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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Parades, Charades and Facades — Mother’s Day and Beyond

with 3 comments

[about 3,200 words, plus a section on the Guggenheim Family and Foundations = about 3,000 more, making it about 6,000 words…  It links to  post on another of my blogs “The Family Court Franchise System,” quoting parts of it here. As I often do, the original writing is closer to the bottom of the post, and the top part is context. I brought in the philanthropy  examples in preparation for specific situations in upcoming posts, and not just in a random reference.]

Seeing as it’s almost Father’s Day, I thought it was time to put out a post inspired this past May, 2014, on Mother’s Day, after revisiting one I’d drafted on a different but related blog in 2012.  The basic dynamics it described haven’t changed.

Along the lines of the recent post Accounting Literacy Matters.  Cause-based Literacy Doesn’t (even though it’s dealing with a different topic), I then looked again (hindsight sure does help) at some of the players helping compile various Judges’  or Attorneys’ ToolKits” which, I guess, we are to hope might function as some magic wand, or special panacea, if  waved around in hearings for custody and visitation matters after having separated because of domestic violence, or for general knowledge.

Excerpt, and basically about:

How California Protective Parents Association  Doesn’t — and Why

It was drafted in 2012, and finished, of course, supplemented, in 2014. Related “exhibit”

The fine print (footnotes) to that sheet revealed  “good cop/bad cop” discussions in one put out by the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence.  As usual, taking a second look leads to more information about who’s been backing all the policy studies, for example the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation *backing a well-known social scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, who also turns out to be AFCC-friendly:

*Harry Guggenheim established this foundation to support research on violence, aggression, and dominance because he was convinced that solid, thoughtful, scholarly and scientific research, experimentation, and analysis would in the end accomplish more than the usual solutions impelled by urgency rather than understanding. We do not yet hold the solution to violence, but better analyses, more acute predictions, constructive criticisms, and new, effective ideas will come in time from investigations such as those supported by our grants.

The foundation places a priority on the study of urgent problems of violence and aggression in the modern world and also encourages related research projects in neuroscience, genetics, animal behavior, the social sciences, history, criminology, and the humanities which illuminate modern human problems. Grants have been made to study aspects of violence related to youth, family relationships, media effects, crime, biological factors, intergroup conflict related to religion, ethnicity, and nationalism, and political violence deployed in war and sub-state terrorism, as well as processes of peace and the control of aggression.

[from “FAMILY” hyperlink on the site ] All men are not violent, and all violent men are not alike. We encourage more research into typologies of violence and the implications for treatment of distinguishing different types of batterers. However, explanations for spouse abuse must also recognize that two people contribute to a dysfunctional marriage, and the dynamics of family relationships should be explored to understand family violence more completely. The ways both masculinity and femininity are understood in particular cultures should be explored in order to explain how male dominance and marital violence are “normalized” in different and similar ways across cultures. …

Does that not shed some light on why certain people would rather study domestic violence perpetrators and batterers than actively separate them from their victims, PERIOD, sending a public policy message to others that this is socially unacceptable?   And why some are prone to publishing where the grants money is (“let’s characterize batterers and provide and evaluate treatment interventions”) than expecting it to stop by separating the batterer from the battered, as a deterrent, and sending a message that it’s completely unacceptable? (including if women are perpetrating….)

Read the post to find out which Pennsylvania sociologist I’m referring to.


Would I have known this if I didn’t look behind the rhetoric?  NO.  I read.  I never heard of “Harry Frank Guggenheim” foundation, although the Guggenheim family are well known as philanthropists.  Harry Frank (1890-1971) was born into this family of eight sons and wealth from various industries, especially smelting.

The Guggenheim Family (Jennifer Schaub, Grand Valley State grad student, 2005):

The Guggenheim Family left a strong mark in the industrial smelting industry of the early 1900’s. By 1918 Forbes reckoned that the Guggenheims were the second richest family in America (Kaufmann 2004). However, they are more widely remembered as a long line of philanthropists. Five key philanthropists have emerged from this extensive family. By creating a series of foundations, the family is credited for promoting the development of individuals {{??}} by funding research and the development of scholarly thought.  . . .

Historic Roots

Meyer Guggenheim (1828-1905) was a tailor of Swiss-Jewish decent who immigrated to the United States in 1847 (John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, Oppenheim, 2002). He and his wife had eight sons. Meyer created the family fortune in the late 19th century beginning with 300,000 from an investment in railroad stocks (Oppenheim, 2002). From there he moved to importing Swiss embroidery and then eventually into the production of metals including silver copper and lead (Infoplease, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation). Meyer started the Philadelphia Smelting and Refining Company, and eventually took over American Smelting in 1901. At one time the Guggenheim family was said to control 31 industrial, import, and farming companies in the US and abroad (Wooster, 2005) ….

Daniel Guggenheim (1856-1930) was credited for shaping much of the family business; he combined and presided over, the Guggenheim and American Smelting companies. Solomon Robert Guggenheim (1981-1949) was also active in the family business creating mining strong holds most notably in Colombia (The John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation). Simon Guggenheim (1867-1941) was for a short time, a Republican Senator for Colorado, and the chief ore buyer for family factory. He worked in Colorado for a number of years overseeing the Leadville mines (American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise)….

Harry Frank Guggenheim (1890-1971) was the son of Daniel Guggenheim. Harry fought in two world wars and was the ambassador to Cuba from 1929-1933. Harry was also the co-founder, along with his wife Alicia Patterson, of Newsday Magazine (Newsday.com).

Peggy Guggenheim (1898-1979), the daughter of Benjamin, was an art collector and gallery owner. Noted as one of the most important art patrons of the 1930s and 40s. She owned and operated 3 galleries in the US and Europe. Her New York gallery, Art of This Century was one of the first to show such artists as Rothko, Pollock, Dali, Moore, and Brenton (The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum).


As a philanthropist, Daniel Guggenheim is best known as an aviation pioneer. Along with his wife Florence, and their son Harry, Daniel Guggenheim created the Daniel Guggenheim Fund for the promotion of Aeronautics in June 16, 1926 (Wooster, 2005). While the fund was operational, it invested 2.6 million for the creation of aeronautical schools and research centers at 11 different universities. By conducting competitions to create innovations, and funding the research of individuals, projects sponsored by Daniel Guggenheim are said to have increased the safety of Aeronautics …

[para. out of order]

  • Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945) was a physics professor whose contributions to rocket science included a rocket that could travel in a vacuum, and one of the first high altitude rockets. For these and other aeronautical innovations, Goddard has been named one of Time’s 100 Most Important People of the Century. Goddard’s research was funded by Harry Guggenheim for 4 years and the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Foundation for 11 years (Kluger).

Although Harry Guggenheim also financially contributed to the Daniel Guggenheim fund he began his own foundation, the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, which was formed to contribute critical thought and analyses of the world issues of violence and conflict (The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation).

Solomon Guggenheim began collecting non-objective paintings in 1929, and began the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation to purchase and increase the appreciation of modern art. After beginning to amass a large collection, Solomon began plans to create the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York Solomon died before his project was complete and Harry Guggenheim saw to the completion of his Uncle Solomon’s dream (The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum).

[[…Also the Guggenheims, or their foundations, funded:  composer Aaron Copland, artist Jackson Pollock [“American Abstract Expressionism”] , and Charles Augustus Lindbergh.]]

[…obviously this is just a sampler of information …]

The world we now live in has been vastly influenced by industrialists of last century; of the late 1800s and early 1900s.  Some of them were challenged on their monopolies and faced anti-trust actions; any biography of such families shows how they acquire their wealth, diversify often, and set up major foundations, in part as great public relations (sometimes necessary considering how the wealth was acquired), and in return for this, get to restructure the world and institutions we live in — because their wealth and influence enabled them to.

When it comes to a MAJOR aspect of the family courts, ordering treatment for abnormal or violent behavior (or, originally, to avoid divorce) — we can see today that many of the professionals and professors of course owe their studies, and sometimes the centers or institutes, or even schools at which they teach and research — to philanthropists.

We should be looking at this.  When I saw this connection, I better understood what’s the fascination with “treating” everyone, including “batterers,” and families.  It makes NO sense to me to continue dialogues “pretending” the professor/researcher classes are not themselves funded by either private foundations, or government grants, or both, and that we are all on an equal playing field when it comes to setting major policies in the courts, without discussing the power and money behind them — and the power of private wealth to direct public policy.

FOR EXAMPLE — in SAN DIEGO, and regarding GALs:

In the field of Child Welfare Law — here’s an example.  The group “Children’s Advocacy Institute,” which I will post on shortly — has influenced family courts through, with others, pushing for more “counsel for the child” in contested custody cases, a.k.a., adding GALs wherever possible.  Previously, the same professor was NOT interested in family or children’s issues at all, but instead public, environmental, energy (utility) laws.

Notice that Robert Fellmeth is described as holding “the Price Chair of Public Interest Law.”

Price Professor of Public Interest Law/Executive Director

Professor Robert C. Fellmeth is a tenured law professor at the University of San Diego (USD) School of Law and is Founder and Executive Director of USD’s Center for Public Interest Law and itsChildren’s Advocacy Institute.

[[CAI apparently was started about 1989..]]

He is the holder of the Price Chair in Public Interest Law at the USD School of Law, one of two such chairs in the nation. In 1997-98, the School of Law honored him for his “outstanding, balanced, cumulative career contributions supporting the mission and goals of USD [University of San Diego].” Citing his three decades of service as a tenured professor at the School of Law and his extensive scholarship, USD’s School of Leadership and Education Sciences in 2009 added him to its list of “Remarkable Leaders in Education” for “legendary contributions to the field of education made by individuals from San Diego and Imperial Counties.”

A graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Law School, Fellmeth was one of the original “Nader’s Raiders,” organizing the student groups in 1968 and directing the Nader Congress Project in 1970-72. As a deputy district attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney in San Diego from 1973-81, he litigated 22 antitrust actions and founded the nation’s first antitrust unit in a district attorney’s office.

He currently serves on the board of directors of Public Citizen Foundation, the National Association of Counsel for Children [=”NACC”], and First Star. In the past he served on the board of directors of Consumers Union and California Common Cause and as counsel for Voices for America’s Children.

He has taught at the National Judicial College, the National College of District Attorneys, and the California Judicial College. He has authored or co-authored 14 books or treatises, including The Nader Report on the FTC (Baron, 1968), The Politics of Land (Grossman, 1970), California Administrative and Antitrust Law: Regulation of Business, Trades and Professions (Butterworths Legal Publishers) and California White Collar Crime (LEXIS Publishing). His latest treatise is Child Rights and Remedies (Clarity Press, 2011), a text on child advocacy.


So, why would a law professor suddenly switch subject matter from his original practices into children’s advocacy and children’s law, in association with First Star and NACC and Voices for America’s Children? While I don’t know, we can see he’s starting near the top and seeking to influence the field through those organizations.

It’s not that the causes are never good (here’s an example involving Facebook using kids images in ads without parental consent). It’s about pointing out where influences on the courts and their practices comes from.

Center for Public Interest Law, History & Purpose

Over the years, CPIL has initiated a number of successful advocacy and education projects that have evolved into separate entities:

  • In 1989, the Los Angeles-based Weingart Foundation [##see note] awarded a $500,000 grant to CPIL to create the Children’s Advocacy Institute (CAI). CAI quickly became one of the state’s leading child advocacy organizations, representing children in the state legislature, in the courts, before administrative agencies, and through public education programs. CAI’s achievements include legislation to overhaul the regulation of child care facilities . . . .research and evaluation of a pilot project substituting a single, interdisciplinary interview of a child abuse victim for repeated interrogations by multiple interviewers; creation of the Child Advocacy Clinic, which provides law students with the skills and knowledge necessary to represent the interests of children in all fora; and publication of the California Children’s Budget, California Legislative Report Card, and Children’s Regulatory Law Reporter.
  • In 1990, San Diego philanthropists Sol and Helen Price contributed $1.5 million to USD to establish the Price Chair in Public Interest Law, an endowed faculty chair held by CPIL founder Robert C. Fellmeth.

[from another link, same site] “In November 1990, the USD School of Law proudly announced the establishment of its first endowed faculty chair: the Price Chair in Public Interest Law.

Almost $2 million in funding for the chair was contributed by San Diego philanthropists Sol and Helen Price. The holder of the chair is to teach public interest law and direct the Center for Public Interest Law. The first holder of the Price Chair in Public Interest Law is CPIL Director and Professor Robert C. Fellmeth.”

##Weingart Foundation:

Founded in 1951 by Ben and Stella Weingart, the Weingart Foundation is a private, nonprofit grantmaking foundation that seeks to build better communities by providing assistance to people in need, thereby helping them to lead more rewarding and productive lives.

The Foundation gives highest priority to activities that provide greater access to people who are economically disadvantaged and underserved. Of particular interest to the Foundation are applications that specifically address the needs of low-income children and youth, older adults, and people affected by disabilities and homelessness.

The Foundation supports nonprofit organizations in the areas of health, human services and education, across seven Southern California counties including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, Ventura and San Diego. During the past thirty-nine years (1972-2011), the Foundation authorized grants of more than $910 million to support a variety of Southern California social services, educational, and community programs. With assets of approximately $718 million, the Foundation continues to be a major philanthropic institution serving the needs of Southern California.
The wealth came from real estate.  Ben Weingart (1888-1990) foresaw the expansion of the Los Angeles area, and bought property, planned the City of Lakewood:
Reflections on Ben Weingart (1888-1980)
Ben Weingart’s life began in poverty, but when be died in December 1980, his Southern California real estate holdings were comprised mostly of hotels, shopping centers and apartment buildings worth many millions of dollars. He probably was best known as the man who led the multimillion-dollar venture that created a new town, the City of Lakewood, on what previously were sugar-beet and bean fields.
Built after World War II on a scale grander than Levittown, its famous Eastern counterpart, Lakewood was the first planned city in Southern California. In the 1950s Weingart purchased 3,500 acres of agricultural land from Montana Land Co. and, in the years following, developed the new community of 18,000 homes and the 156-acre Lakewood Center, one of Southern California’s first shopping malls.In planning to develop Lakewood, Weingart and his then partners, Mark Taper and Louis Boyar, foresaw a fundamental shift in population patterns that soon would transform Los Angeles into one of the nation’s primary urban centers.

Sol and Helene Price:

  Briefly,  Sol and Helen Price biographies, business history, charities; Sol’s 2009 NYT obituary *(he was 93).  Read the obituary to realize the impact this one man had on the American landscape (if you’ve heard of Costco, WalMart, etc.. )

*Sol Price, Founder of Price Club, Dies at 93 (New York Times – Dec. 16, 2009 by Margalit Fox)

. . .With Robert, Mr. Price started the first Price Club in 1976 in a cavernous former airplane parts factory in an unfashionable part of San Diego. The business, which offered consumer goods as varied as tires, books and household appliances at extremely low prices, proved to be the leading edge in the multibillion-dollar influx of discount big-box stores, among them Costco, BJ’s Wholesale Club and Sam’s Club.

By 1990, members-only retail clubs had become the fastest-growing sector of retailing, The Associated Press reported.   ….

By 1993, shortly before merging with Costco, Price Club comprised 94 stores in the United States, Canada and Mexico, with annual revenue of more than $6 billion. Mr. Price, who was long active in philanthropic affairs, had an estimated net worth of $500 million, The San Diego Business Journal reported in 2006.

Sol Price was born in the Bronx on Jan 23, 1916. His parents worked in New York City’s garment industry. (The original family surname has been lost to time. It was changed, prophetically, to Price at Ellis Island.) After moving with his family to San Diego as a youth, he did undergraduate study at several colleges before earning a law degree from the University of Southern Californiain the late 1930s.

Mr. Price worked as a business lawyer in San Diego before starting FedMart, a local discount warehouse, with several partners in 1954.

and at one point a feud with his son Laurence, who lost, but had been awarded $3.7 million on a canceled lease.  Interesting that the donation to the CPIL, founding a law professor chair in their name right after the establishment of a Children’s Advocacy Institute in 1990 came immediately after a lawsuit with his own son for infliction of emotional distress to the point interfering with son Laurence’s relationships with his own sons.

For a time, many Price Club warehouses had attached tire installation centers, an operation owned by Mr. Price’s son Laurence. But in a widely reported feud with his father, Laurence Price filed for arbitration after Sol Price canceled the leases on those centers in 1985; Laurence was awarded $3.7 million.

In 1987 Laurence Price sued his father for emotional distress, contending that the elder Mr. Price had interfered with the raising of Laurence’s sons. The suit was thrown out of court in 1989.

etc.  [interesting — William Fellmeth, a law professor, starts “Children’s Advocacy Institute” with funds from another foundation, and one year later, Sol & Helen Price donate (some say $1.5, others $1.8, others $2 million — but, they donate…]
Price Gives $1.8 million for Public Interest Chair at USD” (Nov. 1, 1990, Los Angeles Times)

San Diego financier and retailer Sol Price announced Wednesday a $1.8-million gift to the University of San Diego to support a permanent professorial chair in public interest law intended to make state government regulatory agencies more accountable to the public.

The funds will pay for a full-time faculty member at the USD Center of Public Interest Law to train students to advocate the interests of under-represented Californians in state courts, in the Legislature and in dealings with the more than 60 state agencies that regulate business, the environment, law, medicine and trade. . . .

“It’s important that someone challenge the system,” Price said. “State agencies start out protecting the public, but soon industry ends up owning the board or commission.”

Price, an attorney by training and longtime Democratic Party activist, founded the Price Club wholesale warehouse chain in 1976, which last year had revenues of more than $5 billion. Based on revenue, Price Club is the largest San Diego-based business and more than twice the size of San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the second largest.

Price and his wife, Helen, established the Price Family Charitable Trust, which contributed $1 million to the San Diego Hospice in honor of grandson Aaron Price. He also gave $2 million to UCSD for its student center named after his family.


In May 2013, the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference moved its location to Washington and changed its meeting month to May, giving it an opportunity to take the drama, pathos, and demands for Congressional Oversight Hearings right to the source.

I blogged in 2011 and thereafter how the presenters, a mixture of survivors and service providers, come together to sell solutions and product to distressed mothers, and throughout each year, carry the torch on free promos by the mothers, and attending more conferences, for several of the presenters. I blogged in March 2013, “The Nation’s Top Domestic Violence/Child Custody Experts Continue Trying to Dumb Down Moms” and show how.  (This post also has a feedback form.  It also deals with the concept of “Conferences” and “Roundtables” as excluding nonparticipants. ).  On May 28, 2013, I blogged “Someone Got This Evidence.  You Could Too.  What’s the Follow-up Plan? (Pt. 1).  The “someone” as to Connecticut courts was Anne Steve’nson.  Previously some others had left clear footprints where to look, but it’d been dropped.

This sometimes more formally, but usually more loosely-aligned set of Northern California and other advocacy groups label themselves under titles such as:  leadership,  safe children, brave children, judicial excellence, and (in other contexts) solutions to child abuse, with involvement of domestic violence leadership, and often featuring specifically two men — authors, speakers and/or consultants coming from the batterers’ intervention fields claiming (or at least seeking) to spearhead (as to policy) the mothers’ movement, and helping parents protect their children (referring to the family court venue).  These two men speak empathetic and compassionate words about how honored they are to be trusted by the various women (mothers) with the most important issues and dangers of their lives, and what wonderful listeners they are.

Women who stray too far outside the “tell us your story, we’re on your side” behaviors are less appreciated, sometimes attacked, but more commonly, just ignored.  Sometimes group members launch various social media attacks on such traitors.  SO WHAT!  Is this a culture of “don’t criticize us?”

If so, what’s that mentality but a cult?  Didn’t many of us come out from just that sort of domination to start with, “suppress dissent for the sake of the marriage, for the sake of the kids, for the sake of the family….”  Why put up with more on the way out?

FYI, 2014 has been a tough year on the local level, as have the ones before.  However, unlike various mothers I’ve run across who figured out the operating paradigms of these groups and simply detached themselves, I made a personal decision that 2014 is the year when I finish exposing the “fix our broken courts” agenda on-line, and how what’s being said is so foolish and so irrational, and so poorly presented, let alone so incomplete it’s deceitful.  It also encourages a receptive “teach-me” response in listeners, versus respectfully including links to sources of information.

Therefore, logically I believe either the leadership is simply using the parents they seek out, or are being used by others, to get to the parents.  Without traumatic bonding, group-enforced loyalty (or, as it comes up, excommunications), coaching to go astray, I think most intelligent mothers and fathers might have figured out things better on their own, separately.  What this group of organizations does is disorganize conversations among mothers (in particular) with interests in common surrounding the courts, attempting to stir them in a pre-determined direction.

I now understand more clearly that certain groups are in place to make sure that dropped trail is if not obliterated, at least forgotten, while defining themselves as a movement, and driving that movement down a different path.  The parents who opt out of researching where it’s leading, will be carried along to a destination of hope based on unproven theories about why custody evaluators and judges (etc.) make decisions.  These theories consistently omit other evidence reasonably known to the group leaders, and also to many of their own followers.

The title of my post is accurate — these are Parades, Charades and Facades about genuine concern for the truth and for children and their parents.   I’m not saying the child abuse involved isn’t real.  I’m saying that once facts are exposed, watch how others handle them.

True concern would have incorporated the message about welfare reform, the financial incentives, the potential for (and ongoing incidents) of financial fraud through tax evasion (money-laundering, etc.) and in general financial extortion through the structure (not just the individuals in the structure, but the structure itself) of the family court system.

True concern also would’ve not silenced the voice of other parents who are entrenched in their situations long-term, and taking advantage of their inability to run around doing conferences; many of these women are impoverished through the courts.  True concern would’ve easily identified supervised visitation AND batterers’ intervention provision as simply rackets.  They’ve funded careers, and provided the subject matter for books.  They’ve completely broken some parents who would do anything to see their children, and since 1999 it’s been seen in the top circles (sorry but California Judicial Council IS included in these, and is the receiving agency for federal access/visitation grants, which as I recall are funds diverted from OCSE (Title IV-D child support collection), intended to increase noncustodial parent time.

And anyone with eyes to see can name and accurately, objectively describe the various nonprofit trade corporations (“associations”) that judges, mediators, psychologists, court administrators, family lawyers, and related personnel doing business with the courts, form and belong to.  True concern would have developed and shared a simple taxonomy (vocabulary labels) that leads to understanding outside the primary field of human behavior, i.e., psychology & social sciences (arguing Gardner, PAS, abusers, batterers, etc.) and leads to the larger and very real world we inhabit, of the greater context, and the more accurate historical context.

The benefits of naming and accurately describing the context, and the corporations by name — is that one no longer has to live (emotionally and mentally) exclusively loyal to mediated and interpreted reality– but can, alongside others seeing the same reality (separately and independently verifying pieces of it to assemble some patterns) — have a unity around those facts — instead of around others’ constant re-telling of a personal reality.  If more facts arise which shed light on the current understanding, these can be discussed.  Whereas, if one has invested enough time, years perhaps even money, in riding down the trail of tears on “Hope Road” — divesting gets harder and harder.  Changing world views when world views are based on group-mediated, shared-vocabulary interpretations of the family courts = is close to treason.

The link today to CPPA/MOLC’s re-telling of their Mothers’ Day Washington Events (and others within the newsletter) are a good example of “mediated” reality, and mutual folklore.  It is a typical example.

I did.  These three posts contain a basic visual, a simple chart, to consider what’s the label?  Government, Corporation, or “UFO” (neither)? If corporation, for-profit or nonprofit?  This may lead to sources of funds, and for nonprofits, it becomes clear whether or not the organization is self-supporting, or basically a government project by another name.  It also exposes sometimes operations which are making a very fine profit, and keeping it through tax exemption, etc.

Become more  conscious of WHO one is following, and HOW to obtain very simple basic and revealing information from public resources available for free on-line.  What this also reveals is when that information doesn’t exist — you are dealing with a ghost organization, or one who is going by one name, but receiving funding under some other fiscal agent, or is very careful to consistently work in partnership, or as a co-sponsor with another group, while using their name to attract (bait) customers.

Where’s Waldo? and Who’s Your Daddy?” How and Why to Run Background-Checks
on (any and all) “POLICY,” or “RESOURCE,” or so-called “JUSTICE” Centers  [“README”]
September 1, 2013
NAMES: “Center, Council, Judicial, Legislative, Institute…”
But WHO they are, and how legit, is in the LABEL.
August 30, 2013
What Centers for ABC___XYZ Policy, Especially “Marriage” Policy, Really Mean August 9, 2013

Get beyond the names and the rhetoric, and get a basic group identity, then ALSO notice the rhetoric and behaviors.  That’s just common sense, and that’s what I’ve been doing, including here.  Get a little more depth perception by getting the context.  Where there is a business or corporate identity, this also gives an outside point of reference with which to compare the public timelines and self-descriptions of any group, or loose, or close, collaboration of groups.  

With time, you can spot the language (or the language of those who have been recruited) miles away, and become a discriminating participant, not just a passive carrier who can’t speak (really communicate) with people outside a particular, limited jargon representing limited ideas.  At least it’s interesting! but it’s also useful.  

Here’s the post:

It’s been an interesting week, leading up to Mother’s Day, surviving it emotionally.

Funny how our country is about as hostile towards motherhood as it can possibly be (judging by all the “fatherhood.gov” projects running around the US Government agencies, which all of us fund, plus some private major foundations whose corporate wealth came from, in many cases, pharmaceutical or chemical companies long, long ago).    …. I take this in general as hostility towards women, but allocating a single day a year to romanticize the concept — while those of us whose children were stolen thanks to the profit to be made on them, are in prolonged suffering over this matter?  That’s beyond hypocrisy.

From “The FamilyCourtMoneyMachine” My Other  Blog from 2012 … Timely information still.

In the year 2012, I worked intensively on a different blog platform, “Blogspot.com” and set up a panorama of posts, and research.

It seems to be loading properly again.  It has 71 comprehensive posts and about 6 pages written as I was discovering the governmental financial reports (CAFR) AND was blogging on behalf of Pennsylvanians reeling from FBI raids on the local family courthouse (which happened to be an AFCC-run one).   I would’ve quit, except for  a “courthouse roundup” —  where an out of control judge used the bailiffs to arrest innocent people who happened to be in the wrong building (the courthouse) at the right time.  If we do not understand that “in Your Face Abuse of Power” of these times — well, perhaps we deserve to be rounded up like sheep if we stray near those temples of justice, courts.

One of the more fun projects:  “Notes on Broken Courts and the Experts Who Want to Fix Them.”  As I researched and posted, I learned more depth on these subjects, particularly the history of psychology and psychoanalysis in this country, and how/where it connects to (hooked up with, and helped create) the family and conciliation court venues nationwide.

That blog is  still a good reference:   The Family Court Moneymachine.Blogspot.com (“Family Court Franchise System”).  It can be viewed in Flipcard, Mosaic (looks more like a newspaper without ads) or other modes.  Hover cursor near the edges to see dropdown mention of about six pages, and if you click on “It’s Elementary: The Links Tell the Story,” they do!

Around this time also the travesty in Connecticut of a former GAL having been confirmed as Judge after she had been confirmed by other witnesses of covering up serious sexual abuse of a little boy, is handled, some of which is reflected in the pages at the top of the post — for example, “Connect-i-cut 2012:   Scripted Judicial Confirmations, High-Conflict Court.” This post comes with a reader warning (graphic nature of the case in question), and I wrote:

Middletown, where the GAL is from, also has a High-Conflict Court, cases are referred there.  When I post on that, I think the public will have less and less excuse to admit [“for failing to admit”] that the purpose behind the ruling regime at family court is to cover up abuse — and not much else.  (oh yes, in order to do this, it’s necessary to change the justice system from the bench)

I had a post in draft from there — here it is, and as appropriate this year as any other, if not more so:


How California Protective Parents Association  Doesn’t — and Why

It was drafted in 2012, and finished, of course, supplemented, in 2014. Related “exhibit”

This was literally a 10-page email, with only one or two extra comments on my part. Or, see it as a link with hyperlinks at the MOLC main website.

I’ve often been accused (and it’s true) of overloading people with information.  Why don’t I keep it down to 5 simple facts (one for each finger) or perhaps 10 (one for each finger on both hands)?

I don’t know — except that lists of points without the connecting logic between them doesn’t quite work for me.  So someone made 5 points, or 10 points — what’s the underlying operating principles that makes those (and not 5 others, or 10 others) the important ones? Anyhow, this is literally a quote from CPPA after they decided to fess up and admit that there are federal funds to the states involving, oh, Child Support and Fathers’ Rights groups.  But they don’t want to confuse the readers (whoever’s on the email list), so, in their own words:

“The following may be way too much information. Feel free to take what you like and leave the rest.”

Yep.  Just leave it to us experts, and remember — tell everyone we want Congressional Oversight hearings; in fact, just take a few tips from us, and we’ll do the thinking. You do the recruiting… So, I began:

How California Protective Parents Association, DOESN’T — and Why   My 2012 shocked, offended and offensive draft post is still appropriate before Mothers’ Day 2014, and another (2nd in a row) “BMCC” (or mini-BMCC) conference in Washington, D.C. crying “foul!” about the family court operations and practices.

None of the participants have particularly changed their ways, nor are they going to — collectively, this is basically a cult. Cults don’t change — they recruit and expand while concealing the ultimate agenda from their recruits. Period.

This bunch consistently demands FEDERAL oversight of STATE court issues while telling mothers/followers what to do (and who to quote) and trying to sound powerful and humble and authoritative at the same time.

In honor (?) of Mother’s Day 2014, I took this post out of draft, supplemented the middle, and added to the end.   Personally, in honor of my own children, who deserved better, I’ve done my best to make up for the serious errors of: #1.   listening too long to even some of these collected organizations while in trauma and #2.  as a US citizen, simply not understanding  who my own government is, and how it works.   To be more correct, “governments” are plural, there are over 100,000 of them in the United States, and even the US Census Bureau doesn’t have a correct count.  That’s a huge amount of amassed assets creating a huge temptation for those who know about them to get in on being paid to “serve” the public. See FamilyCourtMatters [this] blog for posts on that.

Then again, I am a domestic violence survivor whose children were stolen overnight years ago, still like others have to deal with some of the individuals who made this happen and yes I am still fighting for personal survival and hope. But one thing I am NOT confused about is who’s who when it comes to advocacy groups — because I now have few standard of measurement, and have done my lookups.

This blogging is a track record and a resource for people who sense in their guts that something ain’t right in the stories being told by these groups.

[Check out the part on “Richard J. Gelles, PhD’s corporate backers and associations.  Ask “why?” and “What’s this?” a lot!!!] In 2012, on having received yet another “CPPA” circular, uploaded HERE,  [ CPPA “Mothers of Lost Children” May13,2012 Rpt,Tactics on WDC Events (10pp)] I asked: Why Have ALL (all) These Organizations 

(and yet more of their associates)…

… Year after Year, completely rejected the Ongoing Investigation, Documentation and Published Earlier Work of (among others) these People? 

for WHICH people, see that post, which has these tags:

AFCC, BMCC, CJE, Courageous Kids, CPPA, Demand Congressional Hearings, Janet R Johnston, Leadership Council, MOLC, NCADV, Private Foundations, Richard Gelles, the ABA on DV, Witness Justice

and ends along these lines, with a warning about cults, about groups fishing for live bait, and about getting into the car for a ride with strangers….

 I have to ask, would you yourself get into a car with strangers, and take a very long ride to an unknown destination?  I’m not talking about where is the next rally or conference — I’m talking about, where is this headed? If these people, in approaching you, did so through your friends, and consistently addressed publicity (emails to the group lists) “Dear Friends,” — would that make them your friends? As a protective parent (whatever that is) would you want your kids to be aware who THEIR friends are before getting into a car with them, particularly friends offering candy, drugs, or help?

Do you know STILL not, yet, know how to recognize recruitment for cult membership? Have we learned nothing since the 1970s and the days of the Moonies — incidentally, the Unification Church, and plenty of other recruiting religions/cults (new age, pentecostal, conservative, dominionist, you name it) are in on some of the programs and grants streams (based on welfare reform diversions) that CPPA and the six organizations above choose not to report on.

Courageous Kids are indeed courageous.  They are also (Jennifer Collins, no doubt Damon, and others) being mentored, sponsored (as to promotion on-line) and coached by their “elders,” and more than one “lone wolf” such as my self has already attempted to speak to them about the underlying economics.  Whether one is young, energetic and smart, or old, energetic and smart/wiser for the experience, if you are involved in a cult, you will reject information the cult doesn’t want you to digest.

Cults cannot be maintained with free flow of information and the ability to assess that information independently of the propaganda.  For one, I personally believe “the word is out” that there are crowds of gullible mothers, and fathers, for easy pickings.

Read my Lips. Read your Tax Returns — where you can get your hand on them, and of the above groups, I’ve read the ones that DO have them, and know which ones, don’t.   And there are some really strange, “below-the radar, small operations” fiscal behaviors for would-be national and international reform groups.   Not all do. 

 Know what time of day it is, and pay better attention, and who’s been fishing for what. When you see small outfits  (nonprofits) emphasizing how small they are, in combination with other small outfits (sticking up for the poor and abused of the world) fishing for customers of conferences sponsored by large, connected outfits, like the domestic violence industry — perhaps the industry you’re actually in is the fishing industry — and you’re the fish, being schooled, and farmed as bait for for bigger and better things to come.

A Different Kind of Attention develops Sound Judgment March 23, 2014 This is a full-fledged post which shows how the movement we’re looking at, above, got started in DIRECT refutation of the information coming out, around the same time, about how money-laundering is set up in the courts through the training programs.  About how HHS was taking  money intended to help families and diverting it into marriage promotion, and much much more. A different tale is put together when one looks up corporate filings, charitable filings, and who was promoting what, starting when.

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It amazes me, the level of ego, self righteousness, and elitism that exudes from all of this gobbledygook. No parent wants to read any of this crap; let alone all of it – as the authors suggest. Go do our own research? Why? When a parent has spare time they help with HOMEWORK not research. The answer is simple enough that any 1st grader can explain the merits: Custody is only fair when shared 50/50. We don’t need more study, research, special interest groups, courts, coalitions, victims or champions. What argument does either party have when the custody is 50/50. How much more obvious could it be? Any suggestion to the contrary can dominate your valuable research time; but not mine. I don’t give a damn about the whole lot of you. I just want the same thing every family court loser wants – EQUAL CUSTODY – EQUAL VISITATION – EQUAL SHARE OF EXPENSES Any dialogue outside of this solution is a distraction and waste. Do you expect that some study will eventually provide concrete evidence to support anything other than balanced, fair, equal responsibilities (aka rights) to both parents? And if so, would it settle this? Never. You continue to exacerbate the problem while you avoid implementing the solution. We don’t need any more of any of this bullshit.

    One thing I learned along the way – There’s really three sides to every story: His, Hers, and the truth. That’s not to imply that He and She are incapable of truth. Merely that perception and reality are not the same – yet we as humans can’t escape the unfortunate universal principle that dictates that you can only be in one place at a time. Your personal reality will always be flawed, as it will always be subject to your unique perspective. Throw out her bullshit, throw out his bullshit, and the reality remains. Without Serious uncontested irrefutable evidence to prove that a parent seriously jeopardizes a child’s well-being; each parent should carry 50% responsibility for caring for that child, including custody, visitation, expenses and decision making (otherwise known as parenting).

    As for what to do with all of that money that is being wasted in these stupid pseudo-welfare programs when they no longer sway the outcome? Simple – give it to the economically disadvantaged parent to help them bridge the gap where “child support” used to be.

    Focus on the solution. If you think 50/50 isn’t the right solution (in your exalted opinion), then you are the very organization you demonize. Special interests, in it for someone other than – The Family.

    So what’s your beef with 50/50? Why isn’t the discussion around implementing that?

    Potheads got marijuana legalized with petitions and voters. Why can’t disenfranchised parents accomplish the same with their children?

    C Noble

    June 26, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    • ____________
      I haven’t published a post (here) for a year now. Some delay in approving your comment because I do have an ongoing life outside this volunteer, one-person, word-press blog. Spent too long responding, but I didn’t feel that just because it’s a rant, it shouldn’t be aired. You sound like someone who needs to feel heard.

      Even though you started with an insult, and then moved right into several assumptions about how many authors this blog has, and about ALL parents (which the traffic counter- over 202,000 — and a modest, but still there – 314 followers, I assure you many actually ARE parents, and in addition, I know several other parents who have actually been reading this blog and re-blogging it (men and women both). Someone even put a link up under “Issues” on a campaign site for a state supreme court state justice not too long ago, not that I lived in that state, or particularly endorsed that candidate. (http://www.macdonaldforjustice.com/issues.html, the link is right under the large word “REFORM.” I did not write the surrounding material on that page and was not involved in the campaign.) It’s been commended (despite the format) by strangers (people who don’t know me at all). Per another service which bloggers can use, which puts up html to show Who was visiting, this blog was for a while being watched by number of state bar associations, the Executive Office of the President at least a few times, and district attorneys’ offices and a number of law firms. I think one of the “About” links on the sidebar here has posted some samples.
      If you think putting others down raises you up somehow, spout on and attempt to exalt yourself in this manner. I don’t, and this blog was not about me and in fact was necessary because people were more interested in “telling their stories” (and others, with private purposes behind this, as shown on how, when, and (financed) by whom their organizations were set up, and what tax-exempt purpose were declared on them, I’m referring specifically, but not only, to “Center for Judicial Excellence”) had an agenda for getting them to talk about their court cases, and allow it to be branded by the groups in question to demand system reform IN A SPECIFIC, EXCLUSIVIST MANNER which any discussion of the federal grants would show to be self-defeating. I put this blog together specifically to take the discussion OUT of “He said/she said” mode into “THIS ORGANIZATION IS” and “THOSE GRANTS-STREAMS ARE” mode, which is a more solid, more objective ground, and one in which some insight leads to more insight into government itself. I wanted it out of “anecdotal evidence” and you should too.
      I put this blog together for a record of what was done and has been done through the creation of a hybrid jurisdiction (which family courts it seems are) under which NO individual rights seem to exist, and as a resource for people who have the attitude and stomach to face some hard truths about this country.

      Many of us had to face these when we lost contact with our children overnight and read the “rationale” why in the courts, and THEN learned about the federal incentives to the states, and to the courts. The justice system is being internationally aligned in a certain way, which I blog on. That way involves public/private collaboration in the tax-exempt sector. It has everything to do with the relationship between business entities (and their tax-exempt status) + government entities (of all kinds and levels) + individuals who, in working, provide a tax base for those who entities which are tax exempt. This allows, over time, collective accumulation of wealth and influence — after some point in time, the word “justice” is just window-dressing.


      I do not write “gobbledygook,” Lifelong habits of not sorting or processing information very well, especially when one set of information contradicts cherished beliefs, can result in internal gobbledygook, which judging by your comments, you are struggling with and instead chose to take it out in the form of a (harmless to me, though antagonistic) comment. Another condition in which people are sometimes confused to the point of lashing out at others is ongoing personal trauma.

      I am not a computer genius, and am writing from a free word-press platform which, when I quote from other websites, often has formatting issues. But what I write, I research, have pushed myself to understand, though I have experience (personal), acquaintance with others’ experiences from years of communications with both mothers and fathers on the issues they have dealt with, where this blog differs is that I’m saying, look at the operational structures — follow the money. This is public money blended with private, and where private money is driving the court system through tax-exempt foundations (and the nonprofits they fund) to set up shop right IN the courts, this is like a criminal syndicate calling itself “justice.”

      I acquired — I did not have this to start with as a noncustodial single mother (gender does matter in federal policy, and in the courts), or even as a cut-off-overnight parent, an above-average understanding (acquired from a combination of diligent attention, and using my mind to comprehend what I was seeing — it’s called Understanding) of the Operations, Practices, and History of the Family and Conciliation Courts. See title of blog.
      I approved your indignant rant with its inane premise that 50/50 custody will solve all issues. I have no reason not to — the comment speaks for itself of the mindset of whoever wrote it.

      Presumptive 50/50 custody by definition ignores the reality of child abuse, wife-(or husband-)battering, economic realities of raising children and sustaining a work life/what it takes to jump-start one which may have been put completely on hold, and a denial of the profits involved in setting up a caste of professionals and court-connected problems to push co-parenting on everyone, except where one parent is “punished” — often for standing up for their own flesh and blood to protect them, or to demand that a history of felony behavior including domestic violence, not be swept under the carpet post-divorce as is so often attempted and condoned (especially by religious groups) during marriage.
      Your comment demonstrates anger, and a mental laziness with a simplistic solution, based on ridiculous claims of what “family court losers” want. I thank God that there are, I think, still a few requirements for elected office.

      I encourage people with some intelligence, diligence, and understanding to understand who the family courts are, how they got here, and what they have been doing since arrival, with public funds and private lives.

      I live in communities, and many Americans do, where entire families have been murdered by one partner who didn’t get a 50/50 and in some cases, where they did. Public property and private has been blown up (houses), windows smashed, kids gassed in cars and set on fire, kids of all ages stolen, women stabbed and dropped by the side of the highway to die, and we have even in California had a tollbooth shooting by a jealous ex. In a supervised visitation session — based on the premise that no matter what fathers, (specifically) MUST have contact with their offspring, regardless of behavior, regardless of — and in fact because of — threats to kill — two people indeed did die — by bullet — DURING the supervised visitation session (Manchester, NH, August 2013). Within one month of the same court-ordered visitation exchange (weekly, and I always complied in bringing the children to see their father, regardless of his behavior towards me, or mounting child support arrears, although the amount was set at WELFARE level and never increased), another couple in this same area called the Reisers also had a routine exchange. She was then never seen again, and only AFTER this man was convicted absent a body of murder, did he agree to go show the authorities the shallow grave where he had buried her. Within just half a year, another woman attempting to safely leave a controlling ex, was shot to death on a weekday morning in a church parking lot, in the same area where I was dealing with multiple court hearings attempting to re-gain contact with my stolen children. About a half year later, there was a triple homicide — in the same, post-divorce context and with a history of domestic violence — in our area. A relative of the wife, a cop, and the husband, was involved. A few years later, same state (California), a man who DID have 50/50 custody (more than, in fact) STILL went after not only the wife and mother of his child, but also innocent bystanders, in a beauty salon — and eight people died, as I recall. It was cold-blooded murder.

      The family court authorities know these things are happening (so does the public), and STILL continue to push for co-parenting for all, and where one party is incompetent — heck, let’s just run classes for everyone, if possible, every time there is a custody motion. I think it is fair to say, they are not going to report on their own colleagues profiting from this, or the federal grants systems blended with private money, promoting it.

      Moreover, the family court advocacy groups (which this post is about) aren’t going to “fess up” either about the grants systems THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT FOR YEARS. Instead, they push for more trainings, certification, and specialized courts, dockets, and procedures to ensure that (allegedly) fathers are not discriminated against — although decent fathers in this program ARE being discriminated against, and law-abiding mothers too. People are forced into situations where they know their lives are

      The more people are hurt, the more money is poured into “problem-solving” what problems occur, some of it over the insistence in THEORY that “The best parent is both parents” (Children’s Rights Council) when in fact, in some situations, the best parent is ONE parent, and in others, two.

      The answer is simple enough that any 1st grader can explain the merits: Custody is only fair when shared 50/50.

      Bullsh*t. This blanket solution cannot be applied to all cases, doesn’t fit with economic reality, or real life, or much else. There is nothing “fair” about demanding regular exposure of children to parents who have threatened to injure, injured, threatened to kidnap, etc. the other parent of the children — and these situations really do exist. Some of know personally, others know when the “roadkill” shows up afterwards. Besides the “roadkill” there are the economically devastated lives, that go on for sometimes YEARS afterwards.
      What’s more, if you take some time (Don’t read my blog if it doesn’t make sense. Go figure it out on your own, from information available) to comprehend what these courts were originally set up for, and by whom, you will understand that despite their operating on the same general premise (anti-single-parenting), in effect they are often completely cutting off children from contact with a parent innocent of any crime. This is part and parcel, apparently, of “no-fault-divorce” (first state to pass it, California in 1970, I believe). Previously, in 1963, AFCC claims (it may not be accurate: 1975 seems more legitimate) to have formed themselves for the purpose of reducing conflict in families (see their website for the motto). This organization represents civil servants forming private trade associations, involving judges, who can then order (FORCE) consumption of services to, in effect, their cronies (“colleagues”) in the form of nonprofit corporations set up and taking business from those courts. There are MANY moving parts to this situation — and they move through time and they move in private and public circles. There is an agenda which has nothing to do with parents, or the public interest, being carried out here…. and if you want “fair” (however it’s defined) you want “fair” enforced. Why then wouldn’t you look at the institutions you want to enforce it and seek to at least try to understand them?

      Quote from comment, continued:
      We don’t need more study, research, special interest groups, courts, coalitions, victims or champions. What argument does either party have when the custody is 50/50. How much more obvious could it be? Any suggestion to the contrary can dominate your valuable research time; but not mine. I don’t give a damn about the whole lot of you. I just want the same thing every family court loser wants – EQUAL CUSTODY – EQUAL VISITATION – EQUAL SHARE OF EXPENSES Any dialogue outside of this solution is a distraction and waste..

      Expenses occur over a time-span as does the ability to produce income. When in a marriage there has been complete inequality in access to income-producing work, or acquisition of any other income-producing assets which might support a separated spouse who had little to none during marriage and while caring for children — then “equal expenses” only accounts for now — it doesn’t account for the past, and it doesn’t account for the future. If one has lived with a control-freak abuser, that control-freak is often smart enough to start shutting down escape routes early on. This happened in my situation. When I overcame this, as to at least producing enough for household expenses, shortly after the separation, I still did not have credit, or savings accumulation of any sort– this is often not possible for women in violent relationships and hadn’t been in mine. He had stolen my credit with an implicit threat sustained over years (assault and battery behavior was established as a pattern, and once established, puts a “survival mode” dynamic onto the whole relationship). I needed temporary help to get housing. Once others involved (and he) saw that I was actually self-sustaining, with our children, not restricting weekly access as ordered by the court, but restricting HIS access to mess with MY life, i.e., work and parenting both — then “round two” in the family courts was initiated. This “Round Two” in only a few short years, and despite my attempts to forestall the process, effectively eliminated protections, added “litigation” in a court which doesn’t respect or really even acknowledge the language of criminal law, and it drove work away. This impoverished my household, and did nothing to particularly encourage the father to sustain a work life minus the privilege to beat up on someone when frustrated, or when he wanted to).

      There is nothing “equal” about “equal” treatment in the present after years of such work-trashing and aggressively, systematically, eliminating another human being’s economic foot print — work history, banking history, access to credit, etc. I’m not talking normal situations in which there is by choice a life-long stay-at-home mother (I was a combination of both), but abnormal situations. Although, I will say I’ve run across too many women, often in Christian marriages, who to this day do not understand basic household economics and are on an “allowance.” Apart from domestic violence, or criminal/accident events, women tend to live longer than men, and to fail to provide for this makes to me, no sense.

      ALL responsible citizens need to make an effort to understand not just their household economics, but government economics as well. We need to understand the close (incestuous) relationship between corporate wealth, tax-exempt wealth (which is where families or individuals pour inherited or business-acquired wealth) and government institutions that the public funds. We need to understand how we are being controlled and governed through institutions we fund (through taxation) with a purpose to keeping us dependent upon that Public/Private sector “for our own good.” We need to be able to talk about systems of control in terms not limited by those in control as “acceptable.”

      re: One thing I learned along the way – There’s really three sides to every story: His, Hers, and the truth.

      That sounds wise and says nothing substantial. Again, this blog is not focused on his and her stories, but the truth expressed in systems and economic terms. It exists as a deliberate departure from groups which focus on cause-based rhetoric, and says that the “LCD,” the lowest common denominator, of this cause versus that cause (speaking systems change groups, advocacy groups — and not individual custody cases) — is going to be expressed terms of flow of resources, information, and finances FROM “here” TO “there” and THROUGH xyz government or business entities along the way. It is a matter of public financing through taxation and government’s power to tax, and control citizens who don’t pay up, and control the distribution of what is acquired from them through taxes.

      There’s a basic and different vocabulary to learn — the difference between public and private, for-profit and not-for profit. What, really is a philanthropy but a tax-exempt entity, created by declaration in some state, and attracting donations INCLUDING government funding, and private (some have more of one type than another). You cannot short-cut through what really does exist and involves billion-dollar outfits who want to re-align the justice system, and have been doing this successfully (for decades), to their purposes — not the common good. We are expected to assume that the public/private alliance is for our good, and complain when institutions don’t produce it. Where’s the personal effort to understand what they are there for in the first place, and how they are funded, before complaining about outcomes? That is actually an irresponsible attitude. This is not elementary school, and life is not a version of elementary school, only larger. No adult should be wanting this, but many adults DO want that dynamic across society — prosecute the bad guys, save the good guys, tell right from wrong, and make life “fair” for all. “We’ll continue paying taxes (without paying attention to what was done with them) and you (government, courts, police, prisons, schools, etc.) continue making life good, fair, safe, just and equal.”

      re: “As for what to do with all of that money that is being wasted in these stupid pseudo-welfare programs when they no longer sway the outcome? ”

      So you admit there are some pseudo-welfare programs that you believe should sway some outcome?
      Which stupid pseudo-welfare programs? Name one. In fact name, three as you are talking in the plural. Which out-comes? Do you believe that the courts should be “out-come based” or due-process based?

      Re: “The whole lot of you.” — I am not a member of any “lot” that you have identified. People that write on these economic topics quickly find themselves “ex-communicated” because the content exposes where others have withheld information and betrayed the very people they are claiming concern for and wish to be considered advocates for. (See title of the post you chose to comment on).

      If I were, there would be a group name on this blog, and I wouldn’t have had to work so hard at putting it together.

      re: “Focus on the solution. If you think 50/50 isn’t the right solution (in your exalted opinion), then you are the very organization you demonize. Special interests, in it for someone other than – The Family.

      So what’s your beef with 50/50? Why isn’t the discussion around implementing that?

      Potheads got marijuana legalized with petitions and voters. Why can’t disenfranchised parents accomplish the same with their children?”

      I’m not an organization, I’m an individual. My opinions aren’t “exalted” they are researched, but they are opinions — and I have a right to them and to put them on-line. I don’t know what “the organization you demonize” refers to because I am talking about interlocking relationships of organizations, PLURAL, with identifiable systems-reform objectives I do not agree with. I do not represent a special interest group.I am not on the payroll of any nonprofit, and I have not been appointed to speak as a volunteer for any of them. I report on them because they have engaged in cult-like behaviors, censorship and using the group dynamic to discourage independent thinking which might reveal just how large IS that historic censorship of discussions, and because some of the smaller ones are piggybacking upon giant enterprise invisible UNLESS one looks up business identities and reads tax returns, etc. Pretending to be small and helpless (and so empathize with already victimized individuals as a class) while in fact being the recruiters or spokesperson for an entire professional class protecting its right to continue feeding off the courts (and the public funding) is unethical and wrong. It’s not illegal — it’s simply immmoral.

      I don’t know if you are a “disenfranchised parent” (sounds like it. Man or woman? I could guess).
      Do you know what a franchise is? When you became a parent (if so), did you think you were entering into one based on a collective owner of the concept of “parenting” to which you subscribed? Maybe that’s part of the problem.

      All words have general use, and underlying meanings. It can be shocking when one’s years of dedication and contribution are treated like nothing in the courts, or by others. I know it was for me. People handle it differently. I handled it as a problem to be looked into. I know that you don’t solve problems without identifying them, and you can’t identify ANYTHING honestly outside of its context. The context here IS the family court system — and its larger context MUST include who pays for it. It ought to include who set it up, and if you pay attention (instead of just blow-it off because you’re too busy), you can see the system in motion, who’s been pushing it, and what road it’s going down. Right now, that road is a dead end for individual liberty, let alone justice, and tweaking minor “flawed practices” in the system corrected by “consulting experts” isn’t going to change where it’s going.

      Clearly my blog is not for you, and I am not too impressed with your feedback. However, I have given you mine, and aired yours, with my opinion on it. That’s as much time as will be given to further comments from this source, unless they start speaking in specifics, provide links, and show some respect for others’ labors as you clearly respect and have exalted, your own assessment of a nationwide issue.

      Let's Get Honest

      July 1, 2015 at 12:50 pm

  2. Below these links and charts — which display better done by individuals than on a comments field (which loses the table format) are some more thoughts I had on the commentary about parents’ lack of time. I also point anyone reading this to, if not the content, at least the TITLE near the top of this post, which says “ACCOUNTING LITERACY MATTERS. CAUSE-BASED LITERACY DOESN’T.” Cause: 50/50 custody, fathers’ rights, parents’ rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, CIVIL rights, human rights. Where does it end? We have not been taught to think like investors, and take an investor’s interest in EXACTLY what is being done with fees, taxes, etc. collected from us, collectively, and sprinkled (poured) across the landscape. That’s part of the problem.

    We should ask why there should EVER be an “*.gov” site which has a family term in the domain name:

    Here are JUST a few. Comments fields aren’t a good place to display any charts, but I put up a link to produce a similar chart. We are approaching TWENTY YEARS (1996-2016) post -PRWORA (initials to look up and comprehend) and ought to be able to talk with another generation about what this signifies.


    Federal Programs and Resources (list of agencies the White House partners with to promote responsible fatherhood, i.e., “Federal Family Design”). This is an excuse being used to reduce representative government and increase control of state governments and through them, PEOPLE, not by legislation, but from the Executive Branch working through its powerful agencies to drive policy through the Judiciary.):

    “One of the key policy goals and priorities set out by President Obama is the promotion of Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Communities. As part of this goal, the White House has partnered with a number of other Federal Departments to promote these partnerships and activities that promote fatherhood in local communities.”…

    https://www.fatherhood.gov/about-usWho are we?

    The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse is an [HHS/ACF/] Office of Family Assistance (OFA) funded national resource for fathers, practitioners, programs/Federal grantees, states, and the public at-large who are serving or interested in supporting strong fathers and families.
    ________________ A “resource” is a what, not a who. NRFC is not a “we” but it most definitely consumes public (federal agency) funding.


    The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) is a resource of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Office of Family Assistance (OFA).

    The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA) re-authorized funding for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). The NRFC was initially funded through the Deficit Reduction Act (2005) for “the development, promotion, and distribution of a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of any child and specifically the issue of responsible fatherhood, and the development of a national clearinghouse to assist States and communities in efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.”

    National Healthy Resource Center (“Initial funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant 90-FH-0001 (9/11/2006 – 9/29/2011)
    This site managed by Public Strategies
    © 2008 – 2015 National Healthy Marriage Resource Center)”

    Now that fatherhood, and healthy marriage programming has been written into law (including the Social Security Act, with major re-tooling of the purpose of that act in 1996ff) and the public hasn’t wised up yet to privatization, there’s a National Healthy Marriage AND Families Resource Center.”

    National Healthy Marriage AND Families Resource Center – About Us

    Disclaimer: Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: [90FH0002]. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.”

    Where you can look up an HHS grant number: (Advanced Search). 90FH0001 (and plenty more) went to a for-profit PR firm in Oklahoma. Profit for them, loss for the public — but the TANF contingency fund was sitting around, and a certain governor (Frank Keating) and his religiously-included Human Services people (Jerry Regier, others), plus some UDenver Professors with a business plan (PREP, Inc.) — did I mention also, for-profit — exercised their collective mutual consent to bypass (fast-track) the legislature, grab public funds, and set up programming to steer profits towards marriage and relationship educators and call this “in the public interest.”
    However, in 90FH0002 — the grant went to a group labeled “I C F” (with spaces inbetween the name to defeat anyone who might have been smart enough to search for the group BY NAME on this database) — which is in fact ICF International, began as “Inner City Fund” long ago, and so fat after decades of federal contracting (and grants — why GRANTS?) — that it is routinely acquiring other companies, has go public, then private again and is now international, and last I looked a $949 MILLION dollar enterprise.

    Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 Developing Healthy Marriage Resource Materials 09/29/2008 93086 SAMMYE CRAVENS $ 3,250,000
    PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 Developing Healthy Marriage Resource Materials 03/26/2009 93086 SAMMYE CRAVENS $ 0
    PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 Developing Healthy Marriage Resource Materials 09/24/2009 93086 SAMMYE CRAVENS $ 3,250,000
    PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 Developing Healthy Marriage Resource Materials 09/27/2010 93086 SAMMYE CRAVENS $ 3,250,000
    PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 90FH0001 Developing Healthy Marriage Resource Materials 01/29/2015 93086 SAM CRAVENS $- 150,655
    Results 1 to 7 of 7 matches.
    Run it yourself for a better display, and you’ll see $15.25 million GIVEN to a public relations firm from 2006 – 2010. For ONLY that grant (IN 2015 for some reason, a negative entry). That’s an average of $15M a year. The HHS literally “made” this organization at the expense of taxpayers, as it also did ICF International, below.

    Public Strategies was established in 1990 as a public relations and event-planning firm. Under the leadership of Mary Myrick, Public Strategies has grown from a one-woman operation to a comprehensive project management and communications firm with a staff of more than 150 professionals from diverse backgrounds and disciplines.

    The journey from a small firm serving the Oklahoma City Cavalry professional basketball team to a large, multifaceted organization serving dozens of local, state and federal clients….

    Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 09/28/2011 93086 Cindy Sherlock $ 1,500,000
    I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 09/27/2012 93086 ROBYN CENIZAL $ 1,500,000
    I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 04/05/2013 93086 ROBYN CENIZAL $ 0
    I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 09/27/2013 93086 ROBYN CENIZAL $ 1,500,000
    I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 09/16/2014 93086 ROBYN CENIZAL $ 1,500,000
    I C F, INC VA 90FH0002 National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage – Non Competing Continuation Application 11/07/2014 93086 BERNARD MOLEPSKE $

    ICF International: A Technology, Policy and Management Consultancy.”
    “ICF International was founded in 1969 as the Inner City Fund, a venture capital firm whose mission was to finance inner-city businesses.”
    . . . “In 2006, ICF Consulting was renamed ICF International to reflect our growing geographic presence and increased scope of our service offerings from advisory services through implementation and improvement. The firm also pursued an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and now is a publicly traded firm listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol ICFI.”

    It looks to me that by 2010, when the $1.5M freebies (90FH0002) started, HHS should’ve been able to name its grantee correctly, or correct it since. They have with some grantees (Futures without Violence), but they have not here. Why not, I wonder.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Parents might have more time if they had more resources. Parent mights have more resources if they demanded to know how their precious wages, or if they are recipients of child support, someone else’s, are being utilized by those that collect, hold, and re-distribute them, as well as collect income taxes, licensing fees, penalties, of all sort, and for SOME, state franchise taxes, and for OTHERS (nonprofits) exempt them from state franchise taxes. After learning some of this, one is in a position to comprehend that the federal faucets(actually “fire hydrants” — gushers) are on the continual “on” position accompanied by lies about scarcity in the budget, as a basis for actually cutting (or, consolidating) services and centralizing control of them ACROSS JURISDICTIONAL LINES ESTABLISHED IN THE US CONSTITUTION. Incidentally, that’s been suspended under emergency powers since about 1933 anyhow, so let’s get real about how much we may expect of it to be in current use– or of current interest!

    In response to be told my stuff was “crap” no parent would want to read, and missing that I do not have children in the household (this blog was not started until three years after contact had been cut off overnight), I am writing in part for people who have experienced this — and for their supportive friends and others who have been asked BY certain policies, to help pick up the pieces. Either welfare does, or friends/relatives do when work is gone, or no one does. This system HAS also made people homeless.
    Regarding “Homework” — we were a homeschooling family. I learned experientially (and knew as a parent and from long-time work in a variety of school systems, and not just plush surbuban ones, and not only public schools either) that schools have been pushing arts, music, and so-called “enrichment” courses out of the mainstream of “core curricula” for decades. I know because I worked for private or after-school groups that would put them back in. Why should schools determine whether or not arts, music, or anything else is central to a child’s education? When parents have no time it’s from a combination of school/work/life issues. As a homeschooling even single mother post-domestic violence, we had time for Dad, time for life, and I had time to work in a sustainable profession, because the majority of every single day, five days a week wasn’t spent by my kids in an institution, or me in support of an institution. This was a functional lifestyle with children on the college-track, which by experience, I knew how to accomplish.
    AFTER driving my kids out of a healthy situation, and BOTH (in our case) parents out of their lives, to create a financial dependency where there was none “en route” and actually none at the time I eventually learned to look for “what’s in it for whom?” Why would any system proclaiming it exists to do good, specialize in inflicting harm, and setting up systems which do this with ease? HOW did this happen, and where’s the profit in it. Because for every loss somewhere, there is often a profit somewhere else.
    TO look at that, you have to ask a lot of questions, and get them answered, pay attention to the less than obvious (which people are not being conditioned to do) and understand at least SOME of the existing systems. I eventually decided (a personal decision) that while nonprofits claim they are there for service, in fact they exist for tax-exemption, and many times, they can and do exist fro diversion of funds to people who deserve them, into people who neither need nor deserve them. The word “DIVERSION” is key to understanding welfare reform and privatization/federalization of government as a means to ELIMINATING — not providing, but ELIMINATING — what the average person might think is “justice.”

    Let's Get Honest

    July 1, 2015 at 3:04 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: