . . . Why after all should be we taking orders and clues from ourselves, locally, based on what’s going on within communities? Rather, let us defer to the tax-exempts and let them collaborate, model, and speed up implementation of change based on models they’ve agreed upon.
March 9, 2011
State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 I Street P. O. Box 903447 Sacramento, CA 94203-4470 Telephone: (916) 445-2021 Fax: (916) 444-3651 E-Mail Address:RCT @doj.ca.gov
KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO 16935 W BERNARDO DR NO. 234 SAN DIEGO CA 92127
RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors
We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2010. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.
KIDS’ TURN (San Francisco) is marked current, and apparently turned in its 2009 & 2010 RRF’s (state-level filings), but this is not posted yet up on the site:
| Registrant Information |
|
Full Name: |
KID’S TURN |
FEIN: |
943112621 |
|
Type: |
Public Benefit |
|
|
Corporate or Organization Number: |
1657442 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Registration Number: |
075606 |
| Record Type: |
Charity |
|
Registration Type: |
Charity Registration |
| Issue Date: |
6/30/2006 {{??}} |
|
Renewal Due Date: |
11/15/2011 |
| Registration Status: |
Current |
|
Date This Status: |
|
| Date of Last Renewal: |
2/7/2011 |
|
|
| Address Information |
|
Address Line 1: |
55 NEW MONTGOMERY STE 500 |
|
|
|
Phone: |
|
|
Address Line 2: |
|
|
Address Line 3: |
|
|
Address Line 4: |
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 |
|
|
|
| Fiscal Begin: |
01-JUL-09 |
| Fiscal End: |
30-JUN-10 |
| Total Assets: |
$6,284.00 |
| Gross Annual Revenue: |
$406,085.00 |
| RRF Received: |
21-JAN-11 |
| Returned Date: |
|
| 990 Attached: |
Y |
| Status: |
Accepted |
|
|
Related Documents
|
|
|
|
Interesting record of diminishing assets here (990 filings): Must be the economy:
ORGANIZATION NAME
|
STATE
|
YEAR
|
TOTAL ASSETS
|
FORM
|
PAGES
|
EIN
|
| Kids Turn |
CA |
2010 |
$6,284 |
990EZ |
17 |
94-3112621 |
| Kids Turn |
CA |
2009 |
$25,000 |
990EZ |
17 |
94-3112621 |
| Kids Turn |
CA |
2008 |
$241,882 |
990 |
39 |
94-3112621 |
| Kids Turn |
CA |
2007 |
$96,127 |
990 |
21 |
94-3112621 |
| K |
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
I’m fed up with wordpress, and don’t know why it doesn’t put automatic paragraph returns. I see them when I key in, and don’t feel like keying in in ‘html’ mode.
I also don’t like those huge quotation signs, and am tired of looking at the color scheme (complain, complain). I put a lot of work into finding and copying info and links on here, and then some connecting narrative (not editing the same, obviously). That’s too much investment for such a poor appearance. Oh well, technological curve needs some acceleration on my part here . . . . Oh well…
In short, this format is not getting my thoughts out very well. I’ll figure out an alternative ….
familycourtmatters
February 9, 2012 at 7:05 pm