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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Family Justice Centers, revisited (Model Programs with Major Design Flaws) [post updated 5-31-13]

with one comment

Family Justice Centers, revisited (Model Programs with Major Design Flaws) [post updated 5-31-13] (Post title with case-sensitive short-link ending “-1IF”

(This segment comes from the middle of the “Jump in and Start a Conversation” post. Taking it out cut the post size by about half! Guess I have a lot to say….. [The first several paragraphs were added during the “move” process..responding to more information found about some of the collaborations.] I also back-dated the publish date by two days to 5/28/2013, so as not to interrupt the current subject matter focus around the matters of CT AFCC, and getting the evidence on the corporations in the courthouse….)

Please notice the gap between when an individual survivor and person (me) discovered this programming, compared to when the justice centers began: seven years, two years — years, before we catch up to which model is being applied where LOCALLY. Another way to understand this in advance is the simple concept: CIVIL SERVANTS have become experts at forming NONPROFITS according to NATIONAL MODELS AGREED UPON IN THE CONFERENCE CIRCUITS OF THEIR OWN TRADE ASSOCIATIONS. Hence, it all gets back down to the public’s habit of tolerating forking over their earned income in advance (as income taxes) and continuing to believe we can individually survive in the face of collective, organized, tax-exempt incorporated entities whose membership include people whose salaries we, the public, have already paid — because they work in government.

These conferences, multi-state, specifically move discussion on the important matter away from the public, who can’t afford to attend them all. I’m not the only person noticing this (Center for Public Integrity, noting which two universities sponsored the most judicial conferences). The for-profit/not-for profit itself (even if operated totally “legally”) creates a caste system to enable further centralized control (and private influence). Excerpt from another post “Circles are for Girls, Councils are for Boys, and Trademarked Trainings are for . . .

So many of our public issues relate precisely to the income tax and the caste system created by the for-profit/non-profit power differentials.  ALL social and societal relationships are affected by this, with the favor and advantage going to those whose social connections and/or background are willing to take advantage of wage-earners by themselves operating under nonprofits. I hope this post sheds some light on the situation through a single example.

The other day I also added a page on “Abolishing Government Through Regionalism.” All fun and mocking aside (one possible response to the ludicrous concepts), this is a sobering issue, and I believe it’s creeping (only not creeping, more like rapidly spreading — with the speed of incorporation) FACISCM. This is what governments tend to do, period, unless held in check. If they hold “the checks” (the money), it becomes less and less relevant what the laws, or statutes, actually are.

More individual people need to accelerate their learning curves, and deepen their understanding. If it sacrifices something less important, so be it. There’s a reason I come down pretty hard on advocacy groups which derail the conversation from the money trail. Find out who’s funding them, it gets pretty interesting; the groups are far less naive then they may seem.

RE: The Family Justice Centers:

I also did a few articles in earlier years on “Fast Food” One-Stop Family Justice Centers hit San Diego in 2002, Oakland, and London, 2007,” (posted Dec. 2010) and “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys (June 2010)” and “Mrs. O’Malley Goes to Washington: SB-577 Legislating the One-Stop Justice Shop” (May 2011), Mrs. Nancy O’Malley being an Alameda County (SF Bay Area/East Bay, Oakland, Berkeley, etc.) District Attorney, and the O’Malleys being politically active (superior court judges, D.A.’s, etc.) in the area. Here’s Ms. O’Malley’s election statement, taking credit for creating the Alameda County Family Justice Center (actually, the model was borrowed from San Diego). Of which she is, or at least was, very proud:

The ACFJC significantly changed the way in which victims of domestic violence, their children, victims of elder abuse, child abuse and exploitation, and sexual assault victims are treated by the judicial system. The ACFJC has a strong non-profit partnership with over 100 organizations that provide services including crisis intervention, survivor support, victim advocacy, legal assistance, emergency transitional housing, employment assistance, and medical care and mental health counseling for victims. Along with writing the initial grant for the center, I continue to be involved in grant writing that has yielded more than $3 million in funding for the ACFJC.

Also, I serve as a national advisor and consultant (without compensation) to other communities throughout California and the United States who are involved with creating other Family Justice Centers. The ACFJC is a nationally recognized model and was selected as only 1 of 15 communities that received funding from the President’s Family Justice Center Initiative through the U.S. Department of Justice. (See http://www.acfjc.org). I am a proud leader and supporter of this exceptional Alameda County program.

DOJ press release, 2006:

• In July 2004, the Department of Justice awarded more than $20 million to 15 communities chosen under President Bush’s Family Justice Center Initiative to prevent and respond to violence against women. The St. Louis Family Justice Center is the 6th center to open since the announcement of the initiative.

In addition to the $20 million going to the justice centers (and not the victims) incorporated as nonprofits, and collaborating with each other — not local taxpayers — of course someone has to evaluate them. So, another DOJ/OVW & NIJ contract (translation: Federal Funding) was to evaluate the 15 center. It went in 2005 to “Abt Associates,” another report probably local communities don’t even know exists.

— the “one-stop” phrase was sarcasm, but I learned that’s what they sometimes call themselves. Oh well, look up the nonprofit filings and corporate filings (etc.) when possible. They are going to continue expanding anyway, and it’s at public expense, so might as well count the costs….

This “Family Justice Center” model would be laughable, if it weren’t propagating. Problems started surfacing almost from the start (definitely within two years of startup, looks like). That’s what happens when brilliant ideas for serving up justice originate from government, not by those who are funding government, i.e., the citizens paying their salaries….

Just found this:

San Diego Domestic Violence Contracts Probed
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Associated PressA San Diego program to help victims of domestic violence is under investigation for allegedly making illegal contracts.U-T San Diego says the city attorney has concluded that the city failed to obtain competitive bids or proper approval when it partnered with the Family Justice Center Alliance.The alliance is a nonprofit organization founded by former City Attorney Casey Gwinn. The contracts involved were worth thousands of dollars. They have expired but the case has been referred to the city auditor.

The alliance issued a statement Monday denying wrongdoing and saying that its agreements complied with all regulations.

. . . .And if it hadn’t been promoted by then-President Bush/John Ashcroft $20 million DOJ initiative (see footnote
13 on “THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER COLLABORATIVE MODEL” from “Saint Louis University Public Law Review, Issue XXVII, p. 78ff. The link indicates this paper is the result of a symposium; so I looked up who called this “Urban Families Symposium” and who was at it. More specifically, this Feb. 23, 2007 symposium at a St. Louis (Missouri) Univeristy Law School was called “The Urban Family: Responding to the Challenge of Domestic Violence, Poverty, and Parenting.”

I do not see any urban family poor domestic violence survivors or perps, that is “batterers,” (so identified) as speakers, so I guess they were somewhere else [and unavailable for eyewitness discussions of the situation], either in jail, in a co-parenting class, in court, or filling out another restraining order. By simple definition, it’s unlikely that anyone AT the conference would be either poor, or victims (who are often isolated). Instead, the conference was by those on the conference circuit, or in positions of some probably influence over, say, “urban families” (or seeking such influence)… Such Urban Families were by definition POOR (possibly related to lack of child support enforcement, or injuries or disabilities affecting the ability to work, or attempting to scrape together, if a maternal victim of DV, the requisite hourly fee to actually see one of the children…. No time, or not on the invitation lists for such symposiums. Moreover, if they came and attempted to participate, it would probably interrupt the proceedingsi — as I’m sure some of them would bring up the topic of the family court systems….

It turns out a Judge/DV Advocate duo who are also promoting “Restorative Justice” (article found on-line at a site with connections to Prison Fellowship International,” i.e., a religious group) and authored that article together. Judge Bennett Burkemper (45th District in St. Louis), who has an L.L.M in PUblic International Law from the London School of Economics (a school jailed disbarred attorney Richard Fine also had a dgree from). and Nina Balsam, J.D., with a background in domestic violence advocacy in Missouri. Nina appears to be a little older (maybe ten years?) than the Judge, based on when they got their JD’s. Both are really into “restorative justice.”…. Also in attendance were the four leaders of Family Justice Centers footnoted, and probably others.

I mean, these just don’t bear scrutiny… How in the world did the earlier Safe Houses turn into “Family Life Centers” ??? Towards the end of (yesterday 5/30/2013, before I added on to this post some MORE….), I even discovered a current San Diego (Executive) City Attorney, Mr. Andrew Jones, recommending a program called “THRIVE” recommending a DV response team which sorted the situation into critical (dangerous, potentially lethal) — or could it be referred into COUPLES COUNSELING!! Of course that had to be looked up, and ended up with a presentation by a nice forensic psychologist, Mr. Jones, and another. Unbelievable!

Domestic Violence Counseling Plan Draws Criticism Monday, December 19, 2011 By Nicholas McVicker, Amita Sharma
[[So ludicrous, it should be another post. Hypocritically, Casey Gwinn protests, there, although he does make a point that “voluntary” is hardly a meaningful word to any DV victim when child welfare services is a player, along with all the other government actors…]] The conference pushing “THRIVE” (about p. 34, see contents) occurred recently; the coach-trainer apparently being a Tracy Fried; this is a conference circuit on creative use of federal funding excess monies, essentially…around the issues of Trauma. Well, trauma is often an after-effect of violence.

Unbelievably an entire discussion of this topic can occur without a SINGLE mention of the role of the family courts. That’s typical — it’s as though they didn’t exist! Professional Discretion and the Use of Restorative Justice Programs in Appropriate Domestic Violence Cases: An Effective InnovationHere’s an abstract of Jean J Ferguson of Chapman University (i.e., Christian) on the same topic.

Because I looked at (and commented on) this, my “cut the post in half” has again doubled in size. Definitely has food for thought in this field…. At the bottom, a commentary on a Kansas contract with a Ksnsas DV coalition is questioned in the Wichita Eagle; i.e., is it REALLY relevant to be promoting “healthy relationships and two parent families” in places where women are fleeing domestic violence, or abstinence, where they are showing up because of sexual assault and rape? Apart from the responses exposing how TANF funding, now rife with marriage promotion policies, is going to violence-provention nonprofit coalitions (and what this says about the coalitions), I found it pretty funny to hear Ann Menard wearing her “DV hat” derailing comments, while she’s also known under another hat, to be involved with the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center. What a shell game…

What it’s getting at: the batterers’ intervention programs have a high dropout rate and are not proven to be effective. The police don’t like the MANDATORY arrest policies (although they have always used discretion, so far as I can tell, and court cases have proved (Castle Rock v. Gonzales)** even mandatory arrest laws don’t create a citizens’ RIGHT to have an arrest. Hence, Jessica Gonzales’ (now “Lenahan”) pleas to the police to get her children back from their father, knowing as a mother can know they were in danger (and he was in violation) resulted in three dead children in the back of a pickup, and a Dad who committed “suicide by cop” at the police station. The case then went onto the international level as evidence of US abuse of human rights against mothers in the custody courts of the United States (IACHR), which is an accurate description. In that KNOWN context, these arguments are rhetoric (in my opinion) ….

**Highly recommended that all people seeking restraining orders read and understand this. It puts many other programs and concepts in an entirely different light. Please note reference to statutory, vs. Common or Contract law. I remember how Marv Bryer utilized common law discovery. It would appear that Common and Contract law have more clout than statutory… Hmm… So why are we all playing in the “statutory” law field, then?

Excerpt from the reasoning on the opinion, link above:

CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES (04-278) 545 U.S 748
366 F.3d 1093, reversed (2005)
(and no, I don’t know the significance of all those numbers. I do, however know that a 2007 conference on domestic violence would’ve known about this Opinion! Read from the link itself)
. . .

TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES, individually and a next best friend of her deceased minor children, GONZALES et al.


No. 04—278.Argued March 21, 2005–Decided June 27, 2005

Respondent filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [[that’s a link to Wikipedia summary]] alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom [[??]], failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children. The District Court granted the town’s motion to dismiss, but an en banc majority of the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that respondent had alleged a cognizable procedural due process claim because a Colorado statute established the state legislature’s clear intent to require police to enforce retraining orders, and thus its intent that the order’s recipient have an entitlement to its enforcement. The court therefore ruled, among other things, that respondent had a protected property interest in the enforcement of her restraining order.

Held: Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. Pp. 6—19.

(a) The Due Process Clause’s procedural component does not protect everything that might be described as a government “benefit”: “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person … must … have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577. Such entitlements are created by existing rules or understandings stemming from an independent source such as state law. E.g., ibid. Pp. 6—7.

(b) A benefit is not a protected entitlement if officials have discretion to grant or deny it. See, e.g., Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462—463. It is inappropriate here to defer to the Tenth Circuit’s determination that Colorado law gave respondent a right to police enforcement of the restraining order. This Court therefore proceeds to its own analysis. Pp. 7—9.

(c) Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes. Cf. Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 47, n. 2, 62, n. 32. Against that backdrop, a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication than the Colorado statute’s direction to “use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order” or even to “arrest … or … seek a warrant.” A Colorado officer would likely have some discretion to determine that–despite probable cause to believe a restraining order has been violated–the violation’s circumstances or competing duties counsel decisively against enforcement in a particular instance. The practical necessity for discretion is particularly apparent in a case such as this, where the suspected violator is not actually present and his whereabouts are unknown. In such circumstances, the statute does not appear to require officers to arrest but only to seek a warrant. That, however, would be an entitlement to nothing but procedure, which cannot be the basis for a property interest. Pp. 9—15.

(d) Even if the statute could be said to make enforcement “mandatory,” that would not necessarily mean that respondent has an entitlement to enforcement. Her alleged interest stems not from common law or contract, but only from a State’s statutory scheme.*** If she was given a statutory entitlement, the Court would expect to see some indication of that in the statute itself. Although the statute spoke of “protected person[s]” such as respondent, it did so in connection with matters other than a right to enforcement. [[I.e., in a different context. Context is always important!!]] Most importantly, it spoke directly to the protected person’s power to “initiate” contempt proceedings if the order was issued in a civil action, which contrasts tellingly with its conferral of a power merely to “request” initiation of criminal contempt proceedings##–and even more dramatically with its complete silence about any power to “request” (much less demand) that an arrest be made. Pp. 15—17.

##Notice: Also note: In Civil, a person can (directly) initiate a contempt proceeding (file an OSC, etc.), but in Criminal, a person can only request someone else initiate criminal contempt. This gets right back to the discretion not only of police to arrest or not, but of District Attorneys to prosecute or not.
See Justice for Women, Six Principal Obstacles to Equal Justice and Protection for Women. (Notice this contrasts entirely with the principle of the “family justice center” putting things conveniently under one roof. This advocates instead for separation. I agree:


The six principle obstacles to protection and justice for women in the criminal justice system are:

1. A near absolute police and prosecutorial discretion to pick and choose which crimes the system will treat seriously and which they will ignore, and to do so with impunity. The exercise of this enormous discretionary power is virtually outside the rule of law.

2. An intractable, deep-rooted sexism and racism that remains institutionalized throughout the criminal justice system. This sexism and racism, combined with the system’s absolute discretion to ignore crimes whenever they wish, means that violence against women cases are the cases most often ignored, dumped, or given short shrift.

3. Society’s failure to answer the question of who polices the police, and the failure to even ask the question in regard to district attorneys, means the criminal justice system is not only legally unaccountable when dumping cases of violence against women. In addition, there is also virtually no other viable social mechanism by which the public can make the system implement its powers on behalf of victims of violence against women.

4. The repression of effective victim advocacy due to increasing criminal justice system controls over the funding and functioning of rape and domestic violence centers. [[Case in point — Family Justice Centers pull funding and focus away.]]

5. The invisibility of denial of protection and justice to victims of violence against women to the public, often to the victims themselves, and even to the officer’s supervisors who review the officers reports.

6. The failure to target the district attorneys. Advocacy groups, social justice groups, and civil rights groups that aim to correct abuses in the criminal justice system usually do so by focusing on the police, while completely ignoring the District Attorney. This is monumental and puzzling mistake, since the District Attorney is the most powerful law enforcement official in your community.


Regarding the Opinion on Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
***How many of us are or were told, or knew in applying for restraining orders, or even agreeing to custody orders, that COMMON LAW and CONTRACT appear to be more enforceable (have more clout?) than STATUTORY (I.E., State Statutes) and which is which?

When in 2009 I wrote about “restraining order suggestions” and suggested that issuing restraining order after restraining order was “certifiably insane” as no one, really, has to enforce them — I had already experienced this time and again, and had been puzzled. In fact, it turns out that this was then escalated to simply disobeying a sole physical custody order, which police used their “discretion” to not enforce, despite prior threats to kidnap (which was known to the same) and stood back and let it happen. I remember being in shock at the lack of interest by police in enforcing written court orders I held in my hand, while attempting to mentally grasp what, then, the words “law enforcement” actually meant. In these cases children’s safety were definitely an issue. In my community, they verbally deferred to the family court, i.e., case-dumping, and actively tried to chase me, a mother, away. All in all, the treatment was outrageous. When my children were stolen, which is a felony, it was a simple matter of declining to prosecute.

So, I’m fairly sure any symposium of DV advoates and law professors, or City Attorneys and Family Justice Centers (which tend to have District attorney and/or police involvement) probably know what they aren’t really explaining to protected parties in such orders. They do explain that paper doesn’t stop bullets, but last I heard, don’t say much about “enforcement is at the discretion of any responding officer” and they of course don’t say, “this is a restraining order, but ahead of you (if a parent) lies family court which is psychology, not fact-based; good luck once you get there, and thanks for justifying more OVW grants for our department… [[ For about ten years — no one mentioned this to me, personally, nor was it heard at any advocacy office, conference, in their materials, or in short — was it broadcast. If it had been, many of us would’ve responded differently after police responded to the worst attack resulting in a restraining order.]]

[DC vs. Heller; I have it because it also cites someone that Ferguson, above, cited (Nichole Miras Mordini, “Mandatory State Interventions for Domestic Abuse Cases: An Examination of the Effects on Victim Safety and Autonomy,” 52 Drake L. Review, 295, 298-99, 2004. It seems like everyone is quoting this (I’d rather just see it). Also because that link, which consists of many CADV groups filing before the Supreme Court, it’s a quick rundown (in their own words) of who they are, when they were formed, etc.

In this context — what’s the real purpose of “Family Justice Centers”?? They appear to function as City or District Attorney Personal Retirement Plans (in addition to substantial public pensions).

Also see from DVLeap site, different reference, also citing the same, different topic. I can’t put more in now, as I am indeed a DV survivor, and being reminded of this is (not good for the PTSD factor just now). No one wants to repeatedly be reminded and retraumatized, and the fact is, the man I left, and people who also took up his “cause” (i.e., how to avoid responsibility for complying with court orders, or for that matter, developing a work ethic and supporting himself, let his children, after he got them from me, and then CONTINUED to come back and harass, for years, still!!) is very much related to how much trauma year after year I personally can face. This is why I am utterly opposed to institutions, or “collaborations” which mimic the derogatory, patronizing, insulting, or minimizing (which goes along with it) behaviors of such people, including the one I had children with.

It goes about like this. Models are decided upon and applied from on high, at our expense, aka by public funds, for use upon us, locally. While people actually are born with genetic variety and different interests, not in a factory line, perhaps with enough pressure, MODELS can be set up to stamp them into better shape and serve up some justice and better forms of control of the unruly?

(Plus — what’s with “This site may be compromised? search result”?)

Family Justice Center Alliance
This site may be compromised.
Anderson philanthropist donates $250,000 to Shasta Family Justice Center. Thursday, 23 May 2013 08:34. By Anderson Valley Post Staff … Casey Gwinn on High-Risk Cases … 707 Broadway, Suite 700, San Diego, CA 92101 …
Resources – Programs – About Us – Newsroom

I’d link, except it says “this site may be compromised.”
Same story, different link:

The Women’s Refuge (in Shasta County) was started by an elderly widow, in the 1970s. It managed, and gradually acquired property. It only merged with the Family Justice Center (which apparently opened in 2010) in 2012.
WEBSITE shows the combined functions and logo, with a link to the Women’s Refuge. The History of the Women’s Reguse shows clearly that it was an INDIVIDUAL grassroots effort originally, in the late 1970s (the widow who opened her home must’ve been born in the early 1900s). Please note that as of no-fault divorce passing in California (the year 1970), there were still women needing shelter and refuge… In 1982 more federal funding, and as you can see, they buy a shelter and name it after her, “Peterson House,” and in 2012, in comes this “Family Justice Center” and “co-locates” a lot of services, basically absorbing a shelter movement under its umbrella.

For example, Blogging the “To the Contrary” on the Family Justice Center Model

What Do We Do when the Model Justice Project — Is a Bad Model?

This segment (background-color: light-blue) is to illustrate that I believe blogging an under-reported issues (just get that idea out there) may gradually have long-term impact: Not blogging is to just let the standard rhetoric, practices AND FEDERAL/LOCAL FUNDING prevail, uncriticized). If you’re not interested, that background color will help you scroll down below it.This model San Diego (problems began surfacing almost immediately), then Alameda County (nepotism, cronyism in choosing the leader, possible violation of federal rules about grants recipients, first leader has been in rehab, front-lining a soap opera life, and hardly a role model for DV survivors — or mothers, then a national model, and now I even found some Justice Centers overseas — I learned by looking at a book review by the “founders” (Casey Gwinn/Gael Strack) that this (bad) model was taken off another one, CAC’s, justified on certain premises and now institutionalized. (CAC is “Children’s Advocacy Center”)

The to-the-contrary viewpoint is that civil servants are paid to do their jobs — and should do it. They shouldn’t be running around setting up nonprofits to attract federal funding on “replicatable models” so as to have a nice retirement package with conference and travel fees as write-offs. These nonprofits then enact the personal visions of a closed-corporation set of individuals. The input from people who are NOT organizing their lives to be on “the conference, publish, sell, mentor, duplicate, apply MLM” circuit (on the public dole) — is neatly bypassed and eliminated. The mutual self-congratulation factor is through the roof, and these epractices will not stop without a little interference from the “rank-and-file.” Like you, or me.

The model can also be summarized as conflict-of-interest collaborations in the form of nonprofits staffed in part by civil servants. In this one, faith leaders are blended in, which absolutely IS a danger element for anyone who has been a victim of domestic violence OR child abuse — as the faith leaders are practically THE leaders in covering that same thing up. The faith leaders are in there in part because of then-President Bush’s influence. I want people to see this because, if it’s not protested, it will be duplicated under a different name. Read on……

In the 2011-2012 year, the California State Legislature was considering a “Senate Bill (SB) 557 — Family Justice Centers” — citing the 2002 San Diego one as a model. I blogged it when I heard about it.

Here it is:

Bill Analysis: “This Bill would allow local governments to establish family justice centers, and allow these centers to be staffed by, among others, law enforcement, medical personnel, social service and child welfare personnel. This bill would also authorize the FJC to share information between the partner agencies after obtaining informed consent from the victims receiving services.” …. “The Family Justice Center (FJC) model was originally developed in San Diego, which opened a center in 2002. …The United States Department of Justice, through its Office of Violence Against Women, has identifed the Family Justice Center model as a best practice in the field of domestic violence… (etc.) [Casey Gwinn, Gael Strack, Hope for Hurting Families: Creating Family Justice Centers Across America Volcano Press, 2006)


**update (I linked to the book); it’s 219pp and selling for $48+ new, and looks people are also off-loading used for $7.00 or so. Notice that the authors were public employees themselves; this is a pattern. I called it “Casey Gwinn’s retirement plan.” A review shows up from Joan Zorza, Esq. of DVLEAP. Zorza is also associated with the BMCC now, and some has received a minor grant (if I have this right) from the California-based nonprofit “Center for Judicial Excellence” (Marin County, establ. ca. 2006 itself).

(from the book review): About the Author
Gael Strack, J.D. is Chief Executive Officer of the Family Justice Center Alliance, an adjunct law professor at Cal Western Law School & a member of the American Bar Association’s Commission on DV. She was Director of the San Diego FJC for five yrs. & Assistant City Attorney for the Office of the San Diego City Attorney.
Casey Gwinn, J.D. serves as President of the Board of the Family Justice Center Alliance. As elected San Diego City Attorney from 1996-2004, Casey led the effort to open the nationally acclaimed San Diego Family Justice Center. He is currently Chief Executive Officer of the YWCA of San Diego County.

Zorza comments (pause to note that all three – Gael Strack, Casey Gwinn (City Attorney), and Joan Zorza — are attorneys. Yet they are talking in terms (below) of “service providers” — wraparound services taken from the Child Advocacy Center (CAC) model. GUESS WHAT — there are problems with those models, too — anyone think to consult the parents about these things before launching them????

Borrowing From Child Advocacy Centers

What is a simple idea taken from some of our best child advocacy centers (i.e., to create a one-stop shopping center where all service providers are located so that each abuse survivor can access as many of them as she wishes), turns out to be much harder to put into practice, particularly in a coordinated manner that will best assist abuse victims. The FJC staff knew if they are to end the violence and keep victims safe they not only had to wrap their clients in services, but wrap their clients’ children and their perpetrators in services as well.

San Diego itself also had some issues with Casey Gwinn as City Attorney, per a 2001 article from a San Diego Union Tribune; calling him a political lightweight, his 1996 election a shoe-in enabled by the late announcement of the (incumbent City Attorney’s) retirement so he essentially ran unopposed, not an effective litigator (lost a $94million damages suit by a developer against the City) and willing to ethically cut corners. He’s also a loyal Republican and was hoping Bush would appoint him US Attorney (notice the connection of the Family Justice Centers to a Bush-related initiative). What’s worse, it looks like when one of his own employees (that is, as I recall AT the Justice Center) was being abused by her husband at home, stalking, and in general making life miserable not just at home– but also affecting her work (tell me about it), rather than get this woman help, Casey’s response was to dump the case — on another support staff (causing her extreme distress) and relocate the problem off his own floor).

This news is from 2001. As I showed, above, looks like the Justice Center got started in the next year, 2002.

Asked why the Union-Tribune failed to support Gwinn, insiders cite the opinion held by many local lawyers and politicos: the city attorney is an intellectual and political lightweight who got into office through the good graces of his onetime boss, ex-city attorney John Witt. Insiders also say that Gwinn has often seemed too willing to cut ethical corners. On the verge of retirement back in 1996, Witt delayed announcing his departure, hoping that it would be too late for candidates other than Gwinn to get into the race to succeed him.

The strategy worked and Gwinn ran unopposed. Even then, he raised thousands of dollars from members of law firms with business before the city, including the downtown firm of Luce, Forward, whose partner, Charles Bird, a Gwinn contributor, represented the city in its legal battles against opponents of the Chargers’ ticket guarantee and the downtown baseball stadium. Much of the money was used to repay Gwinn for a personal loan he had made to an earlier campaign in which he had run for district attorney.

Here’s yet another one showing, this guy (along with several others) jumped at the chance to “buy” (cheap) from the city “service years” at discounted prices — to better fund their own pensions. This is in here for learning, and for character reference on the financial habits of a DV crusader attorney….

And Here Are Employees Who Bought Years They Didn’t Serve

Don Bauder*, August 25, 2010

[*the title of the article above was: “Is Casey Gwinn trying to get Don Bauder fired?”]

In 1996 (the same year the City tapped the retirement fund** to finance the Republican convention), the City of San Diego enacted a purchase-of-service credits plan. Employees could buy years of service and grab those hyper-generous benefits without having been on the payroll. For six years, the employees were able to buy those credits very cheap. The years weren’t priced at actual cost. The mistake was discovered in 2003, but the City then gave the employees several months to buy in at the old, actuarially fallacious rates. Obviously, employees piled in, snapping up more than 8,000 years of service — costing the City $146 million.

[[Comment re: RETIREMENT FUNDS: **If more people understood the principles behind Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, and how the retirement plans themselves are an investment plan that by now could eliminate the need for ANY current taxes, including the income tax, this might not have happened. Also see:

CAFR: so-called ‘pension funds’ engorge Wall Street’s biggest banks
Posted on July 12, 2012 by Carl Herman
I documented that California’s so-called “pension fund” of $460 billion contributed just $1 billion (4%) of the state’s $27 billion pension cost, and the total $600 billion in retained taxpayer assets are lied-in-omission removed from the $16 billion budget deficit claimed as “forcing” austerity.

Now Clint Richardson has hit another home run in documenting California’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) as funding Wall Street’s biggest banks by the billions, including $2 billion directly into the very same mortgaged-backed and asset-backed securities that were fraudulently created, fraudulently marketed, and fraudulently rewarded through taxpayer so-called bailouts.


So here is the list of City employees who bought the benefits for years they didn’t serve: former Mayor Susan Golding 5 years; former City Attorney Casey Gwinn 5; former City Manager Michael Uberuaga 5, and former portfolio manager for the City pension fund Doug McCalla (who is getting $14,537.06 a month in pension) 5 years.

LGH COMMENT: We have done this to ourselves decade after decade, by not paying attention to where our taxes are going, not learning to understand government, and engaging in a consensual relationship to “fork it over” up front things the same government already has enough assets to fund itself — but chooses not to; apparently it’s more fun to continue taxing, accumulating wealth, and threatening people who have been conditioned to “fork it over” based on myths about how money works. Catherine Austin Fitts also explained it well enough; the banks are feasting on public credit, both the ones bailed out and the ones that didn’t need a bailout. Not to mention, the drug money gets invested in real estate….

Please read — until it sinks in. Excerpt from Fitts link on a title about “Ethnic Cleansing,” and it’s talking about Los Angeles, among other places. Notice even as highly placed as she was, it took her time to see the bigger picture:

My evolution came slowly. In 1989 I was named Assistant Secretary of Housing-FHA Commissioner under Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. I managed  $300 billion of mortgage insurance, mortgages and properties of the Federal Housing Administration and, as Commissioner, I advised the Secretary on another $1 trillion of mortgage financing. I was fired by Jack Kemp in late 1990 because I would not go along with the questionable political practices, which seem to be built into HUD’s machinery and purpose. But still I did not see the bigger picture.

Fulfilling my childhood dream, Hamilton [[her company formed after being fired from HUD]] also created new software and money management tools, which were, for the first time ever, able to map down to the neighborhood, exactly how HUD and other federal money worked, who profited when loans defaulted, and how money came into or left a community. For example, we were often able to see where HUD was spending $100-250,000 per unit on apartment buildings when there was single family housing available within walking distance for $25-50,000.

{{COMMENTS: Notice she, too, was paying attention to the FLOW of money, which I said above. That’s how profits are made and maintained. People who don’t pay attention to how the money works, are going to lose it to those those who do. Understanding is Power… but you have to want it — and think outside the box]]

Secretary Cisneros had been extremely supportive of our work. We had unrestricted access to rich quantities of government financial data that was supposedly public but hard to understand. We were translating that into useable information so that people in any community could see how the money flowed through their neighborhood. We helped HUD get increasing amounts of data up on its web site. An unforeseen side effect for the women at Edgewood, and for Hamilton, was that by seeing clearly how the clean money worked, we also began to see how the dirty money worked.

As an investor for more than twenty years, I believed that it was actually more profitable for people to own their own neighborhoods and businesses and to know exactly how the money worked. The MONEY MAPS we made were so simple to understand that they looked like comic books. . . . .

[[Just ONE more paragraph, to make this point: The government OUGHT to be held as accountable to us as the SEC supposedly keeps public corporations accountable. Securities Exchange Commission refers to DEBTS — the buying and selling of debts to raise capital (etc.). But it isn’t. IF IT WERE, people like Casey Gwinn and friends could not run around the country teaching their cronies how to set up nonprofit “justice centers” and get federal grants (from the public at large) to fund them without anyone really following them closely but people who want a piece of that action… Perhaps there’d be less poverty and drugs….]]

I was also advocating that U.S. government investment in communities should be subject to the same public disclosure rules that private companies are obligated to follow under the Securities and Exchange Commission Rules. If you are a shareholder in a company, that company is using your money. The law requires that they use your money legally and that they do their best to protect your money and make you more. To earn money, and to do so in a fair, honest and competitive way, federal and state laws require companies to report performance and key transactions to you, the shareholder. Every citizen is a shareholder in the government. If governments worked like they require corporations to work, they would be required to report to you, in the sunshine, exactly how the money was working, in your neighborhood, and you could either approve – or disapprove of the fairness and effectiveness of that, based upon your understanding of your own needs. That is very threatening to those who have used agencies like HUD as a trough to pay off political cronies.

Where this information can be learned, however — is by learning to read the CAFRs. That actually is what I should be doing and blogging currently. Consider this “in transition” stage… Moreover, Catherine Austin Fitts is not exactly broke — and she could have used her influence (and money) to publicize the CAFRs for us — but instead chose to market her own product and models through SOLARIS — and apparently got in on some religious networking from a large church in Washington, D.C. at one point (but that’s another story). Suppose the same transparency were ALSO applied to religious corporations??? They are definitely real estate investors!

Only two years after the center opened, this article surfaced about an employee of the famous SD Family Justice Center when the DV got a little too close for comfort. The link is to a 2010 blog, and I’m reporting it in the comments, but the news article came out ca. 2004. No matter, by 2006, they have published and well-known DV Attorney Ms. Zorza was congratulating Gwinn and Strack on their new book. …

City Employee Files Suit Against City, Casey Gwinn

//Statements Regarding Family Justice Center Lawsuit
The founder of the Family Justice Center, San Diego City Attorney Casey Gwinn said he has handled more than 10,000 domestic abuse cases.** Now, many of his employees at the Family Justice Center and at the City Attorney’s Office are asking how one of his workers was allegedly abused for years without getting help…”

[[**if the reporting is anything like the ACFJC’s, that may be highly exaggerated]]

records show that police responded to numerous calls at the victim’s former home on Armacost Road. Several workers at the City Attorney’s Office and the Family Justice Center told 10News that the victim came to work with broken bones, bruises, cuts and black eyes. “If Casey Gwinn didn’t notice that on one of his own — seeing her every single day — then what is he doing at the Family Justice Center?” questioned Clark.

“According to the lawsuit, a long history of severe abuse against a Family Justice Center employee was going to be made public when the woman threatened to kill her husband and was arrested. Clark was then assigned a special project to quietly help the woman.” {{and you can read the rest.}}

Here’s a 2012 IACP (small print logo shows that means “International Association of Chiefs of Police”) conference/workshop brochure, see page 6.(?) with the help of a DOJ/Bureau Of Justice Assistance Grant, Casey Gwinn and colleague Gael Strack running workshop with his colleague Gael Strack advertising (with Anaheim Police Chief) their Justice Model again (p. 6, and see presenter bios at the back)…..

Looks like Casey dumped the job of handling the tough situation on one of his support staff, who herself ended up getting threatened by the woman’s ex-husband. She sued. This was only in 2004!!! Yet, eight years later, there’s no “Josie Clark” following Gwinn’s trail to correct the record on his less than heroic behavior on behalf of victims (this link is quoting the news article, quoted on the “CA SB 557 — Just Say No! or at least “Whoa” post).

Clark took on the new responsibilities that lasted more than two months. She said the woman called her seeking help day and night — once every half hour at work and at home at 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. Late last year, Clark said the woman’s estranged husband threatened her life.

“Her husband basically said I was going to regret it for interfering and said he was going to come after me and that he was going to kill us both,” Clark told 10News.   After her arrest [and obviously, release], Gwinn had the woman working as a receptionist on the 16th floor near his office. But when the death threat allegations against Clark surfaces, the woman was moved to the 11th floor, just 30 feet from Clark.

She still comes to the office beaten up, and Casey Gwinn has done absolutly nothing to help her,” Clark said.   The lawsuit itself, the plaintiff’s attorneys say, is about how Clark was forced into the mess and then discriminated against after she had nervous breakdowns and clinical depression. Conditions, they say, came directly from her “special project” to basically act as a drug, alcohol and abuse counselor for a co-worker.

Apparently it’s more fun to travel nationally (while on a pension and probably also being paid by their “creation”) talking about stopping domestic violence (and getting more grants to do it) — than actually dealing with the real thing. This account also brings up the question (at least in my mind) — were the Justice Center staff showing up on one, or two, sets of books — city payroll AND nonprofit salaries? in other words, who’s minding that shop? HERE’S a 2002 working paper (Harvard JFK School of Government) talking about City Attorneys, which devotes many (double-spaced) pages on the San Diego model, and speaking positively about Casey Gwinn’s longstanding concern about domestic violence, and Strack’s desire for a one-stop-justice shop.
[[well, now I have a 9,600 word post. Oh well!! material about San Diego starts around page 17. Don’t quote (i’m not quoting, just linking!) without permission of author.]]

This is forming a nonprofit under private board control, using public funds (OVAW) and mixing civil servants (law enforcement, social service and child welfare personnel). It so happens that this model also had President Bush’s endorsement (2003) and he wanted to make sure that the pastors also had some input in this. The conflict of interest — centralization — of this model, both in structure and funding, is unbelievable. Not to mention, both the original AND the second model (San Diego AND Alameda County) have shown some serious conflicts of interest, and problems — in their origination, and in their execution.

Yes, per Forbes (and you can see elsewhere) Susan B. Carbon, (2009 Obama appointee to the Office of Violence Against Women) explains the approach to stopping this violence as a ‘Coordinated Community Response” (CCR) focused on training. Therefore the grants focus on the training and trying to PERSUADE communities that VAW is no longer acceptable:

DOJ Director on Violence Against Women in the United States (Forbes, 3/8/12, by Rahim Kanani)

In one of the most in-depth discussions to date on violence against women in the United States, and to coincide with International Women’s Day, I interviewed Susan B. Carbon, Director of the United States Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW).

Judge Carbon was nominated to this position by President Barack Obama on October 1, 2009 and confirmed by the United States Senate on February 11, 2010. As Director, she serves as the liaison between the Department of Justice and federal, state, tribal, and international governments on crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking. In this role, she is responsible for developing the Department’s legal and policy positions regarding the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act and oversees an annual budget of nearly $400 million.

One of the signature achievements of VAWA, reauthorized in 2000 and 2005, is the development of the concept of a coordinated community response. VAWA-funded projects have an impact that goes well beyond the number of victims served, professionals trained, or arrests made.  VAWA encourages jurisdictions to bring together stakeholders from diverse backgrounds to share information and to use their distinct roles to improve community responses to violence against women.  This mechanism allows these programs to serve as models for other agencies in their jurisdictions.  This not only improves the quality of victim services and the criminal and civil justice response, it often changes the attitudes of the community as a whole.

To understand a few things: You can read through this entire article, I’ll bet, and find next to nothing on to what degree the violence against women takes place in or around not the CRIMINAL or CIVIL justice system, but the FAMILY COURT system, which is a hybrid, and exists parallel to it. I expressed this in a post January 2011, “Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You?” By continually censoring the topic of the family courts as systematized violence against women (and against honest men who don’t need sticks and carrots to care about their own kids), the violence WILL continue, the grants WILL continue to be needed (notice the size of that budget — $400 million!) and certifiably insane restraining orders followed by bait and switch, years (sometimes a decade) long custody battles WILL be waged, around which careers are made by the court professionals — while the people involved in those cases remain at risk of life and limb, and stalked into poverty and marginalization throughout society.

It took me a while to understand that this Director was a former Family Court judge in New Hampshire! Why would she then betray former colleagues by airing the dirty laundry of that court system towards women, specifically mothers? Or explain how the fatherhood funding through HHS (which circulates primarily through this venue) is helping take children from SAFE homes and put them back in DANGEROUS ones?

These have to be looked at, I believe, from the corporate/nonprofit/government funding angle. Again, for all the talk, sounds like Casey Gwinn has some serious drawbacks when it comes to personally handling domestic violence, or dealing with critical issues as a City Attorney. I don’t want to rehash it all here, but in retrospect, it’s another way that public employees can arrange things (like getting grants, publishing, conferencing, travelling and in general demanding to reshape justice without adequate feedback from those served by it) while on a City pension (which he apparently bought some years of), and making for a very nice retirement package. He’s probably only mid-50s right about now.

For example: California Dirty Laundry on the [nonprofit collaborative]] Justice Center Circuit:

It turns out that the then-wife of Bill Lockyer — who got a $90,000 plum job (original listing $65,000) to run the second in a chain Justice Centers in California (the Alameda County one) — as of about 2006, while my custody case (same general area) was heading south fast, and I myself was going fast back towards another round on Food Stamps (needlessly) — had problems of her own. Some of these may come from political marriages to previously divorced career men a few decades one senior (I believe the age gap was about thirty years; she was his third wife) and this woman who SHOULD’VE provided help and leadership in this county — instead:

~had to go into drug rehab
~had an affair with someone she met their
~apparently got into a dangerous situation (with a young boy attached?) in a motel room that required a 911 call
~eventually had to resign from a County Supervisor position she’d taken AFTER the plum One-Stop Justice Shop position (Family Justice Center Alliance). Her spouse Bill Lockyer had poured an unprecedented $1++ million of campaign funding into getting this post, only to have seen himself cheated on, and their child endangered, with a woman who had a problem with drug addiction. That’s our local (county/state) government in action….
~ is now going through a divorce and actually being sued, last I heard, for child support from Bill Lockyer.

That’s the local leadership… in one of the highest-homicide areas around.

Why should anyone be paying for anything resembling “technical training and assistance” or advice, or more bright, innovative? leadership ideas proceeding from “Lifestyles of the Rich, Famous, or Politically Connected” which simply lack judgment?

By contrast with Ms. Nadia; I’m not a drug abuser; I didn’t cheat on my husband, or hang out with meth addicts in rehab with small children — yet none of these people are very interested in honestly dealing with the mounting roadkill, in their own jurisdiction, directly related to using the family courts to deal with criminal matters. Possibly because the head of that Alameda County Justice Center one is herself a family lawyer? go figure.

(Below, I also just looked up the bar associations. Turns out the county bar is “exempt active” like so many others — so we don’t get to read their tax returns, while they (these attorneys) sometimes literally get to give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down on children’s (and their parents’) lives.

(Sept. 2012) “Meth Charge for Lockyer’s Wife Imperils his Ambitions”
(Bloomberg.com, James Nash)
Meth charges, sex tape, extramarital affair
. . .
Lockyer, then 61 and California’s attorney general, married Nadia Maria Davis, 31, an Orange County lawyer, in 2003, the Los Angeles Times reported at the time.

It was his third marriage and her first, a Lockyer spokesman, Nathan Barankin, told the Times. He said the couple had met at Democratic Party functions and that she was expecting a baby, the newspaper reported.
Nadia Lockyer became executive director of the Alameda County Family Justice Center in 2007, according to her biography archived by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. The agency is part of the county district attorney’s office and helps victims of domestic, sexual and child abuse,

In 2010, Nadia Lockyer was elected to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Of the $1.64 million in contributions raised for her campaign, $1.45 million came from her husband’s state political account, according to campaign finance records.

Seriously — these are public servants, on the public payroll; and they simply lack common sense. So when I heard about this set of centers trying to replicate the business model, I put up a stink, on this blog.

I’m not really kidding — there are some problems with trying to set up “Justice Centers” as a standard. I completely forgot about that issue, but recently (March 2013) see someone else — in San Diego — decided to also say “Show us the money” of the San Diego one. [[Domestic Violence Program Sponsor Pulls Out]].

Anything below this line, I just put in to be ornery, after discovering it on-line, today, relating to material near the top of the post (probably under the “Domestic violence, poverty and parenting” search results.). I’m basically just storing the article here for future reference. (It’s a nonsequitur on this post…)

Speaking of, well, “interesting,” listen to the DV agencies arguing (last year, 2012) about the problem with teaching abstinence and forming and maintaining two-parent families to sexual assault victims; i.e., marry your way out of poverty and abstinence yourself out of rape? This was Kansas, a state that ought to simply be vacated by women, from what I can tell. However, to me, the interesting part is listening to Anne Menard of the NRSDVC (clearinghouse/check acronym, I probably have the letters reversed) who is herself also something of a consultant for the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (NHMC) making excuses.

This is about a proposed state contract and deals with TANF. Found in the Wichita Eagle 1/24/2012:

SRS stand for the Social Services sector in Kansas…. I THINK this is a large contract with “Kansas

The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, which is handling the proposed contract, said the language supports goals of a federal program and is not meant to steer women into staying with abusers, that its intent is to encourage healthy relationships that prevent violence.

The concern stems from new language the state has inserted in a proposed contract for providing services to low-income victims of domestic and sexual violence who receive cash assistance from the state. The controversial terms include specifications encouraging a vendor to work with faith-based groups, to promote “unification” or “formation” of two-parent families and to pursue abstinence-based pregnancy prevention.

Those voicing the concerns — including Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston, state and national domestic violence experts and lawmakers in both parties — say such language is confusing, contradictory and insulting. A woman in crisis often is torn about whether to leave her abuser, and if she has decided to leave, worries how she will survive economically.

[[hardly confusing — just contradictory and insulting. Pushing healthy marriages to people who’ve had dangerous, nearly lethal ones shows someone has a screw loose…. We know you bled, have physical injuries, were traumatized, have PTSD, and have experienced death threats, threats to kidnap the children and are vitally concerned right now about restoring economic self-sufficiency. However, just for the record, two heads are better than one, and “the best parent is both parents.” Children without fathers are likely to lead lives of crime, poverty and delinquency and be abused…. statistically we know this is true…” (of COURSE this can’t be told the woman in trauma directly. She will find out later during a custody hearing….)…

Wichita Eagle, cont’d….

Such language is not common in domestic violence services contracts around the nation, said Anne Menard, executive director of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, in Harrisburg, Pa. In domestic violence services, the “primary interest that needs to be addressed is safety,” Menard said.

Ms. Menard in her other capacities at the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (heavily supported by HHS; this is under the “Domestic Violence” link. Essentially, “resource center’ in this context means a complex and well-fleshed out website. If it means anything else, I’m not sure. The “Resources” are on-line articles, looks to me, i.e., “information.”

“Understanding Domestic Violence: Definitions, Scope, Impact and Response.

Understanding Domestic Violence is the first in a series of 5 related Guides developed for relationship and marriage educators and program administrators to help them understand and respond to domestic violence issues that may arise within their programs. This Guide provides a working definition of domestic violence and an introduction to the network of domestic violence services that has been built in the United States over the last 30 years.The full Resource Packet consists of the following Guides: Understanding Domestic Violence: Definitions, Scope, Impact and Response; Building Effective Partnerships with Domestic Violence Programs; Protocol Development and Implementation: Identifying and Responding to Domestic Violence Issues; Screening and Assessment for Domestic Violence: Attending to Safety and Culture; and After Disclosure: Responding to Domestic Violence. (Author abstract modified). (Author: Anne Menard, Addi’tl Author: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the NHMRC.org.)


At the center of criticism

A proposed SRS contract contains two controversial sentences: “The vendor will be encouraged to work with faith-based and community supports to increase the unification of two (2) parent families and promote pregnancy prevention through abstinence based programs.”

“The Contractor shall administer TANF funds to promote healthy families, parenthood initiatives and pregnancy prevention through abstinence based program services to encourage the formation of two parent families within the confines of keeping individuals and families safe, reducing both child abuse and domestic violence.”
. . .
SRS now contracts with the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, whose network of subcontractors comprises 29 domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy programs across the state***. According to the coalition, the network includes four Wichita entities: Catholic Charities Harbor House, StepStone, Wichita Area Sexual Assault Center and YWCA Women’s Crisis Center. The network also includes Family Life Center of Butler County in El Dorado, Harvey County DV/SA Task Force in Newton and Safe Homes in Winfield.
. . .

[[***that’s called CENTRALIZED CONTROL — which is what “coalition” is about to start with. They are arguing about including the promotion of healthy marriage as a condition of the grant, because the money comes in part from TANF funding, apparently…]]

Coalition members declined to be interviewed, but gave this statement: “KCSDV’s mission is to increase safety for victims and to hold perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence accountable for the harm they cause. To that end the role that government plays in this mission is obvious, both in the criminal justice system and in the state welfare system.

“KCSDV is committed to working with national, state and local governments to further these goals. Our focus, however, will always be on victim safety and services. Because the harm caused by sexual and domestic violence and stalking is widespread and impacts communities across Kansas, the importance of the partnership with our state’s administration cannot be underestimated. Until proven otherwise, KCSDV will assume that our state government shares the goal of increasing safety in our communities.”

The current contract pays the coalition nearly $1.5 million annually to provide services to about 2,000 abused women. The coalition has held the contract since 1999. Bids for the new contract are due by Jan. 31.

Muddled message
Foulston, the Sedgwick County district attorney, said the new contract language would be confusing and patronizing for domestic violence victims.

It’s difficult enough for an abused, low-income woman to become independent, but under the new language, the message the victim might take is that she needs to stay with an abusive spouse for the sake of her children, Foulston said.

Another troubling aspect is the faith-based component, which doesn’t respect the separation of church and state, Foulston said. It raises the possibility of a victim being “subjected to some kind of lecture under a faith-based initiative,” she said.

[[(Listen to the excuse made for leaving the language in — the victims won’t be aware of it anyhow!!!) ]]

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on antinarsassisticfemalespecimen's Blog and commented:
    Did you hear the one about the push for funding in light of promises to advance educational facilities aka public school districts?? ……. I did. Thanks to the Washington Post. What I find fascinating is the HHS TAGGS reflects grant funding distributions to promote Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood via Workforce Board aka Child Care Associates who are published as supporting (in funds) Fatherhood Coalition. CCA has at least 3 public ISD’s as partners in alliance. Sounds like a beautiful case of…. Tracks covered… Initiative profiting off of the innocents resumed. Funny thing about it all is…………. Through all of this experience for my daughter… School counselor presiding…. Is compelled (or directed rather) to teach my daughter “coping skills” when she is repeatedly denied meals (breakfast and occasional dinner if homework isn’t completed in a sufficient amount of time). I was told… CPS doesn’t care unless she’s being starved half to death or beaten black and blue. Excuses for everything including an obligation to report. My daughter now refuses to go to the counselor for any difficulty she’s faced with. Her reason she stated was…… She can’t help. She can’t do anything about it. When she told me to save leftovers and heat them up…. Melissa (stepmother) just took them away and said that they didn’t have time to wait for me to eat.
    Point being….. Whatever skills these schools are trained or instructed to teach are non affective in dealing with abusive people. You can’t prevent abuse through alternative tactics or approaches. Abusive people FIND ways to Affectively harm their victim and when one weapon of choice is removed….. They just find another one to utilize. What is wrong with people that can’t comprehend reality?
    Sorry for the rant the public ISD soapbox got reopened and rehashed upon observation.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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: