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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

STILL Too Hot to Touch with a Ten-Foot Pole? Supervised Visitation Racketeering (Shockome/Viola Stroud case) and Professionalization (SVNetwork.org) etc. [publ. Jan. 9, 2013]

with 3 comments

(No apologies for format, I just want this post published!)

Why this case is important: For one, a prominent attorney known to support the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference and other groups concerned with abusers getting custody of minor children, in 2009 lost his license to practice law, in part, over this case, and allegations he made about Judge Amodeo — and Dutchess County (New York) goings on.http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_10622.htm

So, Let’s talk about why Barry won’t talk about the Money Laundering //Financial Fraud angle in the Shockome case that helped cost him his law license, and why Mo Hannah (who he is promoting a certain book with) won’t talk about the HHS funding of the fatherhood movement, and why neither of them (OR the NCADV) cares to mention that this comes from Title IV diversions, i.e., federal money that otherwise might actually help minor children, and the households they live in!

After all, that aspect of the particular provider was exposed – even in the local newspapers — back in 2004 !!! and a conviction of grand theft, in June 2006!

This is a wonderful (sic) summary of the situation from a yahoo on-line group about familycourtreform. Now, there’s a lot of that going around, but this one I believe relates to the LIz Richards/NAFCJ.net stream, and she does know what she’s been talking about for years (not that others of us haven’t continued researching and blogging — and being ignored by the advocacy groups more interested in moving product and pushing their personal professions….

Towards the bottom I also have some links to the wonderfully professional-looking newsletters and website pushing “Centers for Dispute Resolution,” ADR, and Mediation as a tool to resolve custody dispute. Ms. Viola Stround (and others like here, probably) were definitely there. So those professional publications should be compared with the resulting fraud investigations, although probably not enough of the latter. In this one, it turned out the County was disbursing funds to a nonprofit which hadn’t registered as a charity with the state of New York…..

Please circulate if nothing else, this link, save the material, and encourage people to think about it! Thanks: Read the entire article — it speaks volumes!

Viola Stroud of CRC (The Journal News, September 26, 2004)
Posted By:
Thu Oct 5, 2006 1:12 am  |

For those of you who have read the recent article in Newsweek, which described use of PAS in Genia Shockome’s case http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14870310/site/newsweek/%5B%5Bbroken link], here is an article from 2004 about the Children’s Rights Council affiliated “supervisor” — who served to prevent Genia from protecting her children — Viola Stroud, who was recently convicted for grand larceny theft: Click here: Mahopac Woman Convicted of Grand Larceny*

Please note that the link to this article has been removed from the Internet, but luckily a friend just forwarded this back to me (I had copied it in its’ entirety in the original email in 2004):

(Original publication: September 26, 2004)


A Putnam County court insider who was entrusted with the finances of three aging and incapacitated women wrote tens of thousands of dollars in checks to herself, to “cash” and to an unregistered charity she heads, legal records show. Viola Stroud of Mahopac received judicial appointments to oversee the women’s assets even though she failed from the start to account for their money and property as required by law, the records show. And while two of the women have since died in nursing homes, the third, 64-year-old Doris Pope, lost her lakefront home and now lives in a cluttered apartment on a hill overlooking a gas station while battling in court for a full accounting of how her money was spent.


Court records show that some of Pope’s money went to Little Angels Supervised Visitation, a not-for-profit organization that Stroud created to provide court-ordered services in child-custody disputes. Although incorporated five years ago [[=CA. 1999]], Little Angels has never complied with state reporting requirements for charities. “I am so disgusted with the justice system … I just don’t believe what’s going on,” said Pope, a former attorney and Putnam’s first female prosecutor before a 1987 car crash left her brain-damaged and nearly blind. In a separate case, Stroud is accused of failing to account for the estate of former Carmel Town Historian Dorothy Jewell five years after her death. Court papers say the estate was worth $195,000, of which only $11,000 remains. A related lawsuit, since settled, accused Stroud of fraudulently renting out and striking deals to sell Jewell’s house after her death, and of selling off Jewell’s antique furniture, some of which had been willed to the Carmel Historical Society. Stroud, 60, declined to answer questions when The Journal New visited the Little Angels offices in Mahopac recently. Stroud said she was eager to be interviewed, but needed permission from her lawyer. “I have nothing to hide. I haven’t done anything wrong,” she said. But her attorney, Ronald Levine of Poughkeepsie, said that neither he nor Stroud would discuss the allegations. When asked why, Levine said: “No comment.” In an affidavit filed earlier this year, however, Stroud acknowledged errors in her accounting of Pope’s assets. “I am not an attorney at law. … I have no expertise in bookkeeping. I am not an accountant,” she wrote.


One-day training Stroud received her appointments under Article 81 of the state Mental Hygiene Law, which lets court-appointed guardians take over the finances of people incapacitated by mental disability or other illness. In most cases, the guardians are attorneys, said Thomas Kilfoyle, counsel to the state judge who oversees such appointments. Otherwise, the appointees are usually relatives or friends of those in need, he said.

Court papers show Stroud won the appointments after attending a one-day training session in 1993. In 1996, then-Putnam County Judge and acting state Supreme Court Justice William Braatz named her Jewell’s guardian and awarded her $650 for earlier work as a court evaluator in the case. Jewell, 80, was suffering from dementia. She had never married, and her closest relative, a cousin, lived in Texas. The next year, Stroud signed a reverse mortgage for as much as $63,675 in advances against Jewell’s Carmel home, even though Jewell was collecting $1,155 a month from Social Security and had about $70,000 in savings when Stroud was appointed. The initial advance from the reverse mortgage, which allows homeowners 62 and older to convert their equity into spending money while keeping title to their homes, was $10,520.60, of which $5,000 was in cash, records show. On Dec. 11, 1997, Jewell moved into the Putnam Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. She died the next day of cardio-respiratory failure.

{{NOTE: there is now (I DNK if then) a “NASGA” __ National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse.” Another investigative writer, Janet Phelan, who had to deal with a case with one of her own relatives (many of us have!!), did a series on “Probate MURDERS” and recounted how when guardians and judges get too cozy, real estate starts trading hands quickly (San Bernardino County, I think it was). As it seems to have in this case. This tells us something about the character of Ms. Stroud — and the culture of the court system there..}}

Braatz’s order had directed Stroud to file an initial report accounting for Jewell’s assets within 90 days, but in court papers, the Putnam County Department of Social Services alleged that Stroud failed to file that report and subsequent annual reports required by law. Stroud’s lawyer said in court papers filed last year that “a portion of the initial report was delivered to Judge Braatz during the first year of the guardianship” but was “apparently lost by the court.”

More appointments

In May 1998, Braatz named Stroud the guardian of Pope, whose property on Kirk Lake in Mahopac was facing foreclosure. Again, the order required an initial report within 90 days, but neither it nor subsequent reports were filed on time. In August 1999, Braatz gave Stroud a third appointment, as co-guardian of Hedwig Roesser, an 88-year-old retired clerk from Mahopac who was diagnosed with dementia. The judge also awarded Stroud $2,400 for work as a court evaluator in the case.

{{??sounds like a conflict of interest to have the person evaluating an elder for dementia then receive guardianship status!}}

Two months earlier, Roesser had been hospitalized after social workers found her living in squalor with a daughter who was also hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. That daughter, Joan Roesser, could not be reached {{She was probably drugged up somewhere at the time..}}. But her younger sister, Carol Woermann, said she opposed Stroud’s appointment. “She came into court with this smart-aleck attitude. … She was going to be appointed guardian and there was no question about it,” said Woermann, 62, of Mahopac. Seven weeks after Stroud’s appointment, Roesser died of cardiopulmonary arrest. Braatz, a Republican, retired two weeks after Stroud’s appointment in the Roesser case.

The former judge, who now lives in a waterfront home in Punta Gorda, Fla., said he knew Stroud, a former coordinator of the Putnam Mediation Project, from her work assisting women in Family Court. Braatz said he did not recall awarding Stroud any guardianships, but added: “I must have done it if the record indicates it.” “I never had any indication that she did anything inappropriate, and I would be surprised if she did,” he said.

Little Angels

Shortly before her appointment in the Roesser case, Stroud incorporated Little Angels Supervised Visitation Ltd., an agency she began operating several years earlier to provide court-ordered oversight of visits between noncustodial parents and their children.

{{??sounds like she was operating this several years BEFORE incorporating it?? This bears some research. Again — why wouldn’t Barry Goldstein have looked at this BEFORE he was bumped off the Shockome case? Maybe that would’ve been a better use of his time than disseminating information about batterers, which many of us already know, anyhow! Somehow, a newspaper reporter saw fit to look into it, why not Genia Shockome’s own attorney???}}

Little Angels’ not-for-profit incorporation papers list the group’s initial directors as Stroud; her husband, William Stroud; and attorney Stephen Santoro of Carmel. Little Angels has offices above a dog-grooming business just off Route 6 in Mahopac, where Stroud and others serve as neutral observers to watch over children spending time with parents accused of domestic violence, substance abuse or other problems. The organization also has used rented space from churches and civic groups. Little Angels charges $25 an hour, with sliding-scale discounts, according to a presentation Stroud made last year to the Westchester County Domestic Violence Council.

{{Moral of the story: People who present to DV Councils can also be involved in fraud…}}

“Therapeutic visitation” costs $75 an hour, payable by insurance. Papers filed with the New York Department of State list Little Angels as a “Type B” not-for-profit corporation, “organized exclusively for charitable, educational, religious or scientific purposes.” Brochures, in both English and Spanish, distributed by Little Angels state: “We are open to any donations or contributions toward the program.” But Little Angels has never registered with the state Attorney General’s Office, which oversees charities that solicit donations in New York. In May, the attorney general’s Charities Bureau sent Little Angels a letter seeking an explanation within 30 days, but did not receive a response, spokesman Brad Maione said. Many government and private foundations require that their grant recipients be not-for-profit corporations, and Little Angels has received funding from both public and private sources. Putnam County paid Little Angels $17,328.75 between Nov. 22, 1999, and July 18, 2003, for services provided to the Department of Social Services, said county Commissioner of Finance William Carlin.

{{OK, let’s look at this: the COunty was paying an organization which didn’t register with the state — $17K, specifically. Any idea how often this stuff goes on? LOTS! We’d know more if we paid better attention to those nonprofits, and to county budgets, as a matter of course, as interested taxpayers!!}}

Mathematically Incorrect.

In 1997 and 2000, Little Angels, using two slightly different names, received two grants, totaling $3,173, from the United Way of Westchester and Putnam Inc., President Ralph Gregory said. But Gregory said the money was apparently disbursed in error, because United Way records show Little Angels never verified its not-for-profit status. “We are concerned — very, very concerned,” Gregory said. “This has never occurred before.”

{{And the public is supposed to believe this WHY? United Way does, or does not, have checks and balances before disbursing money??}}

According to a court-ordered investigation last year into Stroud’s handling of Pope’s assets, Little Angels cashed two checks, totaling $1,645.77, drawn against Pope’s checking account in 1999. That money was part of $27,278.02 in checks made payable to cash, Stroud or Little Angels, the examiner, lawyer Stephen Abels of Brewster, wrote.

{{LOok at all the positions Stroud held around the county — yet she is not keeping her funds separate!! That’s elementary in handling more than one person’s estates, in billing for a nonprofit contractor of supervised visitation services, in anything remotely basic accounting-related!! Yet this same behavior has been recorded as far back as 1999 also around a potential “Los Angeles County Judges Slush Fund” when I think it was, Marv Byer, petitioned (through attorney Richard Fine?) to look at some cancelled checks, also…Look it up!}}

Abels who noted that Stroud’s final accounting of Pope’s assets was “mathematically incorrect” — wrote that those disbursements were not allowed under law, nor were $405.77 in bounced-check fees and a $148.82 payment to an insurance agency of which Pope was not a client. In addition, Abels wrote, Stroud took $4,809.27 in commissions — more than twice the $2,000, to be held in escrow, that she had been awarded as maximum compensation at the time of her appointment. “Your examiner does not feel that compensation is warranted after inquiry into the manner in which (Pope’s) affairs were handled,” Abels wrote in his July 2003 report.

Although Jewell and Roesser died in 1997 and 1999, respectively, Stroud wrote in an affidavit this year that she never prepared a final accounting as a guardian until February 2001, after she was replaced as Pope’s guardian following allegations of financial irregularities. In her affidavit, Stroud conceded that Abels’ objections to her accounting were “partially correct” and that it was “not prepared in accordance with legal requirements.” But Stroud said she deserved the compensation she took because she resolved Pope’s many legal problems, with the help of attorney Santoro, and spent “numerous hours” arranging for her housing and health care. Earlier this year, state Supreme Court Justice Peter P. Rosato held hearings in White Plains to review Stroud’s handling of Pope’ assets. His decision is pending.

{{**Attorney Santoro having been one of the personnel listed on Little Angels supervised visitation outfit…}}

Fraud allegations In February 2002, more than four years after Jewell’s death, Carlin, the county’s finance commissioner, was appointed public administrator of her estate. In a letter five months later, John Carmody, at that time a deputy Putnam County attorney, wrote that Carlin could not “fully ascertain the nature and location of the tangible assets.” Carmody — now Carmel town attorney — also said that the proceeds of the reverse mortgage on Jewell’s house had been drawn down, but the house somehow wound up in foreclosure, and that Stroud leased the house and struck a deal to sell it “for what appears to be well-below the market value.” In legal papers tied to the foreclosure, the attorney for the couple who rented the house — Richard Litsky and Josephine Allessi — accused Stroud, Santoro and another attorney of racketeering, conspiracy and fraud in their handling of Jewell’s estate. The couple’s lawyer, Thomas Cascione, alleged that Stroud “unjustly enriched” herself by collecting $30,000 in rent from Litsky and Allessi, and that she signed a notarized agreement, in Santoro’s presence, to sell them the house for $133,000, less credits of $15,200. Litsky and Allessi bought the house last year for $185,000. Cascione also accused Stroud of selling Jewell’s antique furniture to an acquaintance for less than its value, and he accused Santoro of taking Jewell’s piano. Certain pieces of Jewell’s furniture — an antique table and chairs — were willed by Jewell to the Carmel Historical Society, but society President Lillian Eberhardt said they were never received. Santoro, in an interview, denied all allegations of wrongdoing and said he didn’t receive “one single, solitary dime” for his work on Jewell’s estate. Santoro said he was in possession of the piano “at one time,” but declined to elaborate, saying: “I’m not at liberty to discuss it with you because it has to do with Ms. Stroud, so you would have to get that information from her.”

‘Incomprehensible’ Late last year, state Supreme Court Justice S. Barrett Hickman ordered Stroud to file annual accountings of Jewell’s estate by Dec. 22, which she did. In the court papers, Stroud said that only $11,000 was left of Jewell’s estate. She acknowledged owing the estate $4,753.40, but said her commissions would be more than that. The accountings show thousands of dollars in checks written to cash, as well as to Little Angels and “Little Angels Nursing Care.” In an April report, Carlin called the accountings “wholly inadequate and incomprehensible.” After Hickman retired last year, the Jewell case was transferred to state Supreme Court Justice John W. Sweeny Jr. and acting Justice Robert E. Miller, both of whom recused themselves because Stroud regularly appeared before them on issues of supervised visitation. The case was then transferred a third time, to a Westchester judge, acting Justice Bruce Tolbert, before whom it remains pending.

Barry Golstein is now, with Mo Hannah, presenting himself as an expert, and speaker re Domestic Violence Child Abuse and Custody. (see Times UP! article here):

Monday, November 21, 2011
U. S. Department of Justice v. Custody Court System
photo courtesy of Family Court Crisis-Abusers Getting Custody!

By Barry Goldstein

Protective mothers have been complaining about mistreatment by the custody court system, but have routinely been dismissed as “disgruntled litigants.” As recently as the beginning of the Battered Mothers Custody Conferences in 2004, there was little professional support for protective mothers. The mothers’ complaints have now been confirmed and supported by the domestic violence community, many women’s organizations, numerous governmental agencies, many in the academic community and a substantial body of research such as contained in our book DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.

Last summer at the NCADV Conference, Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan and some of his colleagues presented their findings from a major Department of Justice study that confirms the findings in our book and other research that the present custody court practices for domestic violence cases are deeply flawed . . .

. . . [[Mr. Goldstein has his premise, which is the trouble is, the courts need better experts — take for example, US…]]

One of the big obstacles to recognizing valid abuse complaints is the common use of mental health and other professionals without expertise in domestic violence. The main purpose of considering domestic violence in custody cases is to protect the safety of children. Nevertheless the evaluators relied on by custody courts rarely know how to conduct a safety assessment or what behaviors have been associated with higher lethality and other dangers. The evaluators do not understand domestic violence dynamics and often are unfamiliar with the effects of domestic violence on children or other information based upon the specialized body of scientific research that could be used to better understand domestic violence issues and recognize truthful allegations of abuse.
. . .
We need much more and better trainings for court professionals, but there is also the danger that attending trainings can give judges and other professionals a false sense of confidence in their understanding of domestic violence. The findings by Dr. Saunders and his colleagues that most court professionals have inadequate training in domestic violence confirms our concern that in most cases the professionals relied on by the court are not qualified to participate in a domestic violence case without the assistance of a genuine expert. Even if the judge has received good training the court is likely to be influenced by unqualified evaluators and other court professionals.

The failure to possess adequate training in domestic violence means that it will be difficult for these professionals to recognize and respond effectively to domestic violence, but the widespread belief in the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse is a bias that strongly undermines the cases of protective mothers.

{{On, and on, and on he drones about the improper “training” ….}}

The reliance on court professionals with inadequate training and belief in the myth takes place in the context of many other common mistakes discussed in earlier research. The courts cannot protect mothers and children in domestic violence cases if they cannot recognize domestic violence when it is present. . . . .[[finally, a friendly reminder how to correct the “inadequate training” — use our book…]]

The research contained in our book and elsewhere supports this understanding and analysis. We discussed the common mistake of custody courts that treat the mother’s actions as a litigant as if they were an indication of her behavior as a parent. . . . Abusers tend to be extremely manipulative and so after their abuse that the judge does not see, come to court calm and cooperative. Court professionals are often fooled by this act.

…The Department of Justice study establishes that these flawed practices lead to decisions that hurt children.

{{Judges no doubt will welcome the characterization as being gullible and easily fooled, but a man who was suspended from practicing law in 2009…}}

Next, the fatherhood multimillion federal funding initiatives in place since, oh, about 1995 or so — are just a cottage industry…

Cottage Industry Supporting Abusive Fathers

We often hear complaints about corruption in the custody court system. This belief is supported by the many cases in which courts make findings that are far removed from a fair evaluation of the evidence and decisions that seem to be disconnected from the well being of the children involved. There are cases of outright corruption such as the Garson case in Brooklyn, New York, but more often, I believe courts create the appearance of corruption because of bias, ignorance and deeply flawed practices.

One of my concerns with complaints about corruption is that it makes it harder for judges in the broken system to hear the complaints and create the reforms that are needed. An important contributing factor to the widespread belief in corruption is the cottage industry that has been created to support abusive fathers.

Most contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to pressure their victims to return or punish them for leaving. Domestic violence is all about control so these abusive fathers usually have controlled the family finances and have these resources to support their custody litigation. Some lawyers and mental health professionals have figured out that they can make a large income by supporting practices and approaches that support abusers. We often see them advertise as supporting “fathers’ rights.” In many cases we see fathers’ attorneys and GALs promoting the appointment of evaluators who support abusive fathers. It is particularly frustrating when judges refer to these professionals who regularly support abusers as “neutral professionals.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site http://www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

This was written fully five years after the Viola Stroud grand larceny conviction went down (seven years after it was exposed and reported) and Mr. Goldstein still has not incorporated this line of thinking into his work (nor is he about to). I tried to raise the issue to him by email ca. 2011, but overall, they seem to be on a certain theme, and selling the book…

In this post, there is published evidence that the supervised visitation provider in this case was later convicted of grand larceny.

For originators of the term “access/visitation” see Children’s Rights Council and David Levy; for who ramrodded this onto the tail end of welfare reform ca. 1996, my understanding is that this was Ron Haskins. We should ALL understand that supervised visitation services can access grants from two funding streams — Safe Havens (the DOJ side) and Access/Visitation as part of fatherhood promotion (the HHS side).

The prominent Genia Shockome case is often mentioned (in certain circles) completely absent the element of a supervised visitation provider in her case having later been convicted of grand larceny, exposing serious weakness in the system, particularly one that (as it involves notably Missing MOney) raises the question of whether some of the missing money was turned into kickbacks, and may have some bearing as to who got assigned.

A woman involved in the Genia Shockome case (her supervised visitation provider, Viola Stroud) was convicted, having been under investigation since 2004, and reported here in 2006. Yet in current organizations seeking to fix the family courts, which routinely accept “supervised visitation” as a good idea, I found one of the four members of this coalition promoting a 2007 article –featuring the Shockome case, and complaining about custody getting to batterers — which made NO reference to this knowledge. Is that negligent reporting or what?

I’m putting up a quick post to preserve the remaining on-line documentation of this case in particular, and to call attention to the problem. I in no way pretend that this post is thorough discussion — it’s a quick post, that’s all!

(NOTE: date is June 28, 2006 in the Putnam County Recorder, link available above):
Mahopac Woman Convicted of Grand Larceny
Viola Stroud abused responsibility as guardian of incpacitated personsPutnam County District Attorney Kevin L. Wright announced the grand larceny conviction of Viola Stroud, age sixty two of Mahopac, after a long investigation. regarding her activities as a court appointed guardian on behalf of incapacitated persons. Mr. Wright said Investigator Edward Johnston of the District Attorney’s Office, arrested. Stroud on August 26, 2005, capping a year long probe of her activities by Wright’s Office. County District Attorney Wright said Stroud entered a guilty plea June 16, 2006, before County Court Judge Richard Molea, to Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a Class D Felony and faces jail, probation or a combination of both at sentencing which is scheduled for August 25, 2006. Stroud will also be ordered to make restitution of $3,150 to the remaining victim in the investigation.Stroud had already been court ordered to repay over $30,000 in. restitution. regarding her illegal handling of such client fiduciary responsibilities, but had not been charged criminally. District Attorney Wright said her June 16th felony criminal conviction for theft of funds, which Stroud had claimed were monies owed to her for services she performed, showed that Stroud’s actions went well beyond her original explanations of her poor bookkeeping as the cause her difficulties with the law. Wright said that anyone taking advantage of a special relationship to defraud an incapacitated person was a loathsome, vile act and would be prosecuted criminally by the Putnam County District Attorney’s Office.Ms. Stroud was represented by Timothy Curtiss of Carmel. Chief Assistant District Attorney Christopher York together with Inv. Johnston. conducted the investigation of the case for the District Attorney’s Office. Judge Molea was brought up from Westchester County to hear the case due to the recusal of Putnam’s two County Court Judges, who as many of the other judges throughout Putnam over the years, had become familiar with Stroud in her various capacities as head. of Little Angels a court family visitation service, or as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution. (ADR) Program in the Town of Carmel Justice Court.
Westchester County to hear the case due to the recusal of Putnam’s two County Court Judges, who as many of the other judges throughout Putnam over the years, had become familiar with Stroud in her various capacities as head. of Little Angels a court family visitation service, or as head of the Alternate Dispute Resolution. (ADR) Program in the Town of Carmel Justice Court.

COMPARE with related article as posted by CASAFECHILDCOALITION.org member, “ISSB” (Incest Survivors Speakers’ Bureau) under Links and Resources, in this section:

Advocacy and LegislationCalifornia Safe Child Coalition (the coalition iSSB is a member of)
Center for Judicial Excellence (another member of the coalition)
National Association to Protect Children (Protect.org) [[I DNK and haven’t looked at this group yet]
California Protective Parents Association (CPPA) (yet another member of the coalition)
Courageous Kids Network (connections to the Holly Collins family (i.e., her daughter Jennifer) whose story CJE promotes, relentlessly)…
Justice for Children (CJE refers to)
Stop Family Violence (a nonprofit project of the Tides Foundation, Irene Weiser: reports and conferences)
Small Justice – Film Review
Mothers of Lost Children (connections with originators of CPPA, above)
CA Coalition Against Sexual Assault Research and EvidenceArticle reviewed by Harry Croft, MD fromHealthyPlace.com
What is False Memory Syndrome?

The Leadership Council: How often do children’s reports of abuse turn out to be false?

Feminista Article:  False Memory Syndrome: A False Construct

Child Trauma Academy:  The Neuropsychiatric Impact of Childhood Trauma

Merrilyn McDonald, M.S.W.: Myth of Epidemic False Allegations of Sexual Abuse

Newsweek article 2007: Why Parents Who Batter Gain Custody

— this story was only published a month later. Why no reference to the woman convicted of grand larceny and her connection to Genia’s troubles as a mother?

International Society for Study of Trauma and Dissociation

I am reposting this after having to read about the ridiculous “Our Broken Courts Initiative” promotion by the Cummings Foundation, and seeing its participants (and publicist, Ms. Russell among others), although I posted in July 2011 some more details of this particular situation around the fraudster supervised visitation provider, conflicts of interest, and even put up the nonprofit tax returns of the center in question.

They STILL have not acknowledged the existence of a Supervised Visitation Network with close connections to the courts and federal funding. HEre is from the SVN “History” page, said history begins approximately 1992 (per the organization) and from the start was international, not just USA:

2007 Shelly La Botte, Nadine Blaschak-Brown and Sonia Melara host Celebrate-Educate-Innovate, May 9-12 in Millbrae, California. This annual conference is held in conjunction with the Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Access to Visitation Grant Program, which celebrated its 10-year anniversary. This conference marks the first time that three federal funding sources attend the conference together: Ministry of the Attorney General Office in Ontario, Canada; federal Office on Violence Against Women (U.S. Department of Justice); and federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Valya Roberts continues her presidency.

THIS CONFERENCE not only took place in California the same year (2007, and prior to the article on Genia Shockome) but also mentions the three funding sources, includes the office of child support enforcement as one of them, and reveals the Access to Visitation Grant Program as a factor — and that this program has been going on for 10 years. ….

Instead the CASafeChildCoalition article (posted on one of the member sites) is going to talk about “parental alienation” and Richard Gardner like he was still alive, which he isn’t and wasn’t then, either….

Genia is one of many parents nationwide who have lost custody due to a controversial concept known as parental alienation. Under the theory, children fear or reject one parent because they have been corrupted or coached to lie by the other. Parental alienation is now the leading defense for parents accused of abuse in custody cases, according to domestic-violence advocates. And it’s working. The few current studies done on the subject consider only small samples. But according to one 2004 survey in Massachusetts by Harvard’s Jay Silverman, 54 percent of custody cases involving documented spousal abuse were decided in favor of the alleged batterers. Parental alienation was used as an argument in nearly every case.


A man lost his license to practice law over this case. Glenn Sacks (fathers’ rights loudmouth) is found crowing over this event in 2009. I notice Glenn Sacks conveniently doesn’t mention the funding either. These groups play off each other like soap operas in the press, while women such as myself, who need realtime help and better analyses, and without other prominent clues where to find it, end up sometimes wasting years (and/or money, if we go to conferences) in order to listen to this schlock and rhetoric. How likely is it that neither side knows about the grants behind the programming? You think Glenn doesn’t??

As if “feminist attorney” was a bad word!! Notice the organizations mentioned here. (Any press is good press, right?)

Court Delivers Devastating Blow to Feminist Attorney Barry Goldstein Jan 7, 2009, by Glenn Sacks.

Feminist groups, including the National Organization for Women, contend that Parental Alienation is a myth and a ruse used by abusive fathers to win control of their children in custody cases. To pick one example of many, Helen Grieco, until recently the Executive Director of California NOW, calls Parental Alienation Syndrome a “scam.”

(I have never denied that there are fathers who have alienated their own children through their abuse or personality defects, and who attempt to shift the blame to their children’s mothers by falsely claiming PAS. Yet parental alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 “high conflict” divorce cases over a 12 year period and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of the cases studied.)

Feminist attorney Barry Goldstein, Esq. of New York has been one of the leading advocates for this position, and was the primary attorney in the highly-publicized Genia Shockome case in New York. Shockome, lost custody of her two children, now ages 13 and 11, to her ex-husband, Tim Shockome after a contentious custody battle in which Genia accused Tim of abuse. The Shockome case was widely reported, including this sympathetic article in Newsweek magazine {{probably the 2007 I linked to above]], and Shockome was a popular feminist cause celebre a few years ago.

Goldstein (pictured in a suit & tie alongside Shockome) has worked with or been a member of many if not most of the organizations seeking to discredit Parental Alienation and the fatherhood movement. He has practiced law in New York for almost three decades, has authored a book on custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence, and is scheduled to speak at the annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference next week.

Last week Barry Goldstein, Esq. had his head handed to him.

The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed a staggering five-year suspension of Goldstein in large part for his conduct in the Shockome case. The Court called numerous statements Goldstein made concerning the Shockome case “dishonest, false, or misleading.” The Court also criticized Goldstein for misuse of funds in another case he handled.
. . .
Goldstein’s fall is a tremendous embarrassment to many of our opponents in the battle to achieve shared parenting, reform family law, and protect children’s right to a relationship with both parents after divorce. These include: the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women; Justice for Children; The Battered Mothers Custody Conference; Stop Family Violence; The Leadership Council; and others.

(NOTICE how a certain cluster of organizations is mentioned above…)

Here’s part of an August 2009 conversation from the same FamilyCourt Reform group that actually reported on Viola Stroud issue. this person is commenting on Barry Goldstein/Shockome:

Posted by NAFCJCAL1 on August 29, 2009: (possibly Cindy Ross, who knows whereof she speaks in these matters!)

BTW, Barry Goldstein is an attorney who had represented Genia Shockome.
But he didn’t do anything for her, just like none of the attorneys
really do anything to prevent custody switches or prosecution of women
who are accused of being alienators. Perhaps his motives were good, but
any of the lawyers who play games in court, while refusing to
acknowledge or fight the corruption factors usually just make things
worse for their own clients. (This is also true for most of the
professional “advocates” who invariably end up setting women up for
failure because they don’t know how to address what is really going on,
and often try to discredit those grassroots activists — like Liz and
others connected to NAFCJ — who do…

In all the years I’ve been involved in court reform issues (since about
1997), I’ve never seen any “filings”, lawsuits, class actions, etc.,
really do much for anyone. And pretty much the only successes I’ve seen
— in terms of mothers not losing their children to abusive men — have
been those women who have followed Liz/NAFCJ suggestions and who also
went on to address the underlying financial and other related
corruption, rather than just focusing on complaining about their own

I have little faith in lawyers or any of the professionals who, in some
way or another, profit from our issue. I’ve also seen a lot of
arrogance from people periodically trying to “reinvent the wheel”, some
suffering themselves from “Queen Bee Syndrome”, who think that they are
going to be the ones to change the world and they step all over the
women who’ve come before them.

The bottom line for me is that when it comes down to it, I don’t really
give a damn what other people think of me. …

My 2011? blogpost “GENIA SHOCKOME, JUDGE AMODEO, AND THE DUTCHESS COUNTY MEDIATION CENTER” is fairly self-explanatory. I have a lot of good detail in there, AND some tax returns. This is how I learn about things — I look them up!

Nevertheless, those who want a direct connection to Washington to fix the family courts are not interested in this type of information from mothers who may have something to say about it, and were affected by the system. No, just leave it to the behavioral health experts and trauma survivor speakers’ bureaus to figure out how to obtain a massive culture shift in the California Family Courts (sure, OK, right…..).


Not to mention a prominent case in California where one of the recommended providers was investigated for criminal assault on an ANIMAL (i.e., bestiality), in addition to having evidently participated in a slave/master relationship. Overall, it does seem to attract some seriously oddball characters. There PHENOMENALLY BAD things happening to children during this policy of taking children away from one (or both) parents and then paying others to supervise during reunification services. A fairly recent one from Trumbull County, Ohio, is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m thankful to hear that Nick Kerosky, in this case, resigned. it turned out that the center in which this child-rape and bestiality (Caught on cell phone) which occurred of an INFANT here were not only predictable, but the money for the centers was raised earlier by a state-wide “Children’s Levy” tax on everyone. Thanks to this, the US is even getting a bad reputation overseas with these outrages…

I have brought this up time and again, and then noticed information disappearing off the internet about this particular case.
I attempted to raise it with a man who literally lost his license to practice law over the Genia Shockome case — but still refuses to address this part in his publications, advocacy, or conferences, that I can see. He still appears to believe that judges “just don’t know” who’s an abuser or batterer, and should be trained to tell the difference.

Let’s get real about this: Liz Richards and her network had it reported years ago — but no one really wants to handle this issue. Either they want access to the same funding stream, or they’ve been intimidated, perhaps, into silence?

We are also talking the intersection of probate and family law, i.e. things that could simply give judges the ability to assign known crooks who will sell off the assets of the vulnerable, and probably kick back some to the judges who appointed them. Of course, without a way to track it, who’s to know? (For more on this, see writing of Janet Phelan, on goings on in California courts. This one however, comes from more than one county in (I think), New York.


FACT: private outsourcing by the courts to nonprofits are not properly tracked. Either this practice needs to stop, or internal controls sufficient to tracking them need to be enforced. Why doesn’t “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative” mention this, and seek to “fix” it? Could it be potential connections to the Children’s Rights Council and similar organizations involved in pushing the Supervised Visitation Model to start with? (see the SVN network for further references in who’s behind it.

This used to have a “History” page but I no longer see it. Look up corporation records at state of origin. Notice the fields of practice of the board members (conflicts of interest, much? See current board member Spurgin, of Texas, and work background).

About SVN

SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a network of agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free access to parents with whom they do not reside. Some of the children who need these services live in foster homes or with relatives. Some live with one parent who is estranged from the other.

Members of SVN may be:

Law makers and government employees
Private and non-profit providers of child access services [E.G., THE “LITTLE ANGEL VISITATION CENTERS” OF THE WORLD, AND OTHERS..)
Providers of domestic violence services
Providers of other family services
Social workers
Board of Directors

The Network is governed by a board of fifteen SVN members. By-laws require that a minimum of 2 board members be elected from each of 5 geographical regions.  Elected at the Annual General Meeting in the spring, directors serve three year terms. Learn more about the current Board of Directors.


The Supervised Visitation Network champions a world in which all vulnerable families have access to safe and quality visitation services.



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.

Like most organizations of this sort, its actual purpose is to promote the profession, and make sure participants are held to centrally set policies, which may, or may not, have anything whatsoever to do with what the people who elected some of these jokers, or elected the people who appointed them to public office, may actually want…

Here’s a listing showing Viola Stroud as coordinator (see “putnam county”)

“Putnam Mediation Project” brought up a glowing recommendation for the ADR services from New York State, under Judith Kaye. 24 pages of newsletter describes the wonderful programs, referencingi work by (California’s) Joan B. Kelly, and terms popularized in California by deliberate strategy and forethought. I’m pretty sure I blogged some of this: Kelly and Judith Wallerstein’s group, ADR, ACR, etc etc. This newsletter is from “The New York State Mediator” and should be carefully read to see how these programs are being promoted statewide as the solution to overcrowded courts.” Newsletter is Vol 18, 1999-2000.

The Dispute Resolution Center model is clearly big business and was getting funded, and pushed through the system for family law cases:

This account is emotionally difficult (and disgusting) to read, but is around the same timeframe (2006) and same general geographic area (Northern California, Bay Area) that CJE, CPPA, and Child Abuse Solutins, Inc. (all of California Safe Child Coalition) deal with generally speaking. The San Francisco Bay Area is an urban area comprised of cities such as San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, etc. which are well-known nationally for a variety of reasons, i.e., UC Berkeley, Golden Gate Bridge, Oakland Earthquake of 1989, and many, many more major institutions. Among them, is a prominent violence prevention group which has been around since ca. 1989, Family VIolence Prevention Fund (now called Futures Without Violence). And there has also been plenty of news and press regarding various custody disasters.

I’m not sure if this one was news (having been busy with my own case at this time), however, here is a Supervised Visitation Provider not known for fraud — but for having contracted herpes, allegedly “from a woman or a dog.” This happened AFTER the cause had undergone the “De rigeur” //custody switch after restraining order — have mother’s head examined and put her on supervised visitation” shock therapy that mothers are going through these days.

Only, the supervised visitation provider in this case had been criminally prosecuted for sexual assault on a DOG !!. Yes, file this one under:


If you dare.

Let’s keep im mind that this Supervised Visitation INdustry (federal access/visitation funding made available $10 million/year nationwide since 1996)is at least 10 years old at this time; however the organization most heavily promoting this theme, “Children’s Rights Council” (David Levy, et al.) is older//see their website… Of course Children Have the Right to potentially contract herpes from their supervisors in the name of the fatherhood industry and equal parenting, etc….

Someone narrated the case in detail, and you can see how there is a connection between approximately (at least) three individuals involved in the court — it takes a ring to complete such events: A commissioner (or judge) and evaluator, and/or a supervised visitation provider. Not to mention a prominent law firm:

The Family Law Court plotters certainly had their own agenda in the Welsh v. Tippie case and it had absolutely nothing to do with “the best interest of the child”.  It had everything to do with the twisted motives of the co-conspirators appointed and employed the courts.

The evidence shows that one of Commissioner Josanna Berkow’s first acts was to reject the 50/50 shared parentage plan originally promoted by county employed mediator Vicki McReynolds following a mediation meeting between the parents on February 4, 2005.  Father Brian Tippie had employed attorney Lisa Gilmore of Whiting Fallon & Ross on or about January 25, 2005 to promote his self-serving agenda.  Gilmore had filed papers two days prior to the mediation meeting that stated that Brian was concerned that mother Joyce was unstable and unable to properly care for the three children at this time. Commissioner Berkow reacted swiftly and 10 working days after the first mediator Vicki McReynolds submitted her recommendations, Berkow rejected that report.  On February 22, 2005 Berkow appointed Karen Hobbs Ph.D. as custody evaluator “to assess the mental health of the parties with respect to suicide threats”.  Total control to determine the mental health of the parties rests now with Ms. Hobbs as stated in the order: ” Psychological testing only as the evaluator deems necessary”.

{{That’s the setup. Get a certain custody evaluator in place, and after concerns of safety, play the “mental health” card….}}

Shortly after the Berkow order was issued, Brian Tippie had a meeting at Karen Hobbs’ office and gave her a list of people he believed would speak well of him. The second person on this list is the future Child Visitation Supervisor who he describes below:

As things developed, this supervised visitation provider had some serious personal problems…

The supervisor had arrived 45 minutes late for the visit on Saturday.  She had taken her ward to an ice cream store and she had picked up a soda before arriving at the Welsh home in Martinez.  Joyce, her dad, and the child’s siblings were anxious to have the little one arrive.  The child quickly gathered up Nosey and the supervisor put her soda down on a table.  The woman went into the other room to talk to Joyce.  The children were watching cartoons and grandpa was in the room with them reading. The supervisor began complaining to the mother that she had lesions on her chin and lips.  Then the supervisor made an announcement that was unbelievable.  She told Joyce Welsh that she had a herpes outbreak and that she got it from a dog or a women.

Joyce yelled at the supervisor telling her to get out of her home.  The command was so loud that Jack Welsh heard it in the front room.  The children had drank out of the cup of soda and realizing the danger to her children Joyce became angry.  The supervisor yelled back at the mother telling her she would take Joyce’s daughter with her.  She said she would go home and prepare a bad report to submit to the court and threatened that Joyce would lose custody of her child.  The woman was as good as her word, and two days later she prepared a report that was immediately faxed to Brian Tippie’s attorney, Lisa Gilmore.

[[this material is still hard to handle, but it lists a criminal complaint for the individual filed for sexual assault upon a dog. This is who gets approved, by sitting through trainings? to supervise visitations????]]

We seriously should question this industry. While here, I’d like to note that the commissioner involved in the custody switch in this case has sat on the board of the San Diego “Kids Turn” outfit, however, I noticed that prior to custody switch parents were ordered to attend a Kids Turn class, presumably from the same nonprofit (which is an A/V sub grantee from the California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC who administers the grants). See “let’s get honest about kids’ turn and judges’ profits” posts. Again, no Safe Child Coalition is apparently about to take on this racket in their efforts to report how kids are getting hurt through the courts, or explain how it works. While the person reporting the above individual family law case (Welsh v. tip pie) says this well, I do not endorse the writers’ complaint that “no-contact orders” are the problem. As the “no contact orders” are only the red flag waved in front of a bull, and are not enforceable anyhow, they are probably insane.

However, this person has stated it correctly> The winners and losers are probably picked in advance of the actual hearings, and according to family wealth availability. I have also heard it said that the child is given to the overtly ‘wrong” parent because a good one will fight to get the child back — whereas another one will simply abandon the child otherwise, unless incited to fight through the child support factor:

(same link as above, Virginia McCullough) Psychologists, psychiatrists, special mediators, evaluators, therapists, court appointed attorneys for children and court appointed child visitation supervisors line up at the pig’s trough to feed off the finances of both parents.  What these greedy conspirators leave is nothing more then a skeleton of a family twisting in the wind waiting for the final blow to be delivered by a judge who covers for the heartless directives issued by family law commissioners.

There is a clear cut pattern that is followed by the courts to achieve its goal of awarding sole legal and physical custody to one of the parents. First the court predetermines which parent it will award the prize – the child – to in its final ruling.  A child in such a battle equals money because child support is awarded directly proportional to the amount of time a child spends with a parent.  So the child is reduced to the equation: child = $.  Already the court has lost sight of the “best interest of the child”.  The second part of the equation is that court cronies must be paid before any monetary considerations the court may give to other siblings or either parent.  Court papers clearly spell out the second part of the equation when they direct parents to refinance their homes to pay the co-conspirators who have built their financial kingdoms on the backs of family destruction.  Therapists and mediators reports then designate the “bad” parent.  The court acting in unison orders that that condemned parent can no longer visit with his or her own child without a court approved “child visitation supervisor”, paid for, of course, by the family’s dwindling finances.  The third act by the courts is to destroy the reputation of the parent out of favor with the court in order to support the reports flowing in from the court appointed experts additionally depleting the family’s resources.  Finally the court will order a psychiatric examination, therapy and/or medication to insure that the parent losing custody has a properly documented “mental” disorder. If that final attempt to give the court’s rulings credibility fails, the court will exercise its last resort – they will jail the offending parent.

The child at issue in the custody battle will usually find itself severed from one or the other parent and their extended family as a direct result of the court’s orders. (Click. Waging war in California’s Family Law Courts. No contact orders start the bloodshed)  The missing parent who loved and cared for the child without charge is now replaced by a very expensive court appointed “therapist” who must see the child as often as once a week.  The therapist’s job is to act as a spy to report to the court if the out of favor parent tries to visit with their own child. It is also the therapist’s responsibility to brain wash the child into believing that the court, the therapist and the court-favored parent knows what is best for the child.  The child must be brain washed into accepting the court’s “truth” even though the child is mourning a parent not really deceased but one who has been declared dead by the family law courts.

Thankfully the commissioner that ruled over this case now retired, I heard. Amazingly, the bestiality scandal didn’t cost her her high position of authority over children’s lives years ago, as it should have (her AND that custody evaluator).

In this context, “training judges” (or anyone else) to recognize who is and is not abusive is an oxymoron. They are already being trained — by AFCC and plenty of other entities.

To summarize, again, we can see that the powers complaining about kids going to the wrong parent, don’t talk about these matters -AT ALL, practically. Nor do they provide readers of their VOLUMINOUS writings and books, clear links, or indicators, how to look up county or other funding of the nonprofit providers of these services. It’s as though the economic world simply did not exist — hardly a rational pose for lawyers and Ph.D.’s psychologists to take, rationally speaking. Yet women seeking help, continue to follow them and avidly participate in the on-line debates and devour the reading material, because, unlike mainstream media, this actually speaks to the existence of “Trouble in Tahiti” regarding the issues they actually face — whether child abuse, domestic violence (and trying to stay alive or protect a kid) or being completely and in a devastating manner, separated from their children…

Just one more time for the road: At Mr. Goldstein ‘s website (or one of them), see links at the bottom, particular the one on “NCADV Workshop”
Legal Issues | Resources | About The Author | About the Book | Frequently Asked Questions | Useful Links | Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases | Media | NCADV Workshop | New Book | Crisis in the Custody Court System | Speaking Workshops & Training | DV in Higher Education
| Legal Ethics: Real and Imagined
You can send questions or comments to Barry Goldstein at the e-mail address below: Barryg78@aol.com

Workshops (it’s short, please read!) while undated, we can see the emphasis on TRAINING and WE are the EXPERTS because we do this full-time (never mind mothers themselves who might be the true “experts” as we have “experienced” what we’re talking about). NCADV invited Mr. Goldstein and Dr. Hannah to present at a NCADV conference in Washington DC. The problem is finding “Competant” (mis-spelled) representation for women. Of course, the book is mentioned and the usual run-down of the select group of experts meant by “the experts.”

NCADV is often mentioned here. The “scoop” (or A scoop at least) on the “National Coalition Against Domestic Violence” is, first and foremost — mothers cannot get direct help from them in any matters regarding domestic violence. For that, go see your statewide Coalition Against Domestic Violence, even if they are just going along with family court professionals (and fatherhood funding)…. Or assenting to programs like “parenting coordination” known to be hostile to mothers, etc. (PCADV has done this)….

It is a nonprofit membership organization with lots of corporate sponsors which also SELLS things. They do information, technical assistance, and no doubt write off travel expenses for their leadership to run around to various conferences and beome even more expert on things women know because we have experienced them — in marriage, in exchanging children (and/or raising them), in dealing with the child support agencies, and in family courts throughout the land. But our voices are not degreed, we are not PAID for this information (in fact, wealth is literally extracted from us,along with our kids) and hence, apparently our voices do not really count as much.

I have gone over this before, and could say similar (only ven mores) things about the group in Minnesota, i.e., “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” (DAIP) or whatever they call themselves — those guys selling trainings to CCR the world and deliver utopia to us once everyone has been trained and understands that beating up on individuals to get your way is bad. (Unless you’re a country establishing democracy on the other side of the globe, where oil, or other desired assets, exist….).

Here’s the membership site for NCADV and its “BENEFITS.” I want you to notice that it takes a PERCENT of agency budgets. So although NCADV doesn’t get direct HHS funding (i.e., from the public through federal HHS grants or DOJ grants) — it DOES get INDIRECT funding In this way, policies are controlled in a more centralized fashion, and can restricdt or expand the % of money that goes to actual shelters, as opposed to those which go to (allegedly) preventing violence by educating people about what abusers act like, and how it’s wrong to abuse others.

underneath the sliding scale of individual memberships, we get down to the good stuff — programs and agency memberships. (This is in addition to the NCADV store, where you can buy more goodies — if you have any cash…);

Non-Profit DV, SA or Dual Program—0.1% of your annual budget, ($250 minimum)

15% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
NCADV electronic newsletters
Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
One National Directory of Domestic Violence Programs for $84.95 (reg: $99.95)
Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website
Other Non-Profit* or Government Agency** (includes law enforcement and military)—$250*/$300**

10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
NCADV electronic newsletters
Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website
State Coalitions and National Organizations—0.1% of your annual budget, ($500 minimum)

15% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
One free National Directory of Domestic Violence Programs
NCADV electronic newsletters
Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website
Tribal Coalitions/Programs–$50

10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
NCADV electronic newsletters
Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website
International Member—Add 10% to the membership level of your choice

10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
One discounted NCADV conference registration fee

Isn’t that sweet? In addition to the above information about how great this nonprofit is doing, I’d like to add a commentary I believe others may share……

As a woman who filed a domestic violence restraining order with kick out 9in order to, with my children, stay alive and return to a semblance of a FUNCTIONAL life, participating in my community, and actually being able to choose where I work, have a bank account in my own name, another things that many non-abused individuals probably take for granted, for example, being allowed to show initiative and make a few personal decisions about one’s own life, including whether or not one gets to sleep at night, or it’s safe to come home, and obtaining transportation, etc., or negotiating with people locally to obtain good things for one’s children…. — to maintain personal relationships or participate in social activities outside the closed-circle home without being threatened by a jealous or paranoid ex. or threatened or accused for simply participating, forced to quit abruptly, etc. . . .) . . . Like many people, who were abandoned abruptly by these same nonprofits when our case was hauled into the family law venue . . . . I would be literally SCOURING the internet for sources of help. I looked and looked and looked at this particular NCADV — but there was nothing there to aadress, or help with my situation. YEAH, custody was going to batterers — but no one in the courts seemed to give a damn, and speaking about DV only made them angrier, and backfired. This lack of actual real help is throughout the DV system and a characteristic of its leadership. Rather, they want to conference, write, collaborate, consult, (sell product), teach, and technically assist. REAL assistance is basically off the radar. Yet they have no problem soaking up public funds for the noble cause.

So, I ask us to look at a possible different angle with the collaborations and endorsements by NCADV of Mr. Goldstein and other men who, while they see the problem, are not addressing its causes honestly enough to make a difference, which is a choice on their part.

You can see an undated reference to who Mr. Goldstein is hanging out with, (see also the main site for another flavor).
Mo Hannah actually knows quite well about the material Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) has been reporting for years, and also knows about “Smartmarriage.com”, the so-called fathers’ “Cottage Industry” (which is nothing of the sort, it’s significant business!)

I finally “caught” a reference to Dr. Hannah conferencing alongside one of the marriage-promoting curricula workshops, as I have also previously caught NCADV being referenced and involved with fathers-type-funding. THey all know about it, but just choose NOT to tell their prospective market niche about these things.

IT SEEMS THAT THE BMCC BEGAN IN 2004. IN 2003, Three people edited a certain book which is being promoted (make that, “sold” or at least marketed) along with certifications to become an instructor, of the PAIRS program, courtesy SMartmarriage.com conference:

subject: Building Intimate Relationships/Welfare/Emotional Infidelity -2/03from: Smart Marriages®



I want to recommend a new book, “Building Intimate Relationships” – a very
inclusive overview of Lori Gordon’s PAIRS program written by Gordon and the
PAIRS Master Teachers. It explains the creation and evolution of PAIRS, one
of our most successful marriage education programs. In addition to
practical info about amazing exercises and techniques that make up the
program, the book includes discussions of theory, communication, conflict
resolution, emotional literacy, contracting, sensuality and sexuality,
spirituality, stepfamilies, programs for youth, gender issues, ethics,
program implementation, etc. It’s instructive for anyone who wants to
understand the roots of marriage education – its evolution from marital
therapy & counseling to marriage education – but I especially consider it to
be a must read for anyone who plans to attend the PAIRS training institute
at the Reno Smart Marriages conference. The training will qualify you as a
PAIRS instructor and equip you to teach a variety of the PAIRS programs. The
book will, of course, provide an orientation that will help you get more out
of the training and will also help you understand how to best integrate the
program into your setting be it in a private clinical practice, family life
education program, congregation, military, youth organization, etc. – diane

Order “Building Intimate Relationship: Bridging Treatment, Education, and
Enrichment through the PAIRS Program”, Edited by Rita DeMaria and Mo
Therese Hannah
at amazon.com at:

The PAIRS training in Reno:
> 103 Two Days – Wednesday & Thursday
> PAIRS (Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills): Part I
> Rita DeMaria, PhD & Bill and Charlotte Dyck
> Leave ready to teach PAIRS’ brief programs: One-day, Two-day, Faith-based,
> Premarital, and Family Camp (entire families)! Material covers communication,
> emotional literacy, conflict resolution, and confiding exercises for enhanced
> intimacy. Note: #903 is an optional add-on training to qualify to teach
> additional programs.

> 903 Two Days – Monday & Tuesday PAIRS: Part II Lori Gordon, PhD, Rita DeMaria,
> PhD, & Bill and Charlotte Dyck
> Qualify to teach the PAIRS First eight-week, PAIRS Basic (for Military),
> CHRISTIAN PAIRS (10 Sessions), and the new JUMPSTART (one day intro). Also
> learn resolution/management of jealousy, separations, death and loss and
> become a PAIRS Facilitator. Review materials & practice exercises –
> refresher for veterans and confidence builder for new facilitators. Note:
> All are welcome, however only those who also attend 103 will be certified to
> teach these additional programs.

> Hi Diane!
> My husband and I attended the Orlando 2001 Smart Marriages conference and have
> followed the list since then. Recently, the Indianapolis Star Newspaper
> printed a positive editorial based on the study concluding that two married . . . .

Look at the timing: Book published by three authors, two of who are very active in smart marriages.com, which helps people get on the marriage/fatherhood grants stream. Mo Hannah, to the extent this book is being sold through that stream, is a participant.

PAIRS is an organization which got HHS funding for its setup.

Now, ask yourself again why women attending BMCC, NCADV, or tuning into Barry Goldstein and friends — are not about to learn about this funding…

Again, “PAIRS” is a 501(c)3 and is in the franchise (training) racket. Why not — it’s where the free money is to be found, once you pay up in the pyramid? or is it direct marketing, scheme, by sitting through certifications.

Then you, too, can take money from n eery children and the households those children live in, a nd learn to lecture their parents on getting along better (abuse or no abuse) because everyone knows, two parents are ALWAYS better than one….

Also note, it’s trademarked…

“Skills for Successful Relationships™Best Practices in Marriage, Family and Relationship EducationFor more than a quarter century, the mission of the nonprofit PAIRS Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charity, has been to teach those attitudes, emotional understandings, and behaviors that nurture and sustain healthy relationships and to make this knowledge broadly available on behalf of a safer, saner, more loving world. We accomplish our mission by developing and delivering evidence-based, best practices in marriage, family and fatherhood education, conducting research, and training instructors worldwide.

That was “pairs.com” and this, below, is “training.pairs.com.” After a quick side trip to TAGGS.hhs.com (to confirm the public pays for this), then look in the box below, and You tell me whether this is a “cottage industry,” or maybe a booming business.

There’s a lot of money flowing around, so if one lowly visitation supervisor (etc.) in Dutchess County, Westchester County, or Putnam County, New York defrauds the elderly vulnerable, and the public, with a few thousand of her own, who’s to notice? — and why should Barry Goldstein mention the financial factor in any detail someone could follow up on it.

You know how long it took before I ran across PAIRS.com?? I remember how I felt on finding it (like, betrayed!)


PAIRS provides a Toolkit of relationship skills that build the foundation for fatherhood, marriage and families.*** Our innovative approach integrates a compilation of wisdom from therapy, marital enrichment, and marriage and family development. PAIRS is intense and inspirational, designed to release the power and potential of relationships and remove barriers to pleasure and joy. At PAIRS, we touch the heart.

{{{***out of this three nouns, WHICH one is first, may I ask? And where’s the motherhood to be associated with marriage and families, or is it not necessary? If it’s not necessary, then I can only presume that the purpose of elevating “Fatherhood” is to make it higher than motherhood. Otherwise, they’d both be mentioned…}}

Bring the power of PAIRS to your community. Join more than 2,000 PAIRS-trained facilitators worldwide that are helping couples and families create lasting, loving, successful relationships.

Click here to download brochure.

Level One Certification: Four Days — For PAIRS for Life (12-18 Hour Marriage Education Curriculum, 2009), PAIRS Essentials (Nine-Hour Premarital and Marriage Education Curriculum, 2008), and PAIRS for PEERS (10 Session High School Curriculum, 2008) and Specialized Program Adaptations for Military Couples Impacted by Deployment, Adoptive Families, Prisoner Re-entry, Fatherhood and Others; 32 Contact Hours. Open to educators, counselors, health care professionals, clergy, lay leaders, and others working to strengthen marriages, families, and improve outcomes for children. Tuition and materials: $900 per person/$1350 per couple, includes first year licensing. To sponsor a PAIRS training in your community, a certified PAIRS Trainer and Training Assistant will provide certification training and technical assistance for staff and community partners, including four-days of training, instructor and participant handbooks, ethical standards, peer review, and related supplementary materials. The minimum fee for the training to be provided on-site is $18,000 for up to 20 participants, inclusive of four days of training, travel expenses, material costs and annual licensing. The cost for each additionalperson is $900 per person. Includes online access to classroom PowerPoint, training videos, supplemental materials, and updates, listing on PAIRS National Directory and National Calendar of Events for one year. Click here for more information on PAIRS Level One Training, including the training syllabus.

Level One Essentials Certification: For PAIRS Essentials (Nine-Hour Premarital and Marriage Education Curriculum, 2008); 20 Contact Hours. Certified PAIRS Trainer and Training Assistant provide certification training and technical assistance for staff and community partners, including 2½ days of training, instructor and participant handbooks, ethical standards, peer review, and related supplementary materials. The minimum fee for the training to be provided on-site is $15,000 for up to 20 participants, inclusive of 2½ days of training, travel expenses, material costs. The cost for each additional person is $750 per person. Includes online access to classroom PowerPoint, training videos, supplemental materials, and updates, listing on PAIRS National Directory and National Calendar of Events for one year.

Level One Essentials Intensive Certification, Online: For PAIRS Essentials (Nine-Hour Premarital and Marriage Education Curriculum, 2008). Certified PAIRS Trainer provide certification training and technical assistance for staff and community partners, including 20 Hours of online training, electronic versions of instructor and participant handbooks, ethical standards, peer review, and related supplementary materials. The minimum fee for the training to be provided for a site is $8,000 for up to 16 participants, inclusive of electronic material costs. The cost for each additional person is $500 per person. Includes online access to classroom PowerPoint, training videos, supplemental materials, and updates, listing on PAIRS National Directory and National Calendar of Events for one year.

Level One Review, Online: For Instructors previously trained in PAIRS seeking to renew licensing following a lapse of 24 months or more. Certified PAIRS Trainer or Training Assistant provide detailed review of PAIRS Essentials and PAIRS for Life curricula, licensing and ethical standards requirements, and research update, including 10 Hours of online training, one hour of individual mentoring, electronic versions of instructor and participant handbooks, ethical standards, peer review, and related supplementary materials. The cost is $450 per person plus standard long distance phone charges. Includes online access to classroom PowerPoint, training videos, supplemental materials, and updates, listing on PAIRS National Directory and National Calendar of Events for one year.
For information on PAIRS Certification Trainings, contact:

Gabriell Cornett
Administrative Director
(877) PAIRS-4U x802
Email: admin@pairs.com


Please tweet this post, ask people to vote AGAINST automatic re-authorization of welfare funding in March 2013, to stop the marriage/fatherhood diversions, and cut out the “good cop, bad cop” element from our national government.

Also notice the age, background, and religion of Lori Gordon — she was born in 1929! (( women barely had gotten the vote!))

Marriage and Family Therapist Lori Gordon, together with her late husband, Rabbi Morris Gordon, established the PAIRS Foundation in 1983 in Falls Church, VA as a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity chartered to develop programs for the prevention of marital and family breakdown.

Prior to founding PAIRS, Mrs. Gordon served as a faculty member of the American University School of Counseling Education in Washington, D.C. She received her undergraduate degree at Cornell University and Masters in Social Work from Catholic University.

Mrs. Gordon served as President of PAIRS from its founding through June 2008.

Mrs. Gordon was a Plenary presenter at the First Annual Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education Smart Marriages Conference in 1997 in Washington, DC. and has presented at its Annual Conference since then. In 2002 she was honored with their major Impact Award for having pioneered the PAIRS program. The Award reads:

“In appreciation of your intrepid pioneering work in creating the PAIRS program and for your visionary leadership in blazing a path for so many to follow.”

As I’ve said before, Dr. Mo Therese Hannah knows about this. She simply chose not to inform the followers up at BMCC about it.
Or that money for these programs is coming OUT of what would otherwise be allocated for their welfare, or child support enforcement (i.e., it’s diversions from money that’d otherwise come directly to help benefit them.). SMALL WONDER the new, improved (large) book on “Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and CUstody” has ZERO information on child support matters, at least as a separate chapter, and makes no mention of the grants stream!!

I have a 12,000 word post here. I hope it has encouraged people to dissociate from anyone who refuses to report in the funding matters, and is insisting instead that the courts are flawed, and just need the application of some more experts in what a Crisis we have on our hands. No matter how empathetic they may be, and no matter how much I personally would rather deal with a more tolerant masculine personality, and I DO appreciate the work of “NOMAS” — I have to still label this one under “DISHONEST.”

They are withholding information that could save lives. I could hardly respect that. And the information being withheld literally represents money coming off OUR backs — because these organizations literally take welfare money and divert them, and are producing, needlessly, situations that result in crime-scene cleanups.

Year after year, there are more crime scenes around custody matters, and these professionals recommend the SAME basic procedures — let us train judges, law enforcement, community, etc. etc.

Here is Mr. Goldstein going on about the same themes over at NOMAS. Notice item #10 Extreme cases (he doesn’t mention the deaths which we all know about because they are headlines!) — This is a shameless self-promotion of their book (see sample):


 Mothers and domestic violence advocates have been complaining for many years about problems in the custody court system that have resulted in large numbers of children being sent to live with abusive fathers while safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children.  Courts have tended to dismiss the complaints by referring to the mothers as “disgruntled litigants.”  As more concern about the problem has been expressed and more research performed, the mothers’ complaints have been confirmed.

Early in 2010, a new book co-edited by Dr. Maureen T. Hannah and Barry Goldstein, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY will be published and end any doubts that there is a pattern of mistakes made in the custody court system.  These mistakes have caused thousands of cases to be mishandled and placed the lives and well being of battered women and their children in jeopardy.  The book includes chapters by over 25 of the leading experts in the United States and Canada including judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates.  Although these experts come from different disciplines and approached the issue from different directions, there is a remarkable consensus about the problem and the solution.

They appear to be coming from different directions, but in actuality, are not. The only primary differences is that the corps of these individuals are NOT also public employees in the form of magistrates, court-appointed GALS, court-contracted supervised visitation providers, employed by the Administrative Office of the Courts in one state or another, or in charge of disseminating the juicy federal grants, and what’s even better, being really GOOD at lobbying the legislatures to get THEIR version of laws passed….

And, Yes, isn’t it “remarkable” that the experts whose livelihood rests on continually disseminating their expertise (Publish or Perish, right?) and who wants to be bona fide, certified, court-consulting, federally-financed TRAINERS like, say, “AFCC” has managed to become — are ALL in agreement that what the worlds need now is MORE — and not LESS — of their expertise, while the body count keeps going on??

  The up-to-date research and information now available makes it clear that the present practices can no longer be justified and the custody court system must create the necessary reforms to protect the safety of children and protective mothers in domestic violence custody cases.  This article will discuss ten reasons we know the custody court system is broken and must be reformed.

. . . (Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah….)

“Now that we know the Custody Courts are Broken”.

NO, Mr. Goldstein (and friends), as you probably are at SOME level of your soul aware, if you would admit it to yourself (and then to the rest of us, please), the family courts are NOT broken, they have simply been already re-tooled even further in the direction of dispensing behavioral health, trafficking children in the foster care system and adopting them out, and basically destroying anyone who doesn’t like that idea. Their judges truly DO NOT CARE when people are murdered — there are more custody cases than judges to go around, and the parents are truly expendable, as are the children, when not in sue as a human resource.

Check out the response of Judge Adele Grubbs of Cobb County, Georgia at another avoidable knife-stabbing of a man who, having threatened to kill his wife and been arrested for this charge (stalking, harassment, terroristic threats, etc.), was released from jail, before Christmas, just in time to do so, creating two young adolescent (in effect) orphans. In this case (which was emailed to me) the mother made SURE she got on the court record that if she were not granted protection, it would be too late next time, she was afraid for her life.

From the Marietta Daily Journal, 12/28/2012 (with a clear photo of the judge involved):

Judge Adele Grubbs
ATLANTA (AP) — A woman stabbed to death in her suburban Atlanta home had pleaded with a judge not to release her ex-husband from jail, saying she feared she would not survive if he was free.

The ex-husband, 58-year-old John Stephen Kristofak, was apprehended Thursday at a Union City motel and charged with murder in the death of his 48-year-old ex-wife, Donna Nations Kristofak.

In October, Donna Kristofak begged Cobb County Superior Court Judge Adele Grubbs not to release him from jail, saying she feared for her life and worried that a court order of protection from her ex-husband would not keep her safe. He was later released.

The judge said she couldn’t comment on the case, but told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that “you cannot predict human behavior.”

The judge said that people asked a similar question after 20 children and six adults were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Conn.

“After Newtown people ask, ‘How can we stop someone before they do something?,'” Grubbs said. “We don’t do that.”


This Judge’s statement is BS. Here’s the “we can’t predict human nature” behavior he was arrested for, after failing to respect a temporary restraining order:

According to a March 28 warrant for his arrest, John Kristofak, in violation of a temporary restraining order, “did contact the victim for the purpose of harassing, threatening and intimidating her.”
Between March 9 and March 19, Kristofak “called the victim’s place of work 12 times and used vile, vulgar language to her and her coworkers,” the warrant stated.
The warrant also accused Kristofak of sending an e-mail to Donna Kristofak on March 19, that read, “you are in danger – protect yourself. No one can help you at this point. You won’t know where it is coming from.”
Another e-mail sent four minutes later read, “I warned you never cut me off from my children. You did and you will pay,” according to the warrant.
Minutes later, another e-mail allegedly asked his wife, “have you ever been hit by a car going 140 not knowing where it’s coming from?”
Later that evening, John Kristofak allegedly advised his wife in an e-mail to “make your final goodbyes with your children.”
John Kristofak was arrested on the first warrant on March 29, and a day later, a second warrant for aggravated stalking was issued, alleging that he followed his wife in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart, and “at one point pulled his vehicle in front of Donna’s in an attempt to stop her from leaving.”

They released him just in time to allow this murder the weekend before Christmas.

Cases like this are a clear statement to women and mothers hoping the courts might protect them to “get real — we don’t take this seriously. But go get a restraining order anyhow, its’ good for the grants to law enforcement.”

This judge sits atop the CJJDP (look it up).

Obituary requests donations to the teenaged sons scholarship fund. Probably Dad will be in prison now.

In this context, I don’t think it’s a matter of judges or anyone else failing to recognize what is, and is not, a dangerous situation. It’s about the money. Remember what neither Barry nor Mo Hannah told us about it, either, and let them do their own publicity, if you’re a mother in a custudy challenge. Empathy is nice, but can be obtained in many places. It doesn’t stop bullets or knives, or prevent kidnappings — and it doesn’t enforce child support orders any better than restraining orders; however, what you don’t know about that whole field MIGHT help get any child support for your kids eliminated (Compromise of Arrears) while they are minors. Alternately, you can pay the former batterer or abuser.

Again, “Mo Knows” but she’s not talking about it. I suspect Barry does, but doesn’t want to talk about it (I may try one more time to communicate to him), and in general, you don’t need to be a neurosurgeon to figure out that there’s a reason for the collective, corporate silence on these matters, while no need of publications and press about Coercive Control, Batterers, you name it.

Sorry to be that blunt about it, but I see the movements gathering momentum.
Alternately, read Walter Burien and help others get some of our own tax revenue reduced, and force government to operate at less of a profit.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

January 9, 2013 at 4:32 pm

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Here’s the AZ version of the “Supervised Visitation” debacle for 2012! Joe Arpaio speaks of this as a rarity instead of business as usual in the field of family court! Thankfully they bothered to bust these crooks but I think it’s because the AZ Board of Behavioral Health Examiners was involved.


    This husband and wife team has done considerable damage to mamy families along with
    the recommendation of a Dr. Cherry who is also on the Family Court rostered list. They went so far as to attempt to involuntarily commit parents (one or more)to mental health facilities! They have been opened for years and sat next to me in a Domestic Relations Committee meeting where they testified about their services and were pushing a baby in a stroller.

    The AZ BBHE revoked a license of psychologist who injected himself into my family court case, was not on the court roster and offered to be an “expert” witness when he had no knowledge of the custody case except from an incarcerated father who has 9 felonies which are for fraud foregery etc so his words would have little credibility with most people. The “expert” caused my case to go in a severely negative direction and the child ended up abused by a different court ordered “supervisor” who goes by a name of “therapeutic interventionist” and/or “hired gun” for fathers rights. This woman did the whole “deprogramming” process on the child in an attempt to turn her against me her mother and for the father who was just released from prison who she didn’t know at 11 years old.

    I call the others in my state who I know are custody flippers, hired guns, unethical court rostered custody evaluators with immunity “the dirty dozen”. I assure you the acts referenced in the above article regarding “Legacy Family Services” are the exact acts I experienced from Margaret Marshall! I always wondered how a 9 times felon in our county alone who was just released from prison and was on probation not as a step to being released from prison but as a sentence for credit card theft by fraudulent means, could be perfect father material when he hadn’t raised so much as a houseplant and just came from a place where there are NO children (I hope). The honor roll student and me her mother needed counseling as we were suddenly disordered. Me and the child were ordered into individual counseling as well at our expense to solve problems we never had prior to the courts becoming involved in our lives and Margaret Marshall making her recommendations! So we have our weekly inflexible appointment with the father for forced reunification (which there’s no “REunification” as they never knew each other) at Margaret Marshalls office where the child regularly runs away due to the father antagonizing the child and telling her things that are hurtful about me and everyone else she loves including members of his own family. Or they locked her in the office! They call the child evil and demon seed, liar and much more. The child hated them and I got blamed. I was coaching her so they say. I couldn’t coach her as I had no clue what direction those weekly meetings were going to be able to coach the child. The child went from loving life and those in this life to wanting to die, suicidal threats and self harming. My life has been pretty much destroyed.

    I would like anyone to tell me how an 11 year old would come to meet a man who she did not know being told “this is your biological father who has just been released from prison” which scared the child as we don’t have criminals in our lives, how would anybody like to meet that person and be told YOU LOVE THEM or GOD will make you ill or die for unforgiveness while they antagonize and hurt the child emotionally saying they are building any kind of relationship other than a hated one? Would you like someone like this if you met them at a coffee shop? She was 11 years old and knows enough people to know these were not NICE/KIND people. These are the tecniques of the courts! The childs life went from school, extra curricular activities and helping handicapped children voluntarily to school and counseling from every angle and her mother being involved in lawyers meetings, court dates and driving and paying all their monies to these people. Some benefit, huh?!


    January 10, 2013 at 8:19 am

  2. Just an add to above, the child dressed as a police officer for halloween the first year of this “therepeutic intervention” and now fears police as the father and Margaret Marshall threatened the child to call JUVY on her and have her arrested when she attempted to get out of the locked door at the office with wrong key. A police officer was in front of our house watching for speeders and the child thought they were there for her! The child dressed as an angel the next year for halloween which the father and MM laughed when the child told them as if….. and the child no longer wants to attend church and doesn’t think she believes in God any longer. I thank the court system for making my daughters whole life unstable, insecure and traumatizing. I believe when the father told the child I wanted to abort her but he saved her from that, it’s called Domestic Violence by Proxy which was also ignored by the interventionist!


    January 10, 2013 at 8:26 am

  3. […] What’s funny — this is posted, apparently in (at least) 4 parts at the URL http://svnetwork.net/attachments/pas1.pdf, “SVNetwork” having been a group I’ve reported on (Why Supervised Visitation (per se) Sucks — Federal Millions, that is/June 6, 2013), plenty, also January 2013, “STILL Too Hot to Touch with a Ten-Foot Pole? Supervised Visitation Racketeering (Shockome/Viola Stro…“ […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: