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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Parents !!! Quit Running in Fix-the-Courts Ruts! // Grow Up and Learn to LOOK UP THE CORPS running the Government (including the COURTS!)

leave a comment »

October 2013, just posting, then supplementing (including after I published it) some half-@ssed drafts that have been in the holding pen too long,….but good fodder for thought…

[[Sections salvaged from the recent wordpress-format-stripped posts on basic questions to ask of Centers, Institutes, and in general..  and by the time I took another serious look at it, supplemented. So, you have hear basically another post (added AFtER 10/30/2013 publishing) — about 14,000 words.  I still think it’s good material.  Take it in two doses if needed.



I am absolutely NOT interested in anecdotal information regarding court-cases, and trying to get these into the media — without the accompanying scaffolding to put it on.  What do you want people to focus on — that it’s bad, or, if so, HOW it’s bad — how it GOT bad, and what you want done to stop the “bad”???

If this shoe fits, wear it.  If you already know this stuff, about federally funded welfare-based designer families affecting the family court arena through primarily the child support arena (OCSE) — please teach it to others, so we can have some intelligent conversations from here on out and get the public to understand, they should quit funding child abuse, and that all these agencies supposedly handling problems A, B, C and D — usually aren’t.  We have to change, first, and quit asking of systems which systems are not going to, nor were they designed to, give us — justice, equity, reason, fairness, or when you get right down to it, a fair chance at a sane life.  Often, they don’t even protect life.  That’s NOT what they’re really there for.




See recent added page on “Social Sciencification” of America which takes us back to The Reorganization Act of 1939 and explains how social science, and continual reference to the “experts” was advised to condition and move public opinion).  In fact, if you can get through these three links (my writing) — you should be able to connect the ultimate goal of centralization of government with “What’s with all the psychological services in the courtroom?”

Psychologists are CENTRAL  to ANY fascist or colonizing, imperialist regime, and it takes that kind of regime to make them front and center to start with.  In America, especially since welfare reform paved the road to free federal money,  religious groups (both fundie and new age — today I’m looking at the “fundies” (my usage, primarily representing the degradation and hate/fear relationship with women, and evangelistic practices that, like their forebears, approve military, hierarchical and in short, almost any means justifies the end of dominating the globe for Christ, or Jesus (as viewed through the same eyes) — are heading into psychology knowing quite well that this could place them at the center of government, and at the intersection between faith-based grants and local networks, and standing to profit considerably from it.  While literally robbing from the poor (in the form of TANF diversions, at a minimum) they then hypocritically promote “marriage” as an antidote to poverty, when in fact, for some marriage is a shortcut to death and abuse, and when in fact, the marriage classes were setup and sponsored by money that otherwise was due needy families with kids involved. )

Psychologists as necessary to induce populations to engage in war, and as clean-up crew with any system whose primary drivers include violence, AND coverup (reframing) of that violence as something else, and mischaracterization of a person in need of having his, her, or their heads examined.   As someone with access to Freud’s archives has said, it’s an Assault on the Truth.  And they were censored.   Censorship is an essential glue to any such society, or regime.)

The question is not fundamentally — are these good psychologists or bad psychologists — but why should one of the easiest degrees to obtain (requires least academic intellect, and by definition requires a constant stream of  human subjects as subject matter) — be placed in the highest positions of government?  How and when did that happen?  Or dare we say, WHY?

Let’s Get Honest Top Picks (the first is a post, others are pages):

Where this hooks into the court system is economically — through funding,  and a large part, HHS funding to the states.  Welfare Reform and diversion of block grants to the states is central.

But this post focuses on particularly some programs, and peoples, flitting around the first state-wide marriage promotion diversion of TANF (welfare) surplus from needy children and the actual homes they were living in, to people who hardly need more personal profitable income, and, when you get right down to it, value being among a self-selecting crowd of hired-hands (“experts”) taking money from both public AND private hands — over either this country, its poor people, and certainly above the principles in its constitution, or the rule of law.  How that’s supposed to help anyone but themselves, your speculation is as good of mine.  Given what realm many of them came from to start with (i.e., religious) I gather they expect ALL Americans, like some of their crowd, to just “take it on faith”  “This is in your [the public’s] best interests.”

By studying specific examples, in some detail, you can see the patterns, and recognize them in practice when they show up elsewhere, which they do.

PREP, INC., the Parrotts fly to Oklahoma, and Ms. Ooms:

Just one example: that “Prep, Inc.” a for-profit by some University of Denver professors could’ve been formed, promoted, “accessorized” (see the “Family tree of “Curriculums” (sic) available:  

Ms. Ooms seems to be also “oomnipresent” in writings about Family Policy (fatherhood especially) .  She didn’t get much print in this post, however her program the “Family Impact Seminars” is central.  I’m just not dealing with it right here. It’s been blogged before…

FOR COUPLES, FOR INDIVIDUALS, FAITH-BASED, FOR SPANISH SPEAKERS, FOR MILITARY,  FOR FATHERS, FOR CORRECTIONS, FOR THE WORKPLACE) and distributed through the welfare system, facilitated along with endless other curricula by a single LLC in the Washington, D.C. area running ten years of conferences on “SMART MARRIAGEs.” using what WAS a TANF Surplus, starting statewide in Oklahoma (1999) [HOVER CURSOR FOR SELECTED TEXT, the site tells you HOW it was pushed, starting at the top political levels] is a sad statement on the level of public knowledge of private racketeering (or at least, marketing) through government funds.

A continued look at this Oklahoma Phenomenon exposes tactics of the industry money-maker curricula (particularly a certain one) and that this is being done at public expense and with our silent consent.

I remember this single “OMI” being key to my comprehending just how the public was being roped into funding freebies for a few cheap curricula that were mass-marketed simply because there IS a welfare system with a network available to the unscrupulous.  Quality of program apparently doesn’t matter — who cares?  They’re poor people; they’re lucky they get food, or any kind of help?

Even if it were a good program, mass-marketing of single-vision concepts across state lines, spearheaded by evangelicals and others who believe in the cult of the experts (which is a polite way of saying, a few generations ago, or less, you could find some of their family line pushing eugenics and sterilization of the unfit and mentally ill, which is to say, while they may not want to get caught approving of Hitler openly, they secretly admire his tactics, and at some levels, do believe that a superior race exists and should be protected from pollution by inferior gene pools.  And as they are always likely to be MORE poor than rich, someone needs to control their breeding practices  Such mentality has long approved of religious networks for pushing the policies, and not much seems to have changed between then and now, but the shrink-wrapping.

I found this 2008 summary of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI) by earlier looking up the name of a “Principal Investigator (Mary Jo Kinzie of Oklahoma DHS”) on an HHS “Healthy Marriage” grant series where we (that is to say, the federal government) has been dumping millions of dollars, year after year, to a PR firm (Public Strategies Inc.) for its OMI initiative. [posted below]. This book admits — clearly that a (I believe the word should be “the”) main focus of OMI was training people to run training classes for others.  For a short 22 -page read, it’s worth my readers’ time to review just where they were coming from, and how they talk about this among themselves.  Low-income people are the “other.”

I apologize that with in the box (as I continue to think on the situation and revise my post here) the top half is preaching/teaching my point, followed by the section in question (with commentary and more quotes on about 1996 welfare reform by two famous “don’t practice what we practice, practice what we preach” political leaders, one from California and another from Georgia.  Even though this post was mostly about Oklahoma (test site, statewide) and Colorado, Washington (where the Oklahoma leadership put out the call and got a symbiotic mating response from; definitely, they agreed, this would be a VERRRy productive “marriage,” so to speak.  And it has been  For their kind at least. ….

Nowlin, Matthew C. 2008. “The Implementation of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative to Individuals Receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families” Oklahoma Politics, Vol. 17.I think Dr. Nowlin (Looks like he was due for a Ph.D. in May 2013) did this as a graduate research assistant at the “Center for Applied Social Research (University of Oklahoma), after getting a B.A. in Psychology, then M.A. in Political Science from  Univ. of Central OK

The two main points I hope you see:


This began funded largely with TANF (public) money, AND, a primary focus has always been training people to lead training (“Marriage education”) workshops.


These workshops use curriculum.   The curriculum (make that plural) have owners who reap profits and prestige from the sheer numbers and exposure.

My conclusion, when compared with other evidence, is NOT that

That business model, while kind of pushy, conniving, and rather condescending to start with, still somehow valid, worthy and understandable as the means to a wonderful and noble end of the reduction of poverty, suffering, and human misery [in the Public Interest, as programs coming under the Social Security Act ought to be] through encouraging stable two-parent families.  And as it’s already been set up, and the experts ought to know best (let’s get back to OUR professions, or local problems, and let the do their social services)

BUT instead that setting up this very business model IS the purpose. And it’s so outrageous in reach, so infantile in concept and so sloppy in execution — and so utterly greedy — that no ONE sector could have pulled it off alone.

And I propose that this is why the federal and state government sector with its WELFARE distribution network, wishes to merge with, rather than properly and utterly confront for their violence towards women and children (boys and girls) and materialism under the guise of spirituality and, for the most part, and for how they not only fail to fulfil any child abuse mandated-reporting requirements, but moreover “turn on and excommunicate” (and set up literally systems to excommunicate (hit me with a comment, I’ll send references) people who DO seek to utilize the legal system to properly handle criminal behavior among members towards other members.

Now put this in your pipe and smoke it (think about this):  most prosecution for crimes against the state or crimes against the person, I believe, (USA) would begin at the County level, would it not?  We call them District Attorneys.  The “District” is usually the “County.”

Federal/State/County (for simplicity, let’s skip “Metro” or regions that have already pooled their sheriff services under some inbetween sized corporations spanning more than one county IF some exist).

Without looking — how many people have a concept of how much of their District Attorney’s budget (funding) comes from within the county, from the state level, or from the Federal level also?  Huh?  In short, how much of it is influenced by 1996 Welfare reform (PRWORA, TANF, Block Grants to the States, and the free-for-all in marriage promotion activities as an antidote to poverty — and crime– and child abuse???)

In fact, even if you didn’t know how much — would you have a clue where to look and find out?  Or what kind of programming to look out for that might come from outside the local district, and be perhaps that enzyme that gae a completely different flavor to the mixture of justice which you are being fed locally?

Hang out with me for a while (and I’m generous and will refer you to other, better teachers — of looking up your local financial reports (and comparing them to what you’re SUPPOSED to think about and worry about and feel guilty for — the budget) — like Burien, Fitts (Wharton/former FHA, doesn’t focus on CAFRs but does admit they exist and also explains investments very well), Clint Richardson (learned from Burien), Carl Hermann (learned from Burien but is also by trade an economics teacher, and is Harvard grad I think).  I might even give you the partially digested outline with demos over at ColdHardFacts .

Of the above, I believe I’m the only one that is currently suggesting people involved in the family courts start looking up who’s got what balances in which (by name and number) funds — and then sit down and think about the significance of who those funds were collected, and where they are going.  That process has just begun, and I’m specifically helping people in specific other states than my own, so we can compare notes.

In other words, to connect the dots, and re-integrate more than just our psyches, post-family-disintegration courtesy the family-idolizing system here.




MATTHEW C. NOWLIN University of Oklahoma

The Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI) is the first large scale program in the country to promote marriage. One ofthe main audiences for marriage promotion is low-income families. This study provides the historical context and back- ground of how the OMI has been implemented. In particular, this study exam- ines the implementation of the OM! to TANF recipients. This study provides the background of the OMI and raises some issues related to its implementa- tion. These issues include how the goals of the program are defined, lack of caseworker reinforcement, and the need to address other issues related to pov- erty that impedes the development ofhealthy relationships.

In 1999 Oklahoma launched a large scale statewide initiative to promote marriage. The goal ofthe Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMJ) is to strengthen marriages and reduce the number of divorces in Oklahoma. The OMI is far reaching and not limited to one particular audience. A major focus ofthe OMI is to train individuals to lead marriage education workshops that promote marital stability through the teaching ofcommunication and relationship skills.

Since it began, OMI has trained thousands of workshop leaders from many backgrounds including the religious, public, and not-for-profits sectors. The funding for OMI has come almost entirely from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.

TANF was created as a part of federal welfare reform legislation that was enacted in 1996. One ofthe goals ofwelfare reform was to encourage two-parent families, particularly among low- income populations.

Do I need to spell this out for you?  Low-income families get targeted for more moralistic “your duty to society – do it for the state” programming, aimed generally speaking at making sure they are blamed for and can help distract the public from what are very many times, the fault of the wealthy.  Meanwhile

 Gingrich, or for that matter (for a California example) career politician Bill Lockyer** can have their three wives of any age, including 30 years younger, fail to exemplify abstinence all they want {Gingrich found #3 while cheating on #2 then converted to Catholicism), and continue on public salary.  Maybe every now and then a Congressman or Congressional aide is tossed to the wolves for cheating on his wife or sexting the wrong parts of his anatomy; even Clinton took some heat for it while President, but last I looked, he’s not hurting too bad, financially or politically.

NEWT Wiki:

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.

[From Callista’s link, we see that her affair with (married) Gingrich began the same year she came to washington, D.C. 1993 — and the same year that this heat on promoting “two parent families” was being pushed, particularly by him and fellow-republicans.].

Callista Bisek met Newt Gingrich in 1993 when he was House Minority Whip and she was working in the office of Congressman Gunderson.[21] 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.[22][23] Newt divorced Marianne in December 1999, and on August 18, 2000, Callista and Newt were married in a private ceremony in Alexandria, Virginia.[4] 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.[24] Callista, a lifelong Catholic, was instrumental in her husband’s conversion to that faith in 2009.[2] The Gingriches live in McLean, Virginia.[3]

So this liar, cheater, and woman-hater (except for the various purposes women are needed for at the time) ALSO was for about two years also a bigamist (how did his adult kids feel about that — did they know?) and then, hypocrite, used the Catholic religion to rationalize it because his wife hadn’t had a lifelong relationship with JUST one man, but had the nerve to marry (at least in sequence) more than one?? What kind of public policy good

[para. from Gingrich’s wiki:]

A co-author and architect of the “Contract with America”, Gingrich was a major leader in the Republican victory in the 1994 congressional election. In 1995, Time named him “Man of the Year” for “his role in ending the four-decades-long Democratic majority in the House”.[4] While he was House speaker, the House enacted welfare reform, passed a capital gains tax cut in 1997, and in 1998 passed the first balanced budget since 1969. The poor showing by Republicans in the 1998 Congressional elections, a reprimand from the House for Gingrich’s ethics violation, and pressure from Republican colleagues caused Gingrich’s resignation from the speakership on November 6, 1998,[5] followed by his outright resignation from the House on January 3, 1999.

Bill Lockyer is current California State Treasurer, was Senate Pro Tem when welfare reform was passed (see next para). and eventually was State Attorney General which is to say, THE top of the criminal justice system…  I don’t know what to say about his third wife not re-considering a political marriage of someone 30 years older; it’s been a local (statewide actually) melodrama.

She ended up strung out on drugs, having an affair with someone met in rehab, endangering their young son, and after having two highly responsible positions she wasn’t qualified for, really, and couldn’t have gotten without her famous husband’s connections (#1) or money (#2), County Supervisor, had to resign to take care of herself and there son. Perhaps they should’ve taken “Within My Reach” classes before marrying….

While I’m there, this next para. from Lockyer (California)’s wiki again underscores that the STATES are actually being run by their own dependency on federal funding to welfare recipients.  So, they got addicted to something else, looks like to me..

1997-1998 “Welfare Reform” Budget and tax-cut “Mega-deal”[edit]

Federal legislation signed by President Clinton in 1996 required California to enact “welfare-to-work” legislation to help welfare recipients move from government assistance to employment and “self-sufficiency”. The resulting establishment of a new CalWORKs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids) program had a major effect on the State budget, propelling difficult negotiations between the Democratic Legislature and conservative Republican Governor Pete Wilson. As Senate President Pro Tem, Lockyer was a key negotiator in these private negotiations, which, he later recalled to journalist Daniel Weintraub, produced the State’s “last… old-fashioned balanced budget,”,[15] linked to a bi-partisan billion-dollar tax “mega-deal”, a complex legislative package that cut state income taxes for middle class Californians.[16]

Always, the budget issues get dumped on the poor, and the middle class’s taxes are played against them…  But who’s been bailing out banks, savings and loans, defaulted mortgages, etc — can we lay that on the laps of the low-income of the country for failing to stay married??  Many of the poor are someone else’s career path, facilitated through just this type of programming.   

Back to Oklahoma. . . . .

Although OMI is broader then just low-income populations, it has several particular programs that are geared toward low-income individuals. One program in particular, Within My Reach (WMR), was developed specifically for low-income individuals, not couples. Currently the WMR curriculum is being offered to TANF clients in several Oklahoma Department of Human Services offices across the state. The focus ofthis study is the implementation ofOMI and how WMR is presented to TANF recipients.

This paper is a case study o f policy implementation in one particular site. This study uses qualitative techniques ofinterviews and observation. While it contains some elements of both the top-down and bottom-up perspectives, this study fits into the implementation literature as a bottom- up approach (Hill & Hupe 2002; Lipsky 1980).

It contains an interesting story of a bottom-up policy implementation. This paper does not test any specific hypothesis, but rather is intended to provide a historical background and context for the way in which the OMI has been implemented to TANF clients.

The first section deals with the research related to marriage in the low-income population. The next section deals with the history, goals, and methods of OMI. Research for this section was based on statements of public officials involved with the beginning of OMI. The next section looks at OMI from bottom up approach and deals with how OMI is implemented in one particular welfare office. Data is gathered from interviews with six agency staff, two TANF clients, and a WMR class observation.

[[“WMR” is code for “Within My Reach” which, coincidentally ?? is also a PREP, Inc. class.  See below]]


The focus of the study is how OMI reaches TANF clients and how it came to be that way. In particular, this study examines the Within My Reach curriculum and how it is administered to TANF clients.

Finally, this study concludes with a discussion of some potential implementation issues. It is hoped that this study can provide a starting point for further research and analysis

[note — I took time out to remove all the excess font-formatting wordpress (dozens for this short section!) inserted here, not to then go back and clean up the spacing also. I’m sure you can read it well enough to get the general idea!]

See closing sentences — no one here is questioning whether it should be implemented, just some of how it is implemented.

MY NOTE:  In a non-TANF world, and without so many Americans actually at many levels believing with Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1965) that “Patriarchy is best, and anything else is in a patriarchal culture, pathological” we might’ve had a better world today.  The same mentality of top-down, targeted saturation of indoctrinated world views can HARDLY be called representative government — and isn’t.  I do not recall it being an AFDC policy to promote two-parent families.  The switch to “TANF” did.  It was Purpose IV.   Oklahoma’s top leadership took Purpose IV and in effect made it purpose I, targeting public employees (esp. TANF) to push a few classes, at least one of them from Colorado.  This was intentional, diverted public money into private pockets, it was patronizing, condescending, racist, sexist, and very much religious… which may explain why Oklahoma was a great place to start.

It takes less than three pages to start referring to the 1965 infamous Senator Moynihan’s report on “The Negro Family”  [the two problem categories, apparently, were, first of all rapidly reproducing “Negroes” and along with this, their gold-ganged persistence in favoring matriarchy — or being forced into it from not having enough public policy support to do otherwise — in what after all, gol-dang it, we know is a patriarchal culture in these-here United States.

I have come to understand more than I wished to, as a domestic violence survivor who has been treated like a foreign species within my own family for refused to accept a second sociopathic (male) control freak I wasn’t married to, after the county helped me evict the first one, who’d made it clear at the time that he was just going to have to kill me (stated in a calm voice, not in the heat of passion) and wouldn’t have to look far at all, at the time, to choose any weapon to do it with.

Yes, that sounds cold (and is), but I’m not making this up.


But first a quick review of where OMI been expanding into since about 2000 when it was kicked into gear at public expense.  Is this something the US Government (which recently was shut down for lack of ability to make ends meet, allegedly) should be sinking its hope$$ into?  After this brief updated sampling, I’ll go back and question why Oklahoma had to fly in expertise from Washington and a curriculum from Denver.  And, why are they so often quoting a person associated with a “National Marriage Project” with known prior connections to forced sterilizations and eugenics, i.e., the art of breeding a better human population, with a view to elimination or control of the “unfit” (as defined by unmarried??).

[[from the OKLAHOMA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE (OMI) SITE. ] Their Main site has changed since I began blogging, and now features in small print a “first-time offender link” right underneath “Family Expectations” program advertising….

Oklahoma Marriage Initiative


Family Expectations

First Time Offender Program   [[translation:  We want access to the Prisoner-Re-entry program funds, too?]]

[[the material below goes with the “Family Expectations logo, not the “First Time Offender Program” which doesn’t have a logo yet.]]

What happens when you let a Public Relations firm explain “research” to the public.  It’s downright embarrassing.

http://www.familiesok.org/research.aspx  Same old product, slightly new buzzwords, probably another nonprofit, and comments from the field are “Scott Stanley of Prep, Inc.” — like that’s a neutral commentary (!!!).

As so many americans obviously can’t add or subtract (or think logically), the “research” is expressed in an A +B = C using icons — which show the ultimate purpose – continuous sales of endless programming from pregnancy (or before) throughout their children’s minority until the next generation, too, can be run through similar classes:

Family Expectations Positive Impacts 

Family Expectations was selected [[Obviously because it was such a great program, and no cronyism was involved]] to take part in two federal research studies: Building Strong Families (BSF) and Supporting Healthy Marriage (SHM). Family Expectations is one of only eight sites nationwide participating in the large-scale Building Strong Families evaluation. The BSF program model is designed to improve family outcomes and child well-being for unmarried parents in couple relationships

Keywords indicate that we are in the factory-farmed families business here — “family outcomes.”

On this link, an attempt to sound scientific and accurate (with a medical term thrown in, “dosages“) is actually thinly veiled marketing, and a pitiable attempt to sound clinical.  Looks like the “treatment” consists of getting people to sit through classes or contact their “family coordinator” at least twice in four months afterwards.  The public, through its income taxes, endorses, by permitting continued funding of this schlock, and for further profit to whoever’s paid for, or gets royalties on, that program.  Public Strategies is also it says contracting with OPRE to further facilitate the womb-to-tomb, “preventative services” wherever any family, anywhere (although the key focus here is Oklahoma), anyone has a life transition — marriage; being a couple, someone is pregnant, considering having sex (abstinence education is in the general field), considering not having Dad involved with Mom, collecting child support, accessing social services of some sort),

http://publicstrategies.com/comments-on-findings-from-family-expectations-director-of-center-based-services  [someone slapped together a quick writeup — very sloppy website.  In a different way than my sloppiness, which at least has some links and shows some time was put into it…and does the courtesy of letting people see where I got a lot of the information from…It begins:]

Comments On Findings From Family Expectations Director Of Center Based Services


David C. Kimmel, Ph.D.
Program Director, Family Expectations

The results announced by members of our research team today are very encouraging, and we are especially pleased with the research outcomes concerning enhanced relationship quality, increased likelihood of couples remaining together, couples’ increased ability to positively respond to conflict, and increased father involvement in families around the time of birth.

[[Another consistent theme.  NO SINGLE MOTHERS, please!!!]]

However, although these data are impressive, it is also important for us to say that we strongly believe that if the sample for Building Strong Families (BSF) Oklahoma were collected today, our impact on families would be even greater.

I’m so glad the program director (also PSI employee?) loves and believes in his work.  But the firm is a federal contractor AND grantee — so where’s the data on “BSF” TODAY?  (no evidence to be posted in the past 3 years).  Keep “take it on faith” where it belongs — in church, and for people who volunteer to show up there year after year.

Please keep in mind that the couples enrolled in this study participated in Family Expectations during our start-up years, with the last couple entering the study well over two years ago (Random Assignment period: June 2006 to February 2008). Throughout the study, we were constantly implementing new program components and enhancements, a process that continues.

So the great results were from a test run you were tinkering with while it was in process?  Or was the tinkering and adjustment process kept separate from the study.  Does anyone involved actually understand the scientific method, and whether or not running people through programs qualifies as a process with quality control.

The researchers here today will agree that very few programs regularly and consistently review, analyze and evaluate their performance with the same tenacity and rigor as Family Expectations.

Do those researchers have names, and contact information?  Do you have any signed testimonials  or should we take that on faith too — and assume without evidence that there’s no conflict of interest with them, or you?

While the participation and dosage rates in this study were high in comparison to other programs/studies, we have now exceeded even our own rates of performance and program outputs.   The program that the BSF Oklahoma couples received, while good, is now even better. Our overall participation rates are higher, our staff contacts with parents have increased, and we are constructively reinforcing the curriculum concepts more often. Highlights of improved performance include:

  • Participation in group sessions for unmarried couples: up from 73% to 81%
  • Percentage of couples completing all 30 hours of curriculum: up from 45% to 67%
  • Increased total contacts and service provision to couples: for example, while more couples were served in total in July 2007 (426) than in July 2010 (345), those couples served in 2010 received substantially more services designed to help them strengthen their families (e.g., a program total of 1,852 hours in July 2010 versus 432 hours July 2007)
  • The percentage of couples who had two in-person contacts with their Family Support Coordinator within the first 4 months of random assignment: up from 79% to 89%

This reads more like someone who has completed a Cliff Notes course on how to sound like a researcher.  It doesn’t pass a smell test — without a context, % means little, notice complete absence of links to any verifying data.  However even so, you can see up front their version of “service” is almost any contact whatsoever — showing at a group, sitting through 30 hours of class, “contacts” etc.

A lot of people are also sitting through K-12 public school education these days.  Sitting through classes doesn’t guarantee learning to read, add, or develop a good morality.   It doesn’t even guarantee coming out alive, or without being molested by someone who could go to jail for it, it caught, these days.   Perhaps we ought to reconsider what’s really behind this obsession with constant contact — and recruiting people to sit through classes, if indeed it’s something other than just profit (which, I think it is).

As I see a Ph.D. next to the David C. Kimmel’s name, above, I have to question either whether he = = actually cleared this page — or the Ph.D.   You may ask — Why does this even matter?  What can’t I let them just go be unprofessional and keep yakkin’ about how great they are and pretending to be scientific?

Perhaps this is why — $27 million dollars why, and no particular end in sight, not to mention where’s the public benefit?

For-profit PR firm getting HHS grants.  It also has contracts (versus grants) which can be looked up elsewhere using that DUNS#.  Let the Grants tell the story — you should read it more often.  For example, the grant below representing “Family Expectations is labeled 90FM0026.  That means there are more (probably 26) of them…

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC  OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73116-7909 OKLAHOMA 869106179 $ 27,497,864


Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients

Of the $27.5 (almost) million above — per TAGGS.hhs.gov “Advanced Search” under this grantee, and picking a few fields to run a report (search results) on, it looks likes like ALL was spent under “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” (the CFDA 93086 below is that Category of Federal Domestic Assistance, “CFDA” — and of that, $7.5 million since 2011 alone was on “Family Expectations.”  Someone should find out who “Sammye Cravens” is….

Award Number Award Title Budget Year Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
90FM0026 FAMILY EXPECTATIONS 1 09/26/2011 93086 NEW Sammye Cravens $ 2,500,000
Results 1 to 15 of 15 matches.

What you see here is strategic targeting of (vulnerable, or crony-connected) states, and organizations within those states, to push federal fund diversion to other groups who will profit from this — and bill it to all Americans that contribute to the federal government, which apparently has a lot of excess to throw around, whatever the news says about, we don’t….

Notice that PSI was paid, for “FH0001” (first of some series, right?) in Budget Year 1 — first $2 million and then by Budget Year 2, $3.2 million to develop healthy marriage resource materials. In 2006 & 2007, it looks to me like then-President Bush was keeping his election year promises to faith-based organizations (Office started up by Executive Order, which intentionally bypasses the voters-at-large (at least half of who are women….), and with a vengeance.   Jerry Regier was a “Bush” man.  he went from Oklahoma to Florida to head up DCF, where he embarrassed himself in public with talk of Biblical spanking, and other indicators (while Gov. Jeb Bush, the President’s brother, was  in power) and then back to Washington D.C. ).  I just ran the (213 search results) 90FM001 grants — and see Oklahoma DHS is getting them too — for special needs families. Anyone can, and more should, run these reports and take a closer look at the funding.


By looking up Principal Investigators (the column with people’s names) one can learn more.  Looking up “Mary Jo Kinzie” I found a google-book, and a few pages (p. 39, 42:  40-41 not visible in the preview mode) showing how hard PREP (and another class, WMR) was pushed to TANF recipients, and who pushed it at the OKDHS level [John Bolerjack]    and that both OMI @ statewide DHS level and field office Midwest City were pushing it.  And that as of 2003, it was possible to require it for SOME TANF recipients (sounds like substance abusers).  They aren’t pushing marriage, just teaching relationship skills….. (sure).  See the book description:   “It Must be the Money:  Relationship between Family Structure, Child Well-being and Public Policy  by Matthew C. Nowlin, University of Central Oklahoma.   “This study proposed to examine the interactions between income, family structure, race and child well-being. Educational achievement was used as a proxy for child well-being“–Leaf [57]”

No one has reviewed this book.  An e-book is not avaliable.  There is apparently little danger of the public ever getting around to realizing they’ve had their social service networks exploited for private profit, because so many TANF recipients are captive audiences, and so many people are unconscious of where their money goes after their wages are garnished…

I have looked at the corporate filing (in Colorado — not Oklahoma!) for PREP — and it belongs to ONE man, and is a very restrictive, controlling filing, in my opinion.



Discussions around the idea of a “transition to parenthood” program began as early as 2003, when Oklahoma leaders  began looking at couple life stages as key intervention points. Research on low-income families and the “magic moment” created by the birth of a baby followed, leading to very detailed planning about Oklahoma’s program ideas for this population. From 2006 to 2008, a model was designed and implemented carefully, growing into a robust program serving Oklahoma County families. Today, Family Expectations is a site-based strategyunlike anything that had previously been tried for new and expectant parents.

Such MODESTY!!!   Original thinking too — the “Families in Transition” phrase apparently was coined in Northern California a generation or show ago and spread throughout the family court system (I believe I posted).  Apparently when ANY relationship is in some transition, there is a market niche.  The distribution networks are pretty simple, as everyone in the country, almost, is hooked one way or another into the public federal budget (and through it, TANF); anyone who marries has to file with their county, and then involves the government should they want to get divorced.  Coming, gestating, bringing to birth, raising, feeding, engaging in commerce – is there no point at which our families and relationships are actually private??

Family Expectation “Our Team” gives the briefest description of what looks to me like two OLDER men (white male, Executive Director, black male Operations Manager), and all other staff except one YOUNGer man, are women.  Just like the “good-ol'” corporate structure, only with a little more color.  Descriptions are mostly of what they do NOW, with the exception of perhaps one woman described, oddly, as a former “FE couple” who came up through the ranks.  Moreover — is “FE a nonprofit?  It appears to be run as a project under public strategies….Dr. David KimmelPatrick Marc Charles

Kimmel, left, got a Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership at University of Oklahoma in 2001.  They didn’t do us the courtesy of posting a link, naming his Ph.D. field, or where it came from, but shown here, after the course listing (He teaches at college of continuing education Univ. of Oklahoma, some military connection, not much of a resume when it comes to academics, just administration.  Perfect for this position and probably a conformist…)

2001 Ph.D., Organizational Leadership, The University of Oklahoma; 1990  Masters in Public Administration, James Madison University; 1981 BS, Administration of Justice, The Pennsylvania State University…

Patrick Marc-Charles at least has a Linked-In, showing he was previously (2001-2006) “Federal Programs Director at Hennessey Schools.”  That would be definitely handy to have on board at PSI, whose corporation basically thrives on on federal and related state contracts, looks like to me.  As t FE here, which the linkedIn shows is a project of PSI, he’s been in that position since February 2013?  There is no mention of a college education anywhere on the (public-access) LinkedIn.

From their website “About Us” page, self-description (read this while you can before its replaced with some cheap shlock about the birds and the bees of the OMI:)


Initial activities were funded with private foundation monies and discretionary state dollars. Howard Hendrick, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director, pointed out that using TANF monies to fund the initiative fit within the intent of the family formation goals of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. The DHS Board set aside $10 million of undedicated TANF funds for OMI activities.*** The funds were earmarked primarily for developing marriage-related services, and leaders acknowledged that efforts should be made to make them available to low-income populations.

Thus, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative was launched and has grown to become the broad-based social service prevention project that it is today. The OMI has made sound decisions-by both policy and political standards-to build on the best research available, to invest in research to learn about marriage and divorce in Oklahoma, and to assess, to the extent possible, the effects of its activities and programs

**This means that there were more than $10 million of undedicated funds sitting around, that TANF was operating at a profit, and that rather than operating within its needs, the state budget had been storing excesses.  Read your CAFRs and get a mental image of what’s actually going on at the state and county level, at least.  Connect the dots between the funds held, the income earned from those funds, and whether or not our taxes, filing fees, etc. are being appropriately assessed — and used.  Government accounting is in FUNDS, the funds have names, and purposes — and these funds have balances held.  This means that SOMEWAY, SOME HOW — the finance page of your jurisdiction has to start holding some  of your attention.   Start somewhere — I’ve posted the links, and blogged it, a lot, started a blog on it — but at least START!

Also, by the way, “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative” apparently connected with the Oklahoma Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Public Strategies’ superb products and services continue to be recognized, with the following representing some of the recognition awarded to the firm for OMI projects (among several  bullets — no links to the pieces…)

The steering committee also engaged experts to collaborate in planning and to speak to interested groups. Experts working with the steering committee included, for example, Dr. Les Parrott of the Center for Relationship Development at Seattle Pacific University, and Theodora Ooms of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).(4) Advocates for domestic violence services also were included as partners on the steering committee, adding depth and diversity to the team.  [[apparently they were an afterthought and weren’t worth an honorable mention, like with their actual names.  I suspect, however Anne Menard of NHMRC was one of them?]]

To help build public support for the initiative during the early planning period, the OMI leaders engaged relationship experts to speak to and collaborate with a variety of audiences around the state. Dr. Les Parrot first spoke at a state Health Department-sponsored conference of more than 800 public health nurses. In 2000, he and his wife, Dr. Leslie Parrot, moved to Oklahoma for a year and were named scholars in residence at Oklahoma State University. In this capacity, they made appearances as OMI “marriage ambassadors” throughout the state, including at college and university venues.

I looked up the Parrotts long-ago; this one was third-generation “Olivet Nazarene” with a connection to Fuller Theological Seminary (in Pasadena, Southern California), which happens to be a very recurring trend these days in the marriage promo (and DV prevention) field, as it turns out, not to mention prisoner re-entry and several other sectors.  Wikipedia:

Les Parrott, IIIPh.D., is a professor of clinical psychology for Seattle Pacific Universityauthormotivational speaker, and an ordainedNazarene minister.[1][2][3] 

Parrot is the son of A. Leslie Parrot, Jr.[4] Parrott obtained a Bachelor’s degree from Olivet Nazarene University in 1984, a Master’s degree in theology, followed by a Doctorate in clinical psychology from Fuller Theological Seminary.[5] Parrot is a fellow in medical psychology at the University of Washington School of Medicine.[5]

Les Parrott


In 1991, Parrott and his wife, Leslie, also a psychologist who teaches at Seattle Pacific University, founded the Center for Relationship Development on the campus of Seattle Pacific University.[6][7] Parrott teaches psychology, and co-teaches relationship development classes with his wife. They were also creators of the Marriage function ofeHarmony.[ . . . 

Leslie Parrott, 85, loved learning

The Rev. Dr. A. Leslie Parrott loved learning and he inspired that love in others. It was a family legacy of sorts. His grandfather had been…

By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times religion reporter (2007 Obituary….)

Rev. Dr. A. Leslie Parrott

The Rev. Dr. Parrott, who also led Church of the Nazarene congregations in Puyallup, Kirkland and Kelso, died Sept. 23 in Phoenix after a brief illness. He was 85.

His father, who had grown up poor in Tennessee, had only $5 to his name when he came to Olivet Nazarene University in Bourbonnais, Ill. Years later, he went back — as president of the university.

The Rev. Dr. Parrott followed in his father’s footsteps, serving as president of Eastern Nazarene College in Quincy, Mass., from 1970 to 1975, and as president of Olivet Nazarene University from 1975 to 1991.

You almost pick up leadership in education by osmosis when you grow up in a college president’s home,” said son Les Parrott III. His older brother, Roger Parrott, is president of Belhaven College in Jackson, Miss.; and oldest brother, Richard Parrott, is an educator and lecturer in Nashville, Tenn.

The Rev. Dr. Parrott’s wife, Lora Lee Parrott, has a master’s degree in theology

The Rev. Dr. A. Leslie Parrott loved learning and he inspired that love in others. It was a family legacy of sorts.

His grandfather had been president of a Christian college. The Rev. Dr. Parrott himself became president of two Christian colleges. And his three children are all involved in education.

(from another obituary of the father of Les Parrott, III):
Throughout his career, he was associated with many prominent leaders in the Evangelical world including serving on a planning committee with the Billy Graham Evangelical Association for the 1968 Billy Graham Crusade in Portland, Oregon.

In addition to his work as an educator and minister, Parrott was a prolific writer and authored numerous books including The Power of Your Attitudes, published by Beacon Hill Press. Several of his books were published by Zondervan including Building Today’s Church, which Rick Warren, author of the bestseller The Purpose Driven Life, has cited as having been instrumental in shaping his philosophy of ministry.

Parrott, III’s CV (posted in Seattle Pacific) shows psychology, religion, and education — with a lot of Fuller Theological Seminary.  Grants and support coming from:  Windgate, Murdock and O.S. Hansell Foundation (Orange County).  They must be doing all right because he and his wife also have a “Center for Healthy Relationships Foundation” going….




Significance of all this evangelical religiosity being involved in Oklahoma’s state TANF diversions into Marriage Promotion:  Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church (and related policies) have made splashes for their WEAKNESS on domestic violence within the ranks.  Look it up yourself — and I’ve blogged.  Same deal, James Dobson.  It’s a RELIGION thing!!!

Fuller history seems to also have an Oklahoma connection, but as its not in the forefront of my mind, I’ll skip it for now.

Nazarenes are like many other evangelical or holiness groups, except for two things, it says:

[from Christianity.about. com] Nazarene beliefs are spelled out in the church’s Articles of Faith and the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene. Two Nazarene beliefs set this Christian denomination apart from other evangelicals: the belief that a person can experience entire sanctification, or personal holiness, in this life, and the belief that a saved person can lose their salvation through sin.

Current and former Nazarenes include James Dobson [“FOCUS ON THE FAMILY’}, Thomas Kinkade, Bill Gaither, Debbie Reynolds, Gary Hart, and Crystal Lewis.

The Parrot Couple with a red-carpet invite to the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative strategizing are absolutely in the tradition of evangelical on-line marketing of franchised (buy your want into becoming a certified provider…) trainings. I

wonder if they’re ever home in Washington, or that’s just a prop inbetween for their commercial (excuse me, “evangelizing”) jaunts. I also noticed a lot of property in Arizona with their name on it, but then again, there is a family connection to that state also. WEALTHY family, apparently….

Marriage Mentoring

OK, so the religious groups are hard into this field from early on (also let’s not forget that it was being pushed by the National Governors’ Association as far back as 1994, too — which I learned in looking up how Gov. Keating of Oklahoma got involved.  )

But a group of Women Congressional Leaders didn’t get the word out properly, in my opinion???

Why didn’t Women’s Policy, Inc. (“The Source of Women’s Issues in Congress”) get the funding to warn us all about the TANF Contingency-grab?   Here’s clear evidence at least this group knew about it.

In 2001 Woman’s Policy, Inc., which deals with publicizes Women’s Issues in Congress (I gather), and does a newsletter “The Source”

WPI LogoTold whoever knew enough to check their D.C. area website, about TANF issues.  I was in California at this time (in a battering relationship) and didn’t know to do this.  Somehow, it didn’t seem to make the rounds at many domestic violence agencies, ‘DVLEAP, Battered Mothers Custody Conference, or many other places — that this was taking place.  But here it is:Subcommittee Examines Welfare Reform and Pro-Marriage Provisions (5/25/2001 says the webpage frame — not the article itself)

With the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) set to expire next year, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources has held several hearings to examine the impact of the law in order to prepare for its reauthorization. A May 22 hearing discussed provisions of the law that were designed to discourage illegitimacy and promote marriage. . . . 

Let’s look at the money that was commandeered for these more-marriages, fewer- ‘bastards’  purposes to regulate the reproduction, marriage, and mating habits of a nation:

P.L. 104-193 also created a $20 million bonus grant for each of the five states that demonstrate the greatest decrease in out-of-wedlock births and reduce their abortion rate below the 1995 level. To begin in 1999, the bonus was scheduled to be granted in each of the four years, 1999-2002. Alabama, California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Michigan received the bonus in 1999, and Alabama, the District of Columbia, Illinois, and Michigan received the bonus in 2000.

Additionally, states may use cash assistance from welfare funds to implement programs to promote marriage and family formation. To date, only two states—Arizona and Oklahoma—have implemented such programs. Welfare reform requires single mothers who are minors to live at home, or in an adult-supervised setting, and stay in school in order to receive TANF benefits.

The 1996 law also established an abstinence-only education program, which is funded at $50 million annually for five years. Programs eligible to receive abstinence education funds must meet eight criteria, including a requirement that they have as their exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health benefits in abstaining from sexual activity. States contribute $3 for every $4 provided by the federal government, bringing total funding to $87.5 million.

. . .

While the ranking Democrat from Maryland recognized that sometimes domestic violence happens and affects the desirability of marriage — the religious (Unification Church) Rep. Mark Anderson (Arizona) and the religious Jerry Regier (Oklahoma) waxed eloquent on the purpose of marriage:

Ranking Democrat Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) agreed that “there is a general consensus that marriage can benefit children.” However, he added, “We must recognize these generalizations do not apply to every circumstance, particularly when domestic violence is present.”


Arizona State Representative Mark Anderson told the subcommittee about an Arizona law that allocates $1 million of the state’s TANF funding for marriage skills courses. An additional $75,000 is provided for a “healthy marriage” handbook that is distributed to individuals applying for marriage licenses, and another $75,000 is provided for vouchers for low-income couples who want to take marriage skills courses.

Rep. Anderson noted that “abstinence-until-marriage and marriage skills programs are based on sound health policy.” 

Jerry Reiger of the Oklahoma Department of Health and Human Services detailed the state’s efforts to support and promote marriage with its TANF funds. Oklahoma has set aside $10 million of its TANF surplus funds for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, a multifaceted program to strengthen marriage and reduce divorce rates. “Our efforts are targeted at strengthening marriage and not at bashing divorce. Divorce will happen, and sometimes must happen. Therefore we want to clearly communicate the societal economic impact of divorce, as well as the value of the institution of marriage,” he stated.

Since the programs in Arizona and Oklahoma have just begun, there is no data available on their effectiveness. However, Rep. Anderson and Mr. Reiger agreed that Congress should renew and strengthen its commitment to promoting marriage. “Congress has a chance to lead on the issue of strengthening marriage….Let’s give these programs a chance to make a difference in our children’s lives,” stated Rep. Anderson.

Dr. David Popenoe of the National Marriage Project told the subcommittee that the decline in marriage significantly affects children. “The social science evidence is now overwhelming . . . . 

[[In general, I am “under-whelmed” by social science as a science, or a basis for government….

David Popenoe being interviewed (1996) on “Fatherless Families.”  He’s a sociologist? at Rutgers.  His work his quoted in ChildWelfare promotional material on fatherhood.


. . .and the connection between Marriage Promotion and Eugenics/forcible sterilization of the unfit (it’s apparently a family (father-son) affair) . . . and where some of these marriage-pushing outfits got their start….

IF Paul Popenoe was a relative, possibly David’s FATHER?, then we have a direct indicator that “Fatherhood,” now nearly an “old” movement, is simply repackaging of Eugenics — which was Paul Popenoe’s life work.  He only turned to focusing primarily on marriage counseling rather than eugenics when eugenics was disgraced as a part of the Nazi Holocaust.  This hardly surprises me, but I think bears reminding — regularly.  The State’s interest and obsession with “Designer Families” is in the State’s self-interest– which is NOT simultaneous with humanity’s.   Like breeding dogs and horses, the State wishes to control the breeding of people ,and for the same reasons — apparently, for sport and profit.

Granted, Wikipedia sometimes reads like an advertisement, or informally — BUT it DOES seem that Popenoe, D is eugenicist Popenoe, P., cleaned up only for public acceptance – and not in ultimate purpose, beliefs, or agenda, which is sterilizing those considered unfit:

Is this a direct relative??

PAUL POPENOE, WIKIPEDIA (looks like son of a HORTICULTURALIST (avocado farmer)? turned EUGENICIST:

Paul Popenoe (October 16, 1888 – June 19, 1979) was an Americanfounding practitioner of marriage counseling. In his early years, he worked as an agricultural explorer and as a scholar of heredity, where he played a role in theeugenics movement of the early twentieth century. . .

IS there some part of the following which is hard to grasp?  If not, then we have our answers on some of the private interests promoting marriage and fatherhood (as  a profession and practice) within the United States….

Born Paul Bowman Popenoe inTopeka, Kansasin 1888, he was the son of Marion Bowman Popenoe and Frederick Oliver Popenoe, a pioneer of theavocadoindustry. (Popenoe dropped his middle [[aka his Mother’s]] name early in life.)

He moved toCaliforniaas a teen. After attending Occidental Collegefor two years andStanford Universityfor his Junior year (Majoring in English with coursework in biology), Popenoe left school to care for his father and worked for several years as a newspaper editor. He then worked briefly as an agricultural explorer collectingdatespecimens inWestern Asiaand Northern Africa for his father’s nursery in California, along with his younger brother Wilson Popenoe, a horticulturist. These travels received considerable support and interest from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.[1]Paul Popenoe published his first bookDate Growing in the Old World and the Newin 1913.

How closely was Paul’s interest in human breeding aligned with the US Government’s (Agriculture Dept.) interest in human breeding?  “Human Breeding?” i

In the mid-1910s Popenoe became interested in human breeding, editing theJournal of Heredityfrom 1913 until 1917, with a special attention toeugenicsandsocial hygiene. By 1918, Popenoe had become well-established enough to co-author a popular college textbook on eugenics (Applied Eugenics). DuringWorld War IPopenoe was inducted into the officer corps of theUnited States Army. Under the War Department Commission on Training Camp Activities, he was charged with rooting out liquor and prostitution in an effort to reduce the high incidence ofvenereal diseaseamongst U.S. troops.[2]

Paul Popenoe married Betty Stankowitch in New York on 23 August 1920. They remained married until her death on 26 June 1978.

In the mid-1920s, Popenoe began working with E.S. Gosney, a wealthy California financier, and the Human Betterment Foundation to promote eugenic policies in the state of California.

In 1909, California had enacted its first compulsory sterilization law which allowed for sterilization of the mentally ill and mentally retarded in its state psychiatric hospitals. With Popenoe as his scientific workhorse, Gosney intended to study the sterilization work being done in California and use it to advocate sterilization in other parts of the country and in the world at large.

This would culminate in a number of works, most prominently their joint-authored Sterilization for Human Betterment: A Summary of Results of 6,000 Operations in California, 1909-1929 in 1929. T

his work would become a popular text for the advocacy of sterilization, as it purported to be an objective study of the operations in the state and concluded, not surprisingly, that rigorous programs for the sterilization of the “unfit” were beneficial to all involved, including the sterilized patients.

During the 1930s he served as a member of the American Eugenics Society‘s board of directors along withCharles B. Davenport Henry H. GoddardMadison GrantHarry H. Laughlin, and Gosney, among others).

While Popenoe had no contact with the regime of Nazi Germany and abhorred the Racial hygiene campaign as it unfolded, some theorists in retrospect associate his work as feeding this program of the Nazi government.[citation needed]

In 1929 he received an honorary Sc.D. degree from Occidental College, which he previously attended. Thenceforth, he commonly referred to himself as “Dr. Popenoe”.

Along with his advocacy of sterilization programs, Popenoe was also interested in using the principles of German and Austrian marriage-consultation services for eugenic purposes. Aghast at the divorce rate in US society, Popenoe came to the conclusion that “unfit” families would reproduce out of wedlock, but truly “fit” families would need to be married to reproduce. With financial help from Gosney, he opened the American Institute of Family Relations  in Los Angeles in 1930. The Institute was described in 1960 as “the world’s largest and best known marriage-counseling center” with a staff of seventy.[3]





. .. About 1908, Popenoe dropped out of college after three years to work and care for his sick father.  After working as a newspaper editor for a few years, he quit his job and made a six-month tour of Europe.  Popenoe’s father worked as a nurseryman when he retired, so on his dad’s behalf, Popenoe learned Arabic, one of eight languages he knew, and traveled around the Middle East collecting date palms.  This lead to his first book,Date Growing in the Newand Old Worlds, published in 1913, which became a manual for horticulturists.

A CERTAIN KIND OF PEOPLE PERSON         Later that year, Popenoe moved to Washington D.C. to edit the new publication theJournal of Heredity. He idolized Charles Darwin and believed that improving humanity would happen by applying science to society.  His focus turned to heredity and eugenics, an extension of natural selection.  Eugenicists believe in improving the genetic makeup of the human population specifically by sterilizing people with genetic defects or undesirable traits, thereby keeping them from reproducing.  This was a very progressive point of view subscribed to by the intellectuals of the time, including Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger and Theodore Roosevelt.  Popenoe’s self study in a group of like-minded scientists and intellectuals eventually resulted in his bookApplied Eugenics, published in 1918.

. . .

Despite his lack of a college diploma, in 1929 Popenoe was awarded an honorary doctorate from Occidental College, where he had done two years of study twenty years earlier.  He used the title Dr. Popenoe professionally.

STAYING TRENDY       The application of his philosophy of hereditarianism shifted with the tide of social thought, and he changed his focus from genetic improvement to family improvement.  In 1930 Popenoe founded the Institute of Family Relations (later the American Institute of Family Relations) in Los Angeles, bringing marriage and family counseling (a concept that started in Germany a decade earlier) to America.  He maintained that “…to improve the race, we should first start with the family.  And since the family often suffers problems which threaten its stability, we must treat those problems.  In other words, we should establish a marriage counseling center where maladjustments might be brought, studied, classified–and helped if possible.” Part of his counseling was to encourage fathers to take an active role in the lives of their children. 

In the ensuing decades, the Institute had up to 70 counselors and claimed in 1977 to have counseled over 300,000 men, women and children.  He required the counselors to be married and never divorced.  Even though Popenoe was not religious, in the 1960s and ‘70s many of his assistants were ministers and other religious people, including Dr. James D. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.  His office moved to Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood and Popenoe became the marriage counselor to the stars, although Lana Turner went to his house for her sessions to maintain privacy.

REACHING THE MASSES              Popenoe’s influence extended beyond the Institute.  He wrote a daily newspaper column called “Your Family and You,” and he counseled couples on a reality TV show called “Divorce Hearing.”  He was a popular lecturer on college campuses and wrote a total of 17 books and numerous popular and scientific articles on marriage relations.  Television host Art Linkletter asked Popenoe to help him create a way to successfully match men and women, a forerunner to today’s dating services.  Popenoe created a questionnaire of 32 items including race, religion, politics, and pets.  Over 4,000 people responded to a newspaper ad to be matched.  A Univac computer analyzed the surveys and picked a couple who were introduced to each other on Linkletter’s television show People Are Funny.  It was a good match, and the couple got married.



The rise of marriage therapy, and other dreams of human betterment.


Campaigns to defend, protect, and improve marriage have been around for a long time. They’re usually tangled together. They even share a family history. David Popenoe, a founder of the National Marriage Project, is the son of Paul Popenoe, the father of marriage counselling, who is best remembered for the Ladies’ Home Journal feature “Can This Marriage Be Saved?” It’s still running. For decades, the stories in “Can This Marriage Be Saved?” came from Paul Popenoe’s American Institute of Family Relations, based in Los Angeles, the country’s leading marriage clinic. Reporters called it “the Mayo Clinic of family problems.” At its height, in the nineteen-fifties, Popenoe’s empire also included stacks of marriage manuals; a syndicated newspaper column, “Modern Marriage”; a radio program, “Love and Marriage”; and a stint as a judge on a television show, “Divorce Hearing.” People called him Mr. Marriage.

They also called him Dr. Popenoe, even though his only academic degree was an honorary one. For a time, he counselled more than a thousand couples a year. Consider a case published in 1953: Dick is about to leave his wife, Andrea, for another woman. He is bored with Andrea. “Living with her is like being aboard that ship that cruised forever between the ports of Tedium and Monotony,” he says. Can this marriage be saved? You bet. At Popenoe’s clinic, Andrea is urged to make herself more interesting. She learns how to make better conversation, goes on a strict diet, and loses eight pounds. The affair is averted.

Popenoe’s business launched an industry; marriage clinics popped up all over the country. They are popping up still. The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, founded in 1942, has some twenty-four thousand members, although the actual number of therapists who see couples is much higher. Up to eighty per cent of therapists practice couples therapy. Today, something like forty per cent of would-be husbands and wives receive premarital counselling, often pastoral, and millions of married couples seek therapy. Doubtless, many receive a great deal of help, expert and caring. Nevertheless, a 1995 Consumer Reports survey ranked marriage counsellors last, among providers of mental-health services, in achieving results.

Yes — the Better Human Breeding Program of Yesteryear, now (especially since the Civil Rights Act) is less politically correct, is still here in either is secular humanist, or the Dr. Dobson formats– fatherhood and marriage promotions is actually about maintaining the purity of the human race, and preventing the over-reproduction of “unfit” (unmarried”) human beings to plague ‘our’ cities and trouble ‘our’ finances.  Hence, in this worldview, it’s quite normal to simply “forget” to mention that there are TANF surpluses that SOME individuals would be better spent lecturing and training others about their morality than feeding them.

From what I can tell of the distribution, markup, accessorizing of the basic product line, and the fact that essentially it’s an internet product with franchised distributors — and HHS backing — it must be making some people a real mint.  They can rest well, having left the world a better-bred place, as those who won’t go along might just be starved, stressed, or sterilized  out of existence….

Scott Stanley (above), Bill Coffin (formerly HHS Special marriage Assistant), Bradley Wilcox (American Enterprise Institute) I see have started up a Virginia (nonprofit?  Not yet, looks like (SEARCH HERE)) “Institute for Family Studies,” not being satisfied with their current profits and evangelizing around this cause….


See the trademark?

The words Smart Marriages® and Smart Marriage® and the couple puzzle logo are registered trademarks of CMFCE, LLC The words smart marriages® and smart marriage® cannot be used in any context. The couple puzzle logo cannot be used in any representation whether multiples, changed perspective, etc in the context of marriage or relationships. Copyright (©) – CMFCE, LLC

That I (and I did), or you, could fail to show curiosity about WHO are, and WHY are there groups such as the National Governors’ Association (or Western Governors’ Association), U.S. Conference of Mayors — etc. and failed to understand their operations, is sad. The NGA (FYI) was promoting “fatherhood initiatives” to state governors as far back as 1994. We are no longer in an era where it’s wise, or fiscally sound to just mind our own business and work our own jobs. Alas, because that activity (and being able to support oneself, and/or family on it) actually does lead to basic happiness, often…. At least I know it did for me….. As did having and raising children EVEN through the violence. But what has happened since? No. That has been tragic. It’s absolutely insane, that’s the real tragedy — it’s a waste of humanity.

The eventual purpose of these various fatherhood/marriage/abstinence movements [I finally had to admit]] seems to have been to set, sometimes for life, trainings and professions to be run through and advertised on state, county, religious (church) and other sites — at public expense — to waste public funds, in the process of making sure some of us are working in high-competition low-wage sectors, and others are free to go about doing mergers and acquisitions, investing internationally, and in general having a good deal more freedom than people unable to learn the art of the deal — and set up multiple streams of income in one lifetime, and then reduce the taxes on it. I say that having looked at so many organizations, read (til one wants to gag) the rhetoric, and noticed the incorporation patterns habitually involve cheating and tax evasion through failure-to-file, or failure to STAY incorporated. It’s a real object lesson in how to cheat, and to join gangs, the study of this field — they seems to attract that element, PLUS the various religious cults (Christian evangelicals or conservatives, dominionists, and new age.

I will continue to say this — we asked for these issues and the technology to magnify them (or, our grandparents did) in tolerating without continuing to kick, scream and demand changes — when the income tax, federal reserve board, social security act and many other things were passed to start with.  Centralization of wealth under government control means that whoever controls government — controls the wealth (assets).

AND in continuing to submit to compulsory public education which never, really, can include an objective history of government — because these schools ARE government itself, literally. ALL are parts and pieces of the larger system elements of the puzzle to form the parts on the pipelines of life….

BUT there’s an individual responsibility to learn a few things if one wants to complain about the status quo.

Starting to learn this vocabulary (for those who just don’t have it) is moving towards becoming a more responsible human being and, if the definition applies, citizen. It’s also a good (healthy) self-education and will put some current events in the larger historical whole. I believe it will help make more sense of our world, and for those who have lost power, place, and sense of self under long-term abuse or agressions from GOVERNMENT authorities, it may restore some of that. You may be a far more alarmed (and possibly
angry) person — but you will also be a better person for knowing.

It may also lead to significant lifestyle change. Why?Once you understand Corporations better, and how Government is Accumulating wealth — you’ll see that time counts. Time is of the essence.

As I added a page recently (“The Social Sciencification of America” talking about the Brownlow Committee (three men advising FDR pre-1939) and the professionalization of government, I can see this is in full swing).

A book I found recently (“The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century: Wall Street and the Rise of the Fourth Reich“) has a very good Chapter 3 and 4.  Chapter 3 talks about corporations PER SE, and Chapter 4 illustrates how the Germans really did learn from World War I how NOT to get all their assets seized in the NEXT war — and that this was accomplished through multi-national cartels.

Read it OnLINE.  Please!

Ch.3, “Corporate Law A History — page 48. See esp. p. 50-51, what Thomas Jefferson thought of them; Ch. 4: “The Roaring Twenties and The Roots of Fascism”

Part 1. I.G. Farben” — is on page 68 of this on-line version.

I only found this resource recently, but on first reading, chapter 3 shows the dangers of unrestricted corporations, and how earlier states set clear limits on their purpose, and subject matter  of those corporations; they did NOT give the shareholders immunity from liability, etc.

The Corporation now should be properly understood as a form of (its own) government. Changes over time were made in the laws to enable this — and the purpose was, well, creeping fascism. It wasn’t accidental. Incorporation enabled this.

A Review:

Exposes how US elitists launched Hitler, then recouped Nazi assets to lay the postwar foundations of a modern police state, complete with controlled corporate media. Fascists won WWII because they ran both sides. “A valuable history of the relationship between big business in the United States and European fascism…The story is shocking and sobering and deserves to be widely read.”– Howard Zinn

Earlier in our country’s history there was better understanding of the power that unrestricted incorporation powers was very dangerous. Corporations can expand infinitely, they are private in some senses, and they outlive their owners, transferring wealth and assets.

The unincorporated, non-coalition-forming individuals will be consistently losing ground in that regard UNLESS they have serious wealth. Meanwhile, the nation collectively is so dumb (no quotes) it continues to give submit to having money taken UP FRONT by governments, HELD in multiple accounts (out of sight out of mind) where that money then earns income, is invested, and accumulates.

The table below gives a quick, and pretty simple, “heads-up” when dealing with organizations who want to change laws, setup model practices with a goal of changing systems (in context of this blog — of justice, courts, etc.) — and in general, enable people with an agenda to permeate, saturate, or at least indoctrinate the public — or legislators — or judges — or others — to change (abolish) representative government in favor of regionalized administrative operational centers.

When this intent is combined with the power of private philanthropy + certain kinds of nonprofits to multiply BEYOND ACCOUNTABILITY with their private agenda — and get it into law, coerce compliance, etc. — we are going to be “toast” (history — dust — slaves — starved out, thrown out, and a smaller sector kept for utilitarian purposes) as a country.    It is a VERY serious issue and a natural and logical continuation of the previous world wars, and history. It is government as corporation — not government of, for, or by “the people” in the least.  I don’t know when the last time that agenda was actually on the table — probably not recently.

With Vocabulary Comes Concepts // With Concepts Applied can  come Understanding // With Understanding CAN come some Conversation on The Financial Blueprints  behind the Psychological Behaviors of the Courts Themselves.

The Problem:

Speaking of conferences run BY professionals, but aimed AT and solicited to have the parents (with custody cases) present as audiences (mothers in particular, but also fathers):

There are conferences around trauma and surviving childhood abuse. There are conferences whose name says “domestic violence” or “violence prevention.”

There has been in NY (now, also in D.C. as of 2013) the Battered Mothers Custody Conference intended FOR mothers and specific to the custody issues — but this conference refuses to take the corporate/grants/nonprofit influences seriously.

The PRWORA and Financial Profiles of court-connected nonprofits (or promotional resource centers, or the grants etc.) just is not central and so far has habitually NOT been taught, nor have the repeat presenters been teaching it on-line systematically TO mothers inbetween conferences — which is essentially censorship for the purpose of promoting the presenting practices of the professionals and their viewpoints.

Vocabulary and language — (rhetoric) — is learned by immersion, association, conversation, and dialogue — not just by definition.

The conversations around THIS material are not occurring in large group meetings or conferences, or print publications that I’m aware of. There are, obviously, blogs, some on-line email groups,
personal communications — but not conferences. The people who are destined to become the subject matter [ and by being run through various trainings of curricula, in large part by virtue of having children and having custody or abuse issues) of programs X,Y,Z and A, B, or C — ] GENERALLY have not made a profession of doing conferences to expand and prolong their time in the courts, thereby depriving them of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and/or homes, businesses, freedom, and contact with their children]. SOME have, others have NOT.

The public “at large” doesn’t either. They just don’t comprehend the extent of this, and why should they, without personal acquaintance or actually working in one of the professions involved? (Domestic Violence Advocate, Fatherhood Practitioner, Supervised Visitation or Batterers Intervention Provider, or Trainers, Judge, Custody Evaluator, Child Support Director, Social Worker, CPS, CASA, Guardian Ad litem, forensic psychologist, court-appoined mediator, parent coordinators (except in Pennsylvania 🙂 :), :)…

But I can find-on=line and absolutely have read discussions of these matters in other scenarios habitually NOT involving individual parents — unless the parents are smart enough to look these up and show up for them.

To my understanding neither classes, nor downloadable (for-sale) material is available on the importance of quickly determining where a Center, Institute, or court-connected Nonprofit, etc. is coming from — and who it is — is simply not encourage, either.

I want that to change. This is a start!

This is BASIC level – but BASIC levels are foundational; fundamental — and critical. Without understanding BASIC, FOUNDATIONAL economic differences between THIS group or THAT group — how can anyone evaluate them? Getting those basic definitions will then put the investigator (person who wants to know) quickly in front of information that starts to give it a historic, geographic (which state was it formed in) and associational (what other associations do the boards of directors hold?) context.

Now that I do know more, I have constantly run up against stumblingblocks, if not mental blocks, in discussing with others the overall pattern (and from there, what to do about it) with some real coherence — because most WOMEN/MOTHERS in the courts simply don’t have the vocabulary, and with vocabulary comes concepts. It’s inefficient and wasteful — when time is of the essence. If words to actually communicate situations are not found, then the conversations get down to either personal bonding (with people one may never see again, or even want to — transient relationships), or inappropriate bonding to compensate for what, actually, you do not understand in common. To me, that’s just craziness.

Wars cannot be run that way. Businesses can’t if no one IN the business understands the business enough to actually do the work of the business! And, if there is no owner, or management – what would get done? You can have a coffee clatch, or a cult — but can you have intelligent action on chosen prioritized goals?

It is truly empowering to actually have a labeling system that makes some sense. When it comes to the BUSINESS of government — is it or is it not important to know whether who’s running the place is business — or is government?

That is basically what I’m pointing out — and with it, I wish to point out that if we have ANY respect for the concept of law, the rule of law, and what is allegedly representative government — then it’s time to address these philanthropies attempting to run government as if they were it — to understand where their money comes from (habitually) and how it’s made — and to force a return to a form of government which doesn’t require periodic genocides, isn’t leading to World War III (over control of basic energy commodities) and which doesn’t entail extortion and child/arms/drug trafficking — as we now apparently do!

Family Courts are part of the transition plan to an international, one-world government based on the collectivist, “conciliatory” model — and not on individual human liberty, or rule of law within individual states, or even countries. The “behavioral health” component, in my opinion, is simply to perfect the use of persuasion and force for this transformation.

As a person who has experienced now a good chunk of my life witnessing what this means on a micro-level (three generations of my own family line, and one-third of my adult life, with no realistic positive vision for the future at this point, other than ongoing litigation — or ongoing suffering — or significant, significant personal losses beyond what’s already happened) — and who has an insatiable curiosity about history, HOW these things came to be — I am going to state: it’s going to be bad for most, tolerable for some, and the desired outcome for the wrong type of people to be ruling the planet.

Isn’t it worth learning a few new words, and habits — for a better future?

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

October 29, 2013 at 7:45 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: