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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

National Top Domestic Violence/Child Custody Experts continue trying to Dumb Down Moms

with 8 comments

This has been a long time coming.

I barely tapped the tip of the iceberg in January 2011 in asking “What Rhetoric Are You: Mother, Father, or Mediator?” after a recent Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference in which to my awareness, no one explained how the Health and Human Services (HHS) has been diverting welfare funds to marriage promotion, that things called “fatherhood practitioners” exist, or that Access/Visitation funding exists.

This post also barely taps the tip of the iceberg in how much lies BELOW THE SURFACE in the Coalition of Conferencing Nonprofit Professional (Leadership) among what I am summarizing as the “Crisis in the Courts” Crowd. Or, I may sarcastically refer to as the “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative.” Instead, this initiative is (my opinion, here) USING the emotional distress of mothers (which is genuine) and people who have been indeed assaulted and battered — by a partner, and/or thereafter the courts in association with the same battering partner, and/or ditched by their religious groups (where applicable) — to follow a certain blueprint which highlights the leadership organizations – not, impartially — the actual cause, effect, and potential solutions to the issues they raise.

Women — mothers — are highly motivated, intelligent, and have tremendous energy, commitment, and leadership potential. The movement encouraging them to wear loss and victimhood like a badge and tell their stories — has diverted a tremendous energy from the real story behind this — which is Who Altered the Courts, How, and Why? Instead, they are to rally, report, trust, and follow according to the blueprint laid down for them by simply another set of experts. Proper skepticism and critical thinking — outside the platform being fed — is always in order in situations of this magnitude.

[[Comments welcome; the matter I’m raising here IS a matter for debate! Make up a name if you want… but let’s talk about this! See form…]]]

[[Obviously, the talk will be a little better if there’s some indication you’ve read at least some of the post, or its headings, or are somewhat informed of the material already, but still — wanna talk?… I’m not saying this is the best writing — but I’m saying, consider these issues!]]

I have witnessed, over some years, women who know about this, toss aside the knowledge because it’s not being validated by their “leaders,” and have seen (and spoken to many about) the premise that any publicity is good publicity, therefore, if someone with the ability to get press attention even brings up the “Crisis in the Courts,” that’s good enough.

….Well, it wasn’t good enough for my children. As a mother, I demanded, and got, some better explanations, including of why all these experts have tunnel vision in certain matters, and wax in their ears for others when information doesn’t fit with the business plan of conference presenters.

I know that blogging this “uncommon analysis” material and talking it up has SLIGHTLY caused a twinge of change in the window-dressing in the BMCC circular emails — but it has not caused a change of heart. I believe that heart is, to put it bluntly, in the wrong place, and it’s hurting more women than it harms. I believe it’s a cult and that it’s time to regain some integrity, and INDIVIDUALLY develop our own language based on — and this is my suggestion — the economic and organizational paradigm, rather than “My Child Custody Expert is better than Your Child Custody Expert because they know about Batterers” model.

But trying to drag already recruited personnel away from a cult is probably NOT the best use of one’s time. So, I just stand off to the side, and point; consider it a By-the-Side-of-the-Road Traffic Signal

And, by the way, the insult was intentional. Cult-like thinking on matters of life and death endangers others, and I take it personally that professionals have valued their work lives over our, literal, LIVES and our kids; as has been shown by providing (with major drama) and publishing PARTIAL information. It’s like selling a car minus some serious engine parts; or DESCRIBING a car (the courts) without talking about the GAS that makes it GO!

At some point, it’s wisdom just to “GO” (turn away) when there is no wisdom — of the kind most desperately needed to preserve life (or induce system change, assuming that’s the goal) in the ranks — or the conferences:

I still reference this book (“Book”), so here you have it:

Proverbs 14 (KJV): 1Every wise woman builds her house: but the foolish plucks it down with her hands

Some women are wise, and some are foolish; but we have to live in what we build. (Can you accept “house” as a metaphor here, even though we KNOW women are sometimes getting thrown out of their houses by judges in divorce rulings — or driven homeless by the same? We are going to live somewhere mentally, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually — and THAT is what is to “built” by us. If a house is where we live — then it’s up to us to build wisely.

2He that walks in his uprightness fears the LORD: but he that is perverse in his ways despises him.
3In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them.
4Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox.
5A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
6A scorner seeks wisdom, and finds it not: but knowledge is easy to him that understands.
7Go from the presence of a foolish man, when you perceive not in him the lips of knowledge.
. . . .
15The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.

Now would be a great time for Mothers, Battered Mothers specifically (if that shoe fits), Protective Parents (if THAT shoe fits)from California or anywhere else, to GO from the presence of a foolish man (or women) when the “lips of knowledge” are not in them. Now also would be a great timeto quit believing every word, but be prudent and “look well to our going.”…. Now would ALSO be a great time to tell whether the people one is hearing are faithful witnesses who will not lie, or false witnesses who will utter lies — in fact this should be a PRIMARY consideration, in continuing to deal with, endorse, follow, quote, support, or rally around anyone, or any group.

When it comes to “uttering lies,” of putting out a “false witness,” there’s more than one way to utter a lie; part of this is intentionally withholding relevant information from people one is addressing. This could be relevant information on the subject matter, or relevant information from onesself, such as one’s associates when NOT in front of a certain audience. In both matters, I have (over time) been shocked, repeatedly, to discover just how much the individuals flocking to and presenting at this particular conference — have withheld relevant knowledge about the custody field (and what’s funding it), AND about their own outside that conference associations. The purpose of lying or deceiving is generally to maintain control of a situation to drive it in a certain directions. Batterers use it. The courts use it (were YOU informed that AFCC had help set up the paradigm fo the courts, that HHS was funding grants to the courts for the purpose of increased noncustodial parent time — how much was told by our own government about its purposes and operations?). At some level, it is indeed immoral to take advantage of highly distressed and traumatized people by: talking down, withholding, dumbing down the conversation. Our job, in not just sitting still for further “dumbing down” is to obtain outside information, evaluate it and what has previously been presented, make a sound judgment, and act accordingly. That’s how you INCREASE wisdom — by practicing it. Everyone is going to make mistakes or be misled, but staying gullible for years at a time is a recipe for insanity.

Why is NOW the time? Well, that advice actually is timeless it’s ALWAYS that time. However, internet technology and control, economic gaps (as money laundering continues unabated), has speeded up the pace of acquiring more control, and this particular crowd has left women YEARS behind where even PRWORA started, let alone ca. 1963 when AFCC (also not really mentioned, that I can tell, as a topic, in the conference) says it started.

Why else should women move out of passive, quit being foolish, develop some prudence (essentially, wisdom) and quit congregating around the dishonest —

Here’s why: for our children — and for the future; for the men and women in our communities.

To be prudent, one has to have basic understanding. Part of this basic understanding is knowing (sensing is a start, is there that disquieting inner voice — and if so, are you going to listen to it and check things out, or silence it, and “go with the flow”?) — it’s KNOWING when something is “OFF” in a group, and what’s off.

To have Wisdom is to be able to (and intend to) tell truth from error, without respect of persons. It requires hunting and gathering some a little further afield to see whether the shrinkwrapped and conference-presented information is essentially the truth, the whole truth, and nothing BUT the truth — of course, about the topics in question.

That’s very hard to do if the group is the primary source of information, and that type of information is the filter; the ONLY type of language you’re attuned to, and will listen to. Rather than the larger context, or other viewpoints which more appropriate questioning would lead to. So, it still gets down to CHOICE.

(Prov. 14, again) 25A true witness delivers souls: but a deceitful witness speaks lies.

Some lies are simply mis-statements of facts; those are the easiest to detect, but there’s a form of “spin” and a way of talking which is also reframing, and/or re-phrasing. Without sensitivity to the choices of topics available, and to the LANGUAGE used to describe the problems — it’s a flat, two-dimensional (either/or) presentation.

Desire and get access to more than one (or actually, more than TWO) contexts in which to view a situation. And then there’s one that I consider simply unconscionable in self-styled LEADERSHIP circles — which is withholding vital elements of the puzzle; AND failing to state conflicts of interest, or associations which would put an entirely different light on the presentation.

The word “Paradigm” is overused these days. When people in positions of authority, delegated or elected, set out to shift a paradigm, the question should be, WHY? And of course, it’s time to pay attention HOW. (What was so bad about the “paradigm” of the Declaration of Independence?) “Paradigm Shift” apparently was a term coined in 1962. This WHAT IS A PARADIGM SHIFT? (gets the point across), although its language is to sell the point at the bottom of the page which is itself an assumption. The writer seems to favor the “agents of change,” (also overused). I like the Merriam-webster Dictionary Definition just fine:

Definition of PARADIGM

1 : example, pattern; especially : an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype
2 : an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms
3 : a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind

. . .Origin of PARADIGM

Late Latin paradigma, from Greek paradeigma, from paradeiknynai to show side by side, from para- + deiknynai to show — more at diction
First Known Use: 15th century

It’s important to know which “paradigm” is in play in a given situation — and to do this often requires SHOWING them side by side. (Hence, sometimes, long posts….)

Part of “prudence” (wisdom, understanding, paying attention, seeing the context, perceiving whether the speaker/s have “the words of knowledge” or not, whether they are faithful witnesses or not) is knowing what paradigms exist — and which ones are at play. I have found that underlying the “subject matter” of either battered mothers, domestic violence, and/or fatherhood — some one underlying way to view the fields is the organizational model — which affects flow of information, power, and usually with it, money. So, here we go:

What Color is your Parachute; What Paradigm is your Collaboration?


I learned (by participation & observation) how the conference platform is an Us/Them platform: Presenters/Audience. The Conference then garners emails and networks; the Conference creates (a sense of) Credibility. BMCC is the “Conference” and (did you know this?) “CLE” as well. While State-level Supreme Courts these days are apparently collaborating with the Welfare (Agency) Sector in the RoundTable model. The purpose of the roundtable model is not necessarily to disseminate to the public what’s been achieved while it’s in process (i.e., it’s hardly an “open” model) but specifically in order to control the flow of information — and funding.

The Conference “Paradigm”


I learned about “the Conference” paradigm in part from having attended several after I became aware that the family court system, having stripped off my protection, did not speak “domestic violence,” and didn’t want to hear about it, either. I may know Lundy Bancroft inside out and footnotes, but it was not registering in those rooms. Then the courts allowed the father of my children to simply drive off with them, without valid legal causes, or factual basis, and in what by law is considered a felony. Imagine the shock, confusion, dismay, grief, sense of loss (as well as very real losses, including of work), betrayal, and disbelief.

The exact state in which a person’s defenses are GONE; they experience what happened, but don’t have the language to describe why or how it happened.

In this state I managed to get to a few conferences (I believe it was three), NONE of which did anything to illuminate the PARADIGM of the family court, although one actually (designed for professionals in the system, which I wasn’t) did at least confirm the description — but still didn’t explain it coherently. It was like, knowing the world was round, but hanging out with people who insisted it was flat.

After having to reject the collective while, useful and interesting, basically IRRELEVANT to my situation, information — presented, again, at those conferences (which are still going on, as we speak) — I kept looking, and only by (a) rejecting the nonsenscial and (b) continuing to search, did I find the more relevant information — and thus learn that the BMCC, and these other, conference models in fact, innately involved “the art of withholding information from attendees that might make us an anachronism — or solve the problems.”

Also, one can read conference agenda (paying close attention to participants as well) on-line, for free except for one’s time.


Then, to finalize some understanding — if a nonprofit puts on a conference – read its tax return. Good luck when that’s a State Bar Association …. But putting on a conference is a write-off for the nonprofit; it reduces the reportable (net) income; one reason nonprofits exist!


The Conference Model is building a PERSONAL camaraderie (as in “brotherhood” or “sisterhood” or “our professional niche-hood”) consensus //sense of loyalty and IDENTITY; to follow up with the attendees, in order that the presenters (the “Professionals” or “experts”) may continue to market their STUFF (and analyses, and vocabulary). It promotes a certain “gestalt” regarding common problems or agenda.

For funding of the Conference Model, it helps to have some wealth behind it, but either way, another way of funding includes becoming a membership-fees-based nonprofit; and at least writing off the conference costs.

This is where AFCC (et al). have ’em “beat” as, first of all, their target clientele are already in positions of power, and often (many) also not just employed, but public servants. I.e., we’re talking Judges, Attorneys, and the Mental Health field (who are now doing much better overall thanks to help from judges, organizations like AFCC, Federal Grants, and sometimes wealthy sponsorship and visionaries, such as Nicholas Cummings, who (it sounds like, almost single-handed) figured out how to mainstream “intermittent therapy throughout the lifetime” with basic medical care (i.e., as part of the federally-funded healthcare programs) AND jumpstarted four schools of professional psychology so that the psychologists could get their Ph.D.’s and Psy.D.’s and get some “R.E.S.P.E.C.T.” (and higher pay)….

The Battered Mothers Custody Conference is, obviously, a Conference Model. “Come and hear the Experts, break out in some workshops (led by the experts) and if there’s some time left over, see if you dare think differently, or check whether that’s the most relevant, timely and urgent information to know. Make friends who will not, most likely, challenge those experts –and do not do background checks, or find other information, on the same experts — like who else they conference with! Or whether they are really on the same page as you — or possibly not.” Or if not, how not?

The Conference Model typically also includes having funding to travel TO the conference, somehow housing at it, and this also likely involves having someone safe to leave one’s minor children with IF one still has regular contact with them. In most years, the BMCC was held in New York — obviously a key state, but hardly central to the United States. I knew about it for years before actually being able to make it up there. MOST years I was dealing with the court cases, and regular, ongoing trauma, i.e., co-parenting with someone who doesn’t respect court orders, etc.

Here’s an Extreme version of the “Conference Model” among networked attorneys — go do it on a cruise! AND get Continuing Education Credits (CLE)..

Seriously, this was the Minnesota and Texas; and it’s truly “over the top,” in my opinion. Found this as part of follow up on a Comment at Carver County Corruption. There was a complaint about a certain supervised visitation provider (for the mother — who else?), Jeffrey Postuma. I looked up the (nonprofit) he used to work for, and in general — searched. He’s among the conference planners on this one (see fine print at the back of the page). However, I’ve seen a similar version (show up — we’ll even do a slight discount on conference workshops, maybe hotel accommodations — but SHOW UP< LISTEN, and BUY — in (I believe it was summer 2010), NCADV + NOMAS conference. Clearly part of the purpose of that one included pushing a book about to come out edited by Barry Goldstein and Mo Hannah, Ph.D., also sold at BMCC… I think it was about this time, I was getting fed up with the "disconnect" from our reality — and someone else's agenda.

The Conference Paradigm combines the funding of the conference, sale of materials, acquiring an expanded email list (participants), and promotionof professionals, and with them, an certain ideology. It's NOT an open discussion. It's a presentation/audience (and writeoff). Some people have more conference "bling" available than others — but the format is still the same. Come, hear, buy, and stay in touch. It's still a hierarchical model.

Did you know that very likely the structure of the family courts, AND family law today, actually began in great part with a “Conference of Conciliation Courts” newsletter? Talk about the power of a conference model!

Understand that “ROUNDTABLE” Paradigm; Example in Action:

The Roundtable (interesting reference!) has now become a fashionable word — when describing interlocking sectors of government in collaboration with others — away from the public eye (i.e., who does and does not get to be on the “Roundtable”? Among themselves they are supposedly “Equal” — but the circle is a closed circle. You either have a seat at it, or you don’t:

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/king-arthur-knights-round-table-1.htm: “King Arthur is the figure at the heart of the Arthurian legends but the Knights of the Round Table play an important part in the story and legend of King Arthur. The Arthurian legend revolves around the Code of Chivalry followed by King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. The basis for the code of Chivalry followed by King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table were Honour, Honesty, Valour and Loyalty. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table were ‘ Brothers in Arms’. . . .
King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table – the concept of Equality The significance of the Round Table was that no one person, not even King Arthur, would be able to sit at the head of such a table. A round table enforced the concept of equality. The legend states that King Arthur ordered the Round Table to be built in order to resolve a conflict among his knights concerning who should have precedence. The Round Table was therefore built to ensure that all the Knights of the Round Table were deemed equal and each of the seats at the Round Table were highly favoured places.”


Office of Children and Families in the Courts (Pennsylvania): ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

In an effort to create more positive outcomes for foster children, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania created the Office of Children and Families in the Courts (OCFC) within the Judicial Programs Division within the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC)

The OCFC’s principal goal is to minimize the length of time that dependent children must spend in foster care or in other temporary living situations when they have been removed from their parents under court order as a result of abuse or neglect.

The OCFC also aims to reunite children safely and timely with their families, expedite the adoption process for those children with the goal of adoption: increase the incidence of legal guardianship; and enhance/expand ongoing permanent adult connections for those children who remain in the foster care system.

{{Interesting, the concept of a state Supreme Court as a creator, rather than as a JUDGE of the law. However, this comes from the fact that the US is trafficking in children, i.e., that there’s a booming foster care and adoption industry in place, supported by funding under Public Health and Welfare Code (i.e.., the Social Security Act). If I’m not mistaken, the Supreme Court predates 1934, which just goes to show how paradigms can be shifted, and institutions can take on new visions of themself once granted some authority — by (who else?) “the people”]]

The three levels include local Children’s Roundtables in each of the 60 judicial districts, eight statewide Leadership Roundtables and one State Roundtable. This three-tiered system of Roundtables provides the overarching structure for Pennsylvania’s Court Improvement Program. Pennsylvania uses the Roundtable model to guide the flow of dependency practice and the collaboration between the Dependency Courts, OCFC, The Department of Public Welfare’s Office of Children, Youth and Families (DPW/OCYF) and other relevant stakeholders.

{{There it is — the Roundtable Model is to “Guide the Flow,” with participation of the listed entities — which are financed through not the JUDICIAL branch but the EXECUTIVE branch. And to define who is and who is not a stakeholder. WHO ARE THE “OTHER RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS? WHOSE FUNDS PAID FOR THIS SITE — SHOULDN’T THEY (the public at large) KNOW WHO THOSE “OTHER RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS ARE — UP FRONT?” }}

At the foundational level, each judicial district in Pennsylvania convenes a Local Children’s Roundtable (LCR). The LCR is convened by the county dependency judge and is comprised of relevant stakeholders in the dependency system including but not limited to…

{{The people most affected by this system are the children under its authority, and their relatives and parents. They might, in a different world, be considered a “stakeholder” — certainly the kids would be. Let’s see IF they’re on the list…. Considere the following nouns, and see if it contains feedback from kids, parents or relatives — AS A STAKEHOLDER and ON THE ROUNDTABLES…}}

children and youth administrators, county commissioners, hearing masters, guardians ad litem, parent attorneys, agency solicitors, Court Appointed Special Advocates, school districts, drug and alcohol and mental health professionals, families, county children and youth staff, juvenile probation staff, police departments, service providers and other relevant stakeholders. The LCRs meet on a regular basis (usually monthly) to share best or promising practices, address areas of concern within the county’s dependency system and make plans to overcome barriers to timely permanency for children in their judicial district.

[[Sidebar underneath the Supreme-Court-created OCFC shows what they, then have created;access through above link…]]

Mission Statement & Guiding Principles
Organizational Structure
Agency Court Collaboration
Father Engagement
Court Improvement Project
County Information
Contact Us
Dependent Children of Incarcerated Parents

Anyone (who thought to do so, or was aware of this!) can explore — after the fact — who has been on the State Level Roundtables and get a “clue” about how high up the “Father Engagement” stakeholders are — and how there was NO representative of the “Battered Mothers” or (in this case) even Domestic Violence personnel — on the collaborations. I clicked on the 2012 Agenda/Minutes — and clicked on Father Engagement to find this report: (please can contents, and see bottom of page 11 to understand where they are getting some of he material from, including the American Humane Organization (which is a PRIVATELY funded group, and funnels money to local Father Engagement nonprofits; in other words, read the tax returns), and The National Fatherhood Initiative (which, of course is another nonprofit whose start was closely linked to its founders HHS and Congressional Contacts, plus conservative funding, etc.) — and etc.)


The ROUNDTABLE MODEL, a concept absolutely from feudal times and King Arthur’s Court is collaborative (among the honored, chivalrous “brotherhood”), and by this definition EXCLUDES…

Specifically excluded in this Supreme Court’s model are mothers as a group.

That is intentional.

After all, it’s often the MOTHERS whose kids are getting removed into foster care, prior to being re-engaged with noncustodial fathers, which is as we are seeing intrinsic to TANF these days anyhow. INCLUDING fatherhood representatives* as a group and exclude mothers as a group it so attempt to force a certain “OUTCOME,” which Supreme Courts these days have a habit of believing is their purpose and privilege. Therefore, when a PRIVATE NONPROFIT such as AFCC gets an activist JUDGE onto the State Level of Supreme Court, and that (fairly well indoctrinated) judge immediately goes “Activist — change the system” then that Judge is most likely looking through lenses fogged with previous propaganda, and will simply act on it, from the position of authority. Same Deal, Presiding Judges.

{{*note this doesn’t necessarily include the masses of average, working, married — or upright, ethical and law-abiding separated fathers NOT strung out in a high-conflict divorce; these most likely don’t even know about the the administration’s “fatherhood.gov” set-up. I know this in part from talking to so many of them..it’s NOT universal knowledge among the male gender….(yet).)



Well, AFCC-STYLE Supreme Court Judges have been found in Pennsylvania (Justice Max Baer), New York (ret’d. Justice Judith Kaye), Texas (Justice Debra Lehrman), and I DNK about other courts. In California, they may not need an AFCC judge at the top of the heap, there are so many already working IN the Administrative Office of the Courts which is under the Judicial Council) who are pre-eminent AFCC and/or NACC (i.e., Christopher Wu, Isolinni Ricci — an AFCC original; Charlene Depner). These are going to be activist, and towards a certain model; and they WILL know how to get funding for it. (see RECIPIENT SEARCH TAGGS.hhs.gov for interactive list of where the $42 million has gone//note “CA” isn’t spelled out):

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
SAN FRANCISCO  CA  94107  SAN FRANCISCO  124971982  $ 5,157,775 
SAN FRANCISCO  CA  94107  SAN FRANCISCO  360709414  $ 2,831,266 
SAN FRANCISCO  CA  94107  SAN FRANCISCO  609626320  $ 34,714,193 
[[access visitation funding under here, plus court improvement, plus “Effective Collaborations for Timely Adoptions,” etc….$42 million of grants alone. I’m sure they’re also getting funding from the DOJ, not just HHS}}

The only way to know for sure would probably be to have a membership list of the organization (AFCC, or NACC) and look it up — or to individually do lookups on ALL (50) (and Territories as it applies) State-level Supreme Court Justices and see if there’s the tell-tale language and behavior of the respective private, nonprofit trade associations in question… Highly recommended….

ROUNDTABLE MODEL and TALK — may “patronize” women and children (particularly low-income mothers, regardless of how they became low-income mothers) but it does not respect them, and I say this regardless of gender of the women in power.


The Children, Families, and the Courts Section – Supports all courts and judges in Ohio with jurisdiction over juvenile, probate, and family law matters. The section also manages the federal Court Improvement Program and other court reforms, and staffs the Advisory Committee on Children, Families, and the Courts.

Local Court Roundtable Meetings

The Supreme Court of Ohio established the local court roundtables program in order to provide a way for judges, magistrates, and other court personnel from courts of similar jurisdiction and demographics to come together to share ideas, concerns, and triumphs.  Agenda topics to be discussed are solicited from roundtable members ahead of each roundtable meeting. Supreme Court staff facilitate each meeting.

All roundtable meetings are held at the Moyer Judicial Center in Columbus. Anyone wishing to participate in a particular roundtable should contact Gerri Allen in order to be added to that roundtable’s membership roster. Roster members will receive written confirmation approximately four weeks prior to each roundtable meeting.

View the 2013 roundtable meeting schedule (Revised March 8, 2013)

The Dispute Resolution Section – Provides mediation training, program monitoring and administration of policies and procedures for Dispute Resolution. Includes management of grant awards for local mediation programs. Staffs the Commission on Dispute Resolution.**

{{mandatory mediation forced on top of domestic violence has been a BAD DEAL for survivors, but it’s a definite push, and we can document who’s been pushing dispute resolution, how, where, when and why. Again, I’ve posted on it, and it would seem that California has played a primary role. The Concept of Dispute Resolution is similar to the concept of Mediation, Conciliation, etc. etc. It’s part of the whole deal}}

The Domestic Violence Program – Assists and supports local courts with issues associated with civil and criminal domestic violence and stalking cases practices and procedures. Staffs the Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence.

[[A look at this verfies — they know that this can be lethal, extremely so. However, there are still specialized domestic violence courts — AND specialized child support courts — AND etc. The fact that it is likely to be lethal doesn’t seem to override the fatherhood factor — which is also (In Ohio) represented near the top of the Executive Branch, along with the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives (GOFBCI or something like that).]] Domestic Violence programs are allowed — but only in the context of Domestic relations Courts and Dispute Resolutions, and Roundtables Engaging Noncustodial Fathers, etc….}}

The Interpreter Services Program – Provides technical support and advice on the use of interpreters in the court and also training for court personnel, judges, and court administrators. Staffs the Advisory Committee on Interpreter Services.

The Specialized Dockets Section – Provides technical support and guidelines for the establishment and operation of local specialized dockets. Includes assistance with drug courts, mental health courts, and domestic violence programs.

[[Basically involving more and more specialized dockets, and special courts under the auspices of the Supreme Court is essentially, the practical re-write of laws, without participation of the public. It’s top-down in nature, and rationalized by, typically, caseload and efficiency. Well, perhaps some of these cases might’ve been better resolved if there weren’t the conciliation and family court model (plus no-fault divorce) and/or lousy custody decisions to start with!! If justice were a process, and it were administered with reasonable fairness according to basic law (i.e., don’t commit crimes!) — there wouldn’t be such a need for specialized dockets everywhere. IN my opinion…]]

War is tough, and a war against mothers who have not committed any crime — and fathers who haven’t either — isn’t just for fun. Generally speaking, wars are for profit. So, where’s the profit? What’s the agenda?

By professionalizing and centralizing certain “industries” under language — while changing their character (but retaining the labels), it’s possible to continue justifying a certain approach.

How can women (mothers) fight or achieve anything in a war against them AS mothers — if they are not aware of the usage of language and behaviors (funding, the whole nine yards) of the “fatherhood” groups?

And — again — at what point are we going to start “getting” that these are also basically terms — and those terms are to generate system changes to generate a change in the flow of power, information, AND money?

The information has been out there, for some decades — but undervalued and derailed by deluge of less relevant and less actionable information .  I plan to change this, as do others; and I do think the tide is beginning to turn — driven from OUTSIDE the mainstream media, and now getting at least in part, into some parts of it:

A SHORT but COHERENT Summary of the Problem with PRWORA


Anne Stevenson has been writing up such things as the Danger of HHS programs to women and children, acknowledged by both fathers and mothers, and DIRECTLY tied into welfare reform, “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” (PRWORA) of 1996.  We are at least STARTING to mention the sheer existence of a nonprofit sponsored by major father’s rights activist attorney Jeffrey Leving, out of Chicago, namely http://fathersandfamiliescoalition.org and how its conferences are one way the fathers’ rights groups actually get the grants to help tweak custody cases in favor of men, get child support arrearages compromised through forced reunification programs, etc. BMCC does not systematically present this information, reference it, or encourage mothers to go look at it, although it’s OK to mention in the vague, general manner. There’s been (ALL ALONG!) more information about these groups available on-line if only even a few useful search terms were brought up.

Now that (many of us) have been blogging and reblogging (and talking) about this for YEARS now (particularly the last five or so years) — there’s been a little “retreat” and occasional mention of the funding — but not in sufficient detail, or explained — in accompaniment with tools to look things up — to make a difference. It’s been then dropped into the general emails alongside the same old references to the same sources of information that withheld this info!

Some of this material is self-explanatory — once you look at it. As I often say, it took me only ONE WEEK virtually full-time checking out Liz Richards’ (archaic, but still very different set of information) “NAFCJ.net” to understand there was a whole missing set of information, which was NOT being discussed in the “conferences” about these matters.



Why not? Because they are Different Paradigms!!! One is conference-based. The other, while the information I know comes from a variety of sources, is the work product of ONE person (incidentally, also a mother). Perhaps it’s more informative NOT to spend one’s spare energies attending conferences run by people who don’t explain the “HHS PROGRAMS” paradigm in its proper context as influencing the CUSTODY COURTS.

Yet, find even a glimmer of this information in about ten years of conferencing at “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” [“BMCC”] in New York State; if you can — or in the materials of any of its sponsors or presenters.  

Formerly BMCC was held in January, near NY State Capital, but now they are bringing the attendees and presenters to the country’s capital, in May (for “Mothers’ Day”) and Washington, D.C.  

Meanwhile (at the end of the same month) and a continent away in Los Angeles, AFCC is going to hold ITS conference about how to continue creating more of the troubles BMCC talks about.  Also next summer, the NACC (related organization trying to get more GALs in kids lives,a nd with overlapping membership) will be holding ITS conference again in Georgia, as it did in 2008.

I have a sense that mothers stuck in custody battles will not to be able to afford attending both conferences in one month; however it’s a moot point, as BMCC doesn’t see fit to even tell such mothers about AFCC, its influence, or how it operates, and to understand the latter is to understand how deceptive (or, at best analysis — off-track — the former is), and continue in the dumbed-down “sell me something” mode.  I say this with appreciation of individual women I know who endorse and follow the BMCC agenda, for reasons best known to themselves.  However, commonsense (reason itself) has coached me to detach, expose the coverup, and provide the connection of this niche-market information to the US economy overall, and demand (or at least ask) that people NOT stuck in the courts (yet) take a stand on it.

The Nation’s Top Experts in Domestic Violence/Child Custody Issues

As with “relevant stakeholders” under “Roundtables” (above), How many of these “experts” the true experts (not ex-Spurts, as in spurting out a specific LIMITED WORLDVIEW rhetoric)? The true experts are those who have experienced domestic violence and are IN the fight of their lifetime to protect kids from abuse, and retain contact with them, to stay alive, and to stay sane. That’s the mothers.

In 2011 I pointed out to a number of (at the time) associates that one of the presenters was a woman laywer with a wife who was a downhill biker (bicycle) champion who’d just been caught in STING of a multi-state marijuana bust. SOmehow this didn’t seem to affect the credibility one iota, even though I detected no sense of remorse or even a hint of concern for the situation. The 2009 incident involved about 300 pounds of marijuana, a million or so of cash hanging around the home, and involved several personnel, including Missy Giove’s personal assistant who was used (?) to drive the trans-continental shipment by rental vehicle the rest of the way, i.e., from Des Moines Iowa to Saratoga Springs, NY. I mean — seriously??

Federal Drug Enforcement Agency agents returned to [Eric, age 30] Canori’s house, where they found an additional 30 to 50 pounds of marijuana, packaging materials and nine cell phones. They also discovered about $1 million in cash stuffed in a duffle bag and assorted shoeboxes, records show. [para].An affidavit also was filed Wednesday in Virginia Beach Circuit Court for a warrant to search the Sandbridge home that Giove shares with Beach family law attorney and gay rights activist Kristen Hofheimer Giove.

It wasn’t clear whether any drugs were seized from the home; Virginia State Police Sgt. Michelle Cotten said no arrests were made after the search but declined to comment further .

Hofheimer Giove did not return calls to her office. Court records show she legally adopted Giove’s name on June 1, as a result of a marriage ceremony on April 25 [2009; the article is dated June 2009] in Massachusetts. Her Facebook page shows her corresponding with Giove’s assistant on June 11: “Hope you are taking good care of my baby.”

“I promise I am taking care of her,” Geagley replied. “I have to or I’m out of a job. LOL.”
On June 12, Geagley posted a message that read: “Driving back east.” The next day police arrested Geagley and charged her with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana.

Federal court records show her bond was set at $100,000 Thursday in Illinois.
In New York, Giove was ordered held on a $250,000 bond. Canori was ordered held on $500,000 bond.

Apart from the issues of gay rights, what about a little awareness of how this may reflect a certain lack of judgment — or concern with staying on the right side of the law — and by association with the BMCC? Not to mention the fact that how much of this “fathers’ rights” movement comes from a religious element that is rabidly anti-LGBT to start with?

In 2010 (per this site) from “VirginiaDivorceAttorney.com” quite a few Hoffeimers presented Boot Camp for Battered Moms – The Art of War.

Did anyone present ANY of the material I (a “Battered Mom” vet) presented? Which had been unearthed by a grandfather (Bryer) ca. 1999, by California NOW in 2002, and 2005 again, by Liz Richards (who is also in the state of Virgina last I heard, NAFCJ.net), by Cindy Ross (northern california) and in short — about the influence of WELFARE REFORM on the safety of BATTERED MOTHERS by funding the mandatory mediation, supervised visitation, parent education/counseling, and marriage/fatherhood promotion model — with public (federal)$$ to produce intended “outcomes”????

And the role of the AFCC (an organization peopled by attorneys, in large part — including those who later became judges) in all of the Parental Alienation promotion — of CRC (Washington D.C. area) — any of that?

Since when does “the Art of War” not include a few scouting reports — and firsthand testimony, or evidence — to back up those reports? Good grief!

I imagine it was a good presentation — on the matters it actually chose to present, that is…

The list of “Confirmed Presenters:  the Nation’s Top Experts in Domestic Violence/Child Custody Issues” [such a modest description!] will, collectively, tell “battered” and “protective”** mothers LESS than anyone could learn by reading Ms. Stevenson’s Huffington post blog, Marv Bryer’s 1997 “Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery” (Posted herein), Liz Richard’s NAFCJ.net (since 1993) explanation of AFCC and case-rigging through federally paid blogs, Cindy Ross’s explanation of Conciliation Court law and its connection to a high-profile massacre in D.C., or for that matter, a cursory reading of “smartmarriages.com” or many other resources.  [**I used quotes because those are conference and buzzwords, not because the terms aren’t accurate]

Try this:

Scroll down through “Smartmarriages.com” and, if you can, count the number of trademarked (i.e., proprietary) programs, or check out some of the links (at least one is a multi-million-dollar HHS grantees nonprofit with staying-incorporated-problems) whose primary goal is making it hard, if not dangerous, to divorce in this century, while the entire FIELD got its jumpstart grabbing money originally allocated to help children who needed such things as food and housing, and diverting it into moralizing about the values of marriage.  

And, understand that the same Mo Hannah, Ph.D., whose name leads off the promoters of BMCC conference, is well aware of SmartMarriages.com and its owner — but has simply, to date, seen fit to inform attendees that it exists — and has existed since at least 2000 — and what it’s doing.  Nor has co-editor of a 2010 book being promoted at BMCC, Barry Goldstein.  (Search the web and see if it’s mentioned in his material — anywhere, let alone in the book).

One has to ask WHY (not).  The question does come up, what’s in it for these professionals to keep the mothers under-informed and clueless, such that they continue rallying under their banner and buying products, services, and rhetoric which also doesn’t direct them to tools or basic understandings of the fields), or helps get them OUT of distressed mode and INTO effective mode.

As of 2013, AFCC is rejoicing in its first 50 years, and looking towards the next 50 — while BMCC to date hasn’t systematically informed its attendees that AFCC exists!  Even though the BMCC for years has conferenced in New York (Albany) and one of its presenters is a graduate of Hofstra University (also in NY) which co-produces the Family Court Review (and has for years) with AFCC.

On the west coast, similar (and participating in the BMCC conference) California Organizations have not spoken about AFCC (which started in the Los Angeles County courthouse, from what I can tell) or how they marriage/fatherhood programming is sponsored at the university level (see Pepperdine University, out of Malibu, “Boone Family Center,” as in, Pat Boone).

Overall, while preaching about how they system works, the most consistent leading edge symptom of this conference and its presenters (whether individual professionals OR nonprofits), has been the near-blackout on the basics of the entire field!  They focus on subject matter expertise and seek to become the next generation of judicial trainers in identifying domestic violence or child abuse in custody cases, and create an intellectual dependency on this set of information — while rejecting other relevant information they already have been confronted on, repeatedly, by others. Again — when integrity of basic information has been this compromised, the problem-solving groups are part of the problem.

A few years ago, when I was more actively protesting (among on-line mothers’ groups who were facing their custody issues and drama, and ths function of that was information and moral support) having LESS relevant information force-fed, and watching certain women’s blogs being literally used to drum up more business for the professionals in question (i.e., attend a conference, at sacrifice and personal expense, and buy our “not the whole truth” info) — I likened the situation (in a comments field) to a “BAIT-BALL” of fish.

By thrashing around in distress and conferrring about it with (OBVIOUS to observers on the other side of the equation) LESS than the relevant information — it attracts carpet baggers from top and from the bottom.

The Distressed Mothers (battered mothers), Pain of Injustice, Our Kids are Being Abused, and The Courts aren’t Keeping the Law, or their own Rules — is good for PR for certain, and while it appears to be (i know it is), TRUE basically — it’s not the WHOLE truth, it’s not even the MOST ESSENTIAL TRUTH, and it’s definitely not “NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.”

I truly believe that the economic and organizational (Corporate, etc.) PARADIGM — which ties into our very currency and government system — is a better framework from which to understand, and address, injustice, and to make it relevant to more people. The TRUTH of this matter is that income tax withholdings, collected by the IRS, is giving and has given our collective governments a collective wealth, which it is using abusively — coercively– to STOCKPILE and invest in a variety of enterprises withless oversight than the SEC provides to commercial transactions. The information gap is a problem. It’s already getting enough “ROI” to run all the necessary government services AND return some to taxpayers — but it chooses not to.

What happens to the missing money is NOT a “moot point.” It’s being used to do things — and WHAT things, matters.

In fact, in general, why are so many Americans (and I have been one most of my professional life) content to go through life without understanding THOROUGHLY how government works, basics of the legal and court systems, and most important — the economic history of this country, and how that plays into the setup of the family courts?  

Why are we so content with a model based on feudalism, or should I say, the plantation?  We can say “Constitution” all we want, but if the bottom line is the economic system, that trumps law, it would seem.  As I learned, an unenforceable court order (law enforcement doesn’t feel like enforcing it) — isn’t an order; shouldn’t we know this before going through the challenge of getting one?

After surveying SOME of the damage (as I looked things up), I finally ran across a more sensible (and coherent) understanding of the situation from completely outside the “family court reform” field — but this is the room in which that field indeed operates.  

I shouldn’t have had to lose my kids to learn about Fatherhood.gov or access/visitation grants, and I wish it hadn’t taken about three MORE years of research to finally run across a commonsense — but documented, and independently verifiable — proof that the overall problem relates to our tax system and the economically dumbed-down public.  For that, we have also to thank increasingly centralized ownership of mainstream media.  

So, as a mother, domestic violence survivor, and United States citizen looking at “what next” and how can I best put my energies into a better future for others (primarily my children) — I have to look at this next, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS source of information.

Others without the “pedigree” have said the same things — however, for the sake of those who don’t believe information is true unless attached to the right pedigree (as opposed to whether it’s actually true or not), this one is from Harvard.  However, he’s citing people you’ve perhaps not heard of, who aren’t “Harvard”….or Yale….and those people apparently taught him; the elite education didn’t help this one “stumble” across the subject matter…..

CAFR: US agencies have billions, trillions in investments while crying budget deficits

POLITICS   MAY 22, 2010  BY: CARL HERMAN in “Examiner.com”

Gerald Klatt and Walter Burien are unrecognized heroes. These individuals are national leaders who have communicated how government agencies conceal American taxpayers’ money in surplus accounts that collectively total trillions of our dollars. The data is found in government agencies’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs).

What CAFRs reveal is a communist-style policy whereby the US taxpayers surrender enormous assets to the state, who then “invest” these collective trillions that swell in these accounts. Concurrently, taxpayers are informed of budget deficits to either squeeze more taxes from them and/or cut public services. To add insult to injury, the state lies in omission by never reminding Americans of their hard-earned and withheld trillions as they eliminate jobs, reduce education, and attack the quality of our lives.
The American Constitution is a contract of limited government whereby the public informs and is informed by our representatives. CAFRs are damning public documents that expose “leadership” from Left and Right as exactly what leading economic voices have said: an absolutely corrupt and self-serving oligarchy.
Let’s look at the economic data revealed in CAFRs.
For example, California has a budget deficit of ~$20 billion. The combined investments of CAFRs for the state of CA, Los Angeles County, and the City of Los Angeles is over $450 billion; over 22 times the amount of the budget shortfall (documentation page numbers below). . . .

To put this into an analogy, I’ve modified the one used by Walter:
This is like a juvenile claiming he needs money because his front pants pocket is empty, which he dutifully shows (budget). What he’s not telling you is that his back pockets have over 100 times the money he says he “needs” (shown in various places of the CAFRs). Whenever he’s asked about the money in his back pockets, which he never volunteers in discussing his empty front pocket and never invites for consideration to move some into the front pocket, he says, “Oh, that money is designated for other uses. I can’t touch that.” So far, the silence of corporate media and political leadership from Left and Right has brought us to today. Of course, “I can’t touch that” is a lie of omission because it can be touched the moment policy changes. So the real issue is the heart of economics: what are the costs and benefits of different choices?

[emphases in the quote, mine]
Or, see also same article on “wanttoknow.info” a source of other information you might actually NOT want to know — it’s bound to provoke and disturb — unless you are truly dissatisfied with the standard rhetoric about why we must put up with courts bankrupting families and some of those family members actually dying, in the name of “in the best interests of the children,” or why the public should be contributing to welfare funding which has a clear intent to expand its roles, while promising the opposite.  Or what’s the real difference, if any, between Republicans and Democrats, if you are, for example, female (females are still the majority in the US, just not in Congress, etc.), or a minority (which looks like, those running the place may become in just a few years, after decades of targeting social programs towards how to control profiled ‘minority” populations, such as “low-income families.”


Once that tax money if out of our hands (culled up-front through income taxes, added to through service taxes, added to at the courthouses through filing fees, etc.) it’s as though (collectively) our consciousness of it also goes, and we expect public servants and political leadership to do THEIR job of stewardship as well as we, for example, might be doing OUR jobs of working for our employers (if we didn’t do these jobs well enough, might get fired).  Hence the economy is job-dependent, while the country’s leadership is investment and ROI-dependent.  Then we pay judges and attorneys TOO MUCH to control the stuff (public servants) and expect them to be more ethical than we, collectively are.  Is that reasonable?  We drop our kids off at schools and go to work (if lucky).  

The public still doesn’t “get” this as they don’t “get” the extent of violence and abuse which has become normalized in many families (and in many marriages).   But if the system is understood, and then observed in action — and, as it can be, traced back to at least the early 1900s (pre World War I) or late 1800s; if we are given the right VOCABULARY to understand the TECHNOLOGY of government, and of money — then perhaps there’s hope for a different future.  Here’s from another summary by Mr. Hermann (dated March 2, 2013) in “Washington’s blog”

Ready for Victory?  Or do you uphold unlawful wars, bankster economics, dishonored rights?

Fraud is the crime of misrepresentation that causes harm. The US bankster economy uses fraud to transfer trillions annually from We the People to them. This criminal “1%” represent our “debt-supply” as a “money supply,” represent bank debt that they made out of nothing as “loans,” and represent escalating government debts as having no solutions except our austerity rather than presenting obvious solutions. This fraud costs Americans increasing work (if they can get work), increasing debt, inflation, deprivation of public services, and a transfer of wealth to a criminal-colluding 1% that hide ~$20 to $30 trillion in protected tax havens

Once this type of information is out, it demands a response, and that response should be to either validate it — and act on it; or invalidate it (good luck with that!) and come up with another explanation for why we can’t get honest government — or honest courts (good luck with that, too — you’ll need it!)

Throw up one’s hands in resignation to an (increasingly) dangerous form of government, and cling to hope that, if I’m not lucky, I might avoid becoming part of a target population (or family), and maintain the job until retirement, get some benefits, continue to survive until the economy implodes or explodes, etc. Or continue to repeat the mantra — “it’s not my business; why can’t these families manage THEIR personal (family matters) business better?”

In other words, “Yes, others have contributed to these problems, but NOW, it’s time to look in the mirror:  WHY did I believe so many lies, and what can I personally do (myself, my choice, within my being) to not swallow so many myths whole, and undigested?    Where was my head at???”    

One response I had — and it is work; it takes mental effort, and it’s not easy — except that truth goes down a lot better than lies — (again, I’m looking for the largest, consistently relevant, set of principles to understand the most critical parts of life TODAY, in dealing with others I have immediate contact with, etc.).

We have to “get honest.”  And part of that honesty is economic honesty.  Right now, “go with the flow” is not a moral choice.  I also found that this mentality of “justice is someone else’s job” is a mindset that uniformly affected my life over two decades as no one aware of the violence in my home (and others we knew) had the internal self-respect, and integrity — to do anything about it!  Two decades is a large chunk of anyone’s life, and it was of mine, starting in the prime of it.  For children especially that’s a huge chunk of time.

I believe that the mentality of collective passivity towards our largest institutions is (a) intended, and (b) the problem.  Moreover, we have not kept our basic technologies (of organization, communication, financing, and mutual support when under attack) sufficient to withstand the opposition.

(as well as so many people’s livelihood being dependent on a salary from them — civil servants at every level; courts, schools, county offices, human services offices) and then the major sector of religious institutions not only exempt from taxation (and proper reporting) but ALSO having housing allowances for their leadership, tax-exempt — is a factor in the complete mindset of “running the country is someone else’s job.”

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I am one of those mothers who believed the words on the exterior of the court house building. “Truth, Justice” I had no reason to enter the building prior to the “fathers rights” to a child who was over a decade old and didn’t know him. He filed from a prison cell with a fancy recommendation letter from a “senior pastor” of a home church and a psychology license offering to be an expert witness for the 9 time felon! This psychologist eventually lost his license for his reckless acts surrounding this case and his business practices. He eventually closed down his
    home church which he started after retaining his former Assembly of God tax exempt status by changing the name on the corporate filing. (I believe was a great take away after they sued him out of their church and were just glad he was gone that they missed this financially beneficial detail). He now calls himself……..are you ready for this?………An Economist!!! Does this not tie into every aspect of your article written above? WOW!

    Not only am I a protective mother who was the only parent on “the” childs birth certificate while I raised her single handedly as the father had a multitude of problems starting with contraception sabotage which got me pregnant and then the following Charles Manson style murder threat when he realized a pregnancy wouldn’t guarantee a marriage and if not an abortion. He was carted away (after the SWAT tean left my home) to the funny farm for an evaluation which did not turn out in his favor or the childs.

    Me and “the” child (the being used because family law says if you call your child/ren “yours” you are a p


    March 30, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    • OOPs. If you call a child/ren “yours” you are a parent alienator thus the word “the” in place of “my”.

      Anyway we proceeded to live our lives and I learned how to juggle homeownership, business ownership and single motherhood and quite well if I might add for the next decade and the father continued to live as a menace to society and landed in prison.

      This is where he learned about his rights and just how to enforce them no matter what affect it ahd on any oht


      March 30, 2013 at 5:30 pm

      • (last try to post) no matter what affect it had on anyone. He was given ONE witness in his corner which was the pastor/psychologist(former)/economist and one attorney which happened to be a graduate of Pepperdine, fathers rights attorney who never had children of her own and who promptly shredded my hard earned and held dear reputation, honor, character and me as a mother to the courts and the public. This got so extreme my child literally was at risk of being put into foster care while I got a psychiatric evaluation court ordered as the child was suddenly in “grave danger in my care”!! This child was an honor roll student and I could gush and gush on her successes (and mine with one being NEVER having spoken ill of the father). This is how dirty these people play this family court game and what risk they are willing to put a child in to get a father who had no interest previously into her life. (I also have a letter after years of no contact stating very clearly this was about contact WITH ME not the child) He was also put into a job which paid 4 times any money he had previously earned which just put the capital “B” in bizarre of my child custody case. What I have learned about this family court debacle blew my mind along with every singl person who knew me. Ironically the astronomical amounts of money being pumped into this fathers rights initiative is based on statistics showing single mother households are producing criminals in the prison system. Statistics are also showing children are much better off when a father is in the household. Those statistics are not as s stated what they aren’t saying is this is based on married families with a father in the home who isn’t an abuser, not a single father who goes to war in family court to gain access of children sometimes just to reduce child support.

        The faith based family and fathers, fathers rights, marriage is good, single mothers are bad militias, are truly warring with unsuspecting women/mothers with the full backing of the system. These children are being broken to their very core. The premise appears to be promotion of family and marriage yet in my state the most outspoken fathers rights group openly state how they advise their children to never get married and don’t have kids. They show open disdain for the very foundation of marriage and family. hhhmmm Sounds like gay rights will have the corner on marriage shortly and we are going to have a whole generation of children who have seen the horrors of conflict in family court. The government is funding these advocates and organizations supposedly to promote marriage. The main men utilizing this outlet are usually high conflict types which usually equals power and control which then equals abusers and they are shouting “fathers rights” from the hilltops but they aren’t “family men”. A lot of them are abusers, felons and plain old abusers. This approach is really just emotional terrorism through the court. There are a few who grow into change and want to do right by their kids and their mom but those men aren’t using the system and it’s adversarial ways to get to the children.

        I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to federal programs which fund HHS which then dispurses to these non-profits which is velcro to scumbags bleeding the federal grants and harming children and their parents for life, not to mention committing fraud in many cases and racketeering best I can see from the information obtained on these non-profits. If you want to know where to cut budget costs, just hire the author of “Let’s Get Honest” to show you where the money trail leads and you’ll save a lot of money right there.

        When I was growing up the “snake oil salesman” or the “used car salesman” was the smooth talking person you didn’t want to give your money to. It appears there’s a whole racket in the family court, without conscience, making sickening amounts of money on the backs of mothers and children. This cannot be without consequence, huge consequence. I see this as a crisis of epic proportion and one that is easily exposed and able to be corrected but the cries of the children and their protective parent are being ignored. The destruction of lives unnecessarily by means which are not natural but manmade and designed for financial gain to some while destroying others lives will have a profound impact for years and generations to come.

        I will never step foot in another church if I can avoid it and I willl also avoid court at all cost. I am afraid of the system. I always knew to stay out of the system but I wasn’t in fear of it. I believed the truth would prevail if nowhere else, it would there. I was wrong.


        March 30, 2013 at 6:23 pm

  2. Public grants to help the California Judicial Council get more kids adopted — probably after having gotten them removed from their custodial parents and/or mothers:

    Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL 90CO0874 EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIONS FOR TIMELY ADOPTIONS  09/15/1998  93652  Adoption Opportunities  NEW  DIANE NUNN  $ 175,000 
    Results 1 to 3 of 3 matches.

    “Discretionary” of coure.

    If you key in “Diane Nunn AFCC” you’ll (possibly — I did) come up with about three posts in which I identified this person as AFCC — in fact looks like possibly AFCC Advisory council at one point. They gravitate to positions of authority within the judicial system (why not? An agenda is an agenda….).


    I decided to look at other grants in ths “90CO####” series — but came up with 1608 of them. So, limiting it too “NEW” actions (although NEW was usually followed by “noncompeting continuation”) — here’s a sample. We simply have no real concept of how many children are being shuffled around the landscape….
    58,000 per year going into the homes of batterers, says “the Leadership Council” year after year. How many are simply being shunted from house to house improperly to start iwth — and then to fix a problem one agency likely contributed to (how about inferior school systems? Neighborhoods — see HUD…) they charge taxpayers more and GIVE IT AWAY to get those kids elsewhere.

    As a matter of fact, limiting it to “NEW” only got it down to 371. I think I should post. I see another court being paid for “adoption opportunities.” No conflict of interest, obviously. I also see plenty absent a DUNS — and no federal grants recipient should be without a DUNS# — but many are. I see one in the City of Baltimore Mayor’s Office. Baltimore (see my http://economicbrain.wordpress.com blog for more) had established a reputation for being unable to even produce a CAFR recently. This hasn’t slowed down AFCC (at University of Baltimore School of Law) one iota, that I can see. I did a few posts on it. They “lost” or couldn’t justify about $1 million ($900K is the figure that sticks in my memoy) of HHS funding, and HHS didn’t seem real interested in getting it back either. Unbelievable.

    Any Minnesota readers here — I saw one labeled “ANOKA COUNTY, Community Social Services Dept.” (no PI listed yet — since 2000!) $191K, Grant 90CO0939.” The total grant, ca $791, address “COURT HOUSE.” ….

    RECOMMENDED: Run them ALL, and browse, look at the largest (over $1 million) and look up the grantee organizations.

    Many are going direct to AOC of the Courts… Unbelievable. I’ll try and post separately.

    “BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES” (a PO box in Kent Michigan) is in on this — ANd marriage education — AND abstinence education AND community-based Abstinence education — AND relationship education — AND a bunch of other stuff, like Healing for Survivors of Torture AND “embryo donation/adoption opportunities” (HUH?) — over $22 million of funds. I’d definitely look that one up.

    It’s a nonprofit. Give me a moment…

    ARIZONA CHILDREN’S ASSOCIATION 90CO0916 FAMILIES FIRST  09/13/2000  NEW  MARCIE VELEN  068426147  $ 252,321 
    Adoption Network Cleveland 90CO1011 ADOPTION OPPORTUNITIES  09/28/2004  NEW  TAMI W LORKOVICH  878465962  $ 400,000 
    Allegheny County Dept. of Human Services 90CO1076 IMPROVING EDUCATIONAL AND WELL BEING OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN IN CARE  09/26/2011  NEW  ERIN DALTON  052913998  $ 247,376 
    Augusta Partnership for Children, Inc. 90CO1064 EPIC-ENSURING POSITIVE INVESTMENT IN CHILDREN  09/26/2011  NEW  ROBETTA MCKENZIE  127058530  $ 249,185 

    Let's Get Honest

    March 31, 2013 at 8:34 am

  3. I mentioned “Bethany Christian Services” and its $22 million of HHS grants (over the years). It’s based in Michigan but says it’s international. “Locations” apparently presumes user’s area (by GPS) but zip codes can be keyed in.. It’s definitely on the marriage/fatherhood roll, and is (per HHS) a Michigan-based Nonprofit. INTERESTING group — wonder what names are being used in the various states for operations?

    Which brings me to the point of Christians using “Adoption” for evangelism (I guess it may be easier to convert dependent minors than some adults these days….).

    Who We Are

    Bethany Christian Services is a global nonprofit organization caring for orphans and vulnerable children on five continents. Bethany is recognized as a prominent leader in social services worldwide, and we are the largest adoption agency in the U.S. Founded in 1944, our mission calls us to demonstrate the love and compassion of Jesus Christ by protecting and enhancing the lives of children and families around the world.

    Bethany Christian Service is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
    (It sounds like it’s a LOT of 501(c)3s — ai searched name (only — no state, no year) on “990finder” and came up with 38 results covering a few states. Michigan one started out with a bang — $33 million ASSETS (revenue would be typically even higher. This won’t display well, but you can see differing EIN#s

    Click to access 381405282_200212_990.pdf

    Their first list of directors are ALL men, as is a counselor, and $160K to a software company. Further lists of what looks like more officers (as attachment) are also primarily (though not exclusively) men. It also looks to me like this group possibly got seriously up and running (in size, anyhow) — as of ca. 2001 faith-based grants. I could be wrong — but it’s worth checking out, particuarly anyone who’d be so “low” as to take fatherhood, marriage, and abstinence funding from TANF!!! which is designed for needy families!

    28 documents matched. 28 documents displayed. Click on the column headers to sort.
    Again, it’s pattern to look for.
    Search Again

    Bethany Christian Services MI 2005 990 22 $190,047 38-2895093
    Bethany Christian Services MI 2011 990 41 $31,594,714 38-1405282
    Bethany Christian Services MI 2011 990 45 $17,476,814 38-2822017
    Bethany Christian Services MI 2010 990 41 $27,116,265 38-1405282
    Bethany Christian Services MI 2009 990 28 $25,167,132 38-1405282
    Bethany Christian Services MI 2008 990 23 $20,303,685 38-1405282
    Bethany Christian Services MI 2007 990 31 $52,452,670 38-1405282
    Bethany Christian Services MI 2006 990 45 $0 38-1405282
    ————— (CHANGE OF EIN#)
    Bethany Christian Services MI 2004 990 19 $198,694 38-2895093
    ————— (CHANGE OF EIN#)
    Bethany Christian Services Inc. MI 2010 990 47 $27,677,964 38-2822017
    Bethany Christian Services Inc. MI 2009 990 34 $23,513,258 38-2822017
    Bethany Christian Services Inc. MI 2008 990 29 $23,126,831 38-2822017
    ————— (CHANGE OF EIN#)
    Bethany Christian Services Inc. MI 2005 990 21 $53,084,257 38-1405282
    Bethany Christian Services Inc. MI 2004 990 26 $45,297,011 38-1405282
    Bethany Christian Services Inc. MI 2003 990 16 $39,123,799 38-1405282
    Bethany Christian Services Inc. MI 2002 990 18 $33,439,378 38-1405282
    ————— (CHANGE OF EIN#)
    Bethany Christian Services Mid-South Christian Services MI 2003 990 14 $97,869 38-2895093 [[This one is much smaller, see year;…]]\
    ————— (CHANGE OF EIN#)
    Bethany Christian Services of North Carolina NC 2005 990 23 $1,046,330 31-1308382
    Bethany Christian Services of North Carolina NC 2004 990 17 $862,257 31-1308382
    Bethany Christian Services of North Carolina NC 2003 990 15 $706,235 31-1308382
    ————— (CHANGE OF EIN#)
    Bethany Christian Services of Northwest Iowa IA 2005 990 22 $463,601 31-1244836
    Bethany Christian Services of Northwest Iowa IA 2003 990 12 $639,892 31-1244836
    ————— (CHANGE OF EIN#)
    Bethany House Christian Services KY 2007 990 22 $81,731 61-1203313
    Bethany House Christian Services KY 2006 990 20 $93,408 61-1203313
    Bethany House Christian Services KY 2005 990 17 $24,329 61-1203313
    Bethany House Christian Services KY 2003 990 17 $59,956 61-1203313
    Bethany House Christian Services KY 2002 990 16 $45,298 61-1203313
    Bethany House Christian Services Center Inc. KY 2003 990 16 $37,576 61-1203313

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    There are locations in many more states, and this is certainly not the only listing of 990s around; just an indicator.

    Let's Get Honest

    March 31, 2013 at 10:52 am

  4. […] to celebrate a holiday with an immediate family member for many years. Rather than waste the time, I blogged what was on my mind. Another mother commented on her experiences (check it out)– and in responding to that, I […]

  5. […] and attending more conferences, for several of the presenters. I blogged in March 2013, “The Nation’s Top Domestic Violence/Child Custody Experts Continue Trying to Dumb Down Moms” and show how.  (This post also has a feedback form.  It also deals with the […]

  6. […] So, this post got its start an “Adoption Opportunities” grant series I found (foster care and adoption has been on my mind a while — see page in Children’s Law Centers (NCLN) which thrive off this — and this industry has affected family courts also, by way of promoting the use of GALs for custody cases with even a smidgen of conflict (or domestic violence). To better understand it, please read the comments thread at the bottom of the March 30, 2013 post. […]

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: