I tend to report AS I see it. Last post what I saw, while ranting on (in detail and in general) about the Domestic Violence cartels — in California, with the federal and other nationwide connections to funding — I found this at a 2011 statewide CPEDV conference:

First, several paragraphs (a few inches of post) showing who Rally is, which make me question what it’s doing in a domestic violence prevention conference?  I have known the name for a while simply because I look at A/V grants.  Today is as good a day as any to talk some business about this situation.

Below that I also have a few inches (paragraphs) about the DV group itself.

Then we will get some more into the conflicts of business interest in the whole mess.

• (Search results) a blog by “littlepicklepress” (2011 event advertised) states that Rally was launched by the SF Unified Court in 1991.
• There’s a DIRECT connection to San Francisco Family Court Services and Rally, great pains are taken to ensure people know how to get their services, involve a mediator when services are requested, schedule their services, etc.  [the word occurs 16 times in that link!]
• It is even featured in a 2008 (and probably other years) HHS/ACF/OCSE site summary of these grants (page 45, listing some of the programs) and it IS listed as a subcontractor with the SF Superior Court/ Unified Family Court itself.  Note:  “OCSE” stands for Office of Child Support Enforcement:
• 7. Superior Court of San Francisco – United Family Court 400 McAllister Street, Room 440 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 551-3912
  • Subcontractor: A. Rally Family Visitation Services of Saint Francis Memorial Hospital 900 Hyde Street San Francisco, CA 94109

Rally Family Visitation [hover cursor] has long been around as, it seems, an California Access/Visitation (sub)grantee;  I learned recently, it has this entire time has been operating out of a SF presumably Catholic (“Saint Francis”) hospital (known), apparently without a corporate identity.  However it’s mentioned in the California 2007 “Report to the Legislature on Access Visitation Grant Programs (2005-2006, page A-7) (hover cursor). Collaborative with SF Superior Court, they received a $60,000 grant to do “Family Cohesion” program.  (Let’s get this again — the court can both order people into supervised visitation, and with a non-entity group, operate the program???)

Here’s a LinkedIn to a man who has worked as a Visitation Specialist two-and-a-half years with Rally, including working with kids, writing it up, answering the phone, and processing payments, simultaneous with working as a case manager with Catholic Charities CYO, simultaneous with working as a case manager for HUD, with homeless and people in need of housing, AIDS, etc. (Francisco Escobar, SFState Graduate).

Rally is not just getting funds from Access Visitation (and parents sliding fees?), but also from DOJ/Safe Havens, and THIS appears to be through the Department of Public Health, as a contract.  (Search results).  This is a (badly scanned) pdf showing a resolution to “accept and expend“certain Safe Havens grants retroactively for Rally and La Casa de las Madres.  @ San Francisco Board of Supervisors.org; part of it is on the form of  legal pleading (DNK why).  Again, Rally and the other group  are Subcontractors on an Agreement, to receive DOJ funding.  The Supervisors resolve to authorize the DPH (Dept. of Public Health) to Retroactively Accept and Expend $141,586 (Oct. 2010-2011) for this program (more for the three yrs).

Please browse, it shows the purpose is to expand into two more satellite locations, that it’s a three-year project ending (this past September) and what the various calculated salaries were.  For example, Sonia Melara was calculated as FTE (full time equivalent) of $115K, for these purposes, $55K, etc.  The project was NOT bid out (no one else was considered for this subcontracting with DPH to get the DOJ/OVW grant in question).  See Budget Pages.

Because it comes up later, I’m going to show that LA Wings of Faith is a religious-exempt organization, per California Charitable Trusts site.  Yet it’s also doing Access/Visitation sub-grantee work, and is featured alongside Rally in documentation.  Ms. Thompson of this group ALSO is with Sonia Melara of Rally, above, on the Board of a fairly new (2010) “California Association of Supervised Visitation Providers” (that’s a corporation.  See below) linking direct to the California Court site to obtain businesses training the providers.  (This practices is as old as, probably, AFCC, and possibly what AFCC was set up for to start with — get the courts to direct business to private parties connected with the courts.).

Organization Name Registr Number Record Type Registr Status City State Registr Type Record Type LOS ANGELES WINGS OF FAITH, INC. EX585305 Charity Exempt – Active LOS ANGELES CA Charity Registration Charity 1

EIN# 954400834, street address listed as 9626 S. Avalon, Los Angeles, California 90003, “Religious” exemption.

What this means:  Basically, you don’t get to know “squat” about their finances.  Search them on the site — and you’ll find three “Religious exemption” links, the latest one dated June, 2013.   I went looking for any clues that a religious group of any sort actually existed at this address, particularly as it’s been apparently doing supervised visitation and exchanges for many years…

That particular few blocks in Los Angeles seems full of churches, and there’s a “Gethsemane Christian Love MB Church” listed at the same address, at least in the link above.  (here’s a Los Angeles “Metrobot” chart of the same few blocks of Avalon Blvd, showing various corporations and the many churches. [and another corporation with the 9626 street address, “Los Angeles Home Connection, coincidentally, also under “Georgia A. Thompson], where entity and agent address are both the same:

And its charitable trust registry (EIN# 954652703)

It has one filing showing (I don’t think this database goes back past the year 2000), which shows assets negative and revenue $152K….I am going to upload this into my registry.  This consists of the pastor (Larry C. Jackson) and attempts to provide services to “minor children in foster care.”  ONLY about three pieces of information available to view on the site, are two RRFs (one for 2000, the other for 2001) and a single Tax return (year 2001), which shows that the program accomplishments were to, at a loss, run 190 families through trainings.  The street address [254 w. 85th street, Los Angeles) doesn’t match where it was incorporated.  They ran $157K of “Other Expenses” of which $90,942 were Site Organizer” and $46,361,”   Program Coordinator.  Purpose:   “

TO PLACE DIFFICULT CHILDREN FROM THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM INTO FOSTER HOMES IN HIGH LEVEL FACILITIES SUCH AS MACLAREN CHLDREN CENTER.

INTERESTING: Looking this up, we find that children’s center was finally closed in 2003:

County Closes Center for Troubled Children (March 11, 2003, Los Angeles Times)

Shadowed by a federal lawsuit over its treatment of mentally ill children, Los Angeles County has finally closed its much-criticized MacLaren Children’s Center in El Monte and moved the few children who remained there into other homes.

Intended to house foster children for just a few days or weeks, MacLaren had grown perilously overcrowded with a mix of mentally ill, delinquent and abused youths who often lived there for months. Children often ran away, and violent outbursts were common, as were staff shakeups and lawsuits against the center.  …

In July, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and other public-interest groups sued the county and state, contending they had failed to properly treat foster children with severe emotional and behavioral problems.

“It’s really nothing short of outrageous that this has gone on for so long,” said Miriam Krinsky, executive director of the children’s Law Center of Los Angeles. “MacLaren has been riddled with problems and tragedies and hidden stories of lives that have been destroyed.”

The shelter also was expensive; a recent grand jury report estimated that it spent about $270,000 per child each year.

In recent months, county officials tried to move children into smaller, community-based placements such as group homes or foster homes. In some cases, troubled youngsters who have bounced around the foster-care system for years have been returned to their families, bolstered by a support network of mental health professionals.

…MacLaren’s employees have been reassigned to other county jobs. But after a few staff members alleged that some children had run away from their new placements, county Supervisor Gloria Molina asked foster-care officials to compile a report tracking MacLaren’s former charges.

Meanwhile, the county may soon settle the lawsuit brought by the ACLU and other groups, which sought MacLaren’s closure. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss the matter in closed session today.

Georgia A. Thompson listed as “Bookkeeper” on one of the RRFs… See below. No Officers are Listed.  The Rev. signed the tax return….

However the corporate address for the church group says “9616” not “92626” South Avalon…:

Meanwhile, here’s the nonprofit, non-registration for Gethsemane Christian Love etc…again, the street address differs by only ONE digit (9616 vs. 9626).  So which, if any, of the above organizations is really a religious corp?

OK, here’s the website description — and a reference to “Wings of Faith” under it; this is in South Los Angeles:

Dr. Jackson accepted the call to Pastor Gethsemane Christian Love Baptist Church in September 1978. At Gethsemane Dr. Jackson has been responsible for many multi-faceted Out-Reach Programs such as: 24 Hour Prayer line, Daily intercessory Prayer Groups, Satellite Home Bible Study, Tape Ministry, Victory Bible Hour, Ministry Training Classes, Larry C. Jackson Scholarship and Endowment Fund, A Day Care Center in Zimbabwe, Mrica, Chief Publisher of Church Newsletter “The Communicator,” B.T.P. – Bible Teaching Program (formerly known as Sunday School), Wings of Faith, South Central Community Family Services Outreach, Sierra Vista Foster Care and Village Social Services, Inc.

EXAMPLE from Florida.  More Current, and larger in Scope. But Same Principle:  HHS chose to pay the religious-exempt business entity, when an existing NONProfit (NOT exempt from filing) existed which allegedly was the carrier of those services.  Moreover, you have NO CLUE how many of the 501(c)3s are just like the ones at 9626 and 9616 Avalone, above — not quite connecting the dots through the years!

Again, There’s a Problem with Religious (Christian) Groups all excited about doing Social Services.  WHY, exactly, is our government paying, when this happens, the “doesn’t have to show a tax return” EIN# (entity) and not the HAS to file tax returns nonprofits formed by the Church to do the services, which HAVE to (when they’re nonprofit)?

Perhaps the real Christian thing to do would be to go it on faith (for real) and cough up that special, religious tax-exempt privilege they’ve been enjoying for decades, while most of their membership are not.  Essentially, this is shifting the burden of taxes to others, and then getting public gold stars for lifting SOME of the load by doing soup kitchens, homeless shelters at times — but and now, MARRIAGE promotion????

Note:  I wouldn’t blog this just for entertainment.  Religious Exempt Corporations (which “LA Wings of Faith is — but it looks like the church, at least as itself — is not.  I noticed the same pattern with that Miami-based “Trinity Church.”  Trinity Church as a corporation — got the HHS grants.  But the services were being provided under a different 501(c)3 (and affiliate marketing plans) from some of the same street addresses.

All of these grants, totaling over $8 million, go to the Entity “Trinity Church, Inc.” (in FL).  Here’s just the 2013 row to show “Grantee Class and Type” columns (and their $998K grant). You will NOT see this looking only at TAGGS, or looking at TAGGS without doing “Advanced Search” option:

Altogether, the 13 grants (all marked “Discretionary” and ALL marked either “Demonstration” or “Social Services” look like this.  Pls. note it started out with an innocent “$50K” compassion capital grant — to Trinity Church, Inc.

Being a church, NATURALLY it will go into marriage promotion and abstinence stuff. The short version of the problem with “religious-exempt” filings, and government grants to or contracts with churches, per se:

The “Trinity Church, Inc.” corporate filing in Florida shows a certain EIN# (Richard P. Wilkerson, Agent, is the pastor).  That ein# is 591201093 (link should be active, take a look, copy or write it down) and was used to search TAGGS.hhs. by “EIN” search [remember to check the tiny box for “9-digit” option, showing that the group has no DUNS#!!

But put that same# into the IRS Select Exempt Check, or go look for a tax return under it, and you’ll come up empty (I think).   Here — try it! [“990finder.foundationcenter.org” search the EIN#.  Or search “Trinity Church” (Florida!) and you’ll see there are plenty — just not this one.] The actual programming (incl. the Healthy marriage programming) in this case seems to be run under a different EIN# than HHS is showing gifts to — called “Peacemakers, Inc.”

Take a look at one of the tax returns.  For example, the pastor’s wife is being paid $85,000 for a 30-hour week; $46K of expenses for Conferences and Meetings is written off, and over $300K of “other” expenses for this program purpose:

“Peacemakers Mission is to Serve the Inner City and Churches for the purpose to evangelize (that’s NOT a religious purpose??) and to educate families by promoting a better way of life.”

Then the program model is being duplicated.  Quite a different church from the one in South Los Angeles, but the principle seems the same — ONE identity (not always a legitimate one) gets the grants — and the other one is actually registered to file tax returns. Along the way (true in this Miami situation also), several corporations are filed, and bite the dusty “accidentally” year after year.  This one also pulled in a law firm from Tulsa to spice it up a bit more (some of the programs being run by Trinity are also pushed through the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.  News travels fast — the Wilkersons (fact-check, this is “as I recall”) filed a  “Peacemakers” in Washington State ca. 1997 (cf. “Welfare Reform” passes) and then dashed diagonally across the country to Miami, Florida to do it again elsewhere.   IF we’re lucky.

Perhaps would better called “Haymakers” or “Rainmakers.”  (Note:  I have more detail on this one, some possibly published, some not.  I had to make a chart to keep straight all the corporations filed by Wilkersons and their friends the law firm from Tulsa which specializes in church nonprofit law (among other things).

Back to a Street Address or two on Avalon Boulevard in South Los Angeles:

However (I found out after last search), it looks like Ms. Georgia Thompson of Los Angeles Wings of Faith, Inc. (which doesn’t have to file tax returns, but is the official A/V grantee and public profile) is advertising — from the same street address, same service offerings it looks like — under the name Resources Unlimited, Inc.

— Professional Child Visitation Providers and Non-Professional monitors and agency staff:

Resources Unlimited, Inc.
9626 So. Avalon Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90003
(323) 779-0729
(323) 779-0739 fax

Training Dates for 2013
Supervised visitation standards training 3-days and other related training for Providers visit: CASVSP.org for additional information.

Advance Registration: $500.00 per person. Seminars are based on 5 or more participants enrolled by due date (NO REFUNDS, MAY RESCHEDULE)

Same Day Registration: $550.00 per person. (Cash only at the door)
SAVE by paying in advance. Make check or money order payable to:

Georgia Thompson
Resources Unlimited
9626 So. Avalon Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90003

This is a Pattern. Ms. Thompson is hardly the only person engaged in the “what’s my real corporate identity?” shell game while taking court-ordered referral business, and for all we know, subcontracting with the courts or county. Others add to that, and do grants, in addition.

Here, from the Secretary of State site, are some of the 62 (mostly but not all suspended or dissolved) corporations called “Resources Unlimited, Inc.” or with that phrase in their name. But here they are:

So, anyone up for clicking on all of those and checking street addresses? At some point, it doesn’t matter when people getting trained are told to make the check out to the person, not the organization.

Given all this, can you see why I question whether such a pattern of strange filings in combo with RELIGIOUS-EXEMPT CORPORATION as an access/visitation “Featured grants program,” even allowed (keep reading, below) in another nonprofit (not registered, either, but at least incorporated!) cooked up in 2010 — in association with Rally Visitation (also not a corporation, but apparently under the umbrella of a “Saint Francis Memorial Hospital”) to team up with the A/V grants program manager to do trainings? Is this deliberately the type of behavior sought out in grantees, ethical and responsible corporations “need not apply”??? (Keeping in mind, it’s going to tell us below “Rally Visitation” (what’s the purpose behind that name?) was actually a concept of the San Francisco Unified Court System in 1991?

Business Search – Results

Data is updated to the California Business Search on Wednesday and Saturday mornings. Results reflect work processed through Tuesday, November 26, 2013. Please refer to Processing Times for the received dates of filings currently being processed. The data provided is not a complete or certified record of an entity.

• Select an entity name below to view additional information. Results are listed alphabetically in ascending order by entity name.
• For information on checking or reserving a name, refer to Name Availability.
• For information on ordering certificates, copies of documents and/or status reports or to request a more extensive search, refer to Information Requests.
• For help with searching an entity name, refer to Search Tips.
• For descriptions of the various fields and status types, refer to Field Descriptions and Status Definitions.

Results of search for ” RALLY FAMILY VISITATION ” returned no entity records.

Modify Search New Search 

[To distinguish short section on the NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPERVISED VISITATION, light-green background]

Meanwhile, it’s as though NO ONE is talking any more, it seems about just NO CONTACT (not supervised, not unsupervised exchanges), and shutting down that industry, even after last August in NH a child was murdered DURING a supervised visitation (Joshua Savyon, 9 yrs old).  It was a shocker when it happened.  Please, in his honor, and to help stop this carnage — read the three-month-after report.  This was a planned (by the father) event, and happened when the SVN looked down at his notes.  The son was shot six times, and this was caught on videotape.

On Aug. 11, during the supervised visit, Savyon was not searched before being allowed to meet with his son. Michael Solis, the supervisor in the room with Savyon and Joshua at the time of the shooting said it had been an unremarkable visit. They seemed to be having a good time together, Solis told police. But 40 minutes into it Solis was looking down, taking notes, when he heard the first gunshot. He ran from the room yelling for someone to call 911. It as after Solis was out of the room when Savyon turned the 9mm Smith & Wesson on himself. A surveillance camera caught the entire visit and the shooting on tape.

The report indicates the case has been closed. / (from another article on this recent report)

Manchester YWCA shooting: Report finds father wasn’t searched before murdering son and killing himself  By JOSEPH G. COTE  Nashua Telegraph, Staff Writer

. . . .

“Since the funding cuts, Ms. Schelzel has been concerned about this policy because they were not sure what staff would do if they used the metal detector and ‘wanded’ somebody in and then they found a gun on that person,” according to the AG report. . . .

Savyon had threatened to kill his son and himself before and was charged by Nashua police with criminal threatening on March 29, 2012, according to court documents.

The charges were eventually shelved by the court, but Merrimack family court granted a domestic violence protection order, ruled that Savyon attend a batterer’s intervention program and have only supervised visits with his son, according to court documents.

Now that we have, from this article [pls. read the rest!], the name of the visitation supervisor who had the “privilege” of witnessing this carnage (it wasn’t originally reported), I looked him up “Michael Soli,

“The Governor’s Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence (Subcommittee on Supervised Visitation)

Report dated July, 2011, supported by:

This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-WF-AX-0018 awarded by the Violence Against Women Grants Office, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice and administered by the New Hampshire Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice.

Guess who were the Co-Chairs and who was on that Subcommittee?  Co-Chair, Katie Schelzel, Manchester YWCA (where this took place two years later, and who said, well with “the funding cuts, we weren’t sure whether to scan for metal/guns — what if we found a gun on a parent, what then?”) + the other, from the state-wide Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.   Guess who else was on the same committee?   Michael Solis.. There were 11 committee members plus the two chairs.

I looked up one of them, “Emerge Family Advocates” (because the name was similar to “Emerge” which Lundy Bancroft was known to have experience with).  Turns out this corporation formed RIGHT after A/V grants became available (year, 1997) and has been administratively Suspended, in New Hampshire, but not in Vermont. Same person involved (Mona Russell — “Raymona Russell) . I DNK when, but it looks like they haven’t filed since 2000!! (but had a seat as of 2011 on this subcommittee anyhow…):

Not my business to criticize (see US geography), but that shows a Vermont (not NH) address, and is showing as a current member of The Vermont Coalition of Supervised Visitation Programs. It’s definitely who was on that NH committee and claims to be a nonprofit organization:

Emerge also receives support from: The State of Vermont, OCS Federal Grant monies, Windsor & Windham Counties, and The Office of Violence Against Women (through the Safe Havens Grant Program).

If you would like to give to Emerge through your time or money–please contact Raymona Russell (Director) at nnn-nnnn   Emerge Family Advocates is a non-profit organization, and all donations are tax deductible.

Trade name has lapsed, but corporation has not:

NameFiscal Yr. MonthStatusEMERGE-FAMILY ADVOCATES0235302Trade NamePO BOX 1224, WRJ, VT, 5001, USANONE InactiveEMERGE-FAMILY ADVOCATES, INC.0054001Domestic Non-profit Corporation2160 N. HARTLAND ROAD, W.R.JCT., VT, 05001, USARAYMONA J. RUSSELL Active

. . . ..
It is — in Vermont:

Is it not apparent that here, the Savyon case, once the threat to kill was out, was dumped into family court and services ordered?

How many adults in this situation (as the father was — conservative Judaism, apparently, and a brother in Israel had recently died) are really going to tolerate being told to “reprogram” their emotions about the mother having custody and them being put on supervision?   [[there’s it seems a deeper religious background also on this case, which may or may not have been an “indicator” the court might have noticed before assuming this Dad was going to go down easy about having been put on supervised visitation.  Here’s from the same newspaper and author (Nashua Telegraph, Joseph Cote, August 13, 2013 — 2 days after the incident.  “Zulauf” being quoted is “Monica Zulauf,” who runs the place, she was making excuses:  “father was “determined to kill” – -nothing they could’ve done about it! (including use the metal detector?  or the courts, to recommend no visitation at least for a cooling off period??)

MANCHESTER – Monica Zulauf said the only real way to prevent violence against children and women is to stop hiding from it.

Zulauf, president and CEO of the YWCA of New Hampshire, spoke with reporters outside the Manchester facility where Muni Savyon shot his 9-year-old son, Joshua, several times during a supervised visitation Sunday before turning the gun on himself.. . .

“At some point we have to say it’s not OK. We have to stop punishing victims,” she said. “This man came in here and killed his son. We were doing what we could to have him visit with his child in a safe, supportive environment, and he made that decision. Law enforcement is very supportive now of victims of domestic and sexual violence. We need to get the general public to say, ‘This is not OK.’

… She said the center uses the metal detector “sporadically, but often.”

Manchester police helped design a renovation of the building in 2007, and it now includes multiple exits from meeting rooms and a surveillance system that is monitored during the visits, Zulauf said. . . . .Whatever level of security, though, she said the tragedy likely still would have happened.

There have been reports that Savyon had threatened to harm himself, his son and his son’s mother. Zulauf said threats like that are run of the mill for many of the families who use the center.

Savyon sent an email to a friend suggesting he was suicidal before the shootings, said Rabbi Levi Krinsky, of Chabad Lubavitch in Manchester. Krinsky said Savyon had been depressed after recently returning from his brother’s funeral in Israel, but Krinsky had seen him last week and had no concerns Savyon would harm himself or someone else.    [[Even though he was on supervised visitation because he’d threatened to?]]

Chabad-Lubavitch seems to be (I say this because I was looked only after this outrageous murder, knowing well how conservative religious groups (not just Christian) tend to “keep it within the ranks” and coverup abuse.  Apparently in Brooklyn, this is an ongoing issue.  Website “failedmessiah.typepad.com has several articles and convincing stats. This is not an “old” issue and it is one that the people dealing with this couple could’ve been generally aware of.  They should understand that conservative religious communities,   while I’m not sure, it seems (at least speaking of in Brooklyn) are known to retaliate harshly on victims who speak up, and have certain views towards the role of women.   References  July 22, 2013 Brooklyn DA releases partial list of child offenders (NOTE:  No indication of child abuse was mentioned in this case, that I heard of, I am speaking of CULTURALLY the tendency to handle matters “in-house” prior to re-election.  From that article:

Despite much criticism from victims and activists, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes has for years steadfastly refused to publish a list he keeps of hundreds of accused pedophiles in the Brooklyn Jewish community. Now facing viable opponents in his re-election bid for the first time in years, Hynes relented – somewhat – and released the names of a few dozen convicted abusers.

Sunday morning the New York Post published a list, released by the DA’s Office, of 46 convicted child abusers who ‘terrorized the orthodox Jewish community from within’. The Post wrote that the publication was “a major shift from his prior stance” of shielding the names of abusers. The list contains only the names of those who have been convicted or have pled guilty.

…Most of the criticism toward Hynes focused on the identities of accused pedophiles that were kept secret as part of the controversial Kol Tzedek program, which is geared toward prosecuting child molesters in the orthodox Jewish community. Hynes maintained that outing the accused and convicted perverts could expose the victims to vicious intimidation or deter others from coming forward.

Victims and their advocates have been vehemently condemning this practice, accusing the DA of pandering to powerful ‘lobbies’ within the Jewish community who sought to protect the accused predators by shielding their names from the public. ]]

 What’s the acceptable rate of error (deaths) before the train-the-providers and others get the formula down right?  It’s been from my count, about 20 (a full generation of children) so far)….

This organization never bothered to register as charity in California, or if so, no one bothered to inform the public by posting the information.  Perhaps they are a 501(c)4 or some form that doesn’t have to register as otherwise?

PROVIDERS ADVISORY
[[meaning, supervised visitation providers]]

Please review current legislative discussions regarding Standard 5.20 through measure AB1674. The new law is effective January 1, 2013 and affects Professional and Nonprofessional providers of supervised visitation.

[a.k.a. ALL providers of supervised visitation, because all fall into one or the other categories…paid, or unpaid.]  {HIGHLY encouraged to read through this bill and see the process.  It took 7 months from being sponsored — by this nonprofit (which, the entire time, apparently never followed through with nonprofit status and which has a conflict of interest, a clear one).  Here’s part, from the “History.”

[Look on the link CASVSP provides] ….This bill, sponsored by the California Association of Supervised Visitation Service Providers [Incorporated in 2010], seeks, for the most part, to codify existing Judicial Council guidelines for providers of supervised visitation, including both professional and nonprofessional providers.Family law attorneys and the California Psychological Association had opposed the previous version of this bill, which required that providers be certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs.  [Why would that be a problem?  Someone might look up whether they are legitimate businesses?]

SUMMARY: Specifies standards for supervised visitation providers in child custody and visitation matters. Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1) Requires any standards adopted by the Judicial Council for supervised visitation providers to conform to the provisions of this bill.  [ in other words, seeks to set the standards for the Judicial Council]

2) Defines the requirements to be a “nonprofessional,” “professional,” and “therapeutic” provider of supervised visitation services. Requires that a nonprofessional provider may not be used in cases where the court has determined that there is domestic violence or child abuse,** unless the court makes a determination that using a nonprofessional provider would be in the child’s best interest.

I.E., they seek to exert control over cases involving domestic violence and child abuse, including training the providers.  These are PRECISELY the areas this group and the family courts has a hardest time admitting exists, substituting instead the “parental alienation” theory. Apparently having conciliation courts run by the same (general) crowd wasn’t enough “control” of people alleging they or their children have been harmed by those forms of abuse, or even with convictions in hand.

3) Requires that professional and therapeutic providers have received 24 hours of training in specified subjects, including confidentiality, needs of children, child abuse laws, substance abuse, sexual abuse and domestic violence. Requires these providers to sign a declaration stating that they meet the training and qualification requirements.

4) Requires each provider to maintain neutrality and to avoid conflicts of interest, as specified.

---

[[…PLEASE NOTE THAT EXISTING LAW ALREADY:]]

1) Requires the Judicial Council to develop standards for supervised visitation providers, including both individuals providers and visitation centers. Requires the Judicial Council to consult with specified groups when developing the standards.   [wonder which ones!]]

4) Requires the Judicial Council to apply annually for grants from the federal government to fund supervised visitation centers. Requires recipients of those grants to comply with the Uniform Standards of Practice for Providers of Supervised Visitation set forth in the California Standards of Judicial Administration. (Section 3202 et seq.)  [[Section 3202 of the Family Code, presumably.  Again, CONCILIATION code is under Section 1850 “et seq.”]]

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) opposes the bill (prior to its most recent amendments) for several reasons. First AFCC believes that since much of the bill is a restatement of the Judicial Council Standard, it is unnecessary. Moreover, the AFCC writes that the standards “are evidently somewhat controversial in some respects so it is hard to predict how acceptable ‘codifying’ the Standard would be in reality.” However, it is important to note that current law requires that any supervised visitation maintained or imposed by the court to be administered in accordance with those standards, regardless of how “controversial” they may be.