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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Why Supervised Visitation (per se) Sucks. Federal Millions, that is (DOJ Grant 2004-WX-AT-K046) [Publ. June 6, 2013, Format Adjusted May 31, 2021].

with 12 comments


Why Supervised Visitation (per se) Sucks. Federal Millions, that is (DOJ Grant 2004-WX-AT-K046) [Publ. June 6, 2013, Format Adjusted May 31, 2021]. (short-link ends “-1Ln.” Post published June 6, 2013, about 8,300 wds)

[[This post is temporarily, “sticky” as this field — Supervised Visitation — is a BFD]].  DOJ Grant 2004-WX-AT-K046: (and a few others).

There are people who make a living in evaluating federally-funded grants programs, such as Safe Exchange and Supervised Visitation.

I have made a survey of the field. A quick check of one of the major international nonprofit associations of providers, Supervised Visitation Network, Inc.. Based on my sampling, plus field experiences, and supported by two DOJ/OIG audits of a certain grant promoting supervised visitation to both providers (regarding the fathers) and to Mothers, to indoctrinate them into accepting the situation, I have come to the essential evaluation (which no DOJ grant was used in producing):

Supervised Visitation, per se, Sucks

My Field Exhibits includes two DOJ audits of Grant 2004-WX-AT-K046 (and related), and how grantees responded to being caught defrauding customers, i.e., US taxpayers: They regrouped and did it again elsewhere.

You can sometimes spot these on the fly: Looks like another one:

Legal Resource Center for Violence Against Women (“LRCVAW” here, also that’s its url):

Working with Attorneys . .To provide Justice and Safety . . . for Domestic Violence Survivors . . in Interstate Custody Cases. “This project was supported by grant number 2004-WT-AX-K079 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice. Points of view expressed in this document are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice..

This is another T&TA site: sign up for trainings (aka webinars) and “resources” include the list of State Coalitions, some ABA commissions, and one of the groups I’m profiling below which got nailed for mis-use of federal grants (the same kind!) by the US DOJ/OIG, which is to say, the auditor’s office. LRCVAW apparently incorporated in Maryland on 6/27/2003,** changed the address once, and says it is a nonprofit. (I just looked grantee up under USASpending.gov and found a grant helping supervised visitation centers with interstate custody cases. Over $2 million in grants so far. 6 awards;, not bad for a small organization.

(**Broken link (search again @ (look up “Maryland Business Entities Search”) but the LRCVAW.org link above still active and still not posting its EIN# or any financials. Or see http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/ to search by name for  EIN# //LGH 31May2021).

USDOJ Audit Reports are grouped into “By Component” and “External.” Notice the the OVW is “External” See next link to view the OVW audits, of which I randomly (really! in general, I was interested in Pennsylvania’s DV groups) chose to audit a certain one, and found material for this post….

Office on Violence Against Women External ReportsThe Audit Division reports on the expenditure of federal funds by certain recipients of grants from the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW).

2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 1998
October 12, 2012
~ Audit of the Office on Violence Against Women Safe Havens Grant Awarded to the Michigan Department of Human Services, Lansing, Michigan, Audit Report GR-50-13-002

September 27, 2012
~ Audit of the Office on Violence Against Women and Office of Justice Programs Grants Awarded to the Idaho Supreme Court, Boise, Idaho, Audit Report GR-60-12-021

~>~>~>~>September 5, 2012
~ Audit of the Office on Violence Against Women Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreements Administered by the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, Enola, Pennsylvania, Audit Report GR-70-12-009

Page “3” footnote of this one, referencing $4 million (4 Technical Assistance Grantss) to PCAR fround $336K of questionable costs.

The other (April 2010) audit was not to PCAR, but to the nonprofit NDAA, covering $16 million (16 grants) of which $4million of questionable costs came up. Some of these questionable costs covered the grant mentioned in this title, to “APRI” (American Prosecutors Research Institute), which I happen to know some battered women love to quote as it talks about PAS. However, they don’t look at the financial angle enough to understand they just quoted an organization engaged in questionable financial practices!). That Grant 30-10-0001 is linked to & mentioned again below.

My evaluation approach differs radically from approaches by, say, Dr. Daniel G. Saunders, Professor of Social Work a UMichigan, that Barry Goldstein keeps quoting and holding out as “new light” on how to protect children. While he and his colleagues publish – and do not perish– about these matters, we mothers (and fathers) (and taxpayers) ARE perishing surrounding the topic. I think I might blog that separately, but just FYI, he is on the same TYPE of grants streams as these other technical training and service providers.

You wouldn’t believe how networked these groups are! Take a look, it’s evident.

The thing is, most of us do NOT take a look, and go unconsciously about our business without considering the money forked over for redistribution as actually ours: once it’s out of sight, out of mind. This gets, in the long run, to be like any other project left ignored for years — it tends to expand in scope and trouble to clean up or clear out!

Some projects involve an excess of inanimate objects (like junk in a garage, leaves on a lawn, dishes in a sink, or dust in the house, for a few examples). However this project involves millions (actually, over time, billions) of dollars and live human beings receiving paychecks, sometimes pensions, filing tax returns.   In short, it is a process in which filing for corporation creates a status that attracts grants, which then go do SOMETHING, allegedly some function.  Even when that “social service” or “justice” function isn’t actually formed done,* the money still keeps pouring out until something is done about it — and streams, rivers of water is a good analogy (in many respects) for the flow of funding.

(* 2021 copyedit for clarity, at least as I think I meant 8 years ago…//LGH)

FYI (just in case you think this is a “disgruntled parent” speaking: No,…), we (my ex-batterer/stalker/deadbeat Dad etc. ex-husband and I) were on the bottom of the two-tier custody track. Had anyone offered me supervised visitation (I even at one point asked), I’d have taken the bait. Contact with my daughters was eliminated ON an “unsupervised visitation” exchange. Like most Moms, at the time I had no clue that federal funds for access visitation to improve [sic] noncustodial outcomes* existed.

But because the courts didn’t label us as a wealthy couple [no real estate involved], we entirely missed the referral to supervised visitation for his battering and stalking or my “alienation” (which wasn’t occurring: all visitations ordered, while they lived with me, were made available. When he got custody, that standard was eliminated immediately, overnight, and never raised its ‘ugly’ head again.

To get to this point of total eradication of the sense of “court order” meaning anything at all, we were sent repeatedly (periodically) through through the revolving door of “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” mandatory mediation, in California. We even “mediated” a felony crime called child-stealing. Mandatory Mediation is indeed Miraculous (California Courts Review, Spring 2006: See p. 16, written by a Judge**) — I see it can even undo restraining orders and undermine criminal law. No wonder the therapeutic jurisprudence community loves it! The DV industry gets its DOJ grants, and the family law professionals get their HHS access/visitation grants, and the kids get a lifetime of wondering which end is up, minus a lot of child support, and stable households.

[**with dual NCJFCJ-AFCC membership.  LGH comment 2021, although I probably knew it in 2013 also].

However, readers should know this is from observation, not personal experience with having been subject to supervised visitation in my own custody case. In our case, they simply switched the kids overnight, end of story (or at least of mother/daughter contact, basically, til they aged out), no factual or legal basis ever given, though I definitely formally requested it of the court.

No, I am against this field: because it sucks as a practice; because the trainers are known to be associated with AFCC, and in conflicts-of-interest positions administering their own grants that help fund it; and because, like AFCC itself, the nonprofits associated have to skip state when caught unincorporated, which they simply do … Perhaps this is why conferences of a Florida-domicile nonprofit have to be held in Ontario, Canada?

“Supervised Visitation” cannot be justified logically, financially, or in any common-sense theater, which is I guess why it has to be promoted under public health & welfare and written up by social service and domestic violence career professionals.

For this policy of Supervised Visitation (for Batterers) to have passed, some people cut a deal with other people, and in the middle between allowing victims of battering and domestic violence (or child abuse) to actually be free from their abusers — and stay that way through physical separation — they determined that supervised visitation (industry) was a nice compromise, and what a wonderful new field where FR can conference with anti-DV feminists and get more grants.

In reality, it’s been a nightmare of racketeering elements, and a way to slap the honest parents upside the face, and terrorize the kids in supervised visitation “psychoeducational” sessions conditioning the next generation that when gender is compared to character, gender matters more. It doesn’t seem to matter how many are caught in coruption as providers; the policy of ordering parents into this, continues unabated.

Why We MUST MONITOR nonprofits formed to receive Federal Grants

Until they get the message that they will be monitored at will, unpredictably, BY THE PUBLIC.
Either that, or demand a cessation of grants until it can be assured they will be appropriately used. Particularly in this field of technical assistance and training, and particularly nonprofits whose membership are already public employees…

This write up of what I discovered revisiting the Supervised Visitation Network (and discovering THIS shape-shifting, state-hopping nonprofit was about to have a conference in Ontario, and hadn’t stayed incorporated in Tennessee before jumping to Florida….. And had a Supervised Visitation trainer Shelly LaBotte (California Judicial Council AOC and Access/Visitation Programs grants administrator. (Not to mention, Daniel Levy, and others who run supervised visitation exchanges under titles like “Family Resource Centers.”

These organizations are using the World Wide Web to fake being legitimate corporations while sucking up DOJ grants. When caught, they aren’t repentant, but instead, simply engage in some dodgy behavior to disband, and reformulate elsewhere under a different name.

I think it’s kind of fun (??) watching them scurry for cover, do it again somewhere else, and this type of scouting should be promoted among the general populace, particularly anyone on welfare, supervised vistiation, with a child support order, who has been a victim of domestic violence, and/or who pays taxes.

After all, where did the United States Department of Justice get those millions to redistribute to nonprofits that are going to launder, or lose, or overbill, or mishandle public funds?

Slish, slosh, slush…

The narrative form remains, but I have got to remind us of the general principles:

Government is being privatized. Conceive of the flow of funds: They are harvested from individuals through a variety of taxes and sales and service fees (if you file with the court, if you buy a drivers’ license, marriage license, etc.). Income taxes for many years have been creating an investment platform used worldwide, public pension funds also (CALPERS, the largest, was formed initially in 1931). Allegedly this is, “the better to serve you with, my dears…” … No longer credible; it’s the better to control us with….

However, most people are conditioned (I have been) and continue to pay in, leaving billions of excess (while we are clobbered in the news about the fiscal cliffs and how much each citizen owes), attracting immoral crooks (and zealous crusaders who apparently believe the country should be restructured to accommodate their worldview, i.e., according to “national models” of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (fill in the blank, it almost doesn’t matter).

Then the level of profit from these billions is actually at the Technical Assistance and Training level, not the actual “service provider” level. The concept of “providing service” has been rewritten to mean, “puts up resource centers, websites, trainings, runs conferences, publishes something” (and so forth). Real estate is also bought, which is a depreciation expense for a nonprofit. It is also leased. It’s just a BUSINESS!!!


In this one, I discussed (as I recall), including some of the membership and in which states…

  • Supervised Visitation Network (EIN# 521831498)
  • Fernando Mederos, Ed.D. who is into Fatherhood and Batterers’ Intervention Programs, and also presented at a SVN network conference (where I got the name).. Notice description; he’s MA Social Services, but all over the map (=FL;) (Children’s Justice Conference, Shine the Light on the Children (2009 Washington State, NW, see Presented C10; notice top presentation is about mothers that abuse)when it comes to presenting, and sitting on influential advisory boards, such as the AHA QIC-NRF (American Humane Association Quality Improvement Center National Responsible Fatherhood, I guess). Along with, say, Annie E. Casey Foundation rep (of course), a Judge from Arizona, Michael Hayes (fatherhood rep from Texas OAG), Susan Dreyfuss (from Washington State, head of HHS, I have blogged, formerly Wisconsin), et al.
    He is on board of Michigan-based BISCMI (scroll down for bio blurb) and apparently has done this first as a BIP consultant in Mass. (1997ff) and since 2006 as actual civil servant?)
  • National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), whose $16 million OJP grants got audited. EIN# 366144357; it exists off grants; 99 (on IRS returns) Canal Street #510, Alexandria, VA)
  • 2013 NDAA Board of Directors. Please note every one of them apparaently is a civil servant. This is then a National Association of DISTRICT attorneys, which tends to mean, by the county, who as such are already on the public payroll, but collaborated to then also form a nonprofit for their interests. This shows slightly different (33 not 99) street address.
  • American Prosecutors Research Institute (EIN 52-1295359?), shared street address with NDAA, and apparently published a journal “The Voice” (that’s Vol.1#1), but alas shapeshifted to “Aequitas,”… under …. Two different 2005 tax returns showing; here’s one. Lookup shows it inc. (Virginia) 1982, merged 10/2006..
  • Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (cooperating to help the shapeshift) (EIN#23-2067636, more below..
  • Family Violence Prevention Fund (helped put out a pdf re: fathers & Supervised visitation utilizing said grant) (links below)
  • MINCAVA (posted pdf re: mothers & supervised visitation utilizing said grant)
  • an Idaho Group against DV (ditto) (links below)
  • Yet another attorneys’ association (formed afterwards) which partnered with the DC-based (at least per their website) “Aequitas” (The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys)

Aequitas (per its own website):

AEquitas receives funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). It is a partnership between OVW, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR), and the Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP).*** In the spirit of promoting a coordinated response to violence against women, AEquitas collaborates with national, state, and local advocates and agencies to encourage a victim-centered response to these cases while giving prosecutors the tools they need to succeed in court. AEquitas also partners with forensic healthcare professionals, law enforcement, the judiciary, and other organizations representing allied professionals to ensure the proper collection and preservation of evidence, effective use of expert witnesses, and to improve results in the criminal justice system in order to more effectively prosecute offenders.

That’s cute because BWJP (also on the OVW grants stream) is a project of another group, and has worked with AFCC previously; they are a regular presenter on AFCC conferences (See “Loretta Frederick”). They do this T&TA stuff, which must be VERY profitable… However, for funding purpose, it means the grants are harder to track — this is a project, not a separate nonprofit. Turns out it’s a major “program expense” of the Minnesota Program Develompent, Inc., which is a major HHS grantee.. and gets “positive press” (references) from various HHS/ACF site for its efforts, and keeping mum about the family court franchise factor. HERE and it’s a “Special Resource Center” under “family and youth services.” Meanwhile, BWJP is a Program Expense of the MPDI (EIN#411382134, listed as providing T&TA to Federal Grantees…Concurrently, the federal government is pouring millions into MPDI itself, which I have blogged or, to be honest, you could just look up: http://taggs.hhs.gov or http://usaspending.gov, or look on their tax returns, or a DOJ grant search!

OK, from the top again:

Aequitas is a partnership with PCAR (above), a nonprofit, and BWJP, a project of another nonprofit.

Aequitas (DC address) IS a project of a nonprofit (PCAR) (Pennsylvania) + BWJP (I forget), itself project of a nonprofit (MPDI, Minnesota) but is now partnering with APA (I think it’s a VA nonprofit association of attorneys?) to do more technical assistance and training.

Aequitas USED to be Virginia’s APRI, which had an EIN#, and sold publications, but was itself a project (or is it “affiliate”) of a much older, and longer-standing National District Attorneys Association (NDAA), which is itself a federally funded project offering Technical Assistance and Training. Its board are public employee civil servant s(obviously, district attorneys). These grantees run up costs well into the millions, and need to be audited by other public servants employed under the Executive Branch of the US Government called the “DOJ.”

I looked up the PCAR on “usaspending.gov” Prime awards — grants only.

In 35 actions (not including contracts), they have $26 million of federal funding (per this database anyhow), and you can see the “K024” award to Aequitas right in there. Despite the negative audit, they are still showing $3.7 million for one year, and $2.4 for the previous, through next September 2013. It reads in this database as “YEARTAAXK0##,” i.e., “2009TAAXK024,” in this case. At the bottom of some publications it would probably read 2009-?? (Wx or similar)-AT-K0##. I DNK for sure.

PCAR has an identifying DUNS# (Recipient DUNS Number 929907426). Turns out (I just searched TAGGS) that of the $26 million grants (only) over $16 million was via HHS for the National Resource Center Against Sexual Violence (i.e., NRCSV). I just looked at these – and discovered one entry for $799,567, put in twice, on the same day. Interesting. (recommend advanced search, selected fields, by Fiscal Year. I’m not pasting it here. Always include name of Principal Investigator, generally speaking).

Think about it…. Where does the money originate, most of it? From the immense funding source called the United States Government. Where does the US Government get its money from? Over the years, and each year?? It is most definitely operating at a profit…. (see link at bottom of this post, p. 159).

The DOJ/OIG/Audit reports sites.

  • 2012 and 2012 DOJ/OIG/Audit numbers are below.
  • Some of their tax returns, etc.

Also see Marv Bryer link (Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption) reminding us that the money is made UP FRONT, IN ADVANCE in the trainings. Based on his and related research, it’s my personal opinion that this type of initial slush fund provided the startup money for the original Conference of Conciliation Courts.

The audits do not appear to have real teeth — they don’t intimidate the grants-squandering individuals, who arrogantly simply disband and re-incorporate somewhere else.

Also it appears that “cooperative” agreements are easier to hide or double-bill on. I wish to remind us that the DOJ/OIG sector are also public employees, hence

the public is funding government,

which gives this money away to nonprofits which waste it

Funding government auditors who sometimes catch and report on this, which someone diligent and understanding that what matters most on a gov’t website is usually not the BIG FONT STUFF ON THE TITLE but the fine print stuff on the very bottom of the pages. Those are the details to notice. Also, when reading any audit or report, the footnotes (and/or authors, and/or bibliography) really do matter. They are clues..


Right away, we are in the financial category:  Bribe, Slush Fund, Bank account, overcoming judicial immunity.

He got (from the bank — not through FOIA, which can be forestalled more easily) ~under common law ~ the records of all Donations from the County Bar — to the Superior Court.   The County Bar was an Association — and I have another post (in draft) about Bar Associations, because the topic is so vital.

Judges have immunity for what they do on the bench — but Bar Associations do not.  If there is a conspiracy between bench and bar…He is not talking “they just don’t understand” (custody matter) — but words relating to the handling of money:  fraud, grand larceny, racketeering; in other words, taking money for funds that don’t exist.

What’s WITH this “Supervised Visitation” Racket!?!

Is it to help children, abused or not, their mothers, or their fathers?  Who foots the bill? Who’s made a profession out of the industry?  Whose idea was it?

The systems change artists (there are many) know how to set up systems, and publicize their priorities as in the public interest, when quite often, they simply are not.  For example — when it comes to (for example), “Supervised Visitation” — who has that benefitted?  The children?  The violent or allegedly violent parent?  or the Supervised Visitation providers, collectively?  (again, click on my “Let’s Get Honest” gravatar).

Let’s play Nonprofit Look-up on the “Supervised Visitation Network” (SVN):


Regional Training in Denver this June, only $250 ($200 for members, $100 for Colorado Chapter Members).  After training, attendees will have:

Each training will begin with a brief introduction and overview of the Supervised Visitation Network and the The SVN Standards, The Code of Ethics, SVN Training Requirements,conflict of interest, and confidentiality.   And will be followed by sessions based on the SVN Training Manual:

All Participants will receive modules from the the SVN Training Manual and a CD with copies of the PowerPoint presentations. Attendees will receive a Certificate of Attendance and completed participation will meet approximately 16 hours of training requirements as outlined in the SVN Standards.

All attendees receive full copy of SVN Training Manual ($89 value)
[[Or, to order “a la carte” see here]]:

Beautiful multi-color registration packet -for a different Annual (not “Regional”) conference taking place in CANADA — has checkmarks for “Are you an  OVW Grantee” and “Do you receive Access and Visitation funds?” (an aspect of 1996 welfare reform available as federal grants to the states administered by the HHS, $10m a year to start with).

Repeat until you go into a trance:  “This is not a Ponzi Scheme.” then keep reading.

Yep.  Be assured this isn’t a “Supervised Visitation Over the World” outreach network, and this map of how to reach the world with the good news of SVN (and its trainings) doesn’t exist.  There are not four “domemstic” regions and one international.  This is really just about, as the upcoming Toronto conference says:

“Helping Families, Engaging Communities, Enriching All”

in a

Connecting the Dots

conference, run by a FLORIDA (formerly TENNESSEE, formerly ???) nonprofit (EIN#521831498), to be attended by government agencies (want to bet some from the US?), but held in Ontario, Canada.

Sure it’s not about globalizing a field of practice paid for by taxpayers and to be perpetrated, at-large, upon themselves. [Comment added to clarify where I was being sarcastic, during 2021 re-formatting.//LGH May 31, 2021]

Entrance Fees [membership] to this “enriching all” SVN nonprofit show as $125/individual $175/agency — which means, most likely, a loose term for a nonprofit previously formed anywhere (in the world, but particularly USA or Canada) to avail itself of the created profession of court-ordered services for which public grants exist.

A quick look at the SVN as a Nonprofit: (Shelly LaBotte, David Levy of CRC, Joseph Nullett)

(This next, fairly long section is background-color light-blue [with an sizeable inset box on a Connecticut Supervised Visitation case/white-tan backgrounds] if you want to skip past it.  I wanted that case to be put right next to the conference claims about how this is helping (enriching) families by producing penniless parents, and helping families by switching custody of little boys to men who rape them (Family Preservation???), which in other circumstances and cultures might be recognized outright for what it is — torture of dissident population, (dissenting with harm to their kids) and basic hostage-taking.  But of course, that would never happen in America..

It’s extremely effective, except — I hope — if enough people realize, some have overplayed their collective hand at the game.

(Supervised Visitation Network, Inc. incorporated in Florida in 2007 (not 1991), which street address shows at the bottom of the website).  I looked up the 990, apparently it moved (same EIN#) from Tennessee; they are pulling about $249K of receipts and spending all but about $25K of it. Page1 of tax return says organization began in 1997…The Exec Director of the Florida nonprofit has an $80K salary, so I guess “enriching all” would be an accurate description (if the clients themselves were omitted from the equation).  Looking at the 2010 return (p. 9), I notice $86,845, which leaves $6,845 of public (government) money which did NOT go to Joseph Nullet to run an organization out of Florida which is holding is 2013 Annual Conference in — Toronto.By looking up the EIN# anyone can see that at some point this organization skipped states (common to certain types of organizations).  Apparently from 2003-2007 it was in Tennessee, then 2007-now in Florida.

Pls. Look at the 2004 (Tennessee) tax return of this very modest, unobtrusive corporation, Executive Director “Nancy Fallows.”  On page 1, we see that there is very LITTLE public interest (or at least contributions) to this nonprofit ($215 for the year).  Very roughly speaking, the revenues came FROM “program service revenue (including gov’t fees and contracts) (a VERY relevant category in this particular field) — $76K.  Membership fees:  $36K.  Cost of goods sold $5K.  For where it went? you can check, however don’t miss the best part — the last page listing the officers and directors (p. 13 of 13).  ALthough for 2005-2006 (not 2004) year.  Notably, the 4 OFFICERS are from:  Minnesota, Texas, and two from Canada.  The DIRECTORS include — predictably — what look like visitation centers (very likely taking government money for their services) — and includes SHELLY LaBOTTE of California Judicial Council, AOC in San Francisco and (of course), David Levy of “Childrens Rights Council” (Maryland), whose organization has been pushing the concept idea “access and visitation” since the 1980s.

Of course this is “not” a conflict of interest in that Shelly LaBotte is (and has been for a good while) a public employee (California civil servant) whose job description just so happens to be the Program Contact for the Access and Visitation Grants under PRWORA (which will be funding many of these visitation centers).  See SFExaminer article (“California Judges trash-talking the AOC“) by Bonnie Russell, a person I know who happens to “get” the supervised visitation racket.  However, the judges and AOC have been fighting each other.  She specifically cites LaBotte as resisting oversight of the programs… More, here.

In fact, they are from all over the country (Los Angeles, you name it).  Joe Nullet (future Exec Director) was also apparently running a service also in Jacksonville, FL.  [[just for the heck of it — the TN Co-Exec Directors are Nancy and Randy Fallows (he’s listed as Web & ITS]].  Looking up the street address, Spokeo lists the multi-unit residents average age 70s, N*** Fallowes, R*** Fallowes; house built 1997.  A 2011 company (est income $32K), “Randy’s Web Design” was founded at the same address.

Thought I’d check the TN Corporations search, and we find that the move was intentional — Articles of Dissolution were filed, and the mailing address changed to Florida beforehand.  Rather than showing, here’s the Tennessee Business Info Search link (make sure not to check “active” bcause it isn’t).  Click on “Control#” (the only link) then “History” once the organization shows up.  I can’t tell (and images aren’t uploaded) whether it did, or did not, file its annual report for three years in a row; the heading reads “Annual Report DUE” (2004, 2005, 2006) and in 12/2006 AND 12/2007 a “Notice of Determination” followed (two days later) on 12/05/2007 by “Administrative Amendment [mail address changed, we’re skipping the state]” and next month, 1/11/2008 SVN filed “Articles of Dissolution” with the State of Tennesse. Florida Incorporation (link above) is stamped 11/9/2007.  It basically looks like SVN may have [again, the notation “Annual Report Due” absent any image) thumbed its nose at state corporate laws.

They are not “AR” [[annual report]] exempt.  My initial guess would be, it formed, didn’t file annual reports — ever — was notified they were being terminated (Notice of Determination) — quickly moved the mailing address to Florida (2007) and closed up shop.  That would be also in-character for the organization which eventually, we think, became “AFCC” — as I have detailed, and (elsewhere) Marv Bryer (see yellow box, below) has narrated in detail.  State-skipping.  …. But of course, without my hands on the articles of incorporation (etc.) I don’t know for sure.


Back to Florida to look up the organization the Tennessee-based nonprofit (ie.e, supervised visitation provider)  (as of Tax year 2004) shows the TN-based SVN Network director (one of many) Joseph Nullet affiliated with.

That organization (founded 1993) was “Family Visitation Center,” but changed its name in 2000 to “Family Nurturing Center” and in 2004, Nullet replaced himself (or was replaced) with a Different Exec Director.

I looked up THAT group’s EIN# (597004981) and found that in the past ten years (2002-2012 roughly), it appears to increased its assets by about 175% (i.e., almost tripled its “assets.”  Curious how they did this — I looked at the top return (FY 2011) and noticed that (unlike SVN itself), this Supervised Family Visitation (excuse me, “Nurturing”) Center got more “contributions and grants” ($136K) than it produce Program Service Revnue ($98.7K). Of the $291K gross receipts — $225K of it went into salaries and employee benefits, and $66.1K into “Other.”   Per its website, I’d guess the organization exists ONLY to get referrals from agencies and the family law courts.




A mother in Connecticut recently got seriously stiffed paying to see her son, after her son reported abuse by the father.  To reiterate — the parent who was ordered into supervised visitation, with the help of a $300/hour GAL (now a judge) — was the mother who’s little boy protested being raped.   (Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut/Max Liberti).  He is now living with the father he protested being raped by, and almost everyone in that case has been enriched BUT the child.)

(from guest post 2/28/2013 in The Washington Times / Communities, by Aine Nistiophain).

Understand that when you are sued, you cannot opt out of participating in the legal process, nor can you take your business with the law elsewhere. When Max reported to authorities that his father had raped him, the Judge Munro awarded sole custody of him to his father. Suddenly, Max went from living with his mother full time, to seeing his mother a few hours a week in supervised visitation run by strangers armed with clipboards, then no contact at all.

$1.5 million in litigation fees later, the invoices show that Max himself was probably a stranger to the professionals paid to decide his fate. Perhaps the bills can tell us what Max could not.

In 2010, the court appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Attorney Maureen Murphy to represent Max’s best interests and wishes. Murphy billed at a rate of $300 per hour, collecting over $100,000 in fees from Max’s home,[1] …

Per the court order, Max’s time with his mother was supervised by NJ Sarno, Inc., who billed Max’s mother $105,000 over the course of 16 months.[2]   [[a questionable provider, it goes on to detail]]…

Court transcripts[5] show that from 2010-2011, NJ Sarno, Inc. and Sunny took Max to the ER during visits when he arrived from his father’s with burns, cuts, and bruises on his body, abdominal pains, fever, anal fissures, an infected penis, urinary tract infections, and experiencing a psychotic break.  The supervisor also called Max’s father, who rushed to the hospital to deny any wrongdoing, then filed a motion to end all of Max’s parenting time with his mother.

In February 2011, Judge Munro decided[6] that Sunny was to have no rights to either access Max’s medical records or to seek medical attention for Max. Although the supervisor was a former sanitation worker with no special medical training or knowledge, NJ Sarno alone retained the right to decide Max’s medical care during visits.  Sunny and Max were ordered not to sit together in the car, forbidden to speak about Max’s about life with his father, his medical needs, or any litigation matters. GAL Murphy’s bills do not evidence any meetings with Max around this time.

Instead of asking Max directly what was happening to him, Judge Munro ignored 2 recent psychiatric evaluations and appointed Dr. Kenneth Robson to evaluate Max’s situation.  Robson billed the family at a rate of $350 per hour for a total of $17,163 over the course of 2 months,[7] then appointed other evaluators onto the case at Sunny’s expense.  While Robson never interviewed Max alone, the majority of his billing time was spent talking to over a dozen adults, some of whom had never met Max. . . .

After Sunny received the final judgment, she learned that therapists from Connecticut Resources Group[10], Dr. Howard Krieger[11] and Dr. Sidney Horowitz[12][SEE *** below!]] were involved in her family’s care.

Judge Munro concealed her final orders under the title Jane Doe v. John Roe; Max’s name was changed to pseudonym “Peter,” as if Max himself never existed.[13]  Now penniless, Sunny has unable to purchase a single visit with Max in over a year. This involuntarily severed all of Max’s contact with his mother.  GAL Murphy is now a judge, but Max’s new GAL took no steps to preserve or restore Max’s relationship with his beloved mother.   Given that Max had never been injured in his mother’s care, did Max wish he could have invested the millions diverted to court professionals into a safe home for them to live in, or alternatively purchased bodyguards to keep him safe at his father’s?  [ENDQUOTE}

[*** re: Connecticut Resources Group — I added this link, showing these two providers bio blurbs.  It is obvious at a GLANCE that they are AFCC-style psychologists, (acknowledged in the case of Krieger, read carefully), and engaged as “special masters” at the Special High-Conflict Court set presided over by an especially AFCC-friendly Judge Munro.  The words “High-conflict” ought to be trademarked by AFCC, as they made it up; that would add to the already substantial profits coming membership’s way by having judges as members.It’s my understanding Connecticut Judges that have engaged in this (really, anti-trust, collaborating in how to defraud the public, and parents) practice are about to get spanked by some state-wide Judicial authorities who are, starting to “get” that an increasing sector of the public “gets” what some of their colleagues are up to!!


Yes, “connecting the dots” (more likely connecting with governmental officials with connections to the funding for this field) engaging communities, and “ENRICHING ALL” (who are in on that style of networking).

However annual conference is in Toronto at the end of this month — (coincides with AFCC conference in Los Angeles). Scan the faculty & speakers; I see at least one (California Parenting Institute) which, it says, has a $2.6 million budget and is running Kids Turn Classes.. and Fatherhood Classes, etc.

What most people just don’t seem to get (yet) is that BOTH “fatherhood” and “domestic violence” (or “Family Violence”) prevention are indeed industries; and they do similar things:  Run conferences, train providers, order more services (supervised visitation, batterers intervention, family reunification camps, parent education classes, education of KIDS undergoing divorce — the opportunities are absolutely infinite once this gets in motion).   This can be seen simply by looking.

In order to better collaborate with EACH OTHER, the Supervised Visitation Industry would ensure a constant stream of traumatized children (and their parents) to be needing mental health remediation (because of that abuse, ongoing exposure to the perpetrator, and/or fiscal devastation of one or both parents).  All of these (a factor Byer’s not brought up here, but it exists) are often networked with social services in theirs tate, or federally.  For example, one of the SVN conferences I looked up is working with Massachusetts DCSS on “Nurturing Fathers” programs.

This practice automatically incentivizes psychologists and psychiatrists to get involved in handling the trauma aspect.  While it’s claimed they are “TREATING” the family holistically — the fact is, this very habit is TRAUMATIZING the whole family, generally speaking one partner of which doesn’t seem to mind, as there has been abuse involved to start with, sometimes  more than one generation of it.  There are aspects of this (very troubling ones) which, in my opinion, relate to the same mentality as those who devised, and ran the concentration camps.  Exploit them while analyzing them — and this is for the greater good of the entire country, somehow.  (If I accidentally referred to Hitler, or the Bush dynasty in America, please for give the “Freudian slip.”)

Hence, the “fix the courts” psychology-based groups (which are many, and show up as “advocates” to women and children post-abuse, or during their family court proceedings) — are NOT going to coach ANYONE to step back, say, WAIT a MINUTE!!!” — and look at the billings.  Look at the contracts with the courts.  Look at the nonprofits.  No — they want to raise consciousness and train the judges TOO — like every one else appears to be.

In my opinion, there is no excuse for these dozens (if not hundreds) of multi-state, interdisciplinary, coalition-style networking groups (which, when you get right down to it have perhaps at maximum, FIVE good ideas and a few common patriarchs or matriarchs (gurus, that is) revered above all reason, and the peasants at the “receiving-services” end should shut up and be thankful someone else is even talking about them in a conference.

Fatherhood and Supervised Visitation + VAW =

Grants, Grants, and more Grants.

EXAMPLE: Grant 2004-WT-AX-K046.

DOJ Audited in 2010 and in 2012.  The 2012 audit in particular is interesting and references HOW the nonprofit confronted in 2010 shapeshifted, state-hopped, re-named, and continued to misappropriate the same grant!!!   The moral of the story is about federal grants to nonprofits fascinating with technical assistance and training (i.e., as opposed to actual direct help to victims, either financial or legal).

On-line Publications, Coaching Fathers IN Supervised Visitation and Mothers ABOUT Supervised Visitation (at public expense) results in a scathing 2010 audit of the handling of a particular DOJ/OVW grant: 2004-WT-AX-K046

I linked to just one workshop presenter? from the SVN conference representing “fatherhood” industry (Fernando Mederos).  He is also acknowledged in this 2008 56-page Guide to Grantees (of Supervised Visitation / Safe Havens).  The nonprofit publishing this guide is a MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR one in San Francisco.  It was written by “Juan Carlos Arean with contributions by Fernando Mederos.”

The 56-page-guide itself was the product of a grant from the DOJ:   Grant 2004-WT-AX-KO46, and is called “Working with Fathers In Supervised Visitation.”  Unbelievably a search on the exact same grant number came up with a 17-page guide in coaching MOTHERS with CHILDREN how to submit to the Supervised Visitation regime (MINCAVA).  (Grant acknowledgement is at bottom of page 2 of Supervised Visitation:  Information for Mothers Who Have Experienced Abuse by the Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Googling this grant number JUST one more time (often, three’s a winner), I found an unbelievably (scathing) DOJ/OIG AUDIT report dated 2010 on four grants totalling $16 million to the NDAA (National District Attorneys Association) under various categories — including two under the OVW (Office of Violence Against Women).

This is really not too hard reading; clear print, charts, and words fail me to summarize how many INappropriate things were found on this particular grant, not to mention it and three others were suddenly subject to a “computer crash” of the general (electronic) ledger resulting in lost data.  It was also nailed for under-reporting around $328K of grant expenses on its FSR (Financial Status Reports), for 98 (count ’em, 98) Unapproved expenditures, unsupported salaries, employees approving their own timesheets, Unallowable salaries, you name it.   Really — please — just read it.  These are PUBLIC funds.

Moving on….I found the “Supervised Visitation: Mothers” guide posted at a group fron Idaho, motto “Engaging Voices, Creating Change

and whose “modest” organizational identity and “Statement of Beliefs” purposes include:

Our work is to build the capacity of programs, organizations, and systems through learning communities to provide safe, compassionate, traumainformed, inclusive and accessible services to adolescents and adults and their children exposed to violence and to increase offender accountability.

What We Believe

Inclusive and Diverse All forms of oppression – including but not limited to patriarchy, sexism, racism, ableism, classism, ageism, adultism, heterosexism, and religions oppression – create a culture which enables violence to occur. We value inclusiveness and diversity and believe that the voices and experiences of all human beings are vital in preventing violence.

I think they meant “religious” oppression.  However, I have to go with the Bible’s FAQs on the source of “evil.”

“The love of money is the root of all evil.”

or, quoting the earlier portion of “The Book” “Thou shalt not covet.” (#10 of the 10 Commandments).


So, I decided to take a look:

…The “Idaho Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence” (EIN# 82-0410899) did even better than the Supervised Visitation Network — it quintupled ((from $50K to $250K)) its Assets (not revenue, but what was left over after all is said and done, each year) in not ten — but only SIX years, per “990finder.”

Being curious, I thought I’d see how they did it (like we don’t have a clue already….)  That link is to the 2008 tax return.  THIS group doesn’t even screw around with producing any “Program Service Revenue” — or membership fees.  They simply go for the “contributions and grants” (almost $2million) and then spend it, for the public benefit called “Educate the Public About Domestic Violence.”

The Formula:  $1.9million income – [$0.6 million Salaries + $1.32million “Other Expenses”) =  $36K IN THE HOLE (I could have fed, educated, housed, transported, and clothed my kids, even in a high-rent area (which I’m thinking Boise probably isn’t?) more than adequately on what they LOST. So who would keep contributing to an organization that squanders money like that (you have to read the return to believe it…)?

Well, from HHS, so far:  Look it up!
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards

One of the directors (on a tax return I looked at) was “Kelly Miller-Pluckebaum” receiving a nice legal advisor salary of $104K.

Apparently she has a son? or relative “Hunter Pluckebaum” who as a teen went to Washington, and “Kelly Miller” wrote an article thanking Obama for signing the VAWA again (Don’t quote me on that one, search yourself).  Elsewhere she was signing (among a cast of thousands) a Change.org petition sponsored by the Democratic National Campaign ?? saying “STOP THE GOP WAR ON WOMEN!” with several thousand signatures (there’s no search function, so I didn’t scroll through to find this woman’s).

I find that odd, because the HHS-funded organization above is CLEARLY associated with a Family Justice Center (see below), which alliance is known to be (at least by people who do some of their homework) sponsored by the very GOP former President George Bush in the “family justice initiative” founded first in San Diego by the very republican City Attorney, Casey Gwinn.  I guess it’s OK to play both sides of the fence when it comes to accepting and collaborating with GOP-initiated public funds to save the world from the GOP, and programs with an utterly clear faith-based component while educating the public about stopping violence by stopping “religions oppression.”

There are other anti-violence nonprofits in Idaho (including one identified as one of its partners, i.e., a “Family Justice Center” in Nampa, ID (EIN# 264423289).

Remind me to look up more DOJ audits of grants to national nonprofits composed of public servants, like that 94-page one above, of $16 million of awards to the National District Attorneys Association:  (BOARD)

(I just scanned the JUSTICE.gov/OIG grants under “OVW” (office of Violence Against Women) (the link is in VERY, very tiny fine print at the VERY VERY bottom right of the Department of Justice’s Website.  It belongs closer to the top!    I decided to look at an audit of PCAR (Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape) and found a 2012 audit which referred to the 2010 audit above.  It turns out the the group AEQUITAS (see p. 2) was formerly American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) funded under NDAA — however APRI officials decided to reform under a former NDAA partner, “PCAR” and start up Aequitas.  Specific reference to the exact same grant was made.  They were caught in the act of having been caught previously (in scamming the public), and simply jumped fiscal agents (I guess) from NDAA to PCAR — and started up again, under a new name.  Here’s the Audit.

Sample DOJ/OVW recipient behavior:  From APRI under NDAA, it becomes PCAR (cooperative with NDAA) and Aequitas.  Aequitas then seeks another cooperative arrangement with a 2009-formed organization, APA (Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, see below).  WHAT ABOUT THE PUBLIC’s wish to know where its money is being sent, in a clear fashion?

These groups are heavily into technical assistance and training also:  AEQUITAS web page doesn’t have a “donate” tab — because it’s a project of PCAR (Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape) — see very bottom of their web page for “Aequitas” link.

They are based in Washington, D.C (see bottom of page). while being a project of “PCAR.”  They also take money from Battered Women’s Justice Project. (see “Staff/Rhonda J. Martinson, etc.).   Aequitas now sports a page showing they are doing a cooperative arrangement with a Virginia nonprofit, “Association of Prosecuting Attorneys” EIN# 263117485, which was only formed in 2009.  Interesting timing — as that 2010 audit was finding mis-handling of funds from that grant by APRI.

Technical Assistance/Prosecution Assistance

NDAA serves as a nationwide, interdisciplinary resource center for research, training, and prosecution (or technical) assistance. NDAA’s core competencies include knowledge building, training and technical assistance. NDAA responds to hundreds of requests for technical assistance each month via telephone, mail, e-mail, fax, and the Web site. How can we help you?

NDAA has committees with the following titles and responsibilities: Audit, Crime Control, Ethics and Services, Finance, Juvenile Justice and Family Law, Legislation, Membership, Metropolitan Prosecutors, National, Nominating, Science and Technology Committee, Media and Communications, Corrections and Reentry, and Victims. NDAA is located in Alexandria, Virginia.

(POINT:  Public funds are distributed to this nationwide nonprofit, various grants.  The DOJ audited the grants and found a lot of trouble in 2010.  A Tax return for 2010 shows what they are doing.

So:  The Federal Government has the Funds.  (See “CAFRs/income tax, investment on returns, eminent domain, etc.).  The DOJ/OVW (formerly headed up by a family court judge, Susan B. Carbon, courtesy Pres. Obama, in 2009) administers millions of $ of federal grants — and the grantees are sometimes PUBLIC officials’ NONPROFIT associations.  Those nonprofits, obviously (if legitimate) have budgets — income, expenses, revenue, depreciation.  Often they have employees, and conference, etc. expenses; including travel, hotel, publications (which they then sell) and help influence policy to create professions.  The public funds this unknowingly, more than half the time, and the DOJ/OIG — when it gets around to sample audits — doesn’t appear to have teeth, although no doubt all employees and materials for the audits are also public expenses.

Apparently no one gives a crap about the taxpayer in all of this.  That’s what we give for giving the US Government too much money, too much privacy (freedom of operation), too much of “the benefit of the doubt” when anything in the public’s welfare is on the agenda —  and not enough FOIA requests or, as it was noted back in 1997 — Common Law Discovery involving bank accounts, bar associations, and superior courts.

Just an Idea:

Here’s how we could stop, or at least reduce! domestic violence, including homicides, and child abuse, including molestation, and AVOID inducing life-long trauma and related disabilities (physical and psychological), especially against women and boys and girls, at least when it’s already come from men who can’t be trusted without supervised visitation to see their own children. And that is:  Separation.  There’s a standard.  If someone cannot meet the standard of “don’t assault”  or “don’t molest”– then they don’t visit. I believe men and women are fast learners when they choose to.

Here’s how — instead — the public employees (including esteemed judges, psychologist and attorneys; esteemed by each other at least…) and those on the federal grants faucet chose instead to “stop” it:
~Collaborate (alternate word:  “conspired”) to form hybrid centralized courts where the language of “right and wrong” is altered to the language of collectivism:   the “family.”
~Create specialized “problem-solving” practices, courts, procedures,
~and finally laws mandating the same —  to handle “domestic violence (which is a misdemeanor or felony under civil or penal codes)
~to persuade EVERYONE involved it’s not dangerous, it’s just a dispute, and anyone who disagrees will be diagnosed with a “conflict” disorder (or PAS), forced into therapy, and made a public example of.  Said dissidents will be marginalized and deprived of basic human rights.  The public will be made co-conspirators by funding it, and incited to get angry at the marginalized and dissidents for becoming a burden to society.

Just another idea, mine:

Another way to have fewer pissed-off fathers around [possibly reducing the violence]] is quit stealing their dollars to start with! by shutting down any, and all, money-laundering and otherwise financial fraud — in the public sector, specifically the JUDICIAL sector.   This would also definitely slow down epidemic of burgeoning mental health industry, which profits from more and more social trauma and turmoil.

I am referring part to the larger truth that the collective governments have, not on their budgets, but under their control, enough wealth to spin off profits enough to provide ALL social services (including possibly even the ones we don’t need, although why not ditch those?) without taxing anyone (speaking of income tax) again.  This is the law of positive ROI.  See Walter Burien et al. (cafr1.com).  Et al. means, we are gradually catching on to the scam.

One reason I added the Supervised Visitation (section) above is that in the Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption article (= a sticky post) — one of the topics is ***payment for the trainings to become such a provider *** (actually I see it’s re: CLE seminars — but elsewhere on this same topic, Bryer did note the trainings. I’ll find & link to it, of you can search “Judges Slush Fund, Insight Magazine” and probably find it.

Again…check it out ….

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery

I also recently learned that this “Antishyster” guy has a good summary of “The Nature of Money” on addressing the issue of CAFRs and quoting Burien. This 2009 publication of some 2002? stuff is presented in easy to read chapters, and I look forward to printing it out and particularly reviewing pp. 159ff on the CAFRs. It looks like a good basic overview. I have no idea who “Adam Adask” is, whose name is on it.

12 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

    • Encourage all girls, Kindergarten – college, to participate in
      scholastic wrestling, the number one hand-to-hand martial
      art in the world, thus negating gender size difference
      advantage. Also replace in all US family courts the barbaric,
      adversarial system of justice with a non-adversarial system,
      as they did in England and Wales, the new system comprising
      inter-parent communication and mediation, group mediation,
      extended-family mediation, parent-school mediation and
      parents-supervisors mediation. No exceptions, because
      family litigation is in all cases more harmful and violence-
      inducing than mediation. If there is a violent crime, that
      goes to a criminal court, not a family court. Get rid of the
      ex parte part of protection orders, and replace that with
      mediation if there are children involved. Exclude family
      lawyers retained by parents from the mediation
      processes (because their fees = inter-parent conflict, in
      direct ratio to harm family litigation causes to children
      and their parents). Modify the role of non-parent
      “experts” in family cases, if they are permitted to be in
      a case, to neutral fact-finder, not ultimate determiner
      (a recipe for corruption/chaos). Accord biologic parents equal
      rights and joint custody in all dissolution cases absent some
      major one in a hundred aberration. These steps will vastly
      reduce domestic violence, homicide and suicide in the US,
      and protect the health and safety of US children and their

      Barbara Franklin

      August 16, 2015 at 7:40 am

      • [Revised] Encourage all girls, Kindergarten – College, to participate
        in scholastic wrestling, which is the best form of self-defense among
        hand-to-hand martial arts in the world. This will help negate gender
        size differences as a factor in domestic relations. Recognize
        that men and women are equally abusive and violent as humans
        for starters. Firmly replace in all US family courts the barbaric,
        adversarial system of justice with a non-adversarial system,
        as they did in England and Wales, the new system comprising
        inter-parent communication and mediation, group mediation,
        extended-family mediation, parent-school mediation and
        parents-supervisors mediation. No exceptions, because
        family litigation is in all cases more harmful and violence-
        inducing than mediation. If there is a violent crime, that
        goes to a criminal court, not a family court. Abolish the
        “ex parte” part of protection orders in all courts, especially
        if the ex parte remedies would affect children. This goes
        against the core principles of our legal system. Exclude family
        lawyers retained by parents from the mediation processes
        (because their fees = inter-parent conflict, are in
        direct proportion to harm, violence and financial devastation
        family litigation causes children and their parents). Modify the
        role of non-parent “experts” in family cases, if permitted at all,
        to neutral fact-gatherer, not ultimate determiner or decider
        (a recipe for corruption/chaos). Accord biologic parents equal
        rights and joint custody in all dissolution cases absent some
        major one in a hundred aberration. These steps will vastly
        reduce domestic violence, homicide and suicide in the US,
        and protect the health, safety and welfare of US children
        and their parents involved in family courts..

        Barbara Franklin

        August 16, 2015 at 8:09 am

      • I’m not so active posting on this blog recently, but if you were going to pick a post to talk about, and show you haven’t comprehended (the economic impact of supervised visitation — see title) — at all — this one on supervised visitation would sure be a good one. I don’t think you heard what I was saying, but it was a good place to post; someone else might. Re:

        Also replace in all US family courts the barbaric, adversarial system of justice with a non-adversarial system, as they did in England and Wales, the new system comprising inter-parent communication and mediation, group mediation, extended-family mediation, parent-school mediation and parents-supervisors mediation. No exceptions, because family litigation is in all cases more harmful and violence- inducing than mediation. If there is a violent crime, that goes to a criminal court, not a family court. Get rid of the ex parte part of protection orders, and replace that with mediation if there are children involved.

        My reply below is written quickly, not carefully, and not intended to be thorough. The paragraphs are not in a particular order, but each has something to say. (The blog, and others) is thorough enough and obviously where I put more effort. However, other than the first two-syllable response which came to mind based on the prior research, here’s an alternative response:

        You sound like a mediator. Go read my post on how mandatory mediation, and professionalizing this diversion of justice into private hands was set up in California, statewide. (CDRI, CDRC are in the title). Acknowledge, please that since 1996 (actually, in smaller amounts 1988) Access and Visitation Grants were set up as part of PRWORA (1996 welfare reform), which most women are NOT informed of if they walk into, or are dragged into, the courts — to set up, fiscally, and officially, the specific fields through which such profiteering could take place in association with any presiding judge. Admit also that further, marriage/fatherhood promotion at a much large scale was taking place, particularly in the field of Title IV-D (under Office of Child Support Enforcement), and again, as part of “welfare reform” passed in 1996 under President Clinton (but a Republican controlled Congress), after which we now have it further “amped up” under (2001ff, by Executive Order), “faith-based” initiatives. I have actually explored grants, grantees, and the programs they are running, for profit, and at public expense, in order to help reduce reliance on welfare, heal relationships, provide stability for children, etc. Great causes hiding significant wrongs.

        How about yourself?
        Do you blog? I see no website. Can you break it down, or argue this point in terms of any evidence, or coherently, or have you elsewhere? Feel free to submit a link. Other than this, I’m going to approve the comment: every one is entitled to his or her opinion, whether or not it may be (as I feel this one is, in the overall context) — well I don’t print some two-syllable words on this post, but it is 8 letters total and associated with bovines.

        If you read the rest of my “sticky posts,” the sidebar, or the table of contents, you will see my focus is on the court-connected corporations, groups like AFCC (and “partners” — listed on their website) with forced consumption of services at the public expense.

        What’s going on in England and Wales has a too-close connection with nonprofit, professional trade associations, and specific individuals in them. ICCFR (International Commission on Couples and Family Relationships). Scroll through the board, you’ll find Suze Thorn, Esq. a SF family lawyer:

        Notice the connection was mde in 1993, right during the “family values” wars involving a radical restructuring of the Federal/State Budget and with it, relationships (i.e., block grants to the states, “TANF”) and all the social science assumptions/presumptions it was based on. During this period, I was unaware, and busy surviving in-home assault-and-battery (and what goes with this) as a married mother of two young, growing girls. I was also, unfortunately, unaware because the people I had contact with didn’t see fit to talk, or were themselves unaware, of the 1994 passage of the VAWA act.

        Suzie Thorn Suzie S Thorn (USA) is a prominent matrimonial lawyer in San Francisco. She is President of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Foundation, of the Suzie S Thorn Family Foundation, and of Schapiro-Thorn Inc. Her initial contact with ICCFR resulted from liaison between the Commission and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in 1993. She became a Board member in 1995. She was the innovative founder of the ICCFR Trust of which she is now a trustee.


        Also having migrated, long ago, FROM England, is the concept of the courts as a forum for introducing as many mental health professionals as possible into any family law case, and subjecting the whole family, where possible (and specifically if family wealth has been identified) to group treatment (if no family wealth is available, and social services (i.e., welfare-related) involvement already exists, then it’s “game over” for most competent, law-abiding mothers, and particularly any who reported and did something about the domestic violence that may have broken the relationship to start with.

        In that regard, the AFCC and some of its members having made international connections (through their corporation, with a –also of interest– speckled, to say the least, history of actually staying legally registered as a corporation — they claim since 1963, but since 1975 in Illinois seems a more honest date of origin), center are set up at schools of law to promote the therapeutic model by setting up Unified Family Courts to do it in:

        Sara and Neil Meyerhoff Center for Families and Children in the Courts was set up by Barbara Babb (see C.V., not just the blurb — appears to be an AFCC groupie, though obviously academically qualified (Cornell).

        Founded in 2000 by University of Baltimore Associate Professor Barbara Babb, the Sayra and Neil Meyerhoff Center for Families, Children and the Courts is a national leader in promoting the concept of a Unified Family Court system to resolve family conflicts in a therapeutic, ecological, and service-based manner.

        The site says, Ms. Babb recently got the Stanley Cohen award from AFCC, well deserved, as she’s been promoting the AFCC model for family law, and means to enact it (regardless of no serious grassroots demand; in fact, even setting up the family law division in (Maryland/Baltimore included) couldn’t get past the legislature and had to be made through a deal cut with a well-known (deservedly) Chief Justice Bell) through setting up jurisdiction-grabbing Unified Family Court docket. Get an AFCC judge in there, “game over” for people who don’t subscribe to the “theology.”

        Professor Barbara A. Babb, CFCC’s Founder and Director, has just received the 2015 Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award, a prestigious honor conferred by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). The award, given out at AFCC’s annual meeting in New Orleans, recognizes outstanding research and achievements in family law. Professor Babb was selected for her long career of scholarship and activism to improve the family justice system, including the design and promotion of an interdisciplinary approach to family law decision-making and family court reform. AFCC is an interdisciplinary, international association with more than 5,000 members. The award is named after one of AFCC’s founders.

        And here’s the CV of the co-director of the CFCC, and has been there a LONG time mentoring and training fresh law students coming through what is a public (public-supported) university, as I understand it, the UBaltimore, and with it the School of Law, and with that, this “Center,” is part of the Maryland system. If systems-change is wanted where the financing is harder to track, “Centers” at law schools and other university departments are a great mechanism.

        The other faculty member Ms. Babb seems to be working alongside is Gloria Danziger. One look at her (pristine, very reputable institutions) C.V. does show BA and MA in the UK, and from there to Washington, D.C. area — Georgetown, for a J.D. I should point out that Georgetown IS Jesuit, which does inculcate a certain world view (Jesuits are the largest male-only order in the Catholic Church), and that AFCC lists among its Collaborative Partners (on their “about us”) page, at least three university centers which just so happen to be Jesuit, too.
        They do not list, although one promoter of mediation/conciliation services in California has been prominent, University of San Francisco (also Jesuit). Must be a coincidence.

        Faculty Profile, Gloria Danziger (UBaltimore)
        J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1986
        M.Phil., Oxford University (St. Hugh’s College), 1978
        B.A. (honors), London University (King’s College), 1976
        Curriculum Vitae (active on the above link).

        Since 2002 (over a dozen years in this position)

        Center on Families, Children and the Courts, University of Baltimore School of Law, Baltimore, MD, 2002-present Senior Fellow
         Research and evaluate juvenile justice programs, health and human services for families and children in the justice system, and community outreach programs in the justice system
         Project Director, Truancy Court Program, working with state and local agencies and courts to address truancy and education issues.
         Develop conferences, workshops, and seminars for policymakers and family court judges and staff on justice system approaches to problems of children and families
         Supervise consultants and research assistants  Teach “Center on Families, Children and the Courts” Student Fellows
        Program for second and third year law school students
         Direct and raise funds for local, state, and national justice system reform projects
         Project Manager, Addiction/Substance Abuse conference for family/juvenile courts

        No offense to the UK, but aligning our justice systems with those in the USA is a conflict of interest, and adversarial purpose itself, which is not in accord with some fundamental concepts in this country with whom (a while ago, remember?) a War for Independence. For example, we do not have a Monarch who is also considered the head of a National religion, we do not grant (outside the religious field, where people seem prone to go get some otherwise) as a nation, titles of nobility, and much more. etc.
        This comment may (but probably will not) be revised. Hope it introduced some other ideas into your total solution for reducing domestic violence, suicide (FYI, there’s been one in our family) and homicide (I live in a metropolitan area, and have been close witness and been aware of too many of these over the years), and other problems of the world — like dissidents.
        Thank you for your comments (original and revised). Sorry I don’t have more time for this debate unless you can come up with something showing you have processed and understand what you’ve summarized above.

        Note: I am STILL dealing with the aftermath of three rounds of “mediation,” with the same person and it’s been more than a dozen years since I understood that the purpose under which mediation is sold is BS. Not only mediation, but the family courts themselves, and the psychological/relationship-based framework under which they are solving the “problem” of parental conflict is so close to the way most abusers solve “conflict” — by slamming a parent (often female) to the ground, economically and psychologically, for protesting abuse in the first place.

        Would you like to identify your status (not necessary to personally identify) in this commentary — and any personal experience you may have as mother, ex-wife, stepmother, or second wife, etc., which would lead to this commentary on how more mediation might help spare children because “adversarial justice” is bad?

        For example, there’s a former Secretary of Commerce (under GWBush), and staff assistant under Nixon (1970s) known for promoting women, but I doubt she has time for blogs like mine:

        The Honorable Barbara Hackman Franklin

        Barbara Hackman Franklin is President and Chief Executive Officer of Barbara Franklin Enterprises, a private international consulting firm headquartered in Washington, DC. She is an advocate for and adviser to American companies doing business in international markets, notably China, and is an expert on corporate governance, auditing, and financial reporting practices.

        As the 29th U.S. Secretary of Commerce for President George H.W. Bush …

        Altogether, Franklin has served five U.S. Presidents and, in 2006, received the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service.

        In the private sector Franklin has served on the boards of directors of 14 public companies and four private companies, and is currently a board member of Aetna Inc. and Pathway Genomics, a trustee of a cluster of American Funds, and a member of the Lafarge International Advisory Board, Paris, France


        There are many women in prominent positions these days. HOWEVER, when it comes to the family law system, this is a system which can be pointed, like a weapon, at any individual and is primed to “take them out” in a variety of ways — including permanently by forced, and ongoing involvements with a violent spouse. The model I’m seeing is closer to RICO (Planned, legalized, legitimized racketeering posing as, like it’s said, “therapeutic jurisprudence.” That’s the essence of family law, along with the partnering of psychology/social science & law. This was accomplished and set up NOT through honest representative government, but in places the average person wouldn’t think to look — and that’s no accident.

        Nonadversarial: The term has been flying around for decades… Just one example (random search):

        Let's Get Honest

        August 16, 2015 at 1:39 pm

  1. […] as Parent” comes from Batterers Intervention Programs, which are now an industry, as is Supervised Visitation. These programs are nonprofit, involve judges, involve conferences, involve major public grants […]

  2. […] “SVNetwork” having been a group I’ve reported on (Why Supervised Visitation (per se) Sucks — Federal Millions, that is/June 6, 2013), plenty, also January 2013, “STILL Too Hot to Touch with a Ten-Foot Pole? Supervised […]

  3. […] have several posts.  Try this one from June, 2013, "Supervised Visitation Sucks (Federal Millions) Don't let the title mislead — this is about an audit of certain grant that found SIGNIFICANT […]

  4. […] sponsored it; I would run across some audit of the grant.  And, write it up.  Example:  “Supervised Visitation Sucks — Federal Millions” (audit of doj-grant-2004-wx-at-k046, but my original interest was why were fatherhood and […]

  5. I admit that I gave up about halfway through this post. Clearly your efforts to trace the money trail are very impressive. You put the fiscal abuse in plain view by showing how federal grant money gets redistributed without accountability (i.e. stolen). However, I am not sure I understand your bottom line. If spouse A gets full custody and does not comply with the visitation schedule (as most people probably don’t), then spouse B can work through the courts to get supervised visitation. While this system has infinite flaws, the alternative to supervised visits is no visits – which is what happened to you. Spouse A took the child and ran.
    I certainly agree that if spouse A raped their child, that traumatized child should never have to see spouse A again. So are you really commenting that the family court system protects the perceived rights of abusers over the rights of the rest of the family?
    Could you please explain this some more, because I believe that you are trying to say something important?


    November 18, 2014 at 5:58 pm

    • I am having major browser issues for some weeks. I saw your blog (good writing!), and am considering if you want to converse (genuine interest in the subject matter) I can do Q&A by phone perhaps better. I have confidentiality issues also, however, recently went public to deal with a sibling; his situation is now in probate court (!!). Often abuse is related to economic exploitation, individual, but also national. Abuse is not just for psychological thrill and “fun and games” for the abusers, it is for profit. The disturbing reality is, this is now woven into the entire fabric of our culture, including the courts.
      – – – – – What I do, I began pulling on threads, for example tracking individual court-connected corporations, noticing the associations, and eventually was able to see enough of the pattern to back up to a birds-eye view (sic), so to speak, and identify the most prominent pattern throughout the tapestry as the profit motive, and a number of coordinated elements to transfer children as income-producing “assets” (little social security numbers and billables) in the welfare system assets and income-producing businesses, when there is a CLEAR choice of “good” (non-abusive, working and/or court-order compliant) vs. “bad” (abusive, law-breaking) parent, the child goes to the bad parent so the good one will spend money (if any privately available) to get them back, and possibly call into play more court-appointed professionals, such as GALs.

      RE: “You put the fiscal abuse in plain view by showing how federal grant money gets redistributed without accountability (i.e. stolen). However, I am not sure I understand your bottom line.”

      That is the bottom line! It is facilitating (not that all do this, but it facilitates the process) theft of public funds dressed up as protecting children, based on the premise that fatherlessness is a social scourge, therefore better SUPERVISED visitation, even after rape or other abuse, or threats to kill, or violent behavior, etc., than NO visitation. Federal funds for this seem to come from basically two federal sources, HHS (through “Access/Visitation, which is sourced from OCSE, Child Support enforcement sector) and DOJ (through Safe Havens)….
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
      RE: “I certainly agree that if spouse A raped their child, that traumatized child should never have to see spouse A again”: — The US government, Congress (which votes on the budget appropriations) and state governments, including the state family court systems, do not agree. Now that systems are in place and networked through their nonprofit trade associations (Supervised Visitation Network, last I heard, in Florida, and/or the batterers intervention programs, for example see “BISC-MI” (google), careers, or at least good supplemental income, in these professions attracts people to them, entrance fees (sit through the trainings) are paid — which go, sometimes, who knows where? (some organizations are religious-exempt from showing tax returns to the public), and what’s more, this system can and is then sometimes pointed at the non-abusive parent, i.e., nonviolent mothers have been forced to pay to see their children; it is basic extortion. Their “crime,” perhaps alienation, perhaps reporting abuse of some sort.
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
      RE: “So are you really commenting that the family court system protects the perceived rights of abusers over the rights of the rest of the family?
      Could you please explain this some more, because I believe that you are trying to say something important?”

      _ _ _ I’ll let you figure this out, I believe I have already said it. However, my focus is not on “the abusers” but on the programming, and the economics (system setups) which ensure continuing generations of children will indeed either not protest abuse or protest it and be kept subject to it, while millions of $$ go to organizations supposedly stopping it. See table of contents (list of posts) at top of this blog and find the one with “Ten-Foot Pole” in the title. I believe around December 2013 I was writing more on specific organizations.
      – – – – –
      I understand not making it through my posts (many people don’t). That’s OK, I’m calling attention to certain issues and I want the system changed, absolutely. Analysis of that system as not being confined to the courts, but being a commercial operation, is important. The basic concept, keeping the conflict going (churning the cases) and paying people to reduce family conflict (see afccnet.org motto), and having the public foot the bill, plus private individuals, plus lobbyist groups which form up as nonprofits so they can take corporate AND government grant donations, etc.
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
      I believe if you look at several examples close enough (obviously you’re a reader), you can figure this out. It’s just a different angle of approach. Do not assume that existing services are all in place for altruistic reasons only; whether run through the courts (gov’t, which is supported by IRS revenues, right?) or nonprofits contracting with the courts, business IS business. And indifferent sectors, it matters whether a mother or a father is involved, but collectively, whenever there are “goods in transition” (goods sometimes meaning kids), someone is paying, and someone is being paid.

      Last comment on this a group in Duluth, MN (Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, “DAIP” or sometimes called Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” // Ellen Pence as a founding force out of the battered women’s movement) was formed ca. 1980 — they are “abuse prevention” but a look at the programming and tax returns shows they are running a family visitation center and training; they sponsored for years (until it recently split off as a separate EIN# and nonprofit), “Battered Women’s Justice Project,” “BWJP” which targeted their consulting work towards STOP grantees, in other words, DAIP is primarily government grants funded, and when you get right down to it, a whole lot of money is being circulated from system to system as if independently– when in fact, much of it is completely dependent on compliant and dutiful public assuming that these services actually get help to their designated target needy clientele. In fact, it’s supporting an industry that manages to kick cases, and people with them, to the curb, or simply down the road apiece. DV industry helps get protection orders, family court-based industries (plural) help get them stripped off, forcing people back into dependency and trauma (as happened to me and plenty of others), to the confusion of their friends and neighbors, “what happened?”, and leaving them, if still alive, often worse off for the rest of their lives.
      “BWJP” plays both sides of this equation, as they are considered and listed as an AFCC “partner” (I know that’s a lot of group names, but these are some significant ones). I say, the public is being played through ignorance of how this works.

      If this has been helpful and you feel so inclined, please sign my petition page. Search “Tell Jean Pfann” and it will come up. I’m not Jean, I’m the 3rd Pfann daughter (but go by my married name), and this is what can happen when a family turns on those exiting domestic violence, and goes after the kids. My work life was destroyed attempting to protect /regain contact with my children and one daughter has been hit particularly hard; the other one played it closer to the ropes and is now a working college graduate (living with my older sister who, imho, is simply extorting me into silence over the family history). I see from your blog that you get this thing about, only room for one “good” child in the family and someone has to be the bad guy, the child called it — and the word “child” doesn’t restrict itself to minors. I have good cause to believe that my own family court battle, which this household played a part in, possibly inciting, but definitely taking the opposing side on, may have been started as a strategy to eliminate me as credible and self-sufficient for an excuse to take control of funds I didn’t know existed, and was too busy fighting for air to think about year after year. Thanks for your ear so far. [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/167/243/583/]

      Let's Get Honest

      November 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm

      • Thank you. That makes it more clear.


        November 20, 2014 at 2:38 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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: