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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Good Cause to Eliminate (Funding for): Access Visitation, Supervised Visitation, and Batterers’ Intervention, PERIOD!!

with 6 comments

 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:

Children’s track  Children in the Crossfire –Helping Women and Children Heal Through Visitation Services Sonia Melara, Executive Director, Rally Family Visitation

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).

Francisco Escobar

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.

Rally gets almost a page of print, glowing reviews (and showing funding sources) on California’s 2008 (the next year) Ten Years of Access to Visitation Grant Program Services Fiscal Years 1997-2007 [hover cursor, or see p. 21:This explains WHO they are getting funding and volunteers from** ]. This publication is “This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature under Family Code section 3204(d).” and is copyright the Judicial Council/AOC.  Its “main author” is Shelly LaBotte, who then and now manages this grant system, and did then and definitely now, had ongoing business relationships through nonprofits in this Supervised Visitation field with Rally Family Visitation (more below) and other providers. Of the CFCC listed on the front page, at least two AFCC members, I believe (Diane Nunn and Charlene Depner)

**I did not paste page 21 contents here in.  But please do read them!  footnote 50, “This information was extracted in part from the Unified Family Courts of San Francisco grant application for fiscal years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 to the AOC, with minor edits/additions made by the AOC Access to Visitation Grant Program manager.

Access/Visitation (as I explained last post, and in this blog) is an under-reported  (by DV agencies and leadership) facet of increasing noncustodial parenting time, a.k.a., setting up programs to ensure fathers get more parenting time, under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

Posted at an “AFCC” link, but representing the SVN (Supervised Visitation Network, a nonprofit): “Standards for Supervised Visitation Practice”   SVN Standards Task Force and the Standards and Guidelines Committee / Approved by: SVN Board of Directors & General Membership /July 2006 (2804 Paran Pointe Drive, Cookeville, Tennessee 38506).  Please notice the former director of this Rally Family Visitation group is listed as SVN “board of directors

SVN Standards and Guidelines Committee Co-chairs

Shelly La Botte, J.D., California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, and Nadine Blaschak-Brown, former Program Manager, Rally Family Visitation Services of Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, San Francisco, CA.

Notice who else was SVN “Board of Directors 2004-2006,”per that document (see states, one from Canada, etc.):

SVN Board of Directors (Fiscal Years 2004–2006)

Jody Birch, Rainbow Bridge Safe Exchange/Visitation Center, Moorhead, MN, Barbara Flory (see above), Nancy Fallows (see above), Jane Grafton, (see above), Ona Foster, Faith and Liberty’s Place, Dallas, TX, David Levy, Children’s Rights Council, Hyattsville, MD, Teri Walker McLaughlin (President), Della Morton, Merrymount Children’s Center, London, Ontario Canada, Joe Nullet, Family Nurturing Center of Florida, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, Vayla Roberts (Vice-President), Sharon Rogers, Judge Ben Gordon, Jr., Family Visitation Center, Shalimar, FL, Virginia Rueda, Family Visitation Center, El Paso, TX, Rob Straus, (see above), Georgia Thompson, LA Wings of Faith, Los Angeles, CA., [[more, below]] and Beth Zetlin, Forest Hills, NY.

This SVN has now moved to Florida after having intentionally? let its corporate status be dissolved in TN.

Similarly (but not identical) on Los Angeles Wings of Faith (Georgia Thompson):

(This Extended Section, I’m giving a light-pink background.  That’s the breaks — I like the color!)

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

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…

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

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:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

And its charitable trust registry (EIN# 954652703)

Organization Name Registr Number Record Type Registr Status City State Registr Type Record Type
LOS ANGELES HOME CONNECTION, INC. 108341 Charity Delinquent LOS ANGELES CA Charity Registration Charity

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:   “


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.

So to get this straight, Ms. Georgia as bookkeeper and pastor were trying to put kids INto a center that was shortly after shut down for being outrageous, unsafe and expensive.   Here’s a “topix.com” (very informal) link to some former (inmates?) remembering their time there, and discussing it. Not all are this negative, but some are trying to set up a support group for the survivors…
I was a resident at Maclaren hall when I was about 12 yrs. old. In March of 2010 I got a lap top w/my income tax $, one of the first things I did w/ it was to look up Maclaren Hall, I found a picture of the front entrance,at the gate, looking up that long drive way,no sooner that I pulled it up I got company ,so I shut down my computer,a couple of days later I wanted to take a better look, but to no avail,the only pic I could find are of achristmas party from the late 50’s, that place never put on parties, you were lucky if you got a letter or visit, that place was a nightmare for an already frightend girl,there was no one to comfort you. We were given jobs we had to do everyday befor we ate,it rotated, my favorite was the pixie wing,5yrs and under, we had to get the little ones up bathed and dressed,most of them would soil them selves, so the older kids were made to do the nasty jobs the staff didn’t like doing, I didn’t mind so much after they were cleaned up, then we had to change all of their beds,go eat then go to some school on the property,I was there less than a year but it seemed a lot longer! If any one out there knows where this place is,would some one please post a pic at the gate looking up the drive way, all pictures hav been removed since the place got shut down, It would mean alot to me,so I may be can stop the dreams that haunt me! thank you to any one who takes the time! good luck and God bless. RENA

My name is Michael. I’ve been conducting some research on MacLaren Hall. I would love to ask you some questions about what you remember from the time you spent there. I’m looking for a child who was abducted in 1977 and I believe he ended up at Mac Hall in the late 70’s early 80’s. Below is the address for Mac Hall. I have some pictures as well. I can be reached via email @ michaelpresearch@gmail.com Thank you

I went to MacLaren in late 76 or early 77. From day one it was hell on earth. When I refused to allow a male doctor to do a pelvic exam on me I was forced into a isolation cell hog tied and striped searched in front of a male staff member. I was left hog tied in the cell with nothing on except my bra and panties untill I agreed to let the male doctor examine me. Christmas Time was the worst we would wake up and get to open presents that were donated get to play with them for an hour then they would be taken away never to be seen again. What a way to treat a child that was already abused.

. . . . {{There is a class action lawsuit (it says, over 1,000 plaintiffs) for children injured there. Here’s a 2012 excerpt describing it}}
“Yes it is closed now here is some info for all who in interested
It happened on a warm July night nearly four years ago, but Jazzmon says she still remembers the sickly pop of her arm breaking and how the searing pain caused her to cry out and curse.
She had been sitting on her cot in a hallway at MacLaren Children’s Center, Los Angeles County’s home for abused and neglected children, when a staff member came by and told her to “get in position,” a disciplinary maneuver meaning that Jazzmon was to stand with her arms extended. The next thing she recalls is being pinned to her bed by three or four workers, one of whom, she contends, had her right arm pulled against her back like a chicken wing before the bone snapped. She was barely 13.

Jazzmon, 16, is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit [[“Jazzmon R. vs. Los Angeles County and MacLaren Children’s Center” it says ]]alleging that staff at MacLaren Hall injured scores of their charges while trying to restrain them. The county denies the charges and says incidents of children lashing out at one other and at staff members were far more prevalent than the reverse.
But last week, after years of intense criticism over its treatment of foster children, MacLaren closed with virtually no fanfare, part of a historic shift away from institutional care in the nation’s largest child welfare system
Now, in an unforeseen twist of fate, the children’s legal battle will outlive the institution they came to know so well and from which they are seeking redress. [quote says from “Carlos Rivera Times Staff Writer (March 15, 2003).

Someone else put up two wordpress blogs on the matter. One links to the other, re: Trauma-Informed Care and obstruction of getting one’s records.

Not the most encouraging news around regarding our A/V grantee trainer!

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…:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
Entity Number: C0570211
Date Filed: 05/16/1969
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 9616 S AVALON BLVD
Entity City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90003

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?

Organization Name Registr Number Record Type Registr Status City State Registr Type Record Type

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.

I’ll give this section a tan background to differentiate:

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:

Fiscal Year Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2013 Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization TP1AH000007 TEENAGE PREGNANCY PREVENTION TIER 1 08/09/2013 93297 DISCRETIONARY CRYSTAL AGNEW $ 998,500

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.

Fiscal Year Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions

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#!!

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
Trinity Church, Inc  MIAMI FL 33168 169620234 $ 8,564,403

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.”

Peacemakers Inc. FL 2011 990 18 $370,064 – – 91-1868795
Peacemakers Inc. FL 2010 990 18 $168,464  – -91-1868795
Peacemakers Inc. FL 2009 990EZ 9 $113,689 – – 91-1868795

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:

C1879864 01/19/1994 ACTIVE RESOURCES UNLIMITED, INC. [=Long Beach address] CLIFFORD W. ROBERTS JR., ESQ.

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?


  • At “SanMateoCourt.ORG” (not *.gov, and not officially stamped), here is a Oct. 31, 2012 “Notice to Parties Re: Supervised Visitation and Exchange Orders” simply states that Rally took over the contract from another group. It appears that San Mateo County has upgraded mere “mediation” to the term “”Child custody recommending counseling
  • I am also wondering why a *.ORG site [where the unverified page/court order showing that Rally has taken over a San Mateo County contract with the courts]  would be showing what are, or would seem to be, *.GOV type services, form the courts…Are we missing something critical here?


ANYHOW Rally’s Executive Director, was showing up as a presenter in 2011 (after getting the above Safe Havens, and presumably also Access/Visitation subgrantee grants) – –

under this logo:

While these organizations are connecting the dots (ties) with each other, I feel it’s helpful for the rest of us to connect the dots about where some of them are coming from, policy wise, and some of the sources of their sustenance (money). I imagine similar things are happening in other states.

In this post, first I’m Connecting some Dots on the CPEDV, after which we will look at where this Rally Family Visitation Services (seems to) fits in the “Supervised Visitation/Access Visitation” field, including the “train-the-trainers” portion.  That means looking at corporate filings, tax returns (if found) and just how many conflict-of-interest nonprofits can individual people be on the board of at one time before it becomes simply a vertical trade monopoly run right out of the top Judicial Office in the state?

WHY, becomes the question, would an anti-domestic violence (“End Domestic Violence” indicates they want it to stop) be collaborating with the infamous Supervised Visitation field, which is known to spring out of the fathers’ rights and welfare-reform fountain? 


Last August (2013), in New Hampshire, a preventable murder/suicide:  father Muni Savyon shot his 9-year old son Joshua, IN a supervised visitation setting.  The three-month case-closed report just came out recently.   I look at it.

Rather than reduce danger and harm to children, this field is now still, and it has previously, been simply getting them killed; facilitating the shootouts. It FACILITATES the killing under co-parenting social science theory, and the false belief that sociopaths can be trained to behave, and people who threaten to kill their spouse and son if they don’t get what they want, are making idle threats.

In fact it was that very threat which triggered the supervised visitation setup to start with, plus the restraining order.   What did they do in NH?  Forget to scan for weapons…  What was the excuse afterwards? In part, “lack of funding.”  Go figure!…

However, even aside from the body count, there are fiscal reasons not to tolerate further expansion of this profession.  Business reasons.   Both sides (in my opinion) appear to be playing both fathers against mothers, faking antagonism (good cop/bad cop) in some situations, and showing collaboration in others.

Overall this simply bilks the decent fathers, and the decent mothers AND the taxpayers, apparently for profit and, in part, for sport.  As I said last post, my coming down hard on the DV Cartel doesn’t excuse the FR cartel either.  The structure is, essentially, a “cartel,” and that (and not the labeling on the front doors of conference brochures) is the problem.   They set standards and requirements, but are themselves, in practice (and in my opinion, from what I can see and will continue to show) historically do not consider themselves consistently subject to the laws, except ones that have been put in place to facilitate the trade, some of which they personally sponsored.  And they are notoriously NOT very subject to laws regulating incorporation and filing of tax returns while seeking and sometimes getting nonprofit status to avoid paying taxes to start with.

Again, I have to ask how could such a well-known (in the field) group go for so long absent any corporate existence?  Not registered with the State of California to do Business in California — but it sure looks like they are consistently billing and being paid to do business in California….

xzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx [SECTION on CPEDV REMOVED TO SEPARATE POST]

The personnel who are seeking to monitor parents, and children, and the rest of us, are too many of them simply out of control, without proper boundaries (between public funds and private corporations), believe “conflict of interest” is an archaic term (apparently…) and have become FAR too comfortable without having their own corporate registrations (or lack thereof) monitored.

Moreover, when people, including kids!, get killed who might not have been otherwise, except for the principles, practices and policies these are adamant about — that’s simply an excuse to order more “Trainings” for the providers.  Trainings cannot fix sociopath, over-entitled behavior, which some of this to me.

This particular trade (profession) is a fixture on the landscape and nationally, which should probably be taken down, and de-activated before more people get hurt.  Moreover, let alone the human cost, and the illogic — it’s simply placed too many fiscal loopholes in the wrong hands.

Which this post should show well enough.  I’ve been wanting to handle this for a long time (in public, that is).  Again, the short version of this is that “1996 welfare reform” and some very, very basic programming with it, was probably designed to take down the country FINANCIALLY, I mean.

People tend to tolerate the lesser ills (particularly when there are apparently larger ones around), however, like bedbugs, termites, mosquitos, and invasive species of critters which scavenge things some of us wish NOT to be scavenged (like our blood, our buildings, or our health) — maybe they have their function, but not when they’re out of control.  In the case of the Supervised Visitation / Batterers Intervention Industry, they are a built-in, “How awake and alert is the public?” monitor.  These monitors, obviously, have figured out either we aren’t, or we’ve been simply numbed to human rights and privacy violations, and aren’t protesting hard enough.  That is, except individuals who express their protests with guns, and during or shortly after they have been ordered into some of these programs.

 Commentary, which includes a few “exhibits” below, like corporate filings, and a discussion of this where “RALLY FAMILY VISITATION” fits in the larger picture,which should provide some serious questions as to what’s it doing as a collegial business relationship under “California Partnership to END Domestic Violence“? (or, what business that partnership is itself really in….) [another writer who questions this may be found @ “familylawcourts.com” under the “nonprofits” link.  CPEDV (and the Family Justice Centers) make starring appearances.

How can you be an “executive director” of a non-corporation?  Rally Family Visitation does not appear to have a corporate footprint…You can look, here’s the California Secretary of State “Business Entities Search.”  Check under Corp or LLC — can you find it?  Here’s under “Corp” and “LLC” both searches, same results:

Secretary of State banner

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.

Record not found.

Modify Search New Search 


So, that presentation (which I just read — it’s short, and offensive: opens with the UN Rights of the Child (“Best interests of the Child”* but fails to cite where this includes “relationship with both parents.”). . . . [continued below “gray-background” segments here] …

*FYI, on the UN Rights of the Child and this is relevant —  UN 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child; UN CONVENTION on the Rights of the Child (1989, in force 1990) . . . Articles 9, 10, and 12 have particular relevance to family law issues, including international travel.  Pls. review…

Article 9

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.

2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.

3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.

[[So it is blatantly obvious that this CRC (year 1989) is deferring parental’s “in the child’s best interests” to court/judicial/state’s “in the child’s best interests.”  Essentially, then the state is claiming ownership of the child — which father’s rights groups (who tend to very well understand “ownership” and property matter!) were outspoken on — and protesting.  See next gray section for a sample:

here’s a link to “parentalrights.org” discussing that the US has not yet signed the UN CRC (which Ms. Melara didn’t mention), the conflict between State vs Parents determining what’s in the child’s best interests, etc. This group correctly realizes that the UN CRC is an “assault on the family” and places the burden of proof on the family to disprove the state’s assessment, rather than leaves the burden of proof on the State, to prove a parent is unfit).  So this group wants an Amendment to the US Constitution to protect Parental Rights. (hover cursor).  While a little complex, this  is relevant — particularly to women such as myself who needed that state to step into MY family to protect my and the children’s lives.  This Parental Rights group (that’s their Board of Directors, etc.) is basically a fathers’ rights group (Board of 10 includes 1 woman, and 9 men, all white).  Michael J. Farris, of Homeschool Legal Defense Association, founder of Patrick Henry College, Heritage Foundation awarde, get the picture? etc. The Allied Organizations are overwhelmingly fathers’ rights, conservative (mostly) and Christian.  Which may account for why, when it comes to their interests, they want rights.  When it comes for rights for those with conflicting interest, Does Not Apply….

And I have had lively discussions (but no firm conclusion, just indicators) what relationship this UNCRC has with the domestic-based nonprofit, which is FIRMLY into father’s rights and cited openly as such by official publications (that’s 1995, see pp. 4-5! Hover cursor for summary of where the CRC fits in the “Four Strands of Fatherhood Movements“) — the “CRC” (Children’s Rights Council/ founded 1984).  I still believe they are related based on the text above.  Both are insisting on contact with both children (in which case the CRCkids.org crowd absolutely wants the state to interfere — including getting kids back from other countries if needed, and by writing standardized legislation altering the economy — child support visitation, divorce laws, etc. — to accommodate this standard.

You can see this obviously is a large, and significant topic.  No matter, So, that presentation by the leader of the non-corporation/non-business entity “Rally Visitation Services” quotes a shred of the UNCRC (to get the phrase “best interests of the child” in there), . . .  and then pans to a 2009 SF father who MURDERED his girlfriend who’d gotten a restraining order and learned that he’d been 1. ordered into (a batterers intervention program) 2. his girlfriend had been awarded custody.   The presentation used that 2009 femicide, mentions that leaving abuse is dangerous (an understatement for sure!), to justify supervised visitation!!!) is a straight-out plug for requiring trained supervised visitation provision, or if none in the jurisdiction, require that they use the AOC-training.  Three slides in a row are headed “I don’t think he will hurt the children.”  Then, the plug:  “Supervised Visitation Centers:  Safe and Secure visits, while providing the court with fact-based observations. ….”

= = = = = = = = = = = = =LET’S TALK CORPORATIONS, ON THIS ONE:

A link from the CFCC’s “Access Visitation” link currently, leads to this organization, on which this woman, Executive Director of a (non-existent in California corporation, that I can find anyhow) sits as board:  CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISED VISITATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.

Courts: The Judicial Branch of California (the logo is the link, then scroll (scroll, scroll past the various ads and cartoon-like distractions) to the link to “Access Visitation” under this selection of options:

At the bottom of THAT link, and in tiny font, are the words “Training Information”  Click on that one to see the training schedule, with the First “Registration” link (of about 14!!  of ’em, one for each training date!) to:

Incidentally, through CASVSP, Ms. Labotte will be one of the expert trainers.  Nice to be able to advertise like that right on a public website, eh?  Course description was “AOC Access to Visitation Grant Program Advanced Skills Supervised Visitation Training: Role of the Professional Provider and Safety Planning 9-5 (Los Angeles – LAX Westin)”  Another one (not closed yet), reads:  

“Standard 5.20 and Family Code section 3200.5 Training (This is a collaboration between the AOC/Access to Visitation Grant Program and CASVSP)** 8-5 p.m.  Please note post the training–the evening event will offer opportunity for training credits on developmental needs of children and basic family and juvenile law per Family Code section 3200.5 requirement) (Southern California TBD) 

**which are less separate than it might seem on the surface.  Keep reading…LaBotte is I gather an AOC employee and manages the grant program (as part of her civil servant responsibilities).  What she’s paid for running the 24-hour trainings, as a “Member at Large” of CASVSP isn’t exactly easy-to-find information.  Wonder whether funds are co-mingled or ethically kept separate.

Rather than thinking of certain entities as running their private interests THROUGH AOC, it might be simpler to think of AOC/CFCC itself as “private interests in public practice and on the public payroll.”

The legislation the below group sponsored early 2012 was signed by the governor Sept. 2012, and went into force  in January 2013.

[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)

Friday, November 8, 2013

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

. . . .

“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…):

EMERGE-FAMILY ADVOCATES, INC 281616 Non-Profit Corporation Admin. Suspension


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:

Business Name Business ID Business Type Principal Business Office Address Registered Agent

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:

Corporation Status Active
File No N-09409-0
Type Vermont
Incorporation Date 12/19/1996
State of Incorporation VT
Registered Agent RAYMONA J. RUSSELL

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. ]]

He had earlier characterized haredi (orthodox) treatment of (child abuse) victims who reported as “worse than the mafia” but apparently retracted that, refusing to condemn it or support the victims when election time came round.  (2013 article).

Chabad-Lubavitch (it says) is a movement WITHIN mainstream Jewish tradition stemming from the 18th century in Czarist Russia and Communist Russia.   “The leaders of Chabad led the struggle for the survival of Torah Judaism, often facing imprisonment and relentless persecution for their activities. After the Holocaust, under the direction of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchaak Schneerson and his successor, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, Chabad became a worldwide movement, caring for the spiritual and material needs of all Jews, wherever they could be found.  Today, over 3,000 Chabad centers are located in more than 65 countries, with a new center opening on the average every ten days … People today are not satisfied with the do’s and don’ts and historical facts. We need a deeper, often mystical understanding. Chabad is unique in that its teachers are trained from youth in the authentic texts of the inner Torah, also known as the Kabbalah and Chassidut.”

While this awareness may have not saved Joshua’s life (and I”m not saying that his father was obviously heavily involved  — in fact it seems like maybe not), perhaps at least an AWARENESS of it might have said, “OK, no supervised visitation just now, the guy’s brother just died, he’s probably depressed, AND he’s simply threatened to kill.”  The safest way would’ve been separation.  OR, to not “forget” to use the metal detector.  That’s simply callous indifference!  Zulauf has chosen to function as an enabler, and as such, made excuses.

 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)….

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

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?

Organization Name Registr Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registr Type Record Type
That, however hasn’t stopped them from sponsoring, and getting passed, legislation to drive business to themselves, and collaborating with  “Members at Large” one of who just happens to be in charge of the Access Visitation Grants program (about $1 million/year) to California, and also happens to have been a former director (DNK if current) of the larger “Supervised Visitation Network” which benefits from this entire field of practice, and also happens to be one of the expert trainers.  Perhaps this individual and the other is doing the 24-hours trainings for free as a public service, or perhaps she is being paid.    What does a “member at large” mean to a group whose articles of incorporation we can’t readily see, and whose primary work is in the same city one of the Executive Board (Rally person Sonia Melara) also works from, SF?
Somehow, people do not feel inspired to do these basic background checks on colleagues OR providers of training on how everyone ELSE ought to behave.  From CASVSP website, prominent:

[[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.


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.

[[AFCC was worried that if there weren’t enough providers, children would be damaged by lack of contact with parents, which would be “long-term harm for children and families.”  Funny, they don’t seem to have this problem in selected types of cases, or be very concerned when the contact that is supposed to prevent harm results in death to one or more parties…  So the only party (in that summary) that wanted (supported) this bill was its sponsor, CASVSP, and several parties opposed.  It passed anyhow:

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support California Association of Supervised Visitation Service Providers (sponsor) Opposition (to a previous version of the bill) Association of Certified Family Law Specialists / Association of Family and Conciliation Courts  / California Psychological Association / Family Law Section of the State Bar /National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter (unless amended)

I find that odd:  Here’s listing of the Board from their Website.  I also scoured the website and can’t find anywhere a price listed for membership or trainings (as I recall.  Pls. doublecheck to confirm) which is also odd.  (If you’ve been reading this post right after it was published, I had some trouble wrangling only six names into table format.  See site to clarify.  Who they are is important).
Executive Board Members At Large
Sonia Melara, MSW-President
Executive Director
Rally Family Visitation Services of SFMH:
San Francisco County
Melinda Daugherty – Program Manager
Cope Family Center
Supervised Visitation Program: Napa County
Georgia A. Thompson, M.B.A., M.A.-Treasurer
Program Manager
Los Angeles Wings of Faith: Los Angeles County
Karen Hukill – Executive Director
Parental Dynamics, LLC: Riverside County
Debbie Comstock, MSW, LMFT-Secretary
Private Practice
Clinician & Domestic Violence
Expert Consultant: San Diego County
Shelly LaBotte, J.D.
Access to Visitation Grant Coordinator
Center for Families, Children & the Courts,
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts: San Francisco County

…Parental Dynamics, LLC Corporate Registration as of 11-30-2013:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

However Her LinkedIn — which certainly must be at least 2010ff, as it references her situation with CASVSP, above — states “parental Dynamics, LLC as current, and its website is still up. So, we need to talk about this, not to mention simultaneous employment (?) with a Family Law Specialist who, at first glance, would be covering “domestic violence” from the “Defending yourself against charges” perspective:

Executive Director – Supervised Visitation Service Provider
Parental Dynamics
2000 – Present (13 years) Parental Dynamics, LLC**
Executive Director of Parental Dynamics, LLC and board member for the California Association of Supervised Visitation Providers. Providing professional Supervised Visitation Services in Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties. Speciality in handling in high-risk or high-conflict supervised visitation, including parental abduction and sexual abuse matters . Parental Dynamics offers both on-site and off-site visitation services, and maintains an A rating with the BBB.

Conditions on which the “13 years” with “Parental Dynamics, LLC” might, by stretching it, be “true” — which no viewer should have to do, but conceivably????  it was from another state previous to 2011, after which for less than 2 years, it functioned as an LLC in California? (I say that because there’s a Karen K. Hukill from Texas  showing on-line).

Either that, or it’s simply false — and for 12 or so of the alleged “13 years” it’s simply been operating illegally because no one bothered to check.  (Note:  Paying bills these days, esp to anyone associated with the courts — get their corporate registration, and if they claim to be a nonprofit, get that too — and if it’s unavailable, tell the courts you won’t pay til you see it, and quit extorting me to see my kids if that’s a condition!!)

Sr. Family Law Paralegal
Law Offices of Michael Kelly
1987 – Present (26 years) Law Offices of J. Michael Kelly
Sr. Family Law Litigation Paralegal handling complex litigation matters involving child custody, domestic violence, and relocation (move-away) issues, both foreign and domestic, including Hague Convention Issues. 28 years of experience in working with top tier Certified Family Law Specialists in Los Angeles County. Lector with Founding Partner, J. Michael Kelly, on the Use and Function of Family Law Paralegals in a Family Law Environment at USC Law School and KFI Talk Radio.

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

November 29, 2013 at 7:06 pm

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Because domestic violence refers directly to av program

    Google hhs… Access and visitation and domestic violence

    This is the instruction sheet for filling out the outcomes that haven’t been published since 2008


    Sent from my HTC EVO 4G LTE exclusively from Sprint


    November 29, 2013 at 8:12 pm

  2. Marci found links with family preservation funds in her case… I found it in Tarrant County hidden in a youth action program…

    Sneaky little bastards

    Sent from my HTC EVO 4G LTE exclusively from Sprint


    November 29, 2013 at 8:13 pm

  3. Oh and the way I see it…. Vawa is connected in cases where good dads can’t seem to protect their children either.

    And the result is the research CPR in Denver co puts out… AFCC aligned


    Sent from my HTC EVO 4G LTE exclusively from Sprint


    November 29, 2013 at 8:15 pm

  4. […] And,“Again, I have to ask, how could such a well-known (in the field) group go for so long absent any corporate existence? Not registered with the State of California to do business in California–but it sure looks like they are consistently billing and being paid to do business in California….” “Good Cause to Eliminate (Funding for): Access Visitation, Supervised Visitation, and Batterer’s Intervention, PERIOD!” https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/good-cause-to-eliminate-funding-for-access-visita… […]

  5. Reblogged this on The Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America and commented:
    It is unconstitutional in so many ways to order fit and loving mothers to pay to visit her own child via “SAFE” (free stalking for fathers and their agents) programs for only two hours one time per month over an hour away after such a mother loses home, car, jobs, with ongoing and abusive and maliciously inspired court litigation at the expense of children and, ultimately, society as a whole. It is ignorant and biased to hypothesize that if father’s not being in the home have so largely contributed to so many “social” problems with children, teens, and young adults and criminality, drug use, violence, lack of education, etc…, then how is it logical to conclude that motherless homes will not exacerbate the same problems to an exponential degree? This is “socially,” morally, and constitutionally irresponsible justification for father’s who just want to get out of paying child support that many mother’s would be happy to absolved them of if the courts for the State would let them. , Furthermore, these progressive “new” “solutions” are based on nothing more than backward logic based on zero statistically valid, unbiased research that permits child-savers and protectors, and the honest service professions along with courts, judges, attorneys, state legislators, and State governments to rob its citizenry and the federal piggy bank blind through one hundred percent non-transparent by law 501 (c) (3) tax exempt non-for-profits whilst sensitizing small children to abhorrent sexual perversions and deviance under a subversive satanic agenda. Let’s Get Honest, and Let’s Get Real,…REAL Americans!

    Julian's Real Mummy

    June 17, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    • Were you forced into supervised visitation?

      I’d say “inhumane” rather than “unconstitutional.” I’ve written several posts on the supervised visitation industry (there could be more), but the key to them is following the grants, the court-connected-courts and the conflicts of interest, etc.

      Don’t look for logic or caring — it hasn’t been about that for a VERY long time. Someone got shot to death in a supervised visitation in Manchester, NH last year (Muni Savyon, father, shooter//Joshua Savyon, 9, son). There is absolutely roadkill with or without this supervision — but with it there’s more opportunity for extortion// double-billing // financial misdeeds, etc.
      – – – – – – – – –
      “It is ignorant and biased to hypothesize that if father’s not being in the home have so largely contributed to so many “social” problems with children, teens, and young adults and criminality, drug use, violence, lack of education, etc…, then how is it logical to conclude that motherless homes will not exacerbate the same problems to an exponential degree?”

      I agree. However, what time of day it is — logic is NOT on the map. I suggest getting beyond that (see what the family courts are about — they are about referring people to services, etc.). Those are good questions to a sane person. The family court system isn’t logic-based, it’s referral-based. Look at the systems. I think this will be empowering (though angering) to do, after which, talk to others about where there taxes are going (or, whatever).

      Let's Get Honest

      June 17, 2014 at 11:01 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: