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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

FUND-a-Mentals of Conciliation Court: State Codes, Jurisdiction Grab, Federal Grants, Personnel

with one comment

Continued from “There is in the State Treasury a Family Law Trust Fund. (Cal. Family Law, Conciliation Code Section 1852)

This is about the setup, and it’s for “lay” readers, all I’m doing is reading what’s written — in the code, and on an HHS/ACF/Gov site. Plus when the HHS site mentioned a certain report (which I was already aware of), I looked it up to show HOW pervasive and long-standing the reference to “PAS” has been quoting the personnel from “way back when” that wrote it up for our nice, sweet, benevolent government who truly wants to stop child sexual abuse, violence against women, poverty, and crime — or why else would this have been put in place, right?

“Dear Friends,”:


When a man or woman is attacked by institutions that are supposed to protect, or by family members in court or out of it, looking around for friendly faces. I know I did. However if the friendly faces or support actually know, but don’t want to point out a clear, logical, and plain explanation for what’s JUST happened to them (which this simply chronology probably is), then that’s not what friends are for. How friendly is it to withhold the truth?

And, as Cindy Ross published over a decade ago, and others have reported, the Conciliation Law and the AFCC are crucial elements. Also (under reported by some) the Welfare Diversions to fatherhood, and the religious involvement in this, are elements. It’s about the system — not just about the money, not just about the fatherhood, not just about “PAS” theory, etc. It is a SYSTEM! This SYSTEM is now written into state statute, practiced in specialized courts, and funded by yours truly, the public. Plus private (as the code refers to).

SO: Let’s talk Jurisdiction: Where is it now? Jurisdiction is a form of Authority. It’s a power of the court.

Using California for an example, in this post let’s review how it was done. This broad trail of breadcrumbs may not be not fully paved, but has many key elements: Private interests, organized as nonprofits staffed in good part by public employees (i.e., judges, or administrative heads of courts), strategized nationwide (internationally, at this point) to: pass laws to set up demonstrations (test sites) of the intended program, evaluate the same programs, push for more funding, get the funding, and administer the funding.

When I came back to reading this conciliation code again, after looking at grants and nonprofits, it’s easier to see the entire operation was a screenplay. It was in truth a pre-planned (for the most part) agenda, but sold to the public as responding to circumstances, and needs-based. It was mobilized with speed because the networked nonprofits collaborated on the issues and then lobbied to legislate them into place.

Communications are not free; they do cost money (printing, or now, internet). Setting up a nonprofit it also helps set up funding for those communications. (Whether membership sales of material, taking donations, and writing off expenses — or billing it on a public payroll as “education” or “training.”….) The power comes through the system, not the individuals in it — and that’s where advocacy groups are constantly missing the mark, as well as distraught parents. It ain’t local – it’s national and international in scope and in intent.

While we are earning are wages, these same are planning yet more demonstrations (there is no end in site). Really, it’s stunning in execution, although it only differs from racketeering, or organized crime in that government itself says what’s crime and what’s not. And it’s not about to call itself “organized crime” because per se it’s government that determines what is and is not “crime.”

As it’s said, “See the Matrix” applies here….

In Which a Well-Oiled Machine: Passes Public Law (ca. 1988) to allocate $4 million to Demonstrate Access and Visitation Projects, Evaluates the Same for HHS, who Reports to Congress about the Same; thus helping to pass Federal Law to Fund the same (1996) as an addendum to Welfare Reform allocating $10 million a year (for the same) at public expense.

Conciliation Courts and Codes State by State under Family Law had already been set up by the same, which courts delegate control of the Family Law Trust Fund (i.e. the money) — in California, to the California Judicial Council — and by means of this code enables Subject Matter Jurisdiction Grab of Domestic Violence (and other cases) at the Discretion of any Presiding Judge, even if there are no children involved, and power-grab of the Grants about to Come its Way for state-wide coordination to support and report on the pre-planned programs, while through delegating authority to the Judicial Council (from there, to the AOC) enabling the blending in of private money from other sources (including private) — again, to promote mediation, supervised visitation, parent counseling, parent education, AND training professionals to do, the same!

[[I edited this title somewhat on Sunday 2/9/2013))

I may not have put that all in exact order, but keep reading, and connect the dots:

For reference, here is a

Table of Contents to “California Family Code.

” Please click and scroll down to DIVISIONs 4, 5 and 6.

“Conciliation Proceedings” is Division 5, Sections 1800 – 1852.

It lies between Division 4,CHAPTER 3. AGREEMENTS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE ………………. 1620
and Division 6, Separating (nullity, dissolution and legal separation)
(apparently sections 1700s — all of it — we deleted at some point….)

Of Division 5, “Conciliation Proceedings,” PART 2 (Sections 1850-1852) “Statewide Coordination of Mediation and Conciliation Services,” and Who has the keys to the vault (the Family Law Trust Fund, and more) is detailed. This is, after all, about power, and part of power is financing. So we need to look at things like jurisdiction, and funding. If this is understood, the confusion about why judges that, under family law, should see a “rebuttable presumption against custody going to batters” can perfectly legally get around that, and leave people who don’t read this law not only distraught, but seriously confused. Did the Domestic Violence Industry tell us about this? NO!! Did the Crisis in the Courts Crowd Basically No.

Did individuals? YES (how does one spell “C.I.N.D.Y. R.O.S.S.”)? And now I’m telling you again, that people who do not report on this have a definite reason for not doing so, and probably ought to be boycotted. They’re directing the bloodhounds on the wrong scent. They will never catch the prey, and I have to deduce, don’t really want to. In that aspect, it’s all about the bloody racket and “glory” of the fox hunt, the thrill of the chase and being seen in full color with their colleagues.



CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS …………………………… 1800-1802 (please review, and Chapter 3!)

CHAPTER 2. FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS ……………………. 1810-1820 (see esp. sections 1815/1816)
{{Chapter 3 is “proceedings” but it really should also say “jurisdiction”}}


{{HOW cases get in front of the types of professionals described in Chapter 2, i.e., forensic clinical psychologists and other mental and behavioral health professionals with a remarkable SHORT SUIT in considering Domestic Violence and Child Abuse as crimes….}} All of this is justified because it’s about the children. But it’s not always about the children — because
cases without children (but potentially still with domestic violence) can certainly end up here, too, per 1841 & 1842 — again, it’s in the opinion of the court. You’ll see!! (note I’m only starting with section 1841…)

1841. If a petition for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of
marriage, or for legal separation of the parties is filed
, the case
may be transferred at any time during the pendency of the proceeding to the family conciliation court
for proceedings for reconciliation of the spouses or amicable settlement of issues in controversy in
accordance with this part if both of the following appear to the
(a) There is a minor child of the spouses, or of either of them,** whose welfare may be adversely affected by the dissolution of the marriage or the disruption of the household or a controversy
involving child custody.
{{**”or either of them” sounds like, a step-parent, with minor children of some other (father or mother) is again divorcing (it happens. See some of our Congressmen and women…), their issue could be shunted into conciliation court even if one of the parents is not the biological parent of a child involved. ***In the opinion of the court!!}}

(b) There is some reasonable possibility of a reconciliation being effected.

1842. (a) If an application is made to the family conciliation court for conciliation proceedings in respect to a controversy between spouses, or a contested proceeding for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of a voidable marriage, or for legal separation of the parties, but there is no minor child whose welfare may be affected by the results of the controversy, and it appears to the court that reconciliation of the spouses or amicable adjustment of
the controversy can probably be achieved
, and that the work of the court in cases involving children will not be seriously impeded by acceptance of the case, the court may accept and dispose of the case in the same manner as similar cases involving the welfare of children
are disposed of.
{{i.e., a parent who doesn’t want to divorce, or is contesting dissolution, nullity or legal separation, but without children, and invokes conciliation court}}

(b) If the court accepts the case under subdivision (a), the court has the same jurisdiction over the controversy and the parties to the controversy and those having a relation to the controversy that it has under this part in similar cases involving the welfare of children.


… and that’s it. Next topic, is DIVISION 6….

CHAPTER 1. APPLICATION OF PART …………………………….. 2000
CHAPTER 2. JURISDICTION ………………………………… 2010-2013

Jurisdiction is one of THE most important issues in any proceedings, I think. It’s usually stated on the face sheet of any pleading, up front. BUT, under Conciliation Code, Notice that while Division 6 has a chapter on “Jurisdiction” which is ALWAYS important in courts. But Division 5 does not. That Conciliation Proceedings are actually a Subject Matter Jurisdiction grab over cases involving a controversy which might disrupt a household with a minor child in it, AND a controversy involving domestic violence — isn’t clear from the table of contents. In other words, it’s a bit hidden.

Also, whether or not concilliation courts even exist is ALSO extremely situational and arbitrary (dependent on the OPINION of a presiding judge over — I believe — individual counties, social conditions, quanity of domestic relations cases, etc.), it’s really pretty much of a trap set in the “open” position and sprung case by case. (see the code. I don’t discuss it today, but it’s in there). (See next post, or click on the code above).

Family Law may have rebuttable presumptions against domestic violence in custody matters, but Conciliation Proceedings have a different philosophy and approach. Like hell, these courts by design are easy to slide into, hard, pretty d@mn hard, to climb out of.

So a question any parent should settle NOW, especially if considering separation (etc.) — is whether or not your jurisdiction already has a conciliation court set up. Not sure, but it may be more common in urban areas. I am a volunteer here, and not going to do the homework for you. I know Arizona has them, and another way to find out where some are set up might be to review the early newsletters of the AFCC (some links below) and scroll through — because many of the participants seem to have shown up as head of some Conciliation Court (Hugh McIsaac, Los Angeles; Russell Schoenemann, Arizona, etc.)….

I believe this was why my own DV case got shunted immediately (upon my ex’s filling for dissolution) out of the domestic violence proceedings into an entirely different courthouse. I had no say in the matter, it was consolidated ex parte (found out later) and I was in such shock at the time, having been nicely misled by the same agency that helped me file for the DVRO, and knew of course nothing about conciliation courts. I was a battered wife and single mother absolutely elated to be safe and functional in life again; and had not anticipated a coming hell. But here it came! As I say, there the “hell” analogy does seem to apply, a deal of trickery is involved in getting the setup, and getting the clients…..

But at lesat now, we can alert parents intelligently about this situation, and let them know in advance that this is a separate proceeding where, apparently “rebuttable presumption against custody going to an abuser” talk will land with a dull thud flat on the ground. It’s about “conciliation,” the third word of the acronynm “AFCC.”

I see this in the code — both being shunted in AND being transferred out — to a specific judge which retains jurisdiction over the transferred-out case, are at the discretion of the conciliation court judge, who is appointed by the presiding judge. (For example, in California for many years it was the Hon. Katherine Feinstein, daughter of a famous Senator Dianne Feinstein, presiding over San Francisco Superior Court, and now (announced Dec. 2012) retiring.

From “law.com” — before this, she presided over a Unified Family Court.
After a dozen years on the San Francisco Superior bench, Feinstein, 55, will retire effective Feb. 1….
“I think the whole building is pretty much in shock right now,” said one S.F. Superior judge, who asked not to be named….
Feinstein may be best remembered for a multimonth budget fight with the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, following a series of drastic cuts to trial court funding by the Legislature. That fight in 2011 with state court administrators culminated in the council loaning S.F. Superior $2.5 million to cover a budget shortfall.”

Thus the stage is set to rapidly, easily, and by referral to get into Conciliation Courts… and from there, depending on the opinion of the judges, to be shunted to other courts, and a specific judge (note: dependency courts are not ruled actionsection 1852 is under this Part 2 “Statewide Coordination of these Services.” For ‘Statewide Coordination” you can read “centralized control and administration.”

Section 1852 stated, in part, about this Family Law Trust Fund:

   (c) Moneys deposited in the Family Law Trust Fund shall be placed in an interest bearing account. Any interest earned shall accrue to the fund and shall be disbursed pursuant to subdivision (d).

   (d) Money deposited in the Family Law Trust Fund shall be
disbursed for purposes specified in this part and for other family
law related activities

{{nice to have it so “limited.”}}

(e) Moneys deposited in the Family Law Trust Fund shall be administered by the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council may, with
appropriate guidelines, delegate the administration of the fund to the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Conciliation Court Anatomy 101, con’td. (California Code 1850, 1851, 1852)

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. I am citing code only as found on-line (link provided) to for purposes of this blog, and am not affirming that this is the most current version.

Also, any font-changes or style-changes in the text below are mine…

Essentially, this section places control into the hands of the California Judicial Council, and the privilege of Delegating that authority to the Administrative Office of the Courts.

This significance cannot be underestimated — this is the people defining the problem, prescribing the Rx to the problem, and then getting laws passed which allocate control of the funding for the problem — extorted from the public in the form of fees, blended at will with private grants and devises (see the code!) (what’s a “devise” legally? — like a foundation set up to spin off money into this fund?) to determine which demonstration and evaluation projects shall be run, along with mediation and conciliation, etc.

If I wrote a business plan with a proposed problem, my solution to the problem for the market, and sought funding for it (as a fund-raising tool), then those who chose to fund it, would, and those who chose NOT to fund it, wouldn’t. HOWEVER, this business plan (which it is) being written into law by previously organized individuals with a similar agenda set in motion decades earlier (see earlier newsletters of the various groups I’ve been blogging on here) — is at the public expense.

Nevertheless, returning to this site after more reading up on the organizations, you can see the consistent language and planning. Notice the reference to grants and demonstration projects.


The Judicial Council shall do all of the following


(a) Assist courts in implementing mediation and conciliation proceedings under this code.
(b) Establish and implement a uniform statistical reporting system relating to proceedings brought for dissolution of marriage, for
nullity of marriage, or for legal separation of the parties,
including, but not limited to, a custody disposition survey.

My Comments:

Why need a custody disposition survey if not to qualify for and comply with the prior terms of the “Access and Visitation” grants which the Judicial Council will also be possibly, through delegation of its authority under this code to the AOC, be distributing to grantees who provide some of the services this section (meaning, Conciliation Law itself) is designed to promote?

This absolutely relates to the agenda of the private nonprofits who lobbied for passages of Conciliation Law in California and many other states, some of whose early newsletters I have linked below. Parents in custody need to understand this. See a large Section, with references, called “FOOTNOTE” Custody Disposition Survey” below! Not the first time I’ve posted, it but review never hurts, right? And with each review, perhaps some more depth or insight will show also.

{{See April 28, 1999 Action Transmittal on Final Rule: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs
“AT” stands for “Action Transmittal.” This shows under the OCSE (child support). A few phrases (but no real teeth) were only added re: Domestic Violence issues under people alert enough at the time to raise the issue. That mandated mediation may not be in the best interests in such situations. Please also note how this action transmittal language manages to shift responsibility to the states, and in general dodge the issue (washing its hands), to grant the states “maximum flexibility.”  In my opinion, tht’s part of the genius of the plan — providing clear financial incentive and policy with federal funding, but disclaiming responsibility because it’s a state court issue.}}

See “FOOTNOTE CUSTODY DISTRIBUTION SURVEY” below.” I discuss in detail, with links.

(c) Administer a program of grants to public and private agencies
submitting proposals for research, study, and demonstration projects
in the area of family law, including, but not limited to, all of thefollowing:

My Comments:
Not being an attorney, I don’t know the legal definition of “agencies,” but the root of the word means to drive, to propel, or to DO. An Agent of someone does something for the person they are the agent of, as in “FBI agent,” etc. Public Agencies have names — Health and Human Serivces, Child Protection, etc. But what are “PRIVATE” agencies? How is an “agency” different from a plain old “corporation”? Either way, it says right here in the State Family Law Conciliation Code that the Judicial Council (of California) shall Administer a program of grants to public AND private agencies…
. If you have an inklin of what these grants are, the significance of this wording should sink in….

(1) The development of conciliation and mediation and other newer dispute resolution techniques, particularly as they relate to child custody and to avoidance of litigation.

(2) The establishment of criteria to ensure that a child support order is adequate.
(3) The development of methods to ensure that a child support order is paid.
(4) The study of the feasibility and desirability of guidelines to assist judges in making custody decisions.

(d) Administer a program for the training of court personnel involved in family law proceedings, which shall be available to the court personnel and which shall be totally funded from funds specified in Section 1852. The training shall include, but not be limited to, the order of preference for custody of minor children and the meaning of the custody arrangements under Part 2 (commencing with Section 3020) of Division 8.

(e) Conduct research on the effectiveness of current family law for the purpose of shaping future public policy.

[[**** This section already just outlined that there are to be grants to promote the exact things that the lawyers etc. had already agreed together to promote — mediation and conciliation, alternate dispute resolution, etc. etc. And private agencies can get in on it too. Now it is literally asking that this setup be tested to see if it effects “public policy change” whatever that is. So much for representative government and open discussion by individual citizens….]]

1851.  The Judicial Council shall establish

an advisory committee of
persons representing a broad spectrum of interest in and knowledge
about family law. The committee shall recommend criteria for
determining grant recipients pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
1850, which shall include proposal evaluation guidelines and
procedures for submission of the results to the Legislature, the
Governor, and family law courts. In accordance with established
criteria, the committee shall receive grant proposals and shall recommend the priority of submitted proposals

{{AGAIN, here’s that section 1852….}}


1852.  (a) There is in the State Treasury the Family Law Trust Fund.

(b) Moneys collected by the state pursuant to subdivision (c) of
Section 103625 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 70674 of the Government Code, and grants, gifts, or devises made to the state from private sources to be used for the purposes of this part shall be deposited into the Family Law Trust Fund.
(c) Moneys deposited in the Family Law Trust Fund shall be placed
in an interest bearing account. Any interest earned shall accrue to
the fund and shall be disbursed pursuant to subdivision (d).
 (d) Money deposited in the Family Law Trust Fund shall be
disbursed for purposes specified in this part and for other family
law related activities.

(e) Moneys deposited in the Family Law Trust Fund shall be
administered by the Judicial Council. The Judicial Council may, with
appropriate guidelines, delegate the administration of the fund to
the Administrative Office of the Courts.

{{this is the power grab…}}

(f) Any moneys in the Family Law Trust Fund that are unencumbered
at the end of the fiscal year are automatically appropriated to the
Family Law Trust Fund of the following year.
(g) In order to defray the costs of collection of these funds,
pursuant to this section, the local registrar, county clerk, or
county recorder may retain a percentage of the funds collected, not
to exceed 10 percent of the fee payable to the state pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 103625 of the Health and Safety Code.

I feel for those who have been paying some attention, that’s fairly self-explanatory. Who is the AOC? Who is on the AOC, and what nonprofit trade associations do many of them belong to? Has this AOC (there are some in many states, California is not the only one) been responsible with the administering of its moneys, or has it expanded beyond belief? (Look at http://courthousenews.com back issues and see what comes up).

[[Judicial Council of California is over the courts, Administrative Office of the Courts is under the Judicial Council. Underneath the Administrative Office of the Courts (in California) is a part called “Center for Families and Children in the Courts.”]]

To get a grasp of the scope and size of this Administrative Office of the Courts — there have been complaints, scandals, stepdowns, rebellions, and public melodrama over the perception that the Judicial Council/AOC is one bloated bureacracy in California.  A group of California Judges formed an association to protest.  Funding was changed substantially in 1997 (“Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act”) which I don’t have a complete grasp of except Bill Lockyer is a key politician who has been Attorney General, State Treasurer, and whose (3rd) wive was appointed in 2006 to head up a new Family Court Justice Center initiative (which I’ve blogged under “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys” and other posts), prior to spending $1 million to become Alameda County Supervisor (unheard of campaign expenses), after which she had to step down after being caught in:  an affair (30 yr. age difference between Ms. Lockyer-Davis and Bill), a domestic violence incident in a local motel; someone she’d met in rehab was involved, and eventually having to step down from the County Supervisor role for health and personal reasons. They are divorcing, and last I heard he was suing her for spousal support, although she was unemployed.  It’s one major soap-opera!  Anyhow, 1997 revised the funding of the courts.

This is where people traumatized by the mediators, conciliators, and program consultants — as well as robbed when and where the training setups are themselves used to bribe people actually on the bench deciding the future of a child — need to, and can, have a change of attitude towards the entire situation. And also appropriate might be a change of attitude towards those who could’ve known about this, but chose not to report on it, and chose not to for BUSINESS purposes.


As we can see from this code itself — the setup of the Conciliation Court Code is to make sure that the courts and those they contract out to (previously organized via nonprofit trade associations) promote certain activities previously set up by the same nonprofit trade associations and sold to the public as helping children, or helping reduce the congestion in the courts resulting from previously very poor custody decisions — or from the language change of criminal behavior as something which, when you get right down to it, needs treatment, not deterrents. It’s a circular process IF you also pay attention to the nonprofits organizing the situation.

The footnotes below will demonstrate exactly how this ties into parental alienation, and how the movement to fund it was promoted through the federal government.

Get The Fundamentals While You Can


By the way — before the footnotes I referenced above:


California is the largest court system in the country and its Administrative Office of the Courts and Judicial Council (which run the system) are in San Francisco. Marin County (just north of San Francisco County, across a single bridge) is a wealthy county… San Francisco itself is also home to a major fund running media campaigns to stop “Family” (I note, not “domestic”) Violence, and one of the earlier ones who helped (it says) get VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) passed. It’s a place of movers, shakers, and entrepreneurs in many fields, but particularly in the courts.

Sacramento, the State Capital, is not far away. Two cities in the SF Bay Area’s nine-county radius are home to among the highest homicide rates in the country: Oakland and Richmond (both in the “East Bay”). Richmond has an area known as the Iron Triangle.

Meanwhile the wealth right nearby some of these neighborhoods is stunning. This is the breeding ground (along with Los Angeles, San Diego counties) for some of the most aggressive lobbyists around for programs that are hurting women and children, and men — and wasting public funds — around.

The story that should be told is how this happened, historically — and through whom (organizationally). How practices, codes, were changed to accommodate a circular flow of dollars excluding those NOT in on the criminal racketeering aspect of this circular flow of dollars. In my opinion, people who want a piece of that pie, which is literally stolen from the public by extortion, should not be leading the pack, but should be sidelined.

Of course, that would be true if we lived in a just, moral, and logical world, which we do not. To me a more logical approach would be to identify the sources of power, and if they are not being used in an upright and legal manner, change them by altering them — either through boycott or civil disobedience.


FOOTNOTE “Custody Disposition Survey”

(from Section 1850(b), last phrase)

This phrase in conciliation code above is probably necessary as it was already known that access and visitation grants might be helping fund the programs they are about to set up and refer people to. I know from 45 CFR 303.109 that assisting the head of the HHS in promising projects, evaluation and demonstration, etc. was part of this federal code.

There are many anecodotal and custody horror/nightmare stories that can be told — however THESE are the stories we most needed to know.
Understanding the marketing lobbying strategy represented by this (well-oiled machine) will help
makes us more informed about what’s driving the courtroom preceedings, and about government (federal relationship to states, state relationship to centralized control and distribution of welfare obtained through wage deduction and other profits available to through various levels of government — including INVESTMENT profits, etc.).No family law attorney, or judge, or advocacy group told me this. Individuals did. Not groups. They are not responsible to keep us fully-informed on “whassup.” It’s our duty as citizens to pay better attention, after having in general grasped how government is acting now, has been acting in the past, and in fact, generally speaking, has always acted. And that is to increase and expand its power and wealth at the expense of others’ power, and wealth. It’s hardly news — but we tend to forget this while working our jobs, or trying to maintain our jobs, or run businesses, etc. LIFE IS COMPETITIVE AND, FOR ALL THE TALK OF ETHICS, THE BEST WAY TO ENSURE ETHICAL GOVERNMENT IS TO PAY ATTENTION AND FIGHT, WITHOUT GOING TO SLEEP ON THE JOB, FOR A BETTER BALANCE OF POWER, AND ACCURATE, TIMELY INFORMATION ON WHICH DIRECTION POWER IS GOING.

So LISTEN UP! and understand this as a pattern, not an isolated situation…

This Action Transmittal, available now on-line, but sent to the department heads, I guess — not exactly posted at courtroom, or county clerk doors throughout the land:{{See April 28, 1999 Action Transmittal on Final Rule: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs
 “AT” stands for “Action Transmittal.”

(OCSE 1999 Action Transmittal re: Access and Visitation Programs)


(also see the Federal Register for March, 1999 here)

Notice that prior to adding on the 1996 provision under PRWORA (1996 version of welfare reform, and the first most radical restructuring of it to date, I believe — block grants to states vs. AFDC — direct aid to the families — there had been a Family Support Act of 1988 to run some demonstration projects preparatory to demanding this.

Such action seems to coincide with the aggressive networking and lobbying (see “vital links”) below by certain groups to promote access and visitation, mediation, joint custody, etc.  In the interest of showing Section 1850 in shorter form, I’ve put some material into the link’s description (i.e., hover cursor for description) HERE:



It’s given in para. form. I’ve numbered it here so we can see the process

The AT lists four critical events (though have not numbered them and not in chrono order):  PUBLIC LAW allocates $8 million three years down the road for projects, a U.S. COMMISSION reports (8 years later) to recommend a policy, private group (including a corporation run an AFCC original Jessica Pearson) and HHS reports on the results of the experimentation on the public, at public expense. A,B,C,D, “Wham, Bam, Thank you, Ma’am.” We scarcely knew what hit us.

STEP 1. PASS A LAW, SOMETHING WITH THE NAME “FAMILY” ON IT SHOULD BRING WIDE SUPPORT. WHO’S AGAINST “FAMILY”? (public pays to set up the professions of mandated mediation, supervised visitation, parent education, parent counseling, etc. as NORMAL for divorce cases, and others, i.e., unwed parents separating or debating about custody).

1. A public law in 1988 “Family Support Act (Pub. L. 100-485) appropriated “up to $4 million each year for 1990-1991” to run State demonstration projects [to “develop, improve, or expand activities designed to (not actually doing so, but so long as they were “designed to”) “increase compliance with child ACCESS provision of court orders” and to evaluate and report to Congress on the findings. (see #3, below…)

{{no big deal if the same people running the doing the demonstrations would be evauating and reporting on Congress to their own work, on the federal dole?}}

Note:  Timed to just precede presidential election year.  Clinton was elected in 1992…term began Jan 20, 1993…  In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act was passed by Congress (and the nonprofit National Fatherhood Initiative formed, supported in part from HHS, and since, as its programs have been).  The gender was is kicking into gear here, organizational..


2. In Sept. 1996  the “U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare” submits a report to president and the Congress, “which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren).”

Actually, here’s how this AT summarized it:

In September, 1996, the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare submitted a report to the President and Congress which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren)


{{the family — not the individuals — are divorced or unwed. Collective treatment of people, not individuals, or rights-based. They want both parents “emotionally involved”. As that can’t be legislated, it can be “emphasized” and the typical way of “emphasizing” it would appear to be either by incentives or training (i.e., promotional media) and/or both. So what this is really saying is, get more incentives and training or publicity. This is where the marriage/fatherhood comes marching in. ))

I wonder who was on it. I found a place to download the 219 pages of
“Parenting Our Children: In the Best Interest of the Nation;“. This also lists the 14 members of the commission; it can be viewed on-line or, if you become your institution (the List) member of this site, downloaded as a pdf. I haven’t read it yet. I notice James C. Dobson, Ph.D. (Focus on the Family) is on it. My ex-batterer liked to listen to his tapes…. he’s noticeably weak, like most religious organizations, on domestic violence issues.
The Liz Library discusses this report, too, but it would make more sense (to me) to just read it.


See why I call it “Federal Designer Families” — federal funding to States to “encourage and enable  both parents stay emotionally involved.”  Big Brother getting into emotional regulation of individual parents….   Essentially, this is the product of fatherhood promotion, and sold as such although of course it says (‘fathers or mothers’) to make it more palatable.


Center for Policy Research (Denver) was formed ca. 1980, with Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes (Jane Venohr), all Ph.D.s, now at the helm, plus others.  Jessica Pearson also shows on the corporate registration of one of the many chameleon-like filings for AFCC, as I recall, one that had a three-state span of:  California, Illinois, and Denver.  The address on that corporation matches an earlier registration of the CPR.

On Vol. 2# 2 (1983) AFCC newsletter, p. 4, Jessica Pearson shows as Chair of the Research, Training and Technical Assistance Committee, responsible to:


(transcribed from the newsletter (also see Vital Links blogroll) “This committee is responsible to: 1) seek and coordinate research grants in areas of interest to the members of the Association, including research relating to family functioning, family services, divorce procedure, support payments, and the effects of divorce; 2) establish training programs and opportunities for court-connected counselors, mediators and evaluators; and 3) provide assistance to courts and agencies (NB:  at this time, some AFCC members were presiding over conciliation courts…) wishing to establish or improve court-connected family services.”)

[[The door was pried wider open for these services nationwide after the 1970 re-write of California Divorce Law into “no-fault,” see my 2/13/2013 post on the 1952 Decision leveraged to bring it about).

3. In October 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] transmitted to Congress the report entitled, “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects.” The report indicated that requiring both parents to attend mediation sessions and developing parenting plans was successful for cases without extensive long-term problems.

[[This will be discussed in a moment, but first, here’s the fourth point: From HHS TAGGS database, this group has a low profile, but overall, it has high influence.]]


4. “Finally, PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children. Activities funded by this program include mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision, neutral drop-off and pickup), development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. States may administer programs directly or through contracts or grants with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities; States are not required to not required to operate such programs on a statewide basis.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Do you recognize how this matches the language of Conciliation Law — Mediation (including MANDATORY), counseling, deduction, etc. etc. and here’s that nice supervised visitation industry. Because it’s federal funds, we can accurately say the nation is being billed for Designer Families programs, and private contracting attached to the courts, to set up an infinitely expandable system of contracts or grants with the courts. that WHO is going to keep track of? ???

Compare conciliation code with this new section of PRWORA and consider whose idea it may have been.

Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net), or claimed, that it was Ron Haskins [MDRC, Brookings Institution) who literally pushed this language in at, or beyond, the very last moment. ONe would have to read the Congressional record, I guess to figure it out, but my impression was, a fast one had been pulled here, that is, to appropriate the $10 million a year to set up these programs…. Notice that the report was in September, it was given to Congress in October 1996 (was this not another election time? You bet! Remember?) and it was passed.

((Last I heard this is up for re-authorization March, 2013. Can we just say NO? this time??))

About STEP 3, above:

Guess who wrote up that Evaluation, and what types of professionals are STILL (2012, 2013 no doubt) referring to it when talking about Parental Alienation?  (Google the report’s title and find out — This is just one sample)  “Is Joint Custody Best Following Separation of the Parents?” (sentence 1:  “The answer is a resounding yes.”) See “FOOTNOTE LOWENSTEIN,” BELOW, however notice the conclusion, after para. plus para. on sharing the power, there is a single passing reference to “abuse” (not ‘domestic violence” or battering or any details, as in molestation, rape, kidnapping, etc.) — AND in context with “emotional abuse” which this entire page just defined as not sharing power equally with the other parent, and itself a crime called “parental alienation.”  If he were serious about abuse being an exception — it’d have been mentioned closer to the top and in the body of the paper.  this man hails from West Australia and London, Great Britain (although he appears to be all over the world).  However, he chose here to reference that 1996 report, above:,

Joint custody provides at least the awareness in each parent that they can continue, as much as possible, to co-operate with one another much as they did before the separation. Shared parenting and joint custody is the most fair and just arrangement possible, despite the difficulties that may occur. It is better than having one custodial parent with all the power and responsibilities of rearing the child and excluding the other, except when it is the desire of the alienating parent to allow contact! It does something towards preventing of the sidelining of one parent, while giving all power and control to the custodial parent.

The latter is not also in the best interest of the child. This is because it has long been established, that children develop best when they have two equally loving and caring parents of as equal a status as possible. Both responsibility and power (control) concerning the child/children should be shared. Equality in parenting is only applicable to those who do not abuse a child sexually,** physically or emotionally and do not neglect the child. Those who practice any of the abuses mentioned have no right to continue to play a role in the child’s life


Levy, D. L. (2006) The need for public awareness and policy makers to respond to PAS: a neglected form of child abuse. In, R. Gardner, S. R. Sauber, D. Lorandos (Eds) The international handbook of parental alienation: conceptual, clinical, and legal considerations. (pp 153-163). Springfield, Illinois, USA: Charles C. Thomas.

Pearson, J., Thonnes, N., Price, D., Williams, R. (1996). Evaluation of the child access demonstration projects. In, David Arnaudo, Federal Programme Officer, in report to Congress, July 1996, (p5). Submitted to Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, US Department of Health and Human Services,

(“Thonnes” should be “Thoennes” — these people are associated with the Colorado-area CPR, etc. )
**the only reference to this in 12 paragraphs, and as typically, equally alongside other forms of abuse which would include parental alienation.  This omission is amazing considering the guy’s special interests and fields of study (see “Footnote Lowenstein,” Below.).

D. Lorandros is still up and running, with colleagues; I blogged 6/15/2011, Part 4 of a series on how Parent Coordinators coach people into how to call out “alienation!!”.

Election year, Clinton going for his second term!  Welfare is a hot issue.  Child Support is supposedly related to welfare rolls, i.e., the image of the welfare queen….4.   Finally, [[why no date mentioned?]] PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children.

{{it says fathers and mothers, but in practice, is not enforced so, it seems.  Moreover the material one can read often switches “parent” for “father” and vice versa — see court site}}.

….[[continuing description from the Action Transmittal of 1999]]
Under this provision, the amount of the grant to be made to the State shall be the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities just described or the allotment to the State for the fiscal year. The Federal government will pay for 90 percent of project costs, up to the amount of the grant allotment. In other words, States are required to provide for at least ten percent of project funding even if they do not spend their entire allotment.

{{so what happens to the parts they don’t spend — for example, if they are charging individuals when there was already a federal allocation for the same services?}}

The allotment would be determined as follows: an amount which bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants as the number of children in the State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all States. Such allotments are to be adjusted so that no State is allotted less than $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year. These funds may not be used to supplant expenditures by the State for authorized activities; rather, States shall use the grant to supplement such expenditures at a level at least equal to the level of such expenditures for fiscal year 1995.

In September 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement awarded 54 States and independent jurisdictions Access and Visitation Grants covering all the activities mentioned in the Act. A second round of grants was issued in September 1998; all States and Territories, except Guam, received grants. Guam did not apply.

Description of Regulatory Provisions

Paragraph 303.109(a) has been added to 45 CFR part 303 containing procedures for States to follow in monitoring, evaluating and reporting on their Grants for Access and Visitation Programs. This rule requires States to monitor all access and visitation programs to ensure that these programs are: (1) Providing services authorized under section 469B(a) of the Act; (2) being conducted efficiently and effectively; (3) complying with reporting and evaluation requirements, as set forth in paragraphs 303.109(b) and 303.109(c); and (4) providing appropriate safeguards to insure the safety of children and parents***&.

{{***note that safety was only priority #4 and the phrase “domestic violence” was carefully avoided, although the Violence Against Women Act had been passed only two years earlier, in 1994}}


Paragraph 303.109(b) ALLOWS  States to evaluate programs funded by section 469B of the Act, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE THESE PROGRAMS TO BE EVALUATED.

States ARE, however, required to assist in the evaluation of programs deemed significant or promising by the Department, as directed by program memorandum.

{{caps mine, above}}

That’s your centralized control, and one reason they need the custody disposition survey.  Because the Secretary of HHS, by program memo, may “deem significant or promising” programs x, y, or z.” Thus whoever has the most pull in Washington, D.C., that pull (clout) will be felt at the local level, and paid for also in part at the local level.


Now, what this programming helps do – see next footnote:



Above, in showing the 1,2,3,4 sequence (of passing the access and visitation funding), it became clear that step# entailed an Evaluation Report of Child Access Demonstration Programs” be submitted — and Jessica Pearson et al. did this report.

In looking for a reference (link) I saw (again) a British (Australian?) expert in 2012 still referencing this to (spout off) about parental alienation, and what bad things should be done to parents who don’t cooperate nicely, including threat of incarceration, fines, loss of custody — the usual.The word “domestic violence” occurs nowhere in his text, however here’s some more detail from that parental alienation page and a little more on the person writing:




(the Parental Alienation reference, dated 2012, above, quoting 1996 Jessica Pearson).

the Judicial system to make certain it works and that both parents share in the carrying out of their responsibilities of care and guidance towards their children. It must therefore be stressed, that there should be a structured access and contact procedure put in place embedded in the arrangement. This is likely to be in the best interest of the child whose parents have parted. . . . [[see how no mention of domestic violence — the real abuse is the emotional abuse of alienation — and it quotes:  David Levy of CRC (Children’s Rights Council) and this 1996 report, which is footnoted (and are the only two references to this article, dated 2012!):

Most of all both parents must delete the notion of being in total control from their thinking and actions based on feelings of animosity towards one another. This is the best way to avoid future access problems to children and battles associated with a single parent having custody and hence having total control over the child’s future contact with the now absent parent (Pearson et al., 1996). This is also the viewpoint of the Children’s Rights Council (CRC) and its Director Dr David Levy (2006).

Each year in the United States according to CRS, 50,000 (fifty thousand) divorces occur and they result in high levels of conflict between the two parents. This results when one parent is sidelined and is no longer part of the family. Such parents frequently do not see a child for many months or even years, and sometimes not at all. The parent who prevents access and alienates the child often accuses the absent parent of a variety of abuses against the child.

None of these abuses, on the whole, are ever acknowledged or verified by the police or anyone else.

{{Oh?? is that true?? that’s a broad generalization!!! moreover, even if it were true, broadly speaking, does that logically mean the abuses didn’t take place? His definition of whether or not abuse took place is whether or not the authorities verified it, and the phrase “or anyone else” is ridiculous, given it’s 2012, and people have been murdered after reporting domestic violence which was ignored and dismissed.}}

Such situations are more likely to occur when under conditions of sole custody. This is when one parent is given total responsibility and control when there should really be shared parenting.

{{this is complete speculation. Under “FOOTNOTE LOWENSTEIN,” we can see what an expert is pronouncing this, and expected to be taken at face value..}}

“In the latter condition both parents are aware of the rights and responsibilities in regard to their children. Their power in regard to how they will raise and guide the children is “shared”. Any one of the parents who seeks to use total power and control at the expense of the other is automatically in the wrong and should be placed before a court of law or other mediating body and held to account. Any one party that seeks total power over the parenting of children, or prevention of good contact with both parents may need to have that power restrained. There needs to be the threat of actual provisions of punishment. The punishment could be a fine, loss of parental control and responsibility and as a last resort even imprisonment.

{{{….This is a pretty good description of an abuser, a batterer — while still in the marriage and after the marriage. I actually wish some of this threat, fine, loss of parental control, or even imprisonment had been communicated to such parents who, profiting from this PAS theory in the custody courts, succeed in getting the kids away from the protective, or primary (previously) caring parent. However, this is an expression of what a certain person feels about parents who don’t want to co-parent with an abuser. First of all, they’re making it up, probably, and second, if they won’t co-parent, they should be punished even further with loss of contact with their children. That’s exactly the theory found in the parenting coordination material as well. It talks about “coordination” but is actually a gateway to removing children completely from one parent without that parent having committed any crime or broken any law…}}

“Failure to act as such means that the alienating parent can practice emotional abuse of the child with impunity and without legal action being taken to remedy this situation. Emotional abuse of the child must be considered a “crime” and this fact is described in a separate article by the author.

Ludwig F. Lowenstein, who wrote the above — isn’t even from America, that I can see.  He got his degrees back in the early 1960s, but SIXTY-SIX years later is still quoting David Levy (CRC), Gardner, and Jessica Pearson, who was one of the founders of AFCC and over its research and grants section!):

Lowenstein quoting Pearson, promoting Parental Alienation as a crime.

(A) B.A. Degree. University of Western Australia, (1955-1958.)
Subjects taken:- Psychology, Education, English, German, Philosophy , Sociology.
(B) M.A. Degree. University of London, (1958 – 1960.)
Birkbeck College. Title of Research:- The Psychological Needs of Sub-Normal Children as Assessed by a Thematic Apperception Test. Examiner of Thesis – Prof. C. A. Mace.
(C) Diploma in Clinical and Educational Psychology. Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, (1961 – 1962.)
(D) Ph. D. University of London, (1966.) Main Research:- An Application of Group Operant Conditioning. Thesis Examiner:- Prof. Vernon and Dr. G. Jones.
(E) C. Psychol. AFBPsS. Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. Membership Number:- 21085.

From “Expertssearch.co.UK
SCAN THE LONG LIST OF HIS INTERESTS, AND CREDITS, INCLUDING CAUSES OF CRIME AND RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS.  PAEDOPHILIA COMES UP, TOO. Am I wrong, or is this not just a little bit “over the top” — for someone whose degrees were in the 1960s??CHILDREN :-
Family / Child Issues
Child psychology and behaviour
Child abuse problems, minimum and maximum brain
damage, delinquent or criminal activities, psychological
aspects, failure to receive education according to their
special needs (educational assessments)
Child abuse (family/child issues), including sexual abuse
Child protection/risk assessment
Child adoption, foster care and wardship
Children in care/care proceedings
Child custody, access and residence
Divorce and separation: social/legal issues
Educational assessment/statementing
Dyslexic children: assessment/provision
Divorce and family problems, including
parental and matrimonial alienation

Assessment of attachment styles
Parenting assessments
Children’s testimony
Bullying and harassment

Emotional and behavioural problems, serious crimes where
there is a psychological factor explaining the behaviour, crimes
committed as a result of subnormality or moral imbecility

{{moral imbecility??}}

Occupational/industrial psychology
Substance abuse aspects in cases of rape and homicide
Diminished responsibility
Mental illness
Criminal responsibility
Psychiatric and psychological disorders
Brain injury
Providing a mediation service between those in conflict
Human sexuality
Addictions and compulsions (psychology)
Forensic psychology/investigative psychology
Offender assessment (psychological)
Fitness to plead (psychological assessment)

Psychological counselling/therapies
Psychological testing
Mentally disabled people
Personal injury causes
Road traffic accidents (personal injury)
Falling, tripping and slipping accidents
Hazards (personal injury causes)
Criminal assault and CICA claims
Failure to recover and suspicion of malingering
Psychological reaction to disability and disfigurement
Vocational evaluation (cost of injury)
Spinal injury
Head injury
Neurological diseases
Pain / pain management
Neuropsychological assessment
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Assessment of malingering
Adjustment disorders
Psychological aspects of physical injury and disfigurement
Criminal responsibility
Fitness to plead
Assessment of mental capacity
Discrimination: race, gender, age and disability
Occupational stress
Fitness to work
Disadvantage on the labour market
Careers and earnings loss
Vocational rehabilitation, guidance and training
Mental Health Tribunals
Employment Tribunals

Background Information :-
Dr Lowenstein has been treating young people suffering from severe
personality disorders and behavioural difficulties at his therapeutic
centre and school for over 20 years, and in the process has become
one of Britain�s most quoted authorities on psychology in education.

Author of ‘Paedophiles: the Sexual Abuse of Children, Its Occurrence
and Treatment’, Able Publishing, May 1998 (see Amazon web site).
(‘Covers all aspects of the treatment of paedophiles and of sexually
abused children’).

A selection of Dr Lowenstein’s articles which have appeared in
various specialist publications during the last 25 years has been
published by Barry Rose Law Publishers under the title ‘Criminal
Behaviour – A Retrospective’ (web site) – (‘Will be of interest to
those who are concerned about the underlying causes of criminal
behaviour and the possibilities for treatment and care’).

Dr Lowenstein is also author of ‘The Psychological Aspects of
Personal Injuries’ (Barry Rose Law Publishers Ltd, 2002) – (a review
of which can be found here).

Dr Lowenstein is listed in the ‘Directory of Expert Witnesses’ which is
maintained by the British Psychological Society, the representative
and regulatory body for psychologists in the UK (see link, below).

Av. no. of new instructions a year : 80
No. of reports written in last 3 years : 240
{{hey — 30/year is about 8 per month, or two per week, right?  I wonder if the one I linked to above qualifies as a “report” when it’s actually just a rambling opinion based on previously determined material…}}

No. of court appearances in last 3 years : 27  {{9 per year…}}
Geographical areas of work : All of UK and worldwide
ADR skills : Arbitration, Adjudication and Expert determination

Memberships of other professional associations :-
Association of Neuro Psychologists
Association of Educational Psychologists
American Psychological Society

An Australian or British, if I may, @$$hole (with apparent ego and power issues, i.e., doesn’t like to share it), with membership in American Psychological Association.

[[Well, see “Stunning Validation” post, recent. I think it pretty well speaks to the list of occupations, and pre-occupations above.]]

Let’s keep in mind that the origins of psychology as a specialty in the United States, and London, etc. also have to do with talking a nation into going to war, i.e., getting soldiers to risk their lives. This connection is detailed, specific, and documented — and I have blogged it here, and on other sites. I’m not the first person to put this together.

It is profitable to conduct experiments on how to control large masses of human population, and always has been. It was in Africa, it was in Europe, and it has been in the United States and globally. This has a nasty “breeding” aspect to it as well, the obsession with the federal government on managing us. It’s time we started understanding that and figuring out better ways to resist the funding. The clock’s been ticking for decades. I suggest tune out those wishing to compromise with the field of “forensic psychology” which is an oxymoron (in my opinion). One might as well attend a seance, which is where some of it probably originated.

This is not to say there aren’t observable aftereffects of war, and abuse (shell-shock, etc.). But the obsession with demonstration, evaluation, labeling and refining what works — is a little sick, in my opinion. War is about greed and about control. It has rallying calls — and “family” is one of them.

A better solution might be, if this is really about budget shortfalls and helping people off welfare– is to quit giving all the religious groups tax breaks to help put them there, in part from programs which support a devaluation of women, while taking federal faith-based grants and acquiring real estate, etc. And admit that, like religion, “mental hygiene” now more often called “mental health” is a system of control — and needs to be viewed in the context of who’s in control.

A good look at the comprehensive annual financial reports of both government and religions (there do exist such reports for many major religions) will reveal assets, and the ROI from those assets. Once the size of the collective investment platform available at all levels of government, the will to continue showing up as a “human resource” in various forms should lessen.
And hopefully appealing to the same fount of wealth for a few crumbs from the master’s table may go away.

http://CAFR1.com http://realitybloger.wordpress.com, see the CAFR School posts to get a grasp of the impact.

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

February 9, 2013 at 8:32 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I was just having a conversation today about the import of Conciliation Code. Still haven’t gotten to where the list of funds is (seen annual/legal basis report under comptrollers, perhaps; it may list the funds).

    This is of course not all that’s going on, but it signifies what’s going on. It’s increasing centralization of power, and privatizing of government. It’s more than problematic, it’s devastating. Sound the alarm, please!

    (Under Lowenstein’s credits, don’t know what typo went where in. I got some nice abc typos above also.)

    “Av. no. of new instructions a year : 80
    No. of reports written in last 3 years : 240
    {{hey — 30/year is about 8 per month, or two per week, right?  I wonder if the one I linked to above qualifies as a “report” when it’s actually just a rambling opinion based on previously determined material…}}”

    But 240 repts/3 yrs = 80/12 months per yr. = do the math. (just under 7/month = just under about 2/week).
    If you read the reports, I bet they’d pretty much be duplicating each other. The one above was just a rant.

    Let's Get Honest

    February 9, 2013 at 9:01 pm

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: