My Sidebar Summary, in all its Conversational, Linked “Glory.”
I am in the process of clearing up and cleaning up (which may mean simply POSTING) information on my blog. the format is often largely Soundoff, but will at least show that I’ve looked up before I laughed out loud, and have taken time to come to my own conclusions, over the years — and as a person meanwhile dealing with both the aftereffects of and various other forms of ongoing trauma, and some threats (such as stalking) such as happens to people who are bounced from DV protection into Custody Battles (which, FYI, is the business plan)…..
This text used to be on the sidebar, meaning it was written in one long chain of paragraphs, viewed three vertical inches at a time. It has now been replaced by almost as much sidebar material (oh well). It does cover significant topics of the blog, as a boat trip down a river will reveal many aspects of the countryside as you pass by — for an overview. However it’s only when someone gets off (reads in the links, considers, or processes) the information, that it will start to make some sense). I am intentionally covering plenty of territory, with periodic links — to introduce the concepts. While this may seem like a meandering trip down a river, in fact, it should demonstrate which Creek we are up, and without a paddle, either. Or should I say, with not enough people paddling forcefully in the direction of land, or even against the current.
Jump in somewhere, or consider it a two-inch wallpaper border to the posts. I write on (and on, and on), am opinionated, but post links to some basis for those opinons, and am consistently sowing certain information on-line that certain groups chose (and I also can back up that evaluation) to cover up. Reason demanded a reason for (and a short history of) how these courts came to be, and from under which rock did they crawl?
Most of us don’t have $139 to spare for an ebook of “Problem-Solving Courts, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Mainstreaming,” (preview of the 13 chapters here) apparently this wasn’t intended for the parents, themselves, many of who are struggling in the courts, or to feed and raise kids, or continue to house themselves simultaneous with family court cases which refuse to close until all the family and extended family assets are drained, and enough problem-solvers have got a piece of the pie… They publish while we perish…
The book grows out of a live conference where legal, social science, and philosophical dimensions of problem-solving courts—and of the ‘new judging’—were grappled with by an impressive and accomplished group of scholars. [published by two from UNL dept. of psychology/Sept. 2012, Puerto Rico].
Back up 20 years, and hear Meyer Elkin (interviewed Feb. 1994) (short version: obituary 1994) describe how he got involved with the Conciliation Court model in Los Angeles, after time doing group therapy modeled in Alcoholics Anonymous in a Tucson? or at least Arizona prison. Or quoted by the organization he helped (it wasn’t a solo job) found saying in 1975 that the language of criminal law needed to go, and be replaced by the language of behavioral health; after all, aren’t we all on the same page?).
No we are not. Language reflects values. Great to have a diversity of languages, but if there’s one I wouldn’t want to reign supreme, it would be behavioral health definitions. That’s asking for what we got –an Archipelago of ways to force kids and their parents into therapy, before, during AND after driving them nuts by refusing to admit, upfront, your courtroom doesn’t believe that a pattern of criminal behavior by one of the parents is a serious custody issue. AFTER they were assured (in a different courtroom singing a different tune) that it DOES matter. I call that more than a little devious. I didn’t have children for them to become someone else’s government-funded social science research project, while we were forced to scramble to work inbetween one kind or another of assaults, and ongoing stalking events.
That’s one reason I continued to assert my right to talking about the courts as a social phenomenon and the behaviors of their zealots (the place IS full of zealots) as a sort of invasive species in the landscape, one to stay aware of, particularly when part of the deal is the child-snatching habit.
The detached arrogance and academic tone when talking about real people, some of who really end up dead as a direct consequence of complying with court-ordered visitation, or attempting to completely separate without literally abandoning children (a war zone situation) — offends me. The “subject-object” relationship rather than the human being/human being relationship. Two can engage in that tone, so many times, I also do.
Apart from this, it’s been a tough journey I hope has made me tougher; I know it’s made me more activist and informed on these matters. It has also been costly (in time). I doubt I will ever accept much “status quo” anymore. The mainstreaming of psychology and behavioral health matters into America (and the courts role in this) has its background in refusal to face certain other issues, like the habit of war, and even the origins of the pharmaceutical industries themselves. These are deep issues indeed.
I hope my writing will also encourage some people who have been subjected to long-standing attempts to break their spirit, or fragment their personality (direct aggressions) to get to a better, or more integrated, understanding of what’s been happening here.
People who’ve lived with long-term violence understand, it’s a chronic attempt to dominate and break down sense of self — (crazymaking is involved), and if not just for fun, sometimes for profit. To stand “right side up” requires not just picking a cause to follow, or finding other wounded families who speak like you, but knowing where up and down ARE, and to ACTIVELY seek out information that can show (faster) right from wrong, true from false, and will frame the question in more objective terms.
I recommend the economic corporate terms because — for one, I think those are the drivers.
But for another, with some tools, organizing principles for making decisions, and with a lot more data, you don’t have to go around memorizing every else’s horror stories, or keeping long lists of “who’s naughty and who’s nice” among professionals. You will probably be more helpful to others also. Intellectual and emotional dependency is not good; people who’ve been in situations where others didn’t respect boundaries; MANY groups depend on your not finding and establishing them again. It takes work. The first territory to establish (and one you probably have most control to affect) really is within. While doing this and (afterwards), in my experience, you then have to face down people who prefer you under-informed and dependent on others, or in some fashion susceptible to their influence.. (traumatized, or angered, but without a clear head, or best yet — CONFUSED, at which point people are very suggestible).
Read this short piece: “The hypnotic art of confusion.” “No less an authority then Dr Milton Erickson, perhaps the greatest hypnotist who ever lived, believed that few things could capture the attention so well as confusion. And he was right…” “We are all dependent on our ability to decipher meaning from what happens to us and from what people say. When people are confused, their awareness turns inwards in a search for understanding – or escape. ” “Being confused is like drowning in a sea of communication. You will grab onto anything that will keep you afloat. Any words or phrases that you can make sense of in the maelstrom are likely to affect you more strongly than usual – so if these words can be inter-preted as suggestions, this is probably how you will respond to them. This is a rule of human nature.”…[endquote].
Milton H. Erickson Foundation is in Arizona, and has a strong overlap with martial and other therapists, including an advocate of Brief Intermittent Therapy (for a lifetime), Nicholas Cummings, a champion (along with groups like AFCC) of making sure that his profession (psychologists) never ran out of clients, or funding.
Keeping in mind that the field Milton H. Erickson specialized in, and that Cummings (above) has indeed been associated (as are many people in the fields of trauma therapy, and who often head to help children and parents recover from the trauma of abuse or violence) — includes hypnosis, which is the putting of people into a trance so that they can help heal themselves (?) or at least become more suggestible. There’s an art to it as well, and we are indeed in this territory.
Keeping in mind that parents who just lost, or are being threatened with loss, of contact with minor children who they believe (and/or evidence has been on the record) have been molested, or are at serious risk with the other parent, not to mention we who have had the other parent previously physically attacking and periodically threatening to kill us (in association with the attacks) — those people are very much subject to suggestibility. There is a temptation to inappropriate bonding, and suggestibility to key phrases. As in, “58,000 children a year” or …”Fix Broken Family Courts.”
[I challenged people to make up their minds: Family Courts: Crippled, Incompetent and Corrupt — or just “Broken”? a year ago. which starts like this:
In 2002, California NOW put out a report declaring that the family courts were “Crippled, Incompetent and Corrupt.”Meanwhile, many coalitions of professionals, have popularized the phrase that they aren’t corrupt, they’re “broken.”Which is it? Because, that’s a good question and depending on the answer, a different response is called for. I have cited both references below, and blogged both of them before.Unfortunately, I don’t see any public platform where there would be an open debate, with an audience! Preparations are being made (this week!) for Obama v. Romney — but who is even talking back to:
Our Courts are Corrupt v. Our Courts are Broken?Instead, the different sides, Balkanized, put out their own materials, and own conferences. Generally speaking the “our Courts are Broken” conferences are run by some of the would-be fixers, and this viewpoint has much more financial backing!
But — the question CAN be answered, and has. However, the answer is psychologically disturbing and very unpleasant, and to verify it, most people would have to take out some private time to read the record. And that’s not what most people’s minds are tuned to these days.
So, they’re broken? flawed? I say, they’re doing exactly what they were designed to do. That we don’t like it is a separate issue.
Earlier, I’d also written (April 2012)
“Our Broken Family Court” isn’t. It ain’t “Ours” and it ain’t “Broke.” That phrase is a “tell.” I’ll tell you why….
Meanwhile, some of the original conference URLs are inactive and the material is for sale through amazon. Looking up the speakers (and their orgs) of this conversation led me to a very fruitful background of the growth of psychology in America (as to HOW it grew so rapidly) which was useful information when dealing with the primary organization seeking to mainstream psychologists into the family court arena.
By Leonore Walker, Ed. D. ABPP and Dorothy M. & Nicholas A. Cummings (editors). It hasn’t been reviewed yet (on this site) and the paperbacks are for sale, cheap new and used…..) However, it reads:
For those who have experienced Family Court Hell, the information in this volume will be jarringly familiar. For those who are not familiar with what goes on in our family courts, you need to be forewarned. You may unexpectedly be one of several million Americans who each year find themselves involved in domestic disputes without having an iota of foreknowledge what is about to engulf them, especially if there are children involved.
Our Broken Family Court System is a collection of transcripts from the 2012 conference conducted by the Cummings Foundation. The speakers include judges, lawyers, psychologists and others. Each speaker tackles the problems within the family court system from their own professional standpoint.
[[NONE OF WHICH INCLUDES MY VIEWPOINT — OR CONNECTING OF THE DOTS TO THE FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM INCENTIVES…]]
This book addresses a broken organization that often victimizes the innocent parties. Inspired and aided by the noteworthy film, No Way Out But One, produced by the prize-winning documentary director Garland Waller, Our Broken Family Court System addresses the inherent limitations and biases that are present in the current family court structure.
Frustrated by the underhanded opposition of the entrenched interests,*** the speakers of this conference address the lack of understanding in family court cases. Speakers point out the flaws in traditional principles, such as the idea that joint custody is always preferable, the child will always be happier with a biological parent, and that child is not capable of having a voice in the courtroom. The speakers in these transcripts identify weaknesses and contradictions in the current system [OH??]] and offer viable solutions that reflect the most recent understanding of family dynamics and childhood psychology. Our Broken Family Court System is a comprehensive analysis of a jumbled and confusing situation that can easily create more suffering than assistance.
. . . . . .**THIS IS ABOUT AS DETAILED AS IT GETS IN IDENTIFYING THOSE INTERESTS, OR WHAT TRENCHES HAVE BEEN DUG.. MO’ BETTAH UNDERSTANDING OF CHILDHOOD PSYCHOLOGY (SOME SPEAKERS ARE PSYCHOLOGISTS) AND FAMILY DYNAMICS WILL SURELY TIP THE SCALE AND SET THINGS RIGHT. Anyhow, looks like the book is now at UWisconsin-Madison library also. I note the Phoenix Conference was sponsored by the NAPPP, on whose executive board two of the presenters sit:
| In predicting the necessity of professional psychology to become integrated into mainstream healthcare for its survival, in 2008 he founded the Doctor of Behavioral Health program at Arizona State University.
Needless to say, I don’t think anyone in this crowd is likely to address what are psychologists doing mainstreamed into family law system to start with — which is in my opinion a viable issue. Similarly, the “Leadership Council” (see that 58,000 children a year phrase) is also psychology-based (and modestly titled too, don’t you think?) and as to Battered mothers, one co-founder of the BMCC conference (some of the speakers in the Our Broken Courts also present regularly at BMCC) includes Mo Hannah, Ph.D. (that would be in, you guessed it, psychology). So this gets pretty interesting conceptually….
The Leadership Council is a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, journalists, and public policy analysts.
Our mission is to promote the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare. We are committed to providing professionals and laypersons with accurate, research-based information about a variety of mental health issues and to preserving society’s commitment to protect its most vulnerable members.
58,000 kids a year… (2008 Press Release from The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence)
[donation page says send check to an address in Bala Cynwyd PA, which per the IRS Select Exempt Check has 134 organizations, none of them by this name at least not that tax-deductible contributions can be made to. A “Contact Us” on the website says, via. Joyanna Silberg, Ph.D. with a Baltimore, MD address. Here are the corporations (IRS Select Exempt Check) with the word “leadership” in them in Baltimore — there are 25. So I don’t know whether or not they are actually a tax-exempt nonprofit or not:
|30-0507614||Acharai the Shoshana S Cardin Leadership Development Institute||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|52-1296700||Baltimore Leadership Development Organization Inc.||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|52-1708248||Baltimore Urban Leadership Foundation Inc.||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|41-2114016||Behavioral Health Leadership Institute Inc.||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|23-2729849||Christian Education Coalition for African- American Leadership||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|26-2221540||Foundation for the Baltimore Leadership School for Young Women||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|20-0345520||Institute for Faith-Based Leadership and Philanthropy||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|27-2070142||Institute for Jewish Values and Leadership Inc.||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|45-0472817||Leadership Through Athletic Inc.||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|52-2210702||New Light Leadership Coalition Inc.||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|37-1608656||Public Media Institute for Innovative Leadership Inc.||Baltimore||MD||United States||PC|
|52-1886809||Southwest Leadership Team Inc.||Baltimore||MD||United States||PF|
HERE ALSO IS A “DEBATING RICHARD GARDNER” DVD (Item “DE06) BEING SOLD BY “INTERMEDIA” (featuring similar personnel) selling for $59, with a 27-page guide. Intermedia does have an EIN# (91-1118945) and it says started ca. 1981.
Debating Richard Gardner
This new program from Garland Waller, the producer of the award-winning Small Justice: Little Justice in America’s Family Courts,is designed to stimulate discussion and to help experts understand the controversy surrounding “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” a theory invented by Dr. Richard Gardner that is misleading at best, and dangerous and damaging at worst.The video features an interview with Dr. Gardner, completed a few years before he committed suicide and clips from a television interview program, featuring Waller and Dr. Joy Silberg of The Leadership Council. Cutting back a forth between Gardner and the studio , viewers can see for themselves that Gardner’s arguments are not only flawed, but extremely harmful to children and the protective parent, whether mother or father, who has raised the issue of possible sexual abuse.
Small Justice helped to raise awareness of alarming injustices in the family courts that seem ill prepared to handle matters that touch on criminal sexual conduct. This new program will add an important dimension to this on-going problem and hopefully lead to helpful solutions.
For the VHS version of this program. please click here.
27 Page Guide included.
As I see the variety of video offerings, I think it’s worth another post. Please look under “Violence Prevention” and see the offerings….
Anyhow, locating this particular group’s EIN# isn’t a priority right now.
Sure yo’ right. It’s been (only) 58,000 children a year since that phrase was hauled out of the woodwork and re-circulated like re-circulated air among certain circles. I think actually that phrase is put out as a “tell” to “tell” other interested parties, whoever’s following doesn’t know about the federal access/visitation, marriage & fatherhood funding, or the training rackets — and believes that more consciousness-raising will result in fewer abused children.
(Do the math — seriously! Family courts tend to be at the county level. California has 58 counties; at that rate, it’d be 1,000 kids per county per year. Divide by 12 for per month (for each county ,in a standardized world), and it’d be even smaller, something like 80 per county per month. How many family law cases are heard in individual counties (and the family courts are often county-based) in ONE state? It would seem from listening to some of the outfits crying for more money — the dockets are full. Of those cases, what are the odds that 80 kids in one month (20/week) are NOT going into abusive homes, when the entire landscape of the court itself resonates to the tune of the behavioral-health reframing of crimes as family issues?). I said, in one state — roughly 80 a month (or, four a day if the court is open daily).
But divide what’s 58,000 // 50 states (and territories) // 12 months a year // and for that figure, “n=” children going into homes of abusive parents PER STATE? How many counties (or family court jurisdictions) are there in the nation, collectively — and divide 58,000 into THAT number (for an annual estimate). However you look at that context-free, citing authority-absent PR claim, looked at a little closer, it’s not believable — and it also is extremely generous to the courts themselves, seems to me!
This situation ,and initiative, was a major red flag to me, and should’ve been to more “protective parents.” Listen to the explanation about how all of a sudden one of the men primarily responsible for professionalizing psychology as a profession, Nicholas Cummings, saying “we had no idea — and THAT’s really why we’re launching the Broken Courts Initiative…”:
For Immediate Release: For more info, contact:
October 22, 2012
Kathleen Russell – 415-388-4600
Cummings Foundation Launches Congressional Initiative to Fix Broken Family Courts
National Mailing & Policy Push Coincides with Florida Conference about Court Crisis & National TV Film Premiere
In honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, the Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health has launched a national initiative and Congressional advocacy campaign to address systemic failures in the U.S. family courts that are placing tens-of- thousands of children in harm’s way each year.
“We had absolutely no idea until it touched our lives how bad this court system was,” says Nick Cummings, president of the Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health and former president of the American Psychological Association. “I saw what was happening, was chagrined by my own profession’s involvement, and realized that thousands of other families were experiencing the same thing. We felt compelled to do something to fix it.”
Really? Where’s he been? This was a Phoenix Conference, prior to the Florida Conference. AFCC (which promotes behavioral health language over criminal law — batterers and molesters LOVE the switch and dumping some of the responsibility on their victims for having been abused, like their partners or children — has chapters in both Phoenix (a longstanding one) and in Florida (as of this century).
And if someone of his influence (with his family and family foundation, and nationwide connections) truly had no idea — then why would Ms. Russell of Kathleen Russell Consulting and the publicity-seeking nonprofit the Center for Judicial Excellence from Northern California ignore people in its own back yard (like Ms. Cindy Ross, California NOW, or even Richard Fine/Marv Bryer of Los Angeles, AND AFCC itself which apparently got a nice jumpstart in Los Angeles County Courthouse also) – preference someone who’s clueless about the crisis in the courts over people who have previously connected it to both slush funds AND some others (like NAFCJ.net, with whom Ms. Ross was, maybe still is, affiliate) to federal welfare funding, continue to ignore those aspects, and partner up with Dr. Cummings and friends?
OH YES — the FUNDING and the INFLUENCE, I forgot….
But without the habit of follow-up, anything goes, I guess. What’s Ms. Russell’s (Center for Judicial Excellence/BMCC etc.) special interest with Dr. Cummings? Can you see the back-scratching going on here? (Promoting “No Way Out but One” in exchange for higher publicity and access to a top APA professional and Congress), and running more conferences. To Cummings, CJE represents access to a certain market niche of distressed parents. Ms. Russell, to my understanding, has not married and is not a parent — and doesn’t speak for me, but is claiming to speak for parents in my situation — and drowning out others who don’t have funding for the megaphone. She also has not, to my awareness, experienced domestic violence. She has a B.A. in psychology from UCBerkeley, and obvious talents in public relations (and fund-raising). CJE website (the nonprofit is based in the SF Bay Area) is referring visitors under “Resources” to “Justice for Children” in Houston. California is a large state full of Resources in this field. One might ask — why this referral, and why to a group Houston? (more on that topic in this banner)
We’re no good to our kids or anyone else but opportunists in that condition. Learn to process information, to sort and select, and to prioritize. I had to in extreme circumstances, and believe “you” can. It’s an art; it takes time; it’s worth it!
We the public are supposed to continue accepting and funding this family court structure, simply because it’s here, and such an enmeshed part of the national landscape, that few except the visionaries can visualize a different system.
Or, we are supposed to subscribe to half-baked reform policies, most of which just set up more professional niches for training other professionals. I have zero respect for this approach and may be one of the few consistent voices exposing this. It’s not hard — I simply read tax returns, articles of incorporation, (grants, etc.); who’s on which conference circuit doing what with whom.
Anyone can do this — and more people should. FIRST, not after you’ve committed to a group, or even a theory.
I am a mother. These systems and the manic, quasi-religious obsession with fatherlessness — not to mention the strong religious involvement in some sectors, not to mention the faith-based initiatives factor 2001ff especially — plus the switching of courts based on law to revolving doors, scouting for ways to refer people into therapeutic services, based on the inability to co-parent with perps or violent partners — hurt my kids, robbed them and others is eroding my neighborhood and yours. It defies the concept of “justice.” It’s just coercion!! and it needs to be stopped — and some of our individual privacy (barring actual harm to kids or neighbors) — returned.
I consider the family and conciliation courts, and their therapeutic jurisprudence mindset [[the goal of which is DIVERSION into services, result is which is mindsets less oriented towards rules, and “domestic” (US) laws/David Wexler], out-come based federal incentives (not explained up front to BOTH gender parents, or the tweaking of the “outcome” wouldn’t even work), and their continual focus on “unifying” (i.e. centralizing control of) local court systems [<=<=check it out..] so as to refer to those services a clear and present danger to the physical and mental health of the community — and multiplied, the country. (click through to discussion of how through publication, association, and incorporations (i.e., CA-AFCC), criminal law stating what’s a real “clear and present danger” (i.e., spousal batterers) can be altered into what they consider a clear and present danger — not enough money coming to the courts (2010 conference). There’s a reason why entering into these halls is like stepping before some professionals on their version of “crack” — dazed ideas, obsessions, and looking normal, but stoked up on behavioral health theory and desired outcomes (affecting funding to the courts themselves and colleagues) to the point that facts just don’t matter.
It does help, including one’s own mental stability under duress, to at least get a perspective on the forces and influences shaping the courts….There is a rhyme and reason to it… in addition to many myths circulating around the net.
Now, the Blog.
Want to appreciate or support my four years of Consistent Writing; over 570 posts, and a website and posts literally loaded with links? Plus, don’t forget to visit the list of links; and pages (below); my current favorites are “Looking up a Nonprofit” and the ones about “Centers” which instruct us to fact-check before jumping into the verbal-jousting on FaceBook, or in comments fields of social media (blogs, on-line articles, etc.), and to get a better feel for who are the players in this field; and how they’re organized.
This is easier done BEFORE in the middle of a chaotic and dangerous, emotionally draining custody matter. Those of us who have had an oasis or two (OR, whose kids are aged out) owe it to others — and the public owes it to itself — to get a better handle on HOW, and IN WHAT MANNER are various groups influencing the courts. Is there any more central issue to the nation than the courts, and their economics?
If not, then why put the economics and the structures of the courts, private corporate influence, on the back burner of blogging, one’s social media and “change.org”(etc.) on-line life, these fundamental (and rapidly changing) tossed over for arguing personalities and psychological theories, or anything so subjective, or even anecdotal hearsay evidence on custody disasters ABSENT that understanding?
On some of the more active “family court reform” (or “expose”) type blogs I’ll sometimes argue this point. When I do, just a step or two before it drives me crazy to interact with long-term passive (or confused) people, the purpose isn’t to convince the blog author (usually a lost cause), but give others who may come cruising through the website, at least another item on the menu. I was once one of those trawling, looking, seeking on-line for valuable information, too..
Examples: On Family Court In America (June 2013 post); or “Carver County (MN) Corruption,” (Aug. 2013 post) which is a small suburb of Minneapolis. Last May (5/10/13), on Washington Post’s Editorial article “Custody Conference shines the light on the plight of battered mothers seeking custody”
advertising the upcoming Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference [“BMCC’] in D.C.; choose “View all comments” and notice the responses to my (“SystemicAnalysis”) noticing certain details. First denial, then several comments saying I must be a “fathers’ rights plant” because mothers aren’t so analytical (THAT, apparently they got right). I then posted the evidence to support my claim, after which — no more comments (on the topic) and the comments field was quickly closed. Rather than check — was I wrong, right, or irrelevant? — it went personal, then silent. This indicates a culture of hero-worship + denial. …. When idolized (the word applies) leaders are caught in dishonesty and attempted derailment of someone pointing it out, it’s time to choose other leaders,or become one.
//There’s a reason Ms. King didn’t want it known [at least there, and to this crowd] that Child-Justice, Inc. was apparently formed only in ca. 12/2012, and soliciting donations under First Star, which has direct connections (East Coast/West Coast) to major players in the family courts (see details of “A Child’s Right to Counsel“), including the parental alienation promoters (i.e., NACC/AFCC, etc. — see comments). In addition (=???) I see in 2011 Ms. King joined “The Future Initiatives Group” of “The Christian Community in North America” [Switzerland 1922, NYC 1948, religious renewal, Lutheran theologian + theosophist, etc. Rudolf Steiner, focus on the sacraments). First question on website: “Does God have a Gender?” (see Current Group member bios; Child-Justice, Inc. is mentioned by name; same person). I DNK this religious group, but it mentions priests, including women. Either Ms. King has been affiliated with this religious community right along, or will appreciate the networking capacities on joining in 2011, identified on-line as “Executive Director” of a group which may, or may not, yet have its own corporate identity and separate tax-exempt status. (It can be checked on-line).
Regarding the pdf I linked to (A Child’s Right to Counsel); many mothers are having major issues with those very appointed counsels, yet the emphasis of this is getting more of them into more children’s lives, and running the trainings. [If you want further discussion, submit a comment to any post and start it!]
It is a whole field of understanding not presented in the circles where mothers typically may hear of Ms. King or be referred to her former? associated group, “Justice for Children.” For example, here’s an excerpt from that pdf, intro, pointing (favorably) to a CALC (Children’s Advocacy Law Clinic) at UMichigan, $5 million grant for a “Quality Improvement Center”(QIC):
The U.S Department of Health and Human Services‘ Administration on Children, Youth, and Families recently awarded a five-year, five million dollar grant to the University of Michigan Law School‘s Child Advocacy Clinic to establish a National Quality Improvement Center (QIC) [There it is…] to generate and disseminate knowledge on the representation of children and youth in the child welfare system. 8 [refers to a specific grant: See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2009-ACF-ACYF-CO-0077.html
NACC, AFCC, and GALs are overlapping issues and often memberships (example).
Generally speaking the trend and theories in dependency cases (as in family law cases) is that the professional need to be more diligent about reaching out to fathers.
In other words quality control = find and engage more men. whether or not this actually happens, that’s what the programs describe.
Mothers are characterized as resistant gatekeepers, here.
Read who funded (US/HHS Children’s Bureaus) who were the partners (American Humane Association and National Fatherhood Initiative). …this is a 2010 joint ABA/AHA guide for CASAs:
“Copyright © 2010 American Bar Association and American Humane Association.
This publication was made possible through a cooperative agreement between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, the American Humane Association, the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, and the National Fatherhood Initiative.”
p. 8, bottom:
“mothers’ resistance to share information”
Mothers often act as “gatekeepers,” withholding information about the father’s identity or location. In some cases, the mother does not want the father to be considered as a placement resource or included in decision making, while in others she may be protecting that father from court involvement (e.g., if he has immigration issues, large child support arrearages, or pending criminal matters), or she may simply be ashamed that she is involved in an abuse or neglect proceeding and not want the father or his family to find out. Some mothers also shield their children from their fathers because of a history, on the father’s part, of past child maltreatment, or violent or criminal behavior. Not all fathers have such histories, however.”
Where was the UMichigan Children’s Advocacy law Clinic (recipient of multi-million$$ HHS grant) when the tanks were rolling down the street to punish a woman of color for standing up on her rights? Maryanne Godboldo (I refer to her a lot; she has guts!) had the law on her sight and protected her own turf, when they came to snatch her child and force Risperdal. The courts have not yet given up and are trying to re-instate felony charges on what appears to be an independent, informed, protective, and uncowed mother. Same State — where’s their reporting on this incident which made national news? (Detroit area)….
“Folmar said. “If the police had gotten in, there is no question in my mind that today Maryanne and Ariana would both be six feet under. The police were not coming to get anything cleared up, they were coming with guns drawn, and somebody was about to die.”
After an 11-hour stand-off and Godboldo’s eventual surrender, the police took custody of Ariana at the request of state Child Protective Services worker Mia Wenk. Wenk testified during a custody hearing that she wanted to force Godboldo to administer the dangerous anti-psychotic drug Risperdal to her child, despite a medical order which gave Godboldo the right to take Ariana off the drug at any time.
…The case exposed the State of Michigan Child Protective Services system for seizing children in great numbers without judicial review, particularly in poor communities and those of color. It brought to light the rampant use of anti-psychotic drugs on children everywhere, frequently at the urging of medical institutions funded by the pharmaceutical industry. –
After the police assault, the family, including the child’s father Mubarak Hakim, fought a battle on two fronts, one for for Maryanne’s freedom, and for Ariana’s release from a juvenile psychiatric facility, where she was held for six weeks and medicated with four different drugs. The hospital also forcibly removed the child’s prosthetic leg, which she has worn since she was able to walk, due to a birth-related amputation, and allegedly subjected her to other abuse. –
On the second front, they successfully conducted a lengthy campaign to end family court supervision of Ariana, facing down predominantly white social workers including Mia Wenk, prosecutors, and judges. – See more HERE (incl. photo of those tanks coming down the street towards ONE BLACK WOMAN in her home).
…. and we wonder why sometimes single mothers have a rough time raising their kids. Must be their lazy ignorant habits, it certainly has nothing to do with government harassment, or a ravenous appetite for kids to drug, once Mom is gone…. In this one the father, though not living with Mom, also fought alongside to protect their daughter. The case exposed the “family court illegal assembly line which had been used for years” (rubber-stamping judge’s signatures to remove children….) More details of the case — had been homeschooled, to enroll in public, vaccinations; adverse reactions, psychotics administered without diagnosis requiring them. The community knows, it’s just child-stealing for federal incentives.
See also (also Wayne County, Detroit area), another mother (Starletta Banks) in 2005 I see sued the state for federal racketeering when two — and then a later child born — three, of her kids were stolen. This situation is not particularly news, it’s practice:
“The sole reasons that children are being stolen from their families and homes are the financial incentives associated with each child and circumstance. There is federal grant money given to states and child placement agencies to create situations that do not exist to generate these funds. The state of Michigan is financially broke, thus surviving on the backs of our children.”
“Banks contends that numerous state officials who participated in the termination of her parental rights also are members of non-profits connected with the foster care system, creating a blatant conflict of interest….
“Although she was not the attending physician, Dr. Annamaria Church testified against Banks on behalf of Henry Ford Hospital. Besides heading the pediatric residency program at the DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, she is also involved with the state’s non-profit Children’s Trust Fund, which doles out $70 million annually in funding to various non-profit child welfare agencies including foster care programs.”
[[the woman lost, but my point is, she sees the federal incentives. Children’s Trust Funds are in many states selling private programming…]]
Context here: Connecting the dots. Child-Justice, Inc. is under First Star. First Star, CAI and NACC have common interests — this is about dependency proceedings, foster care, etc. NACC and AFCC are buddies and have personnel in common. AFCC promotes (actively) PAS, which BMCC and others following those who might refer ‘customers’ or help-seeking mothers to Ms. King’s former (Justice for Children) or Current (Child Justice, Inc) organization — ought to know, and be told up front — that these organizations are not friendly to single mothers, and have NFI and other heavyweight fatherhood funding. So what if exposing this causes conflict? not exposing it conflicts with my username: “Let’s Get Honest!”
I’ve made it a habit and recommend others do — it’s a pain in the neck, but worthwhile — do the corporate lookups. ALWAYS! If you’re going to follow, it’s your job to keep whoever’s leading honest. Better yet, quit being a sheep and start being a shepherd, knowing a wolf from a sheep, [in terms of the business at hand — when it’s protecting lives, kids, etc.]
There is a war on. It doesn’t pay to ignore relevant details, and sign over one’s conscience to the closest, seeming empathetic individuals speaking your language. What languages do they speak outside your earshot, and what do they do?
As a culture, we want professionals telling us what to do, and naturally gravitate towards them. I am saying, there are risks; professionals sometimes just forget (innocently), other times omit (not so innocently) the critical information
Moreover, professionals making a living in the courts (or on the road “fixing them”) do NOT share the same POV as parents in distress from child-loss (or threat of the same), or post-domestic violence terrorism/stalking.
Most (not all, but most) of the situations that drive people to the courts and drag them through it, I have lived — domestic violence (religious) marriage, a city full of enablers (religious and secular), truly clue-less. I filed to evict, restored sanity and stability, was dragged into the courts (sole physical custody regular visitation with the father) and faced an even tougher battle (later in life) — and the whole deal. It has not ever gotten better in any category — it’s been a nightmare. I do not see the end, or “the light at the end of the tunnel.” BUT, when my kids were stolen overnight based on lies, proof in court that they were lies, factual and legal reasons for custody switch requested, but administratively, never given; I never got to cross-examine the father, and eventually the hearings stopped through attrition (i.e., I didn’t want to go homeless).
I would still never go back to him (attempts to force it were made, including stalking). Stealing the kids was part of that attempt (I was actually told). We just get a little stronger and wiser over time.
I really do have the courage to call things (including advocacy groups) what they are — which has cut down on associates, and in a group-oriented culture, makes my information seem less legitimate — if legitimacy parallels social media success and major-media publication.
But the primary value is truth: recognizing it, and continuing to move towards it, however uncomfortable. If you read one post — or several paragraphs — you are likely to run across themes and information not explained elsewhere. To get to truth, you have to tire of half-truths or simply lies. There are ways to screen for honesty up-front. “Look it up!” Become sensitive (identify) What Rhetoric (see Jan. 2011 post) you are in front of at any point in time, and where (who) it came from.
You will need the scroll bar. I write long, and long sentences, but I have researched my material, and even though basic truths are now essentially known, I habitually continue learning and reporting. I am a want- to-know woman about this has-to-go system, and I’m not into violence.
I suggest drying up and turning OFF the supply lines to the problem institutions, which supplies are visible if you know how to look, including for:
~ what’s hidden out in open, AND ~ what’s been socked away in nonprofits contracting with the courts, with public officials on the board AND, beyond that, ~ what’s been lost in the system, and misappropriated, or at least that millions in this arena (HHS, DOJ, OCSE (child support enforcement arena, etc. have indeed been wrongfully withheld (accumulating interest or investment income for the county, or whatever fund they are stored in) or commingled with other funds, or lost. It’s not a matter of knowing EXACTLY how much — but of awareness that these loopholes exist, and gaining a conceptual framework [basic mental understanding] of the overall system.
Unfortunately, most Americans, including the thousands upon thousands that literally work IN government, as well as many working professionals (upper, lower, middle classes) don’t have a working concept of how money works, or where our taxes go, or how to correlate that flow of funding with the services it allegedly goes to provide. I didn’t at first either, but I had to go get it after as a mother, and a basic person (and obviously this includes, female) who already knew what “survival” mode was, through a religious-based abusive marriage. And how protesting one form of abuse leads to a worse kind UNLESS some social or legal intervention takes place, which it generally doesn’t.
Most parents, I believe, would like their kids to, not only be well taken care of and grow up functional (hopefully without losing contact), but also have some basic understanding of “how things work,” and — for the sake of the future — some way to tell right from wrong, and that in general, to obey the law (and, case in point, court orders) is generally speaking “good.”
Our (their fathers’ and my) children, unfortunately, learned quicker than I, that the system was a farce; one of the individuals interviewing them, “just wanted to know which person to blame” (that person being a mediator). After they were removed in a blatant violation of a court order, there was no returning to the concept that court orders mattered, or telling the truth in front of judges, including under oath.
Nor are these children (now adults) showing an understanding of a social conscience that takes into consideration the larger community, or the economic impact on other immediate family members, of decisions they make. After I separated to keep us all alive, and returnd to functionality (pretty quickly exposing the issues), my livelihood and relationships (incl. with them and others) were immediately targeted for removal.
By the time I started this blog, most of them had been. Entire chunks of life (a year at a time, five years at a time) have been removed from what would otherwise be, progressing towards some sort of reasonable goal (developing a work life to support, or last, into old age after the economic devastation that goes with domestic violence; GETTING KIDS TO COLLEGE in any semblance of a planned fashion, and building new social networks after divorce….
There came a point (and I am beyond that point now) when, through attrition after direct trauma and aggressions (in and out of court), I could not replace income faster than it was being lost; age also in any process lasting over a decade, is going to factor in, who hires you, or will become a client. The lesson is, who commandeers (or has) the most resources, tends to win — regardless of right, wrong, or law.
I already proved conclusively what could be done absent ongoing abuse or contact with life-threatening situations. It is also clear that the family court system doesn’t care about this, and seems to make a mine when it gets such cases. Like many parents, the concept of solving things through actually setting a standard of obedience to court orders, could no longer be taken seriously when the NEITHER the courts, nor the law enforcement did.
All this time, I was observing, scouring (calling, networking, reading, asking for referrals, seeking and looking), sometimes with others in similar situation, for SOME toehold in SOME agency or sector of government that would do something other than waste my time finding out what they didn’t do…..And I eventually had to accept that it takes a sociopathic system to resonate favorably to sociopaths, and to attempt to scapegoat people who would rather just get on with life (preferably longer, rather than shorter).
This is probably what led most to the “historic” aspect of my blogging — not just “how is it?” but “How did this come to be?”
The basic questions: WHO, WHAT, WHEN, HOW, WHERE, AND (after seeing enough of that, reasonable speculations on) WHY? did this come to pass? have been my friends, and better friends than friends who can help, or commiserate, for a while — but don’t have ANY of those questions reasonably answered.
Consider a wonderful, powerful, agile and sleek fish, who is not normally towards the bottom of the food chain (maybe a swordfish, maybe a shark) — when it’s snared in a net, or caught in a hook by an angler, who is a man on a ship with the opposite goal of that fish — the fish wants away, and the man wants to haul it on board.
At the end of struggle, the end of the day, barring a sudden storm, or dramatic environmental shifts, in this battle of will and skill — who’s going to win, most of the time? And what’s going to make the most difference?
What’s the motivation? Usually, the fish wants to live; the man wants it to die (or be tagged, released, and tracked for further study). For one, it’s probably sport, a lifestyle [maybe they’re bored, or need thrill] or a livelihood, possibly among other available ones (depending on the situation) For the other, it’s life.
Which matters more — right vs. wrong (that all depends on whether you’re the fish, or the man (often men, plural) on the boat)? Or environment? (Consider: if the fish is hauled in, it’s unlikely, most times, to get out again; it will be spared, or bleed and die, according to the will of whoever hauled it out of the environment it has mastery over, and was designed for. But if the man is in the water, unarmed, with a hungry shark, or lots of them circling in for the pray –he’d better punch strong, where it counts when being charged, or even bitten — and he’s likely to lose something.
Individually, it might go different ways. But as a species, man’s going to win. WHY? Probably because of knowledge and mastery of the environment, developed technology, also social organization — mankind doesn’t fish just for self-suffiency, but (in large part) for commerce. And because by and large, men who do this are not about to wipe out their own DNA (genetic material, futures) by doing stupid things like swimming with large hungry predators and trying to punch or grab them into submission in their own environments.
Maybe not the best analogy — but environment (jurisdiction, venue) really DOES matter, and it takes a better developed set of symbols (which help understand reality) to grasp (at more than intellectual set of facts) the underlying, most basic reality.
Distressed populations, especially women (wounded by the courts, etc.) need to quit congregating in “bait balls” and swarming to ask for help without first “testing the waters” in whose company. I have detached from such circles, which didn’t have (and strained out) the answers I needed to better comprehend the courts (which is the larger, and the economic, context).
This blog offers, I believe, a still VERY uncommon set of System Exposes which leads to much better understanding the NETS which haul people in, screw up a generation or so of children, bill it to someone else (or sometimes double-bill; it’s happened), then elsewhere meet to discuss how to make sure the public funding to the cause never dries up, and apparently goes home and has a sound night’s sleep — something I haven’t had for years recently, and didn’t while married to a batterer, either (sleep deprivation is in fact a weakening tactic, it was used….).
There have to be some standards for sorting through the information overload, the contradictory claims (none supported) beyond just “deferring to the experts.” The public pays the experts’ salaries who are public officials.
Who pays the experts? Who set up the fields of expertise, and helped set up the institutes at which they are trained? Where did those people get THEIR wealth from? …
How should we respond (overall) to having a government which takes our money, invests it for us, keeps most of the ROI, gives some of it back in the form of social services which includes degrading, monitoring, profiling, and from a distance, constantly preaching about why the poor are poor? -Or who is continually seeking someone or something else to start a “war” on — to which we must subscribe, and send kids?
In the “Vital Links” menu, includes ways to lookup are provided, as well as links to others’ commentary on the same; often quoting to government its own excuses on massive misplacement of funds. A large part of my posts are show-and-tell lookups, with commentary on the significance. I hope readers will SEE, LOOK FURTHER, UNDERSTAND, and SHOW AND TELL OTHERS — these are matters of national importance, and indicators of where our country is at, in this century; and how it got there, and where it’s headed (which currently, isn’t a pretty scenario…). It’s worth picking up a few new tools, or vocabulary, and using them! Definitely, practice helps…
Next step (it would seem) at least for me, is to connect the money (and conduits through which it flows) to corresponding, individual FUNDS (and with them, bank accounts — for the evidence — on the government financial statements to the corresponding jurisdiction’s CAFR (COMPREHENSIVE annual financial report, which is NOT “the budget”) and in general, get others to consider this. This message is getting out, but it’s so stunning (despite some very good teachers writing it up, and others [primarily Walter Burien of Arizona, and diverse others he’s reached] explaining its importance), and the most of us has been so conditioned to “let the experts manage things,” OR, to charge off into causes which don’t take into account THE largest truths — that organizing an appropriate response is a tough sell. That information changes one’s concept of who is government and what’s it been doing all these years — which OUGHT to change our attitudes approaching it for help, intervention, or justice. Without some basic understanding of <a href=”The Myth of the Rule of Law // How Money Works. C.A. Fitts knows about (but hasn’t heavily promoted) CAFRs as written record of where money is, locally. Formerly highly placed in HUD (1989), by 1996 (while the public was being lectured — see below — about the burden of single mothers and welfare queens on the public debt) she started a company which designed software which exposed federal $$ waste BY NEIGHBORHOOD. The DOJ targeted her company and stole the software.
[from a 2008 article, referencing a Burien video]The public may be kept in the dark about CAFR’s, but not everybody is. People who receive a copy each and every year are mentioned 17:50 into the video:
Every editor of every primary paper was sent a copy (of the CAFR) each and every year. The CEO and every one of the directors from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN were sent a copy each and every year and they have been for 18 years…I found out that deans of all of the colleges were sent a copy each and every year
These are roadmaps to local influence. Systems of any sort are designed to produce desired results. To understand strategic purpose, remember to read the roadmaps — not just look at the traffic on the road!
We are so used to certain practices & professions by now, it’s just not debated or opposed with a view to eliminating them, or the institutions that reward bad behavior by members of invented professions, based on understanding how and WHY they got here to start with – only with a view to reforming, cleaning up, or better “certifying” the practice.
I am very concerned about getting this project into shape (various shapes, powerpoint, etc.) and to at least a few others who comprehend it, and are concerned at the family court level (with its unique factors — KIDS!) while I”m still around (there are ongoing current situations). That’s one reason there are going to be more “Donate” buttons around than previously! There is no minimum, feel free!
The cause (keep reading) is self-explanatory — and is just. No one should openly approve of SYSTEMS which facilitate a host of really bad behaviors, most of which committed by non-government employees, or less than millionaires/billionaires, might result in jail time. This is about the justice system — and you cannot deal with it without looking at it critically — which includes economically. Which includes understanding the significance of privatizing government, and of the Social Security Act (etc.) itself.
WHY was the “behavioral health” model (add psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, evaluators, social scientists, and others) selected for the family courts? Was it a grass-roots demand for more therapy by all the parents? If not, how was this promoted, and funded, and by whom (those answers are clear enough, just not publicized much)? When I saw (a) the history; (b) the funders, especially primary philanthropic privately-controlled foundations known to have been associated with, for example, getting the US into World War II (i.e., buildup of Hitler) — I understood that this wasn’t primarily about families — or children’s interests — but about having the system in place to control the nation THROUGH controlling its families, finances — and children. The claim “it’s for your (kids) own good” + “it’s for your (the public’s) good” throughout, don’t hold water. This blog (esp. with its links and “demo” lookups) takes that claim from speculation and allegation to evidence. But this evidence comes with a different (more economic, less personal/psychological) language, and data which shows patterns of misappropriation of federal funds TO these programs…. and evidence of a desire to shift the courts from local to (inter)national standards and control; and with them, our governments away from representative to centralized (oligarchy…).
WHY are the various advocacy groups AND the courts themselves obsessed with training-the-trainers, and specializing on “Technical Assistance and Training” based on (often) social science theory, and taking funding from the federal government through local (down to about county level)? Are we all dogs in a circus??? Are the professionals themselves (often with PhDs, PsyDs, JDs (or all three — and some with an “Hon.” in front of the name) less intelligent than domesticated animals? (**I don’t think so!!).
Why do so many of the people helping run the courts have degrees specializing in theories (not hard science, or, say, engineering, biology, geology)? The Ed.D.’s, I’m talking about. Ron Haskins majored in History, Education (Masters) and Developmental Psychology (Ph.D., Univ. of North Carolina), and was also, just noticed, an NCO in the Marine Corps for three years in the 1960s, an era when many Americans were protesting the Viet Nam war, and Martin Luther King, Jr., nonviolent, and with hundreds of thousands of others, Marching on Washington for basic human and civil rights for African-Americans. . . . .Wade Horn (also primary in welfare reform , and at HHS from 2001-2007, now at Deloitte Consulting, LLP) — is straight-up psychologist, with a PhD in clinical psychology from SIU. … of the association which helped form (and seeks to control; does, for all intents and purposes run, the family courts at many levels), “AFCC” has a board [and past presidents) with mixture of psychologists and JDs, plus social workers,a nd a psychiatrist or so. Currently there’s also Mindy Mitnick (from MN) with M.Ed and her masters isn’t specified. …Meyer Elkin (see interview), [b.1916?-d.1994] son of Russian Immigrants, and considered one of the founders and creators of the “conciliation court,” was a social worker and parole officer, and pushed for Joint Custody (see p2) to equalize the power and authority between the parents, “Families are Forever.” This excellent interview describes his childhood (longing for his father, poverty, filling the emotional hole by helping others), college (Psychiatric Social work UCBerkeley), and picking up on the “AA” group therapy — for everyone, starting first with prisoners…
WHY should ALL divorcing, or “in-conflict” parents be forced through group therapy (or mediation — mandatory in CA since 1981) be run through psychoeducational programs whose originating ideas came from a fatherless man, 12-step programs for alcoholics, and for prisoners? While Meyer may have believed this should be every citizen’s “right” — why should all citizens pay for it? For all the talk of “family,” he never names his wife, barely refers to her, and says nothing about his 4 kids in the entire 1992 interview; and this was only 2 yrs before his death. He refers to a “missionary zeal” on the concept.
Why should parents of any educational level (and many of these include people with more academics and professional experience in challenging fields than the specialists they are dragged in front of) be subject to having lives completely re-arranged overnight (or within a half hour) without due process, or evidence?
Perhaps outlawing (by law forbidding) ANY judges, especially, and other public officials, to start OR sitting on the boards of nonprofits, from which they can then sell their connections, or products through the public networks — to make our lives simpler and less expensive. The practice undermines the entire concept of representative government of, by, or for the people, and is part of turning the entire United States into an administratively managed economy based on regions, not states, and definitely not local governments. It’s about the economy.
PART of The System — Fathers Rights Promotion; with Foundation and Federal Funding; nonprofits are an EFFECTIVE promotional vehicle to those with the funding and policy influence. Including on and after welfare reform:
Many of the types of programs family court professionals tend to sit on were previously promoted through the concept of “access/visitation,” promoted heavily by one of the earlier Fathers Rights groups in DC area, ‘Children’s Rights Council” (Trustees, incl. still David Levy, Esq. and FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD (note: Ron Haskins of Brookings, and (I just noticed, for example, director of social services (state? county levels?) Eloise Anderson, formerly of Wisconsin, now of California:
See how influential (leverage coming from positioning) a single person can be on a nation?
Wisconsin was a key state in welfare reform; fatherhood promotion resulting in situations in which mothers of ALL economic classes can be kept, or forced onto needing welfare or social services — through being forced into fights to retain contact with (or protect) children the courts had already given them (or at least, not yet attempted to remove!)., as I was, forced artificially onto BACK** onto welfare when, absent this fight, they wouldn’t be, or their kids.
(**initially, very very briefly — only after years of marital abuse and finally filing for a DV order with kickout, the second time YEARS later after years of no more protection and the ongoing court hearings, followed by overnight, illegal custody switch in context of thousands of $$ of CS arrears.”
Between the trauma and the multiple court appearance trying to even SEE my kids again, a viable profession was completely eliminated — within two years, most of it right away. Special rules about CS allow the government to keep collected (but not yet distributed) payments, and earn interest on it, too.
Suddenly increased noncustodial parenting time [promoted and set up through federal fatherhood-based “Access/Visitation” policy can reduce that support (Compromise of Arrears, etc.). From Eloise Anderson bio (at CRCKids.org):
“Eloise Anderson is a fellow of the Claremont Institute. Ms. Anderson has been director of social services first in the state of Wisconsin and most recently in California.
“She is nationally and internationally cited as a champion of welfare reform across the United States.
She was named by the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives to the National Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators
[See link, Pause to Discuss Significance).
(=read: Sen. Moynihan May 14, 1994, discussing. Appointed alongside Ms. Anderson, by the Speaker of the House [Newt Gingrich of GA, who was pushing welfare reform], were: Wade Horn of National Fatherhood Initiative, and Marvin H. Costers [link to his remarks on appointmt[ from the (very conservative, and enTRENCHED in marriage/fatherhood marketing) American Enterprise Institute). See yet again, Wade Horn (this time as HHS employee) in 2001 seeking $64 million (more) for fatherhood, plus related causes).
(The other appointees also relevant, see link]
Georgia’s Rep. Gingrich seems to have been a particularly an appropriate person to be promoting marriage — he’s had three. As to pushing fatherhood, see primary adult religion.
After being raised Lutheran and spending most of his adult life as a Southern Baptist, Gingrich converted to Roman Catholicism in 2009. He has been married three times, with the first two marriages ending in divorce. He has two children from his first marriage and has been married to Callista (Bisek) Gingrich since 2000.
Yep. Under Callista’s Wiki, we see he’d engaged in an affair with her (she was about 27yrs old) for six years while married to #2. Highly appropriate person to also promote abstinence policies to others:
Callista Bisek met Newt Gingrich in 1993 when he was House Minority Whip and she was working in the office of Congressman Gunderson. Callista testified in 1999 as part of Gingrich’s divorce proceedings that the couple began a six-year affair in 1993 while Newt was married to his second wife, Marianne.
Newt divorced Marianne in December 1999, and on August 18, 2000, Callista and Newt were married in a private ceremony in Alexandria, Virginia. In 2002, Newt Gingrich asked the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta to annul his 19-year marriage to Marianne on the basis that she had been previously married. Callista, a lifelong Catholic,* was instrumental in her husband’s conversion to that faith in 2009. The Gingriches live in McLean, Virginia.
*having an long-term affair with an older married man.
((Back to BIO of the CRC Family Advisory Board member…FYI, I’m adding the links — none in the “bio blurb.”)). . .
Ms. Anderson was honored with the 1996 National Governors’ Association [<=<= link to an Aug. 1998 promotion of fatherhood initiatives among the governors] award for outstanding state official.
Ms. Anderson was appointed to her previous post by former Governor Pete Wilson in 1992. As head of the nation’s largest welfare system, she had to cope with a system that consumes one quarter of all the money spent nationwide on welfare, a soaring out-of-wedlock birthrate, and a teen pregnancy rate higher than any other state. She demanded that parents be accountable to their children by ensuring that kids attend school and be immunized as a condition of receiving aid.
(An obvious question might be, when did the same person become Family Law Advisory Board to CRC?)
Ms. Anderson also dramatically turned public opinion around regarding the destructiveness of AFDC [=?? persuaded people it was destructive??]] and led the way in crafting California’s new welfare reform program, CalWORKs. Her view that the state’s 58 counties [[“counties,” meaning, those who accessed and controlled federal funds at the county level, not necessarily the residents!]] be empowered [[who took the power away originally?]] to design what is best for their local communities is now a centerpiece of the Golden State’s innovative approach to welfare delivery.
[[OVERALL, 1996 PRWORA, actually a Budget for the US, required legislated TANF Block Grants to the States, privatization of welfare, which then better enabled diversions at a massive ,and some say, unfortunate level. The first state to look with an inspired, visionary glance at their accumulated TANF surplus, and diverted into statewide marriage promotion seems to have been Oklahoma (Oklahoma Marriage Initiative)
To the Contrary on PRWORA:
Many People protested PRWORA leading up to it and afterwards. Peter Edelman (see also his wife, Marian Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund (called it “the worst thing Clinton’s ever done.”)
“Tommy Thompson, Maximus and Welfare Privatization in Wisconsin” is a good, detailed but basic summary of the consequences. Sample:
“In Wisconsin, Thompson gave control of the new Wisconsin Works (W-2) program over to a company called Maximus, which began managing government programs as early as 1988 when they took over Los Angeles County’s public aid program. Some interesting tidbits about Maximus from Applied Research Center’s report Prospecting Among the Poor: Welfare Privatization:’… [[note: READ!!]]
Somehow, when companies like Maximus are actually forced to pay millions for fraud, or settle for discriminating against women, misappropriating millions, etc., they (at least this one) continue getting the contracts to collect child support, administer Medicaid, etc. I have seen, blogged, seen others (men and women both) blog on this, it’s obvious bad news for the poor, and the public! A section of the above write-up:
The standards of accountability and monitoring have been practically non-existent. We’re not seeing decent services provided to the community or a decrease in poverty or homelessness.”
In 2000, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that Maximus “violated federal law by paying lower wages to women than to men placed in the same jobs in a Milwaukee warehouse”. The New York Times also reported that “state auditors in Wisconsin recently found that the company had billed the state for $466,000 in improper or questionable expenses.” That included lunches for the director and company logo fanny packs, paid for by money that was taken out of the mouths of hungry children.
Yet Maximus got a $21million contract from Wisconsin’s Department of Children and Families that runs until 2016. The quarter it won that bid, “Maximus’ revenue rose 11 percent to $227.1 million.” They won this bid despite the fact that Wisconsin lawmakers have been asking for a termination of Maximus’ contracts since 2000.
In 2007 The Washington Post reported Maximus “settled a Medicaid fraud lawsuit with the federal government for $30.5 million.”- one instance where the company was actually taken to task for stealing tax dollars by submitting fake claims.”
[[Maximus has left a trail of horror stories, including from fathers, from a Tennessee “motherclucker” blogger (extensively). Note that Maximus spent $10K on a Fatherhood Summit by Hudson Institute in Wisconsin.
In 1999, at Wisconsin’s Dept of Workforce Development, Cite, a press release advertises a “Fatherhood Summit” by Gov. Thompson. While I don’t see “Maximus,” a Hudson Institute rep. (a DC think tank) is a speaker. Notice the other speakers including Eloise Anderson (more below), and Wade Horn, etc..
By the way, The Hudson Institute was founded in 1961 by Herman Kahn, who formerly worked for Rand Corporation as physicist and mathematician, co-directed the Strategic Airforce Project (RAND is a big deal; read their history), Nuclear Deterrence, etc.
It doesn’t need $10,000 for fatherhood summit from Maximus!
“I have earmarked grant money in my next state budget that will help these groups get out informational material to men seeking to become more effective fathers,” Gov. Thompson said. “The result will be stronger families, increased parental responsibility and healthier children.”
Speaking at the Fatherhood Summit with Gov. Thompson will be Sal Bando, Milwaukee Brewers general manager and chair of the ;Wisconsin Fatherhood Institute; Congressman Clay Shaw, R-Florida; Dick Bennett, UW-Madison men’s basketball coach; Dr. Wade Horn, President, National Fatherhood Institute; Eloise Anderson, Claremont Institute; Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, author [[link is to “Women and the Future of Fatherhood, pre-1997]] Dr. Ron Mincy, Senior Program Officer for Employment and Welfare, Ford Foundation [[Dr. Mincy now works out of Columbia U [see 2008 Tenure Announcement<=<=BOOKMARK!] and is significant in the movement, esp. due to his Ford Foundation, Columbia, and Harvard (he’s Harvard grad) connections, the concept of “Fragile Families” was HIS.]] ; Jerry Hamilton, Goodwill Industries of Southeast Wisconsin; Jay Hein, Hudson Institute*; Joe Leean, Secretary, Department of Health and Family Services; and Linda Stewart, Secretary, Department of Workforce Development.
*Notice where Jay Hein was in 2006! (OFCBI, then-President George W. Bush administration):
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI)
Jay F. Hein was named Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives on August 3, 2006. In this role, Mr. Hein works to implement President Bush’s compassion agenda by engaging public-private partnerships with faith- and community-based social service organizations across the U.S. and around the globe.
Prior to his position at the White House, Mr. Hein was the founding president of the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research, an international public policy research firm headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Pause — Note:
RE: Indiana and Responsible Fatherhood:
Indpls = Fatherhood Stronghold; courtesy Governor [1988-1992), then Senator (1999-2011..) Democrat Evan Birch Bayh, III , son of a Senator (1963-1981).
The son Sen. Bayh introduced (parallel to Illinois’ Congressman Danny Davis, in the House) another Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009. Looks like Bayh’s was co-sponsored by then-Senator Obama. This announcement from “NCOFF” Natl Center on Fathers & Families” (Philadelphia Address) says at bottom, go get the bill of the text from “National Fatherhood Leaders Group” digital library (A DC group I’ve blogged — their corp. status was revoked, although their leadership consists of leaders of other fatherhood groups nationally….) Sponsors listed (bottom of the page) of the “NCOFF” (if you can keep it all these straight) are, hardly suprising:
Annie E. Casey Foundation /The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation / The Ford Foundation / The Hewlett Foundation
“Bayh was elected Governor of Indiana in 1988 and re-elected in 1992 with the highest percentage of the vote in a statewide election in modern Indiana history. Stressing fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, job creation and lean government, Bayh’s tenure as governor was highlighted by: eight years without raising taxes; the largest single tax cut and budget surplus in state history; “welfare-to-work”-type social programs…”
His BA was from Disciples of Christ-affiliated rural? Illinois EurekaCollege (current enrollment, 760 students) with the motto “Learn, Serve, Lead.” Famous Alumni, Ronald Reagan (class of 32) and his brother Neil..
It’s not as though people didn’t notice the negative impact, and consequences of welfare privatization, especially in Wisconsin. But once the system is in place, it”s hard to dislodge. Those who lobbied for it, know it.
In 2001, “Welfare Warriors” pointed out Goodwill and Maximus fraud was stealing from kids, and not prosecuted; if a single mother mis-spent a fraction of that amount she could and would be prosecuted criminally, no euphemisms (“improper spending” “errors”) They took a photo bus tour of this (re: Goodwill) in 2001. Also see p.4 bottom HERE, looks like an about 2002 general statewide summary of Maximus’ many contracts, and very harsh treatment of pregnant Wisconsin mothers….Substantial reporting there, incl. multiple problems in multiple states. NYC Comptroller Alan Hevesi refused to sign a contract with Maximus (citing corruption) without a court order. Looks like a court order was produced by a five-judge panel, and he had to sign… etc.]]
A link (from that writeup></a) a report “On the Trail of the Disappearing Surplus,” it says, by Wisconsin Council on Children and Families (it says, a statewide nonprofit around since 1881; i.e., it’s not government itself), shows that almost the first thing the state did, (1995-1999) is cut social service spending by 14%, and (thereby?) accumulating a $321 million TANF unobligated or unliquidated funds.
[[I should have word with Eloise Anderson about empowering counties to facilitate the “fatherhood” paradigm, maximize the built-in potential to divert funds to cronies and court-crony organizations headed up (founded) by JUDGES, and then teach each others how to take the “brand” (professional niche) nationwide, make it mandatory for parents, and set up shop in the local courthouses, or through connections with them AND how many of these corps. dodge paying taxes, leaving individual taxpayers to pick up the differences, or just do with fewer real services.
So, as you can see, how to handle the welfare billions is a major topic. The overall theme is, promote “fatherhood” and discourage divorce.
When and only if absolutely necessary, admit that marriages in many cases, can and do leave carnage (result in injury and death for some women, and children).
However — note among her many awards (and Harvard JFK school for gov’t education) an award from the NATIONAL GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION (which actively promotes fatherhood initiative to governors. Link is from 1998 . I didn’t discover it til 2013!!; )
…and, for a time, she was advisory board to the NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE in 1994 (the NFI was only founded in 1994! This is right before 1996 Welfare Reform “PRWORA” Act (Budget) was passed by Congress, and incorporated the A/V factor as a last-minute add-on by Ron Haskins (CRC “Family advisory board also)
From that NGA link (8/3/1998 date) , you can see some of the coordination of methods, and going after social service funding, as well as blaming social ills such as juvenile delinquency, etc. — on fatherlessness, without citing or linking to any proof (whatsoever):
Mothers fighting to retain or regain contact with your kids (and concerned taxpayers of any gender or marital profile…), pls. distribute that link! Why didn’t BMCC share this information between 2003 – 2013, and teach it?
PART OF THE SYSTEM: Access/Visitation
Funded through HHS, promoted by fathers’ rights groups with political and welfare-related connections, and grants to be administered by ONE designated agency per state, this facilitates statewide promotion of a doctrine lobbied for by actually few — but influential — groups and persons. The fact that major foundations (Ford Rockefeller, Annie E. Casey, Wm. T. Grant, David & Lucille Packard, etc.) should raise questions, why is this philanthropic wealth (and is it, really?) so concerned about little vulnerable children, and fathers, and only mothers to the extent that the mothers aren’t feminist, or unrepentant about being single, or having reported abuse. I didn’t see this initially — only after discovering, then investigating, nonprofit after nonprofit speaking (spouting, in my opinion) the same rhetoric, most of it with social science assumptions with so many holes in them, and blatant evidence of exceptions. There is MUCH more than meets the eye to this area.
Access Visitation policy sets up certain professions which family-oriented professionals, or court employees, automatically head for and pick up by association (and literally, training) “how to” go and get to that watering hole (or rather, fountain– backed by the public, from which originally the federal government gots it funds.). It also then enabled virtual “vertical monopolies” on the same professions: Promoting them, getting legislation passed to MANDATE them, setting up courts to refer to them – forming corporations to take the business courts refer — and setting nonprofit associations to Train (certify) them. Multiply this habit by the number of various professions, and you have a large, franchised, coercive clients, or extortionist — i.e.,taking a class or paying for supervision is a pre-requisite to seeing your (recently removed) child/ren, etc. marketplace.
Federal regulations (and some history of it) described HERE, show that it intends that States who receive grants must pariticipate, at the direction of an Executive Branch official (Secretary of HHS, ONE person, currently last I checked, the former governor of Kansas, Sibelius) to help evaluate “promising practices,” i.e., control of state budgets (or a portion of them) comes under the control of a SINGLE HHS Department head. Who pays the piper calls the tune….
ALSO (Mothers, please read and distribute the next FYI link!!) read at least through p. 6 (or best Part I), “Disconnected Dads, Strategies for Promoting Responsible Fatherhood” which cites CRC (and CRC only) as one of the “oldest, most-organized, and best-financed organizations,” “politically powerful,” as influential in establishing (and shaping the agenda) for the U.S. Commission on Children and Family Welfare, and “largely adversarial to mothers.” The “Disconnected Dads” seminar was held in US Dirksen Building, 6/23/1995 by “The Family Impact Seminar” (Theodore Ooms Executive Director) (Link is 1978 Kansas? newspaper article showing its history; p.5). In response to women going back to work, single-parent households, etc. Powerful Foundations contributed then (and now) to this same movement. Similar seminars are promoted to universities and (presumably, family-related) professionals to this day; the HQ (Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars) has moved to University of Wisconsin-Madison… Where influential [on the family courts — it helped promote and develop them] nonprofit “AFCC” (EIN#952597407, that’s a tax return) states as its headquarters.
(notice (bottom of web page) its listed PARTNERS include: centers (around the theme of Dispute Resolution, or Children) at various law schools, the NCJFCJ (a Reno Nonprofit, gets HHS grants), a 1995, Chicago-based Resolution Systems Institute which, it says, started originally as an “affiliate” of a nonprofit, “Center for Conflict Resolution” and named “Center for ANALYSIS of Dispute Resolution Systems, “CAADRS,” And now AFCC even lists as its partner, Battered Women’s Justice Project (“BWJP”) (itself the primary activity of Minnesota-based nonprofit, Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs “DAIP” (EIN# 41132134;notice that the search site “990s.foundationcenter.org” (bookmark it!) has kept the old? name “Minnesota Program Development Inc.”)
This gets interesting, because BWJP not being a corporation or person, can’t own a bank account, and is, moreover, allegedly representing the interests of as it says, Battered Women” (domestic violence survivors) it is the project of another nonprofit “DAIP,” see link above) taking substantial federal funds, allegedly to prevent and intervene in “abuse.” )
Language from DAIP’s primary program purpose, which is the BWJP project (p2 of tax return 2010, (YrEnd 9/30/2011, which is ODD, and possibly timed around when 3rdQ federal grants are awarded):
BATTERED WOMEN’S JUSTICE PROJECT SERVES AS THE COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER TO JURISDICTIONS AWARDED GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARREST POLICIES AND ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTION ORDERS
[Nonprofit receipts overall are $4.42 million. BWJP “expenses” are $3.07 million. Put another way, for DAIP, of $4.42 million, $2.887 mil goes to “salaries,” and $1.198 “Other,” only $425, 284 — which it shows goes right to BWJP are given. Looking at what BWJP actually does: Technical Assistance to (DOJ Grantees, etc.) it involves a lot of electronic publication, consulting, and the conference circuit. DAIP wants culture change (Coordinated Community Response), not consequences, to stop DV. I doubt much ever gets TO battered women, or their shelters… most seems focused on training. Same with another heavyweight DV organization (nonprofit), “Futures Without Violence” (formerly “Family Violence Prevention Fund” primarily in SF]
AFCC primary nonprofit program purpose, from its 2011 (Year-end 6/30/2012) tax return, reads:
“THE ASSOCIATION’S 49TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE, “ATTACHMENT, BRAIN SCIENCE AND CHILDREN OF DIVORCE THE ABCDS OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT FOR FAMILY LAW” FEATURED NEARLY 90 SESSIONS ON TOPICS COVERING ATTACHMENT, CHILD DEVELOPMENT ALIENATION, NEGOTIATION, RESEARCH, PRACTICE, DOMESTIC ABUSE,** AND CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT THE CONFERENCE OFFERED SOMETHING FOR JUDGES, LAWYERS, CUSTODY EVALUATORS, MEDIATORS, THERAPISTS, PARENTING COORDINATORS, PARENT EDUCATORS, AND ANYONE WORKING WITH CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN CONFLICT THE CONFERENCE ALSO PROVIDED CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDITS FOR LAWYERS, PSYCHOLOGISTS, SOCIAL WORKERS, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, MEDIATORS, AND CUSTODY EVALUATORS OVER 1,250 PEOPLE ATTENDED THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE”
** The preferred words for domestic VIOLENCE in these circles are, some of it “abuse” (downgrades the impact, sounds friendlier), “conflict” or, the part whose most adamant about stopping and reporting the violence (including child abuse), as [if you read this far, you probably already know] “parental alienation.” Experts in the art of re-framing and redefining criminal activity by one individual as a family problem, which both are responsible for, somehow, thus promoting the cover-up of abuse attacking and discrediting those who report it as breaking up families, having ulterior (i.e., financial) motives, and/or being mentally ill, requiring more treatment (deprogramming) until they recant. From anecdotal stories (i.e., distraught mothers sometimes on the phone with me, as we work on the overall issue of how to stop the practice of transferring children from a nonviolent to a violent parent, etc.), this also appears to include how the minor children are also treated.
This group, obviously, promotes parental alienation, but the groups loosely organized under “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” (now in its 10th year and having invited a DAIP professional to present) refuse to deal with the existence of AFCC, or that it’s promoting this, or the fatherhood funding, in any consistent manner, leaving individual writers and bloggers like me to pick up that (intentionally) dropped line of inquiry.
I choose to examine the operations and backers of this system, thumb my nose at it, and lay out much of its innnerworkings as possible. I also give an alternate history (well-linked) which doesn’t match the self-adulation in publications like this one (2006) by a Santa Clara County Judge, the Hon. Leonard Edwards, on “The Miracle of Mediation,” which flips the concept of due process on its head, forces dangerous dialogues between perps and victims, and has many issues that continue to this day — as well as setting up rackets for training the mediators, and related fields.
For every extra field that has been added to the courts, someone wants to certify the trainers; conflicts of interest are all over the process, and fees to get in on it can and have been easily misdirected into “slush funds,” which has been documented since at least 1999. (See my top “sticky” posts).
Like dust, or spoiled food, once such a system is entrenched, it’s hard to restructure or envision another way; and it puts honest judges in a bind as well, setting funding for the courts in opposition to the interests of the law, and of the children and parents in front of them. Essentially, this seems like legalizing racketeering (RICO) and simply conducting it through the courts, instead of privately.
This “Lackawanna County PA Family Court Forum” blog, I set up by request from a father who, like, many shows that many Americans just can’t “get” that their local courts have been organized nationally. It’s a decent-looking blog (better appearance than this one) — and in this post (explaining why I was abandoning it) is also a pep talk, summary (as of my April 2012 understanding), and some exploration of why is “Annie E. Casey Foundation” showing up so consistently. In 2013, I further explored some of the Foundations that keep showing up pushing certain programs on the courts — and doing so from outside the court structure itself (see post on Centers).
Another post on that blog links to Jeff Grell’s “RICO in a Nutshell,” site, which I encourage people to explore and understand. RICO is bad — we have it in government, but we should seek to get it out. this requires understanding what it is, and he appears to be expert in it.
[[Obviously, This Conversation doesn’t fit on the sidebar! To be continued, in various posts, probably labeled “Blog Purpose.” However, In general, if you “stay tuned,” you will come away better informed and better equipped to understand, and from there, to make decisions about whether (or how) you wish to either identify and report, or resist system changers (i.e., from the “rule of law” paradigm) from the concept of representative government to administratively/regionally managed Public Health & Welfare” policy remote-control government.
Warning: To resist or divert the process will be uncomfortable, will require sacrificing current myths, and demands the ability to self-govern, think independently (sometimes, alone), and the ability to organize and inform others. This takes time and money, which is another matter. You will be exposed to just how much Americans have deferred to letting others run the primary aspects of their lives, setting conditions, and extorting allegiance under compulsory and mandated regulations. Kind of like living with a home terrorist (abuser). Perhaps it’s time to take some clues from those who know what that signifies, the tactics, and a variety of ways stand up to them, and why such people tend to HIGHLY VALUE freedom, and are willing to fight for ways to achieve this without engaging in ongoing criminal activity, such as those removing it have.
LIFE is no linear, or always orderly (nor is my blog). But viewed in a larger context, this archipelago of mental-health-focused family law courts show a consistent progression towards certain goals, and their function in the same progression nationally.
It’s much easier to see after consistent look-ups than it is to express in print. I hope to alert people to adjust their focus (“zoom level”) to get a clearer, and more in-depth understanding (which is a mental image, not just a sound-byte regurgitation).
If it’s been helpful to you, hit me with a comment or a legitimate (not harassing) question that doesn’t sound like spam. I am looking for people able to understand AND explain this material to others, and who want to act on it. I am looking a few good men and women who will stand on the fence — and know when orders to haze (or abuse) others, or ignore neighbors hazing others — don’t have to be obeyed.