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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Can You Tell the “Tells” of the DV (so to speak) CARTEL? It’s Show-and-Tell Time.

leave a comment »

Can You Tell the “Tells” of the DV (so to speak) CARTEL? It’s Show-and-Tell Time. w/ case-sensitive short-link ending “-3eF,” published April 3, 2016 at about 17,500 words. Length?  Well, it’s showing important parts of the whole, and I’d call it a key post.

ABOVE: New, Improved HHS Grants Database “TAGGS” image accompanying the label “DECISIONMAKING.” (?!!). I understand the trend towards “actuarial-based data-analytics” justifying (or, replacing personal accountability for) human decision-making, but it’s still weird… See also (on this blog or separately) NCCD (Oakland, CA nonprofit) and its’ various trademarked decision-making software for use in public institutions worldwide….

Much of my reporting on this blog comes from tracking HHS grants and grantees via http://TAGGS.HHS.gov.  After all, Marriage/Fatherhood funding (<== almost one billion dollars?) through HHS grants was $150M in theory — annually — since 1996.   So, that database just got a “facelift” and this image characterizes the “new, improved” ==>

“Since its launch in 1995, TAGGS has supported 
Federal financial transparency initiatives by providing 
reliable  and consistent grant award data to the public.”


Evidence is practically slapping us in the face that the domestic violence field, while organizations named after stopping or being against domestic violence still involve plenty of women and what may looks like some truly feminist ones, has still been co-opted by, in fact, groups favorable to fathers’ and mens’ rights & programming FIRST, and “if we can get some safety added on to it — through technical assistance and training the judges, law enforcement, professionals– =so much the better for the PR,” despite all the rhetoric, as an afterthought.


This post is over 16,000 words, a “two-for-one.”  I decided to keep the dense-verbiage section near the top because of relevance, even though it moved the more colorful, visually fun and “higher curb appeal” logos of various organizations (see sampler here) lower down on the post.





I also, regrettably, felt it necessary to separate a discussion of key responsible fatherhood timeline events which anyone concerned about domestic violence ought to, by now, know by heart — but I doubt most do.

RE:  “SHOW and TELL.”  I tell first, but then near top of the post, show a certain California judge promoting Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils, plus some background on the Administrative Office of the Courts and its timing to increasing federal involvement in state-level family court jurisdiction and subject matter … THROUGH the Child Support sector (access & visitation public laws) of the 1980s and 1990s.

Further down, after showing more of the DV Networks (colorful logos of key some key groups, echoes a recent post on them) and another on “Strong Field Project” representing one health-foundation-funded Statewide DV network..and some of the PRIVATE-sector DV Industry collaborations (networking).

…you’ll see a logo for the MCBW —

and below that, discussions of the “TREATMENT AGENDA” response to domestic violence, as well as evidence of a Minnesota-based “DV Coordinating Council.” In looking at one of the Supervised Visitation Providers involved (?) with this one, I also noted form the tax returns that they are keeping $290K of assets with a certain “community foundation.”  I couldn’t find that Community Foundation as a separate business, but did run into the larger one it’s under.

It’s a general reminder to  continue to pay attention to COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS as FUNDING POWERHOUSES which attract and can incubate programs without clear awareness by the public of these programs’ funding.

 I also show that one of the key people at MCBW, who is also a lawyer, has strong connections to both the Battered Women’s Justice Project (which is to say, “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, “DAIP” and with this connection, again, a focus on treatment/supervised visitation/trainings, etc.) and AFCC. 

In fact, here’s that quote (but to link to a person’s name, read the post!):

____has served as faculty for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, the Center for Court Innovation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, and the Minnesota Judicial Branch.

Same individual, being interviewed as faculty over at the “Center for Court Innovation” shows her BWJP/AFCC value systems — use kids as bait for ordering behavioral modification services for batterers because, after all, the “Coordinated Community Response” (courts + service providers in loco parentis) really, if trained by the right groups (=”us.”), will be wise and powerful enough to protect the children and persuade the children — and the primary care-taking parent attempting to limit the influence of abusive role models on growing children s/he is supposed to raise into upstanding citizens and participants in a law-abiding society — into accepting what’s best for themselves (link provided lower in the post):

[MCBW Interviewee]: Some judges, some court practitioners do see that perpetrators will be motivated by their kids, and access to their kids. So family court judges and family courts have this opportunity, and the proper motivation, to get perpetrators into services and into programs, to keep an eye on that perpetrator—to be like a mentor, to be a coach, to be a motivator to keep that perpetrator from using coercive and controlling violence, and they can order graduated visitation, graduated parenting time.

[CCI Interviewer]:  So the judges can use this leverage—access to the children, basically: “You can get thus and such visitation under these conditions if you receive these services, if you engage in this particular program?”

Kids as Bait for Violent (the focus being on primarily male) Offenders. What a “great” idea for kids and the nonviolent parent too. Great or not, it’s an idea that the DV Cartel has “bred into” the response to domestic violence.

[MCBW Interviewee]Yes, and it’s not only that it is an effective motivator for change, but its also completely logically tied to what is best for the children. We do want children to be able to have healthy relationships with both parents and it’s in the children’s best interest if we are able to figure out how to work with the perpetrator over time and help them develop their [[“his or her”] parenting capacity.

The steady money, moral “prestige,” and social/professional connections in the “working with the perps” fields, not to mention the conference circuits, must just be coincidental.

Finally, or close to finally, I show the MCBW discussion at a New York-based influential organization, “Center for Court Innovation,” how highly she values batterers intervention and co-parenting (despite the presence of domestic violence individual families) as best for all involved.

 I spent a few days attempting to make this one SHORT post of 8,000 words, but some of this information belongs in one place.  Dedicate some reading time, be prepared to bookmark some of the links for future reference, and you will not be disappointed.  Here goes….

What are the footprints, the TELLs

of the coordinated DV Industry Cartel?

TELL:  I use the word “tell” in its poker sense to make my point.  There are many gambling idioms in common speech.  Click here to see some.

I don’t play poker, but in case the term isn’t familiar, check here: Do you know what is more powerful than a poker tell? Understanding the difference between poker tells and behavioral information can have a profound impact on your game.” … [they describe the need for an accurate language to describe the tells]

Let’s define a “poker tell.”

A poker tell is a behavior that is correlated with a specific piece of information. This information can pertain to the quality of a player’s hand, the emotions a player tends to experience during a particular action, or even the coping mechanism a player uses to hide his behavior.

…This is a perfect example of how the way we describe behavior can significantly alter our reads  Without using the proper descriptive language we lose a lot of vital information.

…What we just described is a practical way of expressing tells at the table and is something every single player can do by approaching the identification of tells in a systematic and ordered fashion.

It’s my belief that every single player has a some sort of tell, some tells just take longer than others to identify. Tells can be found in many places on the human body, it’s just a matter of time before you hone in on the right place to look.

Key phrases for this context being “identifying in a systematic and ordered fashion” and “honing in on the right place to look.”  If you are forced into a high-stakes poker match where the outcome is life or death, how well would you focus?   Would you want to “hone in” on indicators of which way the outcome might go?

Meanwhile I am “telling” readers (in the common usage of that word) that there appears to be a “cartel” of corporations and individuals working with and for them, organized around this field to restrict outside participation or confrontation of the protected turf.  I am identifying the turf and the tells that I have become aware of  through long-term exposure (not participation!) as systematically as possible.

 DV:  DV obviously is short for “domestic violence.”

The DV cartel (my term) can be identified by key players and organizations, their networking, and their shared jargon, i.e., “tells.”   I’ll show these three, below:

  • Insisting on the Multidisciplinary Response to Domestic Violence  
  • Coordinating the Community (of professionals, anyhow) Response [“CCR”]
  • Coaching others to form local “Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils* organized at the County level.

*DV Coordinating Councils as a Concept:  Pushed since 1992 by an AFCC/ NCJFCJ well-known Judge: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Domestic_VIolence_Council.pdf  “REDUCING FAMILY VIOLENCE:  THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE COUNCIL” by Judge Leonard P. Edwards (Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 1992). A brief resume shows that in 2002-2003 he was also President of NCJFCJ.   (In fact that resume was posted at NCJFCJ, and gives the link for his fuller one).


Judge Leonard Edwards is a retired Superior Court Judge now working as a consultant and teacher. In his work he provides technical assistance to the courts of California and courts across the country, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge. He also served for six years as Judge-in- Residence with the Center for Families, Children & the Courts, a division of the California Administrative Office of the Courts.

The “CFCC” appears to have come into existence around 2000? underneath the AOC.  The AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) is the staff of the Judicial Council.  The AOC came under fire for being over-bloated and many other things. Strategic Evaluation was commissioned and a May 25, 2012 Evaluation Report written.  This lengthy report, also featured in some of my later 2014 posts and some “sticky” ones, gives some of the history of centralization and “moving up” the responsibility for the state’s courts to the state level.  It also describes delegation of functions.

THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide. Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

An Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts.  Consolidation, Year 2000

The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.

  • READER ALERT:  I’m interrupting the quote from the report to emphasize events of 1984, 1988 and 1997, quoting other sources.  I will continue in the next yellow-highlit box below those quotes.  This is relevant and “deep” information that shows the timing of the A/V increasing activities, which should be laid alongside whether OR NOT the domestic violence agencies saw fit to inform mothers about them.  There’s no question that, overall, the leadership of the key organizations were reasonably aware of the same…BEFORE passage of the 1994 VAWA (!!!)
  • Larger context, about a key AFCC,NCJFCJ (two private 501©3/nonprofit judicial (and for AFCC, other court-connected professionals) membership associations), and AOC/CFCCconnected & (Santa Clara) county judge pushing certain kinds of programming, including but not limited to Domestic (“Family”) Violence Coordinating Councils…  FYI, In California at least now, judges are state, not county, employees…

Also (federal level) in 1984, the “Access and Visitation” program was enacted. As I went looking for a Congressional Research Service report on this, I found it posted at “Fearless Fathers” who’d picked it up on one of my posts — dated 12/5/2009 (!!).  This has a few other links on the topic.  Note — I’d only discovered what happened in 1984, as posted (summarized) in 2000, in the year 2009….

 You want to know why family courts are harassing you to pay child support (whether or not your job situation has changed) – or unreimbursed medical expenses (that your ex-wife asks family court to recover for her while she is not using your health insurance that covers your kids) and does not give the first dam of your visitation rights? Search not any more. That’s all in Carmen D. Solomon-Fears’s report 97-590 this report titled “Child Support Enforcement and Visitation: Should There Be a Federal Connection?” posted in Let’sGetHonestBlog. And this is to cry.

As I recall the link to that YEAR 2000 Report 97-590 was found at Wiki-Leaks, posted at MIT.edu (!!).  Read it to see the progressive public laws of 1984, 1988, and 1996 and how it relates to access visitation and “family court-connected programming.”  As the various laws show — and Fearless fathers is pointing out, the original and primary motivation (by Congress in passing this law) seems to have been around better child support payments.  However, the footnotes to the report are quoting fatherhood studies by The Urban Institute and others, as well as an evaluation of pilot programs by “our friends” in Denver, Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes and (at the time) Robert Williams, i.e., versions of the organization “Center for Policy Research” I have posted on before.  Here is from page 3 (bottom of page Footnote 7 references the CPR people above).  Notice in 1984, a public law — meaning by US Congress, Federal Level, ORDERS all Governors to appoint a State Commission on Child Support. Federal (Cross-state-borders) incremental, increasing control of what happens at the state levels, under which level the family courts SUPPOSEDLY are run.

Carmen D. Solomon-Fears’s report 97-590 this report titled “Child Support Enforcement and Visitation: Should There Be a Federal Connection?”

1984 Law – State Commissions to Examine Visitation Issues. P.L. 98-378, the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, required the Governor of each state to appoint a State Commission on Child Support, which was to report its findings and recommendations by October 1, 1985. One of the duties of the Commission was to examine the problems associated with visitation rights.

The Commissions’ discussions of visitation issues generally covered two areas: the relationship between visitation and support, and methods of enforcing visitation rights.

Some commission reports cite research that shows a correlation between regular, high-quality visitation and payment of child support, but no causal relationship has been established. Certainly, however, statements in public hearings offer anecdotal evidence of such a link. Noncustodial parents often testified at public hearings that “She won’t let me see my children, so why should I pay support,” while custodial parents argued, “He doesn’t pay a dime, why should I let him see the children.”5

The Commissions generally favored the following methods of enforcing visitation rights: (1) contempt of court/jail, (2) allowing parents to take the missed visitation at a later time, (3) supervised visitation, (4) criminal penalties, (5) mediation, (6) fines, and (7) change of custody.6 The 1984 law also set forth as the sense of the Congress that “state and local governments must focus on the vital issues of child support, child custody, visitation rights, and other related domestic issues that are properly within the jurisdiction of such governments.”

In other words, Congress doesn’t want responsibility, just to influence the outcomes and the privilege of funding (with public funds!) and running social science behavioral modification R&D on the population, which it then describes.  This was even before there was an HHS — back then it was “HEW!” (Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare)…

1988 Law – Child Access Demonstrations. P.L. 100-485, the Family Support Act of 1988, authorized $4 million for each of FY1990 and FY1991 to permit states to conduct one or more demonstrations to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase** compliance with child access provisions of court orders. In October 1990, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) funded four demonstration projects in the states of Florida, Idaho, and Indiana. These projects were designed to test whether mediation services for couples with child access problems would alleviate parental conflict, reduce interference with visitation rights, and encourage full, voluntary compliance with child support obligations. In October 1991, OCSE funded four additional demonstration projects in Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, and Massachusetts. The goal of this second round of demonstration projects was to test the effectiveness of a broader range of interventions in resolving and/or preventing disputes between parents regarding access to their children.7

**designed to increase: It’s not actually necessary for such activities to actually increase compliance with child access and result in better child support collections — although that was the justification for the law, better child support collections — but just INTEND (“be designed to”) to increase access which, anecdotally, was said to better increase collections.   Same deal, probably, with the marriage/fatherhood programming. In my opinion, the real purpose was to set up those programs, whether or not they achieved the intended results….  !!!

In 1984 also, the FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act was passed. (<=Congressional Research Service 2014 report posted, for some reason, at the US Navy’s HSDL.org = Homeland Security Digital Library)

So, now being aware of the 1984 acts, and (if you read more at the Carmen Solomon-Fears link), an awareness of the relevance of 1996 PRWORA (“Welfare reform”) Act, i.e., Public Law 104-193

P.L. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, took two significant steps in the area of visitation/child access. One step involved authorizing grants to states to implement access/visitation programs, and the other step provided that noncustodial parents in certain circumstances could obtain access to information on the whereabouts of a custodial parent that was denying him or her visitation or custody rights. Noncustodial parents successfully argued that if custodial parents refuse to make children available for court-ordered visitation, they should have access to information in the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) to locate the custodial parents and children.8

Mandate to Provide Locator Information on Certain Custodial Parents. P.L. 104-193, expands the scope of the FPLS, which is under the purview of the OCSE, to provide for the provision of location information on custodial parents …

Funds for Access and Visitation Programs. P.L. 104-193 also authorizes grants to states (via CSE funding) to establish and operate access and visitation programs.

These programs are to facilitate noncustodial parents access/visitation to their children. An annual entitlement of $10 million from the federal CSE budget account is available to states for these grants. Eligible activities include but are not limited to mediation, counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. The amount of a grant to a state will be equal to the lesser of 90% of state expenditures during the fiscal year for eligible activities or the allotment for the state for the fiscal year. The allotment formula is based on the ratio of the number of children in the state living with only one biological parent in relation to the total number of such children in all states. The amount of the allotment available to a state will be this same ratio to $10 million. The allotments will be adjusted to ensure that there is a minimum allotment amount of $100,000 for any year after FY1998. The access and visitation programs are required to supplement rather than supplant state funds.

States may use the grants to create their own programs or to fund programs operated by courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit organizations. The programs do not need to be statewide. States must monitor, evaluate, and report on their programs in accord with regulations issued by the HHS Secretary.10 In 1997, states reported serving about 20,000 persons in their access/visitation programs.11


A lingering question about the CSE program is whether the CSE program should be actively involved in enforcing visitation rights. Historically, Congress has held that visitation and child support should be legally separate issues; and that only child support should be under the scope of the CSE program. Since the 1980s, however, Congress has taken several significant steps in the area of visitation/child access.

Is the Federal Government Becoming Too Intrusive in Family Law Policy?

Congress does not have general authority to pass laws dealing with family law issues, unless there is a connection or “nexus” between such legislation and one of the areas in which it is authorized to act. In the case of the CSE program, the federal nexus is the billions of federal dollars used to fund the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Before enactment of the CSE program in 1975, Congress had perceived a connection between the failure to pay child support and a growth in the number of families receiving cash welfare benefits.

Should the Federal Government Promote Access/Visitation Rights?

Many fathers’ rights groups argue that by being solely concerned about increasing child support collections, the federal government is limiting its approaches to access/ visitation issues.


(Report on the California AOC/CFCC Division, p. 81ff, cont’d.  Link above…)

The Center for Children and the Courts was created by the AOC in 1997 in response to the results of a state-wide needs assessment of California juvenile dependency proceedings conducted by the National Center for State Courts.

Notice input from the NCSC in 1997, a “needs assessment” and that it was first aimed at JUVENILE DEPENDENCY — not the entire family law system.  Notice the title in 1997 didn’t yet include the words “Family.”  Anyone that is running (sponsoring, calling for) a “needs assessment” may very well already have an intended “solution/fix” in mind.  These are rarely 100% neutral.

Did you know that in apparently about Year 1983 (but not continuing, I think), the NCSC also served as the “Secretariat” for the organization AFCC?  I believe it’s on my sidebar in one of the AFCC newsletters of that year.

The formation of a specialized center within AOC’s administrative structure institutionalized judicial branch commitment to improving outcomes for children and families. The CFCC is the only division of the AOC that is dedicated to a substantive area of the law. The multidisciplinary model has since been recommended to other states.

If you’ve gotten this far in this dense post –and are even reading my blog — do I need to spell this out further?  Institutionalizing policy-pushing of the COURTS into its ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH, by “Substantive area” (meaning, I believe, subject-matter jurisdiction focus).  And as I said near the top, “MULTI-DISCIPLINARY” is a key phrase and jargon.  This “Multidisciplinary” encompasses blend of executive branch agencies (i.e., social services) with judicial branch.  It is also part of the motto of the AFCC, which claims a founding date of 1963….

From its inception, the CFCC’s mission has been to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. The division provides a wide range of services to family, juvenile, and collaborative justice courts.

Collaborative Justice has been an ongoing theme promoted by AFCC members.  This can be seen in some of the nonprofits formed, by looking at who formed them.  Not the topic of this post….

SUMMARY:  The Courts in the State of California have increasingly centralized control and operations over time, other parts of the report also show.  The timing of some of the special divisions seems to correlate to increased federal funding for programming that these divisions seem to control — from the administrative sector. … Good to keep in mind…

I have lived in the state through increasing centralization of operations and moving them up to the State level (in the 1990s).  My main point here, however, is to simply show the multiple organizations and positions that a single judge, holding, can use to leverage agenda which in fact may come from a private, non-profit association involving judicial membership, in in that membership’s privately-organized interests as much as in any legitimate PUBLIC interest, for which they are hired are supposed to be ruling as judges — not as informal legislators!

During his judicial career, Judge Edwards founded and was the first president of the Juvenile Court Judges of California, was founder of the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council, was founder of Kids In Common, and founder of the Child Advocates of Santa Clara County. Judge Edwards was the President of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in 2002-2003. Judge Edwards has taught at the University of Santa Clara Law School, Stanford Law School, and the California Judicial College. He has provided judicial trainings in over 47 states and 11 foreign countries. Judge Edwards has written widely including a recent book entitled The Role of the Juvenile Court Judge: Practice and Ethics. Judge Edwards has received many awards. He was the recipient of the 2004 William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence. Many of his articles and videos can be seen on his website: judgeleonardedwards.com.

Same judge in about 2006 also declared what a great thing mediation, including mandatory mediation was…MEDIATION (ADR) as a practice and profession was one of the original, earliest “AFCC” focuses, as it still remains.

I have a few “sticky” posts on some key organizations pushing the field; after mediation was established (and in some places made mandatory), not to mention got a federal-incentive boost 1988f, 1996ff (PRWORA Access and Visitation grants, $10M/year nationwide), next obvious project was to create and promote a few more professions, either as an organization, or prominent AFCC members, mutually networked, also promoting.  For example, “parenting coordination,” “collaborative divorce,” etc. In general, the concept will be referrals, outsourcing to experts in other fields than law, alongside pushing hard for centralized control of local courtrooms by “One Family/One Judge” policy, not to mention the entire “coordinated” concept itself.

(Personal comments removed to bottom of this post under “The Miracle of Mediation”)

(Featuring Contributors, Judge Edwards here):

(The Mediation Miracle,* p. 16) is a judge of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. He served in family court from 1982 to 1984 and was the president of the California chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in 1984. From 1985 to the present, he has served in the juvenile court. He is the 2004 recipient of the William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence.  [*Subtitle:  Lessons Learned from 25 Years of Family Court Mediation.  Publication is Co 2006, California Judicial Council].

While his main, and I must say, elegant website (c. 2011) above doesn’t feature the AFCC alliance on its top-level pages, he does acknowledge AFCC in the attached c.v. (at bottom of the “About” page), as well as the NCJFCJ affiliation.  He’s helped run both organizations as Board Member and at some points, Officer, obviously — and while a presiding judge of the family division, although it seems his focus overall has been juvenile courts.  Look at the years, as well as positions, in the following organizations:

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: President (2002-3), Immediate Past President (2003-4), (President-Elect (2001-2002), Vice President (2000-1), Treasurer (1999-2000), Secretary (1998-1999).
California Chapter, Association of Family
and Conciliation Courts, President, 1985, Member, 1983- present.

Board of Directors, National AFCC, 2003-2005.

Family Violence Committee, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: Chairperson, 1990-1993, 1996- 1998.**

 Board of Trustees, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: Member, 1988-1995, 1997-1998.

California Judicial Council: Member, 1999-2002

SIGNIFICANCE: The California Judicial Council is THE ruling body over ALL the courts in the state (I don’t believe the Federal/ US District Courts, but I’m referring to those subject to the State). And that’s the largest court system in the country.

The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts, the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. Judicial Council staff implements the council’s policies.

Council members are volunteers and do not receive additional compensation for their service. Most members are appointed by the Chief Justice, who serves as Chair of the Council, or by the State Bar Board of Trustees. Legislative representatives and advisory members also serve. Most members serve three year terms and each year about a third of the membership rotates off and a new group is sworn in.

Historic Roster of Judicial Council members –scroll down to 1999 to see this Judge on it.

.  You might say it’s a number of positions of influence reflected above.  **As to this one, notice that an AFCC judge is on the NCJFCJ Family Violence Department, and that department has been designated by the federal department of HHS (link below) in the DVRN (Domestic Violence RESOURCE Network) as a “Special Issue Resource Center — Child Custody” 

As to “Domestic Violence Coordinating Council,” a few years back I saw a presentation by Judge Edwards on the wisdom of setting up DVCC’s.  Here he is for the one in Santa Clara (which FYI, you might think:  Silicon Valley, Palo Alto,San Jose, SF Bay Area — and be right on all counts.  Santa Clara is in NORTHERN California and part of the 9-county, regional planning “ABAG” (some call it, Agenda 21)  SF Metro area.  The California Judicial Council shows a San Francisco address.  It is run from San Francisco.  …. More C.V. of Judge Edwards:

  • Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council: Chair, 2000-2003, Member, 1991-2003.
  • National Greenbook Project: Co-Chair, 1997-1998  [And, in 1999, it published a document which for 2000-2008 became the blueprint for another Pilot Project involving the family courts…spanning years 2000-2008]
  • National Greenbook Advisory Committee: Co-Chair, 1999- 2003.

and under “Awards,” speaking of NCJFCJ and the Greenbook as dealing with DV & Child Maltreatment around that time.

  • Pioneer Award for Exploring Effective Interventions in Domestic Violence & Child Maltreatment Cases, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2000.

I’m not discussing the Greenbook or the Greenbook Initiative on this post, but I have (see again early 2016 posts) — and it also represents a response to domestic violence with heavy HHS involvement, as well as “key player DV/Family Court” organizations, including NCJFCJ, Futures without Violence etc.  See also “Jeffrey L. Edleson” who was one of its two authors; the other being the late Susan Schechter.  Significance?  School of Social Work/social science emphasis on DV.

For people who study the organizations (instead of just the local judiciary, the local “custody evaluators” and the anecdotal information on custody cases) these quickly become obvious, an easy “read.”

Evidence is practically slapping us in the face that the domestic violence field, while organizations named after stopping or being against domestic violence still involve plenty of women and what may looks like some truly feminist ones, has still been co-opted by, in fact, groups favorable to fathers’ and mens’ rights & programming FIRST, and “if we can get some safety added on to it — through technical assistance and training the judges, law enforcement, professionals, … …”so much the better for the PR,” despite all the rhetoric, as an afterthought.

At Least Identifying Some of the Networks:

(1) The DV cartel networking is revealed in part by understanding the grants streams and following grants to individual organizations; in part by reading DV-focused organization website information and corporate/filings tax return information, and in part by identifying their own acknowledged collaborations.  Those are probably the most accurate or effective ways of seeing the network.

Note:  Here, in the public interest, I am identifying networks surrounding federal or public financing.  It’s in the fact that they ARE receiving public funds that the public might have some influence on waste, fraud, or simply harmful policy, on such networks.  However, the nonprofit organizations often on the public dole often also take private foundation, and the private field is likewise organizing to keep the NONprofit field profitable, for their friends and allies.  Overall, it’s a PUBLIC/ PRIVATE network by definition, because nonprofits, “501©3s” [corporations — which by definition they are] can take both kinds of donations.

For example, in the process of looking up a single “Domestic Violence Coordinating Council,” I ran across in California some of the top State level organizations (after their own series of consolidations and mergers) as part of the “STRONG FIELD PROJECT” sponsored by one major foundation in the health insurance field (talk about some serious “Resources!”)  “collaborating” with an already large, networked and well-established state-level domestic violence nonprofits [CPEDV], two other groups which appear to be servicing the nonprofit field (below), a second MAJOR statewide foundation, and through these, distributing their largesse to increase the nonprofits already in place.  So, for reference only — not detailed discussion in THIS post.

Again, this website does NOT represent a single company (except perhaps Blue Shield of California Foundation), but a project sponsored by a foundation with help from others, who get extra credit gold-star mention for participating (i.e., more PR in a web-based world….)


The Strong Field Project is a four-year effort by Blue Shield of California Foundation’s Blue Shield Against Violence program. Started in 2010, the Project focuses on building a stronger, more coordinated network of DV service providers in California. In collaboration with the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, CompassPoint Nonprofit Services,**Jemmott Rollins Group,*** and Women’s Foundation of California, the Project will develop individual leadership skills, stronger organizations, and networking and expanded knowledge-sharing opportunities across California’s domestic violence field. – See more at:

[I may hope to show this one separately; I’ll bet there are similar events occurring in other states].

For example, I have often showed here  in this blog (but discovered originally by  just looking) that those who run HHS and administer grants under certain “Categories of Federal Domestic Assistance” (CFDAs) referencing violence prevention/battered women’s shelters, etc.  On March 27, 2016, four posts back, I published “Most have heard of  the VAWA (passed 1994)  But what about the earlier (passed 1984) FVPSA? Or, the “DVRN”?

In it I showed how HHS breaks down (and makes it hard to notice which organizations are actually involved) that “DVRN” — this is a quote from the government site:

The DVRN includes two national resource centers, four special issue resource centers, three culturally-­specific Institutes, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Family Violence Prevention and Services Resource Network Fact Sheet.

  • have favored (with $1M/Year or higher grants) certain “Resource Center” grantees (whether “Special-Issue” or “National”) under the 1984  FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act). See last two posts.  This includes the former MPDI, now DAIP, in Duluth, etc.

(www.hotline.org; this is out of Austin, Texas)** (**see next quote)

“This website was supported by Grant Number 90EV0426 from the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Its contents are solely the responsibility of The Hotline and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

This Web site is funded in part through a grant from the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any or its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this Web site (including, without limitations, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).

“Exempted from federal income tax under the provisions of Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Since we were just given the specific award number above, — here’s the TAGGS.hhs.GOV reporting of it (I searched by Award#).  Notice in column headings that the Award name and the Recipient name are same, which they normally aren’t’.  Click HERE to see it on HHS site. The $4 million shown there actually ONLY represents the latest grant, and it was a little less than honest to only reference this one on the website.

Click on this link from a TAGGS “Advanced” search, by the NDFVH organization name (all years, I selected certain fields/columns to print).  TAGGS now will generate a “tinyurl” link to save your selections for any search.  However, on returning to the link, it will reflect UPDATED (Current) data, and does not save the search results as originally printed.  (Sometimes I will print to pdf if I want to further save a certain result).

There are actually $57M grants and 53 distinct awards (by recent HHS search) to the organization “National Domestic Violence Hotline” at a certain PO Box in Austin, Texas.  HHS characterizes this as if to only one organization, but separately, my lookups show at least three different organizations and EIN#s known over the years, starting with one as far back as 1978 and two others only formed in 2007, but  that’s food for a separate post, not this one!  Meanwhile next image — another “DVRN Resource Center…” The Family Violence Department of NCJFCJ.

  • Obviously there are others among the “Resource Centers” (and “Culturally-Relevant Institutes”) I didn’t show here — not the main purpose of this post.  There are also other VERY well-known DV organizations not featured by HHS as Resource Centers to train all the others (at least those others on the dual HHS/DOJ grants streams), such as the Vera Institute in NY, and some of its spinoff organizations.  Like “Futures” it seems Vera (IF I remember it right) is also investing in real estate.  It happens, with nonprofits.
  • some are run (administered) through the USDOJ/OVW as a consequence of the 1994 VAWA (Violence Against Women Act or other USDOJ bureaus.) (or both — see above).
  • Some are state coalitions — these are grants streams — smaller — which go to the state DV coalitions; the grants are often labeled “SDVC” (State Domestic Violence Coalition), and I do believe it’s just one per state.  These grants don’t even display “principal investigators.”
  • In addition, the NCADV (a Denver-based 501©3) is not one of the “State” Coalitions, but as members, they pay a sliding fee-membership IN the NCADV, who then conferences with certain others — and so forth.  For example, since around 2003, it has been conferencing along with the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, CPPA ((California Protective Parents Association), and NOMAS (National Organization of Men Against Sexism), etc.

Those are one way of identifying the DV-related networks. But, IF one is aware of the organizational networks (which requires exposure to what they want (programming), how they act and how they talk), another “tell” exists…

(2) With centralized control of the financing and organization/ training/public relations campaigns of the FIELD of domestic violence, another way to see the networks is by shared language and types of programming.   When the “shared language” involves jargon (made-up phrases) it’s even easier to “tell the tell.”

Almost uniformly, throughout these networks, the agenda is (I’ll qualify with the word “primarily”)  a treatment/services agenda, not a prosecution/accountability agenda.  It is an approach that carries with is corollary ASSUMPTIONS  t tot the family courts, and about human nature, most of which can’t be proven, but all of which can be used to justify further experimentation.  See for a parallel, my recent post on “Dumpster-Diving in the Credibility Gap…Batterer Typologies” (Top of blog has the Table of Contents)

For example, at “theduluthmodel.org” presently (April 1, 2016), the main website is featuring Batterers Intervention training.  Batterers Intervention is practically an obsession….


April 18-20, 2016 – Duluth, MN ——- Facilitated by Carol Thompson and Lyle Wildes (click on “Register” to see the cost is $500 and taking this is a pre-requisite to running some of their other curricula):

APRIL 18-20, 2016-DULUTH, MN

This valuable training is the prerequisite for buying and using Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter, the world’s most renowned curriculum for helping men identify and change beliefs that support using violence. The curriculum and our trainers’ methods are grounded in the Duluth Model, a constantly evolving philosophy and practice based in the Domestic Abuse Intervention Program’s work to end men’s violence against women through a coordinated community response.The training is perfect for anyone who is starting a batterer intervention program, who is new to men’s non-violence group facilitation, or who has been facilitating for a while and would like to refresh their insight and information. We strongly encourage anyone who is using early versions of the curriculum, or parts or adaptations of more-recent versions, to join us. Learning about the curriculum in this context may productively challenge and change how you perceive and practice the work.All training leaders are experienced Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter group facilitators. The topics they cover will include: (etc.)

Like Supervised Visitation, [<=link to May, 2016 conference in San Diego gives an idea of involved parties, for example, Casey Gwinn of the “Family Justice Center” fame, or a presiding judge over Cook County (IL) Child Protection Division, and others] Batterers Intervention [1]  has sponsored its own professions, ongoing.

([1] BISC-MI notice the rotating pictures on top includes Michael Paymar, of DAIP (originally involved in founding it), Liberty Aldrich of “Center for Court Innovation (Major NYS public/private partnership, and shows up in the post, below, under one of the Minnesota Battered Women’s Coalition Board Members, K. Lizdas), and others.  See “BISC-MI History” for more info.)

As DAIP, above, says, it’s a “constantly evolving philosophy” — but taking $500 trainings, certifications for taking them, selling curricula, and conferencing to help further promote, are not about to evolve themselves out of the picture..

CHECK out the “SVN” link description of Casey Gwinn–  NCJFCJ loves him (See above — they are part of the “Special Issue Resource Centers”), so do lawyers, and — a topic in this post — he founded the San Diego Family Violence Council @@@@ long ago.  Notice his years 1996-2004 as City Attorney also: in this very-southern California City:

Casey served for eight years as the elected City Attorney of San Diego from 1996 to 2004. Prior to entering elected office, Casey founded City Attorney’s Child Abuse and Domestic Violence Unit, leading the Unit from 1986 to 1996 – prosecuting both misdemeanor and felony cases. In 1993, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges recognized his Child Abuse/Domestic Violence Unit as the model domestic violence prosecution unit in the nation.*

*This is extraordinary considering the size and scope of the United States of America and what a variety of responses to domestic violence there still must have been during that time span.  In fact, DAIP also hosted (apparently in 1992) Jack Stratton, PhD actually questioning whether even Supervised Visitation (let alone “Batterers Intervention”) was Fair to Children of Abusive Men.  Jack Stratton’s degree and work life shows he wasn’t part of this overall system, and I happen to agree with his analysis (his degree was in physics, and also into photography as I recall)…

During Casey’s tenure, the Unit’s work was honored [by ???]] for playing a major role in the 90 percent drop in domestic violence homicides in the City of San Diego over the last twenty years. San Diego now has the lowest domestic violence homicide rate of any major city in the nation. In 1986, Casey co-founded the San Diego Task Force on Domestic Violence. In 1991, he founded the San Diego Domestic Violence Council. Learn more about Casey HERE

If or when you get through the reference to Judge Edwards 1992 “REDUCING FAMILY VIOLENCE:  THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE COUNCIL” which I deliberately put near the top of this, you will see Appendix D refers to a SAN DIEGO Domestic Violence Task Force — predecessor no doubt to a “Coordinating Council” down there also — and apparently at around the same time. Notice that “Batterers Intervention” and many other details affecting the family courts are incorporated.  This next quote, however is from the top — listen to the language:

The starting point for a family violence council is that agreement among community leaders that a coordinated response to family violence is necessary.  Given the incidence of family violence throughout the United States and its impact upon children and families, it should not be difficult to persuade those leaders that such a response is necessary.  Reaching AGREEMENT on the purpose of a family violence council is an effective means of focusing everyon on teh community goals regarding family violence.  The purpose must be broad and comprehensive….

He then cites to what they did in Santa Clara County (relatively speaking, the other end of the state from San Diego) and lists recommendations (a) …. (k) of which “(f)” is:

(f) Address the recommendations of “Family Violence:  Improving Court Practice” written by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges..”

!!!  Shameless promotion of his membership organization. Notice also, alternating the wording  “Family Violence” with “Domestic Violence.”

I noticed on the SVN (Supervised Visitation Network) San Diego (May, 2016) conference, a reference to the state of the field in California.  California in about January 2013 passed a law regulating those who would be Professional providers — they must go through the training (Surprise, surprise) facilitated by “California Association of Supervised Visitation Service Providers, Inc.” Or similar name.

One of the “CASVSP” trainers (Ms. Shelly LaBotte) is well-known AFCC-affiliated, as well as with the SVNetwork here, and (“coincidentally”) last I looked (which may have changed SINCE I looked), as State of California Civil Servant (?), just so happens to be presiding over the administration of the Access and Visitation grants which are there to support this type of programming.

Shelly La Botte, J.D., is the Access to Visitation Grant Coordinator for the State of California that provides state funding (federal funds) to the courts and their local community-based service provider to support noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children through supervised visitation and exchange services, parent education, and group counseling services. Ms. La Botte has made numerous presentations on grant management, supervised visitation services, and development of standards of practice. She also works on various public policy initiatives and assists with the development of statewide standards of practice and Rules of Court. Ms. La Botte was a member of the Office on Violence Against Women, National Steering Committee Safe Havens Project: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant Program, which served as a think tank for development of national standards of practice and served on the Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) Board of Directors for several years and co-chaired the SVN Standards and Guidelines Committee.

CASVSP has determined that, until such time that a lead-trainer is designated within the Association, all Standard 5.20 and Family Code 3200.5 trainings will be lead by a trainer provided in partnership with the Judicial Council of California, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Access to Visitation Grant Program. This decision has been made by the Association to ensure that the legislative intent of Standard 5.20 and Family Code 3200.5 and applicable areas within the Family Code are provided at the time of training for contextual understanding

[CASVSP Board of Directors includes Treasurer Georgia A. Thompson, mentioned in the SVN San Diego training.  Her affiliation seems to have changed from last time I checked, to Bienvenidos Family Services/Los Angeles [Organization not found at the Secretary of State Business Entity Search site — similarly-named organization, found, but Delinquent as a Calif. Charity]

Most of our families are referred from the County of Los Angeles Departments of Children and Family Services and Mental Health, local school districts, and other community agencies who lack either the expertise or capacity to address the multiple needs of families in crisis.

Our staff consists of over 150 professionals and support staff who deliver programs and services that are community-oriented, culturally responsive, and built on promising practices and evidence-based approaches in their respective fields. We strive to recruit qualified employees who mirror our participating families; over 75% of our direct service staff is bilingual in English and Spanish, and most are bicultural as well.

and under there, “Community Services” which focuses on child abuse and neglect (nothing mentioned about domestic violence — but click on Supervised Visitation and reference to “noncustodial parent” comes up — more of a divorce, than child-abuse context):

Community Services is a comprehensive system of services offering preventionintervention, and treatment of child abuse and neglect.

Supervised Visitation and its Fees:

Supervised Visitation ensures a non-custodial parent will be able to continue having contact with their child. Trained Supervised Visitation Monitors are present throughout the visit. When needed, the monitor will initiate child and parent interaction, or if the interaction puts the child at risk of emotional or physical harm, they will terminate the visit. The monitors also serve as the eyes and ears of the courts, giving insight to the interaction, development, and behavior of the parent-child relationship.

Bienvenidos has more than 10 years of experience of providing professional parent and child visitation and exchange services in a neutral, safe and friendly environment.

Exchange $40 full, $25 partial
One hour Supervised Visitation $45-85*
Intake $50
Progress Letters $45-100
Subpoena $200 per day/person**
Late Cancellation/No Show Cost of visit***
Debit, credit card, and cash accepted
*Fees are based on a parent’s income and discounts may apply when purchasing multiple visits in advance.
**$400 retainer required three days prior to court date.
***Appointments must be cancelled with at least 24 hours notice

At 501 S. Atlantic Blvd. | Los Angeles, CA 90022, the street address matches an “Al’s Locksmith and Security” (right near a High School), but I see that ‘Bienvenidos Children’s Center” does exists, and has since 1986:

(searchable at Kepler.sos.ca.gov)

Entity Number: C1299304
Date Filed: 02/19/1986
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 501 S ATLANTIC BLVD
Entity City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90022
Agent for Service of Process: RITCHIE GEISEL
Agent Address: 501 S ATLANTIC BLVD
Agent City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90022

Results of search for ” BIENVENIDOS ” returned 6 entity records.

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

Checking by search of “Bienvenidos” at the California Charitable Registry, I got two results.

Checking by Entity# Search at the California Charitable Registry (I’m actually looking for a tax return in doing this) shows the “Bienvenidos Children’s Center, Inc.” marked “Delinquent”:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
BIENVENIDOS CHILDREN’S CENTER, INC 063763 Charity Delinquent LOS ANGELES CA Charity Registration Charity
BIENVENIDOS CHILDREN’S CENTER FOUNDATION Charity Never Registered-Dissolved ALTADENA CA Charity Registration Charity

(The above links are not “saved search results” — they must be searched again to click and see details).  Understanding that the woman involved with “Supervised Visitation” at one part of this larger organization isn’t responsible for the whole organization, still —  the revenues (2001 – 2013 shown) range between $12M and high of $18M/year.  Two years (2001-2002) Details show they didn’t send in a 990 with their charitable registration (which is to be annual, it’s the “RRF” form).  They switched from calendar year to year-ending June 30 ca. 2008, and since then continued filing approximately six months late, consistently.

They required two notices (so far) to send in their $225 fee for year Ending 2014 (which is the fiscal year 2013 only, and which fee indicates revenues over $10M), and are showing a different street address than shown at the Secretary of State level

Tax Returns showing assets of $3M wouldn’t indicate that the annual revenues — much from government sources — are triple that, or that they are not filing properly at the state level, per the registry I just looked at:

Bienvenidos Childrens Center CA 2014 990 38 $3,422,714.00 95-4042883
Bienvenidos Childrens Center CA 2013 990 31 $3,864,645.00 95-4042883
Bienvenidos Childrens Center, Inc. CA 2012 990 31 $3,826,799.00 95-4042883

Looking at the 2014 return, it mentions an “Affiliate” but doesn’t include a “Schedule R” to identify a “related organization.”  Described here — and realize that “2014” = Year 2013 Fiscal Year for BCC:

The vast majority of their grants (over $14M of $15M contributions this year) were Government:

[Supplemental info to Changes in Operations, on Schedule O towards end of the return]:

Form 990, Part III, Line 3, Changes in Program Services: Explanation: Beginning in FY14, Bienvenidos Community Health Center (BCHC) started separate operations & financials. As a result, all medical services were subcontracted/ outsourced to them.

BCC did receive $714,230 of grants on behalf of BCHC. These were booked in BCC revenue and offset by “Subcontractor” expenses in the audited financials. The medical program was shown as part of Community Services on the BCC audited financials. So, while BCC is no longer providing medical services directly, they are accountable to donors for the use of grant funds received for medical services, which have been subcontracted to BCHC

A bit complex for this context.  I do not see a corporate entity “Bienvenidos Community Health Center” and wonder if it’s a distinct charitable entity.  I also noticed that as recently as year 2010, this organization showed only about $639K “Contributions” but then in 2011, it suddenly jumped to $15M.  Obviously, some sort of organizational change.  At the state charitable level, it shows consistently over $10M “Revenues” so perhaps the explanation is that prior large revenues were billed as contracts, not grants.  Without looking further, however, don’t know. I DO see that Supervised Visitation at Expenses $4M+ seems to account for roughly one-third of their “4a, b, c” types of services.  4a is mental health services (generally) and 4c is foster care related.


Advertisements for the training and this association {CASVSP, not to mention also SVN} are allowed right on the state courts website.  This is the link.  Look at bottom left, “Related Links.”  Despite this attempt to control the field, it may be that some people aren’t joining, or are actually operating independently from this INBRED group of providers/trainers/controllers.  I think that may be what the next workshop wishes to speak about, as described here — where the average Californian would never, typically, find it.  (I have some posts on this towards the end of 2014, and remember studying the new association and its board members’ affiliate organizations.  Interesting….


Private Providers of SV: Competition versus Collaboration

In California Supervised Visitation is often provided by for profit, private providers who may be individuals, LLC’s, or larger organizations. In their efforts to survive a competitive marketplace, providers often fail to recognize the value of collaborative efforts with other providers to improve the quality of services offered and enhance safety for the families we serve and ultimately lead to a stronger market for all. This worksop will discuss findings of a graduate dissertation study that explored these competitive forces in the Los Angeles area.

Note: People who understand marriage/fatherhood funding (also coming substantially through HHS) may wonder why HHS is funding both “protect women and children” and “sponsor men and fathers” type grants, and a comparison of both grants streams should show, promptly, which one is actually much larger. One policy seems to say, “safe separation and protective orders” and the other side is saying “co-parenting, shared custody, there should be a father in every child’s life” etc.)  Then the “solution” is to say, well, we want safe separation, but not to upend the “co-parenting” powerhouses (go take a look at Congress, and the oldest, largest religious conferences/institutions around, and see which gender is dominant), so “let us do supervised visitation, batterers intervention, and parent education.  Let us combine them ALL under our expertise.  And let us provide technical assistance and training (inter)nationally to stop violence, and save the children by making sure that there are positive male role models and involved fathers if not as heads of households, as equal co-parents.  Anything less is unfair to men.”

= Huh? ??? 

I ran across this example in the process of updating an older post on (that organization in Duluth), and will use this as AN example of the situation.  Other examples could’ve been used, but this one came up the original post in context of searching for “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.”

This next QUOTE (background white, border black) except the logo, was from that 2011 post:

MPDI is still training (seems to be the emphasis, and disseminating information)  (notice Who they are training)

Found at the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women (also a grants recipients but nowhere so large as this one):

A Multidisciplinary Response To Domestic Violence

Date and Time:
05/05/2011 – 8:00am –

===> A Multidisciplinary Response to Domestic Violence Part 1 (Part 1 of a 2 Part Series)
===> The Kandiyohi County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council

Thursday, May 5, 2011 – 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. – Kandiyohi County LEC Emergency Operations Center – 2201 NE 23rd St., Suite 101, Willmar, Minnesota.

Part 1 of this 2 Part Series focuses on the foundational level principles in providing a meaningful response to domestic violence.***  The target audience for this training includes law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, corrections/probation agents, social workers, and any professionals who respond to domestic violence.

Featuring Scott Jenkins from The National Training Project of Minnesota Program Development, Inc.

Part 2 of this series will be offered in 2012.

*** Since when does ONE organization, or even JUST A FEW (networked with others) organizations, get to decide what a “meaningful response to domestic violence” should be and go around training “law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, corrections/probation agents, social workers, and any professionals who respond to domestic violence?” [Notice victims are NOT on the list, except as they may catch wind of it on a public relations campaign].  Looks like “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” set up a “National Training Project.”

*** Since when is ONE organization or even do JUST A FEW networked organizations qualified — or more to the point, enabled — to determine  and define “the foundational level principles in providing a meaningful response to domestic violence.” ??

We’d better take a REAL close look at who is speaking, who’s paying them, and what is being said — because, trust me, this IS well-networked; and coordinated with other networks.  That doesn’t mean is “by popular demand” — it just means, it’s networked…So, again:

Evidence is practically slapping us in the face that the domestic violence field, while involving plenty of women and what looks like some feminist ones, has still been co-opted by, in fact, groups favorable to fathers’ and mens’ rights & programming FIRST, and if we can get some safety added on to it, so much the better PR.  

This creates some language confusion with people who are perhaps a generation or two behind in their understanding that just because the label reads “domestic violence” doesn’t mean it’s actually protecting women, feminist, or primarily interested in things such as equal treatment of women under the law.  Certainly not of women who also happen to be mothers…

When I say “DV Cartel” now, I’m not saying that protesting DV is wrong, or that NO good has been done.  However, I am acknowledging that which I know — the largest DV organizations, including some of these “Special Issue Resource Centers” and favorites of HHS and the USDOJ — are not my friends.  They did not help with any post-restraining order family law case (and most of us have these).  They did not help financially when we were losing work AFTER separation from abuse.

They did not help us with timely information about the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and what this put at risk for the average woman divorcing or separating from abuse thereafter, or the role the child support system itself plays in inciting custody battles, or how the access/visitation grants were administered by the HHS/OCSE under Title IV-D of Social Security, and the marriage/fatherhood ones by the HHS/(?OFA?) under Title IV-A of Social Security.

And, they are not the friends of women and mothers who have had to separate from abusers AFTER being abused.   A better word, in my opinion, for some of these organizations and those running them, might simply be opportunists.  In fact, they share many qualities of the individuals we needed to separate from in the first place.  Like, arrogance, engaging in one-way conversations within the networks, while dismissing valid, insightful, and timely information from the streets.  The hierarchy doesn’t have its ears to the ground; it has its ears to itself (others in the network), and to the money.

Maybe it’s the Pheronomes??

Here, I mean, virtually, socially, or maybe in principle.  I’m talking figuratively, but for the physical reference, see from Wikipedia (I removed a few links in the first paragraph), or Smithsonian Magazine (March, 2012), “The Truth About Pheronomes.

A pheromone (from Ancient Greek φέρω phero “to bear” and hormone, from Ancient Greek ὁρμή “impetus”) is a secreted or excreted chemical factor that triggers a social response in members of the same species. Pheromones are chemicals capable of acting outside the body of the secreting individual to impact the behavior of the receiving individual.[1] There are alarm pheromones, food trail pheromones, sex pheromones, and many others that affect behavior or physiology. Pheromones are used from basic unicellular prokaryotes to complex multicellular eukaryotes.[2] Their use among insects has been particularly well documented. In addition, some vertebrates and plants communicate by using pheromones.

….The term “pheromone” was introduced by Peter Karlson and Martin Lüscher in 1959, based on the Greek word pherein (to transport) and hormone (to stimulate).[3] They are also sometimes classified as ecto-hormones. They were researched earlier by various scientists, including Jean-Henri FabreJoseph A. LintnerAdolf Butenandt, and ethologistKarl von Frisch who called them various names like “alarm substances.” These chemical messengers are transported outside of the body and affect neurocircuits, including the autonomous nervous system with hormone or cytokine mediated physiological changes, inflammatory signaling, immune system changes and/or behavioral change in the recipient.[4] They proposed the term to describe chemical signals from conspecifics that elicit innate behaviors soon after the German biochemist Adolf Butenandt had characterized the first such chemical, bombykol, a chemically well-characterized pheromone released by the female silkworm to attract mates.[5]

And another reference so it’s clear why this term came to mind:

Smithsonian Magazine (March, 2012), “The Truth About Pheronomes“:

Airborne molecules that elicit a reaction in a member of the same species are called pheromones, and the most famous ones are potent aphrodisiacs, like androstenone and androstenol in the saliva of male boars. If a fertile female gets a whiff of these molecules, she’ll present her rear to the male, a universal gesture in wild pig patois that means, “Let’s start a family.”

Researchers (as well as fragrance companies) have been hoping to find a human sex pheromone for decades, but so far the search has failed, says George Preti of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia. “That doesn’t mean a human sex pheromone doesn’t exist,” Preti is quick to add. “It just means we haven’t found one yet.” In fact, some researchers suspect that if there is a turn-off pheromone, as Sobel’s team says, there’s likely to be a turn-on pheromone.. Read more:  Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

This topic comes up often in conversations with other mothers tangled in this system. It’s a persistent sense — as also shown by the arrogance of some of the key organizations in the network — that those most affected by abuse don’t have voices and aren’t able to speak — or even understand — for themselves, and so need translators.  Something is obviously getting lost in translation — including feminism itself. Standing up for women as human beings and, where it applies in this country, as US Citizens, not just in their functioning as parents and babymakers.

There appears to be a powerful quasi-chemical/hormonal attraction between women in power in the “systems-change” key DV organizations for men in power as well as any men who might be called male “under dogs.” In case some new to the (or recently sprung from the) “protective mothers” circuit, which actively discouraged vigorous discussion and self-education/mutual acknowledgement of some of the key “promoting fatherhood” documents — until just recently (and long after I blogged & outed the censorship, relentlessly here and in commentary elsewhere on-line, and often enough by telephone/email contact with some of the leaders & followers of this loose but agenda-specific grouping of individuals, professionals, and nonprofits)

I started a page on this. This ought to be commonplace knowledge by now, but isn’t. My page title will sound something like this:

RACISM: If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “threatened” to tip the Balance on Racism, Moynihan (1965) Clinton (1995/1996), The Executive Branch AND Congress helped keep a lid it by offering SEXISM instead.

and basically deal with the topic of:

Shifting the Paradigm to Men as Victims Justified ongoing Federal Designer Family Programming.  Now we still have “Engaging Men and Boys” as family violence prevention, and Child Abuse prevention.

This is a theme I am becoming more certain on, and aware of, with time.


When women NOT in positions of power — I mean within the courts or the legal or social services professions, for example — actually show up thinking, acting independently and confident about THEIR own rights as parents, or in divorce, or when dealing with post-battering parenting matters — some of these others are all into reconciliation and pressuring the Moms into more compromises than we know is good for us or the children, or even the men involved.

As self-confident and empowered on our own women standing up to “our” men as required to protect life and livelihood, we are actually in competition with some of the women who have dedicated themselves to obtaining behavioral change in violent men through treatment, and in something that I think takes a lot of “chutzpah” — telling judges how to respond to criminal matters.

I’m about to show you some more.

So when I say “DV Cartel” — by now from this blog, you should start to comprehend that I’m referring to how organizations and coalitions of DV nonprofits (some smaller– but on the statewide coalition grants stream — others much larger and “specially” favored by those dominating the field) who are, in fact, much closer aligned to the values system of the international nonprofit association consisting of judicial membership, psychological/mental health provider and behavioral modification membership, and of course lawyers (some lawyers obviously become judges too) called Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, an organization which wishes to set standards and blueprint models for others, having already declared strategic warfare on the concept of criminal law as having anything to do with divorce and custody – and decades ago (like, 1970s).  AFCC isn’t the biggest kid on the block; they just happen to be positioned well (again, can you spell “Judges and lawyers/law professors + psychologists”?) and representing some of the larger interests around as well.


SOMEONE ought to explain that when the overlap of language is at least three layers deep, and cross-connected, you’re probably that deep, and caught in the webs of the network which seeks to tell EVERYONE else how to respond to domestic violence, but is not themselves, responsive to us who must live with their usurpation of the legal process which OUGHT to be protecting both women and men, and equally so.

  • Multidisciplinary Response to Domestic Violence
  • Coordinating the Community (of professionals, anyhow) Response
  • Recommending local (County-level) “Domestic (Family) Violence Coordinating Councils

And what will this response entail?  Here are some more “tells.”

  • Telling your cross-affiliated friendlies that the real answer is getting those batterers into treatment programs, using access to the children as bait (incentive), while simultaneously (at the client level for those injured or in flight from danger) that you recommend separation in the form of protection from abuse orders // restraining orders
  • Differentiating between “high conflict” and “Battering.”
  • DOING ALL OF THIS without publicizing the organizations involved, or the agencies financing them.
  • DOING THIS while working at or for some of the organizations involved

I found all three of the above involved with a single Minnesota-based statewide coalition against domestic violence which had been found offering “Multidisciplinary Response” training offered by an MPDI professional.  On looking up one board member, I found a “Center for Court Innovation” connection — which by now shouldn’t really be that surprising.   So I looked up the professional (happens to be a lawyer) involved, and got something of a gut-level/gag-response on reading her presentation — in New York as representing Minnesota on what ALL jurisdictions (judges) ought to really do when there’s been domestic violence.

So, I pulled the following section (after writing it) out of the recent post (Part 3 of 3) on Ellen Pence/ MPDI (now DAIP)’s Special Issue Resource Center dialogue. Four years ago, I was still figuring out the name discrepancies and in part, which end was up among the DV individuals, although  you can tell I was catching on that the idea was teach and train, not “stop” and “DROP IT!”

Now, if more men wish to go around battering, injuring, and admittedly sometimes murdering women than women battering injuring and sometimes murdering men (which seems to be the case, although there is lively debate about this in some circles), then one way to deter them MIGHT just be criminal prosecution, and no more excuses, diversions, treatments, and “outs.”  This would keep it in the arena of an illegal and criminal activity, and MIGHT just speed up the learning curve.

A sure way to slow down the learning curve is to give over-entitled, narcissistic, controlling and domineering people who think it’s OK to do to family members or spouses what they’d get arrested FAST for if was done to a stranger (and I mean, across the board activities, including stealing property — or children, terroristic threats to injure or kill, animal abuse so as to intimidate, and other such things — intercepting other people’s mail, interfering with their work AND parenting AND social lives, which most people need in general).

A sure way to set up abusive, coercive, controlling power and control is to let the networked organizations in the DV cartel — which is FYI, closely aligned at this point (and I have enough evidence now to say, since at least 1980 forward) with fathers’ rights groups and the juicy center of the family court-connected corporations and associations — determine “HOW TO RESPOND TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE” in meetings the victims can’t attend, don’t know about, aren’t really told about but which their taxes contribute to.



I ran an Advanced Search on grants to this MCPW organization.  Click here to see that as early as 1998 they were designated as “statewide” organization and are on those particular grant streams — much smaller than what MPDI (now called DAIP) got for technical assistance and training activities.  Also see that the “Principal Investigator” column is left blank.

Tax Returns show, founded 1980, St. Paul location, Revenues received by Contributions are about $1M (top row) and (see Part VIII by clicking on organization name through to tax return) about half government, half private:

Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women MN 2014 990 28 $642,125.00 41-1381433
Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women MN 2013 990 24 $325,970.00 41-1381433
Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women MN 2012 990 25 $292,897.00 41-1381433

They are in St. Paul, i.e., Twin-Cities metro area.    This organization has only 11 employees; of $1.0M revenues, they took $436K for Salaries, $340.9K for “other Expenses” leaving $277K — about how much their contributions increased from the prior year.  They do not distribute grants to other organizations.  They are a membership organization:


On Page 2, where what the organization did is supposed to be described, the return simply reads:


which I just did, and hope you also do.  For example, they reference the “Project Connect” which Futures without Violence grants also involved; see recent post.

SEE ALSO “LINKEDIN for MCBW “Legal Policy Director” Kristine Lizdas — I recognized the name and looked it up… Kristine is a 1h/wk volunteer Director, but still I bet influential on the statewide coalition here.  She has a 1996 JD, and work history (public profile at least) isn’t detailed between then and 2015, but a lot of it may have been at our featured group in this post, “DAIP/MPDI.”  Notice her positioning on key organizations affecting the family court response to domestic violence — and that she calls “BWJP” the “Resource Center” when in fact, it’s DAIP:


Kristine Lizdas is Legal Policy Director for the Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP), a national resource center on domestic violence. She oversees BWJP’s Legal Policy Program, including its national military, custody, and protection order projects, and directly manages BWJP’s Domestic Violence and Firearms TA Project. Kristine writes and trains on such topics as the enforcement of domestic violence firearm prohibitions, gender discrimination, criminal and family law practice and restorative justice. Kristine has served as faculty for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, the Center for Court Innovation, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, and the Minnesota Judicial Branch.

Kristine serves as board member and co-chair for the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women, and served on the Constituent Advisory Council for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. She is a Consultant for Praxis International’s Blueprint for Safety Demonstration Initiative.

Prior to joining BWJP,** Kristine worked for the Duluth DAIP as a community organizer, leading several formal assessments (institutional ethnographies) of Duluth’s response to domestic violence, and co-authoring a manual on the assessment process. During this time, Kristine worked closely with probation, prosecution and rural law enforcement in developing model responses to domestic violence.

Kristine’s international work includes supervising Georgetown University law students on a domestic violence fact-finding mission in Ghana, and serving as a project evaluator in Armenia and Moldova.

Kristine has represented clients through the Volunteer Family Law Program of the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, and asylum applicants with Advocates for Human Rights. She is licensed to practice law in Minnesota and Illinois.

[[**As I will continue to point out, one couldn’t join “BWJP” before it came into existence, which it only did in Sept. 2013.  So far no one can read anything substantial about its fiscal activities, as it’s keeping a low financial profile and only filing Form 990-N (postcards), last I looked — which was not too long ago…]]


Kristine Lizdas, left, of the Battered Women’s Justice Project and Robyn Mazur of the Center for Court Innovation confer after Lizdas’ presentation at the Center’s Domestic Violence Court Open House for Office on Violence Against Women Court Training and Improvements Project grantees (June 2013//BWJP only incorporated 3 months later in MN)


Domestic Violence and Custody:  A 4-part Model for Helping Judges Make More Informed Decisions

{{An experienced reader will quickly pick up that Ms. Lizdas is, bottom line, still pushing the “treatment and referral model” for batterers, using access to the children as the “bait” — and calling this best for the children, while still showing some awareness that battering doesn’t make for good situations for the children….}}


And finally, the fourth step in our framework is then, indeed, to account for the abuse in our decisions in court and in what we do in the parenting plans going forward.  It would be our proposition that if you have identified actual coercive and controlling violence or battering violence in a family, it’s very likely that some of that coercive and controlling violence is going to continue post-separation, that the dissolution and the parenting plan doesn’t put a stop to it.


Some judges, some court practitioners do see that perpetrators will be motivated by their kids, and access to their kids. So family court judges and family courts have this opportunity, and the proper motivation, to get perpetrators into services and into programs, to keep an eye on that perpetrator—to be like a mentor, to be a coach, to be a motivator to keep that perpetrator from using coercive and controlling violence, and they can order graduated visitation, graduated parenting time.

WOLF:  So the judges can use this leverage—access to the children, basically: “You can get thus and such visitation under these conditions if you receive these services, if you engage in this particular program?”

Good Grief!! — Kids as Bait for Violent Offenders.  That’s a HEALTHY perspective?

LIZDAS:  Yes, and it’s not only that it is an effective motivator for change, but its also completely logically tied to what is best for the children. We do want children to be able to have healthy relationships with both parents and it’s in the children’s best interest if we are able to figure out how to work with the perpetrator over time and help them develop their parenting capacity.

I’m not making this up, I”m quoting it to you.  The co-chair of MCBW and BWJP/DAIP person, an attorney admitting that the real priority is in working with the batterer for behavioral change so they can get back with their kids — rather than demanding it, and if they don’t feel like complying, “too bad!” and let them stay separate…

I think it’s been the observation of a lot of people who work with parent batterers that they really aren’t aware of how their battering and coercive and controlling violence affects their kids.

Of course those who work with parent batterers will want to believe this, and teach how batterers should stop because it’s bad for their kids (not because it’s illegal and unethical towards the other parent??)

And in the current court system, we provide motivations for parents to attack each other. We put them in this sort of adversarial system that encourages them to sort of undermine each other’s parenting capacity, and we don’t have enough of a mindset or framework in family court to say that what we need to be doing, really, is supporting each other’s parenting capacity …

The “tell” in the above phrase is that “adversarial system” is bad.

When I separated from my husband, with a DV TRO and kickout (made three years permanent) I wasn’t hostile towards him.  I was simply preserving life for him, myself, and our daughters.  If I hadn’t done this, we were about to become statistics, and if he hadn’t done himself in along with us (and there was suicide in this family line, not long after, not to mention a brother jailed for incest with his stepdaughter, which happened in another state, and after we were married), this man would’ve probably been in jail as a result, and a further burden to society.  That’s not “Adversarial” that’s protective!

….and if you’re violent toward your partner, if you’re committing coercive and controlling violence, you know, you’re taking something away from your kids and we need to be drawing that connection, obviously.

WOLF:  That point you just made, that was a much broader point about any family court case involving custody or visitation.

Of course it was.  Watch the answer — and notice the next “tell” phrase — “HIGH-CONFLICT” (that’s AFCC lingo….)

LIZDAS:  It is, that’s true, and it would apply in cases that we technically, or traditionally call high-conflict cases, which is jargon in the family court system, which is applied very broadly to any parties that don’t seem to be able to settle on their own, or fail in alternative-dispute resolution.  So that is a message for high-conflict parents that you need to understand better how your conflict is impacting your kids.

And a lot of nonprofits it has spawned, and virtual franchises, psychoeducational trainings, “the whole nine yards.”  That’s what “Kids’ Turn” (which I blogged a series on, herein, some years ago) and ‘Children in the Middle” etc. are focusing on.  Notice Kristine hasn’t yet said “parental alienation,”….

In battering situations, or course, or controlling situations, where we really want to focus is on the person perpetrating the violence—make sure they understand how this person, the person they’re abusing could be bringing a great deal, could be wonderful caretakers for their kids, could be providing so much for their kids if it were not for the battering.

When things have gotten to battering, they have gotten TOO FAR.  The focus on attempting to make the other person “understand” has often been tried already by the targeted person in the relationship.  Imagine how we might feel after realizing that “understanding” wasn’t on the menu, exactly, to realize another whole social support system is focused on the belief that the batterers “just don’t understand” their own violence…..

I searched Ms. Lizdas name again in this connection and came up with a Sharon L. Corbitt Award given to Loretta Frederick (another BWJP person) with a tribute by Lizdas.  I felt it would be interesting, and it is related, to know that Sharon L. Corbitt (family lawyer) was also involved in opening a “Family Safety Center” (i.e., Family Justice Center) in Tulsa Oklahoma in 2004.  Unfortunately, their (she was married with children) house burned to the ground in 2007, both she and her husband died.  This award is then in her honor, and the year appears to be 2012.  Notice they are talking as though BWJP was an entity, a corporation, when it was not.  Their talk of BWJP before 9/2013 should properly be referring to “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs,” but it doesn’t.  The on-line pdf refers to the ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence, and this is honoringLoretta Frederick as a 2012 Awardee of the Sharon L. Corbitt Award:

Loretta Frederick serves as Senior Legal and Policy Advisor for the Battered Women’s Justice Project, a national resource center on domestic violence legal issues. She is past chair of the Family Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association and of its Domestic Abuse Committee.
Since 1978 when Loretta began her work as an attorney representing battered women for Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services and co-founded the Women’s Resource Center of Winona, she has worked to improve the legal system’s response to domestic violence. Her efforts have involved legal consultation, training and assistance with litigation and policy development on domestic violence issues in the U.S. and internationally. She founded and directed the Battered Women’s Legal Advocacy Project which provides such help to Minnesota advocates and legal system professionals. She served on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s Gender Fairness Implementation Committee and on the faculties of the Minnesota Judicial College and the Family Law for the Judiciary educational programs. She serves on the Steering Committee and as faculty for the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence and over the past thirty-five years designed curricula for—and given presentations—at hundreds of educational sessions worldwide.

Is Loretta also an AFCC member?  Does her policy, like that I showed above, come complete with the Duluth Model insistence on CCR and batterer treatment programs, training judges on how to recognize domestic violence, and using minor children as bait and incentive for behavioral change (and a boon for those in the fields running nonprofits that provide them, not to mention the Supervised Visitation field also??  Keep reading:

Loretta was a participant in policy development efforts at the nation’s first conference of child protection/family preservation workers and advocates for battered women sponsored by the National Resource Center on Child Custody and Child Protection. She served for three years as a consultant for the U.S. Marine Corps on the development of it’s coordinated community response to domestic violence. More recently, Loretta helped lead the seminal Wingspread conference on child custody in domestic violence cases which was co-sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Loretta’s work has included assisting non-governmental organizations and governments to improve their legal system’s handling of domestic violence. In 2011, Loretta served as faculty for the Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases institute and a faculty development institute, both sponsored by the American Bar Association’s Rule of Law Initiative in China.

Here’s a current view of the BWJP website:  http://www.bwjp.org/our-work/projects/national-child-custody-project.html showing the four-step process (narrated by Lizdas, above) and referencing Ms. Frederick. …. Notice at the bottom, it’s now Co. BWJP 2016, and references the sponsoring agencies:


RE: that Seminal Conference co-sponsored by AFCC & NCJFCJ — think about it:

The AFCC is a private, nonstock, 501©3 organization with a legal domicile in Illinois, but a street address in Madison, Wisconsin about a five-minute walk (same block) from a section of the likewise international NCCD (National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s “CRC” or “Childrens Research Center, “division”) some of whose primary membership is judges, including family court judges and which takes credit for leadership in the family courts, as well as jointly -publishes the primary journal of the family courts, The Family Court Review with Hofstra University School of Law (a private university in NY).  To those who know it from this blog and a FEW brave investigative reporters, in addition to multiple “fiscal anomalies” (i.e., not filing til forced to, skpping stae, changing names, etc.), the AFCC is also known for setting up, promoting, and facilitating the creation of entire professions to take referral business from the courts — i.e., forced consumption of behavioral modification services.  In general, they are the experts / “parents” and anyone else are the children to be trained, including mature adult parents, and those parents’ minor children — especially when “Reunification” or treating for parental alienation is involved.


The NCJFCJ, as I have been showing, is ALSO a private, nonstock 501©3 organization (with two other “related” organizations) based at UNevada-Reno, and in large part a membership association FOR judges, including family law judges.  No doubt there is membership overlap with AFCC.  Their board members tend to heavily be judges, although not exclusively so (that’s how I located “E. Hunter Hurst III, on an NCJFCJ tax return….)

As to character and values, NCJFCJ also “forgot” to mention that one of their key, honored employees working out of Pittsburgh with a so-called “division” of NCJFCJ, was also running (on Board of Directors, and a founder) of a MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR, FOR-PROFIT  “Providence Services Corporation” which was private, until it became NASDAQ-traded, I believe in 2004, and some of whose directors have had ties to other organizations (dealing with behavioral modification and private prison systems for both juveniles and adults) who have been SUED for Racketeering, others for coverup of abuse of youthful inmates, including sexual abuse.

Bloomberg.com (including current price of stock — today it’s $51.08) on Providence Services Corporation (“PRSC”)

Providence Service Corporation provides privatized social services to individuals and families. The company’s services are reimbursed by government programs such as welfare, juvenile justice, Medicaid or corrections. Providence owns no beds or facilities, preferring to provide its client care in home and community settings.

(See recent post for more information, the one “About the Find”)

Notice above [not in this “interjection section]  that a statewide coalition for battered women is being trained in how to respond (year: about 2012) by MPDI, with the key phrase “Multidisciplinary.”  Also notice that there is a “Domestic Violence COORDINATING COUNCIL.”

Both the Coordinating Council and the emphasis on “Multidisciplinary”  are reminiscent of the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC)’s motto:  “An interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to improving the lives of children and families through the resolution of family conflict.“….

the word “disciplinary” is a reference to white-collar professionals, specialists, experts who are the focus.  The general idea is treatment and referrals.  Rather than handling domestic violence AS a criminal matter alone, the bringing in of social service agencies also brings in resources from the same, professionals from the same AND AGENDA from the same.

As to “Coordinating Council” — I eventually (not by 2011, obviously) learned that creation of “Coordinating Councils” — besides adopting the MPDI (or “DAIP”) insistence on “Coordinated Community Response” — was a tactic for taking control of an entire subject matter and field by those who had, obviously, some vested interests in doing so.  I was aware that a prominent, and AFCC-affiliated Judge (now retired and consulting at the California Judicial Council), the Hon. Leonard P. Edwards, had helped establish one in Santa Clara County — under the Commission on the Status of Women (!!), and was promoting the formation of such councils. Looking for that reference, I just found this one as far back as 1992 — see quote, and notice the URL where it’s posted (i.e., at the top state level authority in the State of California — “COURTS.CA.GOV”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Domestic_VIolence_Council.pdf  “REDUCING FAMILY VIOLENCE:  THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY VIOLENCE COUNCIL” by Judge Leonard P. Edwards (Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 1992).  I’m putting this on on the “Vital Links” sidebar.  The “Constitution” for the Santa Clara Domestic Violence Coordinating Council (as an Appendix / Example) required members from (I counted) 22 different areas of practice, at the policy-making level and only five (5) members of the public.  BATTERERS intervention, Prevention and Treatment concepts are built in.  Insistence (for the Santa Clara County one) on following written recommendations from the NCJFCJ (Judge Edwards had been President of this at some point, either afterwards or before)…

(Found during search for a certain county-based domestic violence coordinating council in Minnesota)


The Criminal Justice Intervention Project at Safe Avenues works with criminal justice agencies to provide a coordinated response to domestic violence within the community. They work to make sure those who choose to use violence with intimate partners or family members are held accountable for their actions.

The Program Coordinator works with victims whose partners have been arrested or charged with domestic violence related crimes to help them understand how the criminal justice system works and assure that their rights as victims are upheld. Safety for battered women and their children is always the primary concern.

The Kandiyohi County Coordinating Council is made up of representatives from may agencies including law enforcement, prosecutors, probation officers, child protection workers, Guardians Ad Litem, and others.

Services include:
* Information and support to the victim throughout the criminal court process
* Accompaniment to court visits and hearings
* Information and referral to medical, legal, and social service professionals and resources
to provide a coordinated response to domestic violence within the community. They work to make sure those who choose to use violence with intimate partners or family members are held accountable for their actions.

The Program Coordinator works with victims whose partners have been arrested or charged with domestic violence related crimes to help them understand how the criminal justice system works and assure that their rights as victims are upheld. Safety for battered women and their children is always the primary concern.

WHO, you might ask, is ‘SAFE AVENUES”?  — and, well, See “History” page, and there is also a description at “MinnesotaHelp” for the “Harmony Visitation Services” at this shelter:

Safe Avenues (MN) began as “Shelter House” operated 1978-1998 out of a nonprofit mental health center, but apparently for battered parents and children. In 1999 it incorporated, eventually began building, and in 2010 changed name to “Safe Avenues:” For Healing Justice and Peace. I see it runs a Harmony Visitation Center and is a member of Supervised Visitation Network…/LGH 2016 from “History” of the website.

(LINK TO MinnesotaHelp descr. of “Harmony Visitation Center“)

Harmony Visitation Center (HVC) is a program of Safe Avenues and a member of the Minnesota and International Supervised Visitation Network (SVN), which set standards and guidelines for the operation of visitation programs. Trained staff conduct services, with the primary focus on the safety and comfort of the children.

* Neutral location for safe transfer of children when there have been conflicts with child visitation between parents
* On-site, supervised visitations in a warm friendly place by non-custodial parents who want to have a positive and meaningful visit with their children
* Education and support to families with a history of domestic violence and/or child abuse
International Supervised Visitation Network (SVN), which set standards and guidelines for the operation of visitation programs. Trained staff conduct services, with the primary focus on the safety and comfort of the children.

* Neutral location for safe transfer of children when there have been conflicts with child visitation between parents
* On-site, supervised visitations in a warm friendly place by non-custodial parents who want to have a positive and meaningful visit with their children
* Education and support to families with a history of domestic violence and/or child abuse

Interesting, I just looked at the “Safe Avenues” “Program & Services” page.  Out of EIGHT drop-down menu items the only one which has no developed page (with any print on it) is the one labeled “Parenting Time.”  Under “Basic Services” I did find (pretty far down on the page) a link to “Harmony Visitation Center” which leads only to an ad for “Vista business cards” (not a card for the center)..  Hmm.

the Minnesota and International Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) — I have several posts on “Supervised Visitation” itself and the (racket) respresented by the SVN network, let alone that it’s an international association taking personal referral business from US family courts…. and has a strong leadership connection to some in high positions over the access/visitation grants distribution (which funds this type of activity) and on the administrative office of the courts.  Sounds like a “racket” to me, or at least a sort of under-the-radar vertical monopoly.  Supervised Visitation can financially break any parent, and has broken some.  it’s also been turned on mothers for “alienation” (reporting child abuse or domestic violence).  SOMETHING tells me those who engineered the centralized coordination of THE response to domestic violence, knew that there would be corresponding professions (state-supported) to go with it, and some very good money, control, and power involved.

Safe Avenues MN 2014 990 27 $2,114,038.00 41-1931304
Safe Avenues MN 2013 990 26 $2,126,722.00 41-1931304
Safe Avenues (includes Audited Financial Statement) MN 2012 990 44 $2,098,616.00 41-1931304

[2012/ bottom row tax return much simpler description of program purpose, under different CEO, Connie Schmoll:  ”


Tax return (top row, 2014] looks fairly normal.  Most money of a budget of $1.2M revenues (Govt’ Grants $752K/Private $356K) is going towards salaries.  I wonder whether their 40 hour a week Executive Director Carrie Buddy is actually working for nothing, as it declares (also matched on the “Part IX” expenses) and I see on their Part X Statement of Balances (Assets/Liabilities) that $290K assets (end of the year) are in “other securities” which translates to, being held at the Willmar Area Community Foundation.

Another “anomaly” (and I’m not a CPA, but….) is that two out of three of their program areas seem to be producing an actual profit, in fact their major program purposes (direct services including hotline shelter, advocacy) is actually reporting a significant profit. Noncustodial parent visitation & exchange (second) is almost breaking evening, and training CJI (Criminal Justice Initiative) is producing a small profit.  Compare “Expenses” to Revenues” with each of the three items below. It seems to me that over $1M of “revenues” from program activities would have to be reported on page 1 as “program Service Revenues” — but they only show $37K there, and (corresponding) on Part IX, Line 2, Expenses.  So what’s really happening to be profiting off of serving victims of violence?

4c (Code ) (Expenses $ 851,369 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ 1,019,047)    [[Revs – Expenses here = $167,678]]


4b (Code ) (Expenses $ 149,260 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ 141,357   [[Loss of almost $9,000]]


4c (Code ) (Expenses $ 48,707 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ 57,800 ) [[Profit of approximately $9,000]]


I noticed that this shelter was sponsored (per one of its newsletters, at the bottom) by “PACT for Families Collaborative.” I ran across this last summer, and found that this “collaborative” is actually a nonprofit whose incorporators were heads of several different counties in Minnesota — it’s a multi-jurisdictional (regional) entity to receive and I gather, distribute grants.  Which counties in MN:

Map showing service area of PACT for Families Collaborative in MN (See Pactforfamilies.org)

” PACT” acronym stands for “Putting All Communities Together” and characterisizes itself (leading edge) as “Children’s Mental Health and Families”:

PACT (Putting All Communities Together) for Families Collaborative is a Children’s Mental Health and Family Services Collaborative, serving children and families in Kandiyohi, McLeod, Meeker, Renville, and Yellow Medicine counties and the Upper Sioux Community in central Minnesota. It was established as PACT 4 Families in 1993 as a four county collaborative and became a five county collaborative on January 1, 2011 with the addition of McLeod County to the original four.

The Collaborative is a unique organization developed by its many partners to fill gaps in services and reduce duplication. Members include: county social service, public health, and corrections agencies; school districts; mental health providers; and other child serving agencies. PACT for Families and its partners are dedicated to changing systems to be more prevention focused and family friendly.


The word “COLLABORATIVE” doesn’t identify a group as either in the business or government sector.  However other wording on this site makes it clear that PACT for Families is a Joint Powers Agreement.:

Organized in 1993 as a four county collaborative and expanded to a five county collaborative in 2011 through a Joint Powers Agreement signed by the member county boards, the collaborative is governed by a Chief Elected Officials board which meets twice a year and an Executive Board which meets monthly. The collaborative, which addresses the full spectrum of family needs, is located in central Minnesota, serving the five counties of Kandiyohi, McLeod, Meeker, Renville, and Yellow Medicine. PACT for Families covers 3,653 square miles, with a population of 127,548. The Upper Sioux Indian Reservation is located within the service area, and is one of PACT for Families’ over 60 collaborative members.

“SAFE AVENUES” holds $290K assets in a Community Foundation whose EIN# I can’t find — but it’s an “affiliate” of a larger one I did find.  Talking COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS as centralizing powerhouses….

(I see four Area foundations, a Minnesota Real Estate Foundation, and “Community Funds” on the drop-down menu at “COMMUNITY GIVING” website — found searching for that Willmar Area Community Foundation where “Safer Avenues” has $290K invested…

The ‘Willmar Area Community Foundation” is an affiliate of “COMMUNITY GIVING” in St. Cloud:

101 7TH AVENUE S. #100
ST. CLOUD, MN 56301
CALL: (877) 253-4380


From our headquarters in St. Cloud, we provide centralized services and specialized expertise for our affiliate Community Foundations, allowing them to better serve their respective communities.

Our dedicated board and staff work closely with a network of volunteers, donors, nonprofits and professional advisors from across the communities we serve to create opportunities for lasting impact. These opportunities include:

The Willmar Area Community Foundation (WACF) started in 1998 to foster charitable giving opportunities in the region and better meet the needs of the greater Willmar community. Today, we are working to attract and distribute charitable funds in ways that inspire our community and enhance the quality of life for residents in our area.

Sounds like the actual name might be:

The Central Minnesota Community Foundation and its affiliates, the Alexandria Area Community Foundation, Brainerd Lakes Area Community Foundation and the Willmar Area Community Foundation, serve the nonprofit sector of their local communities through grants from our funds and through encouraging collaborative projects that strengthen the nonprofit sector.

Central Minnesota Community Foundation MN 2014 990 43 $105,728,182.00 36-3412544
Central Minnesota Community Foundation MN 2013 990 41 $81,577,347.00 36-3412544
Central Minnesota Community Foundation MN 2012 990 41 $71,794,167.00 36-3412544

GEE — let’s talk about how does a community foundation increase its assets by $26M in one year — and where is it keeping those assets?   GOOD THING TO KNOW:    On this one, with Fiscal Year Ending June 30, Year End 2014 (top row) shows $20M of contributions.  These are mostly, it seems, Donor-advised funds.   The prior year, they had only $5.5M, so it’s obviously gaining in popularity.   MONEY IS BEING DRAWN TO THE NONPROFIT SECTOR, AND THOSE ALREADY IN IT OBVIOUSLY WISH THIS SECTOR TO REMAIN STRONG AND VIBRANT, EVEN IF THE REST OF THE POPULATION ISN’T ….AND SO WILL BE NEEDING MORE SERVICES OF ALL DIFFERENT KINDS..

HERE, THIS FOUNDATION WAS SET UP ONLY IN 1985. IT HAS A BOARD OF 16 INDEPENDENTLY VOTING, BUT ALL ARE 1hr/week volunteers. It has ONE paid officer, the Executive Director Steve Joul, at $152K? year, and a staff of only 17, plus, it says, 460 volunteers. (Why volunteer for a $100M-assets corporation, I don’t know)… They are only redistributing $5M of the $20M received in (private) contributions just Fiscal Year 2013 alone (Plus a LOT less to individuals in the form of scholarships). Thanks to the internet, it’s not a majorly expensive operation. So, these monies are held and invested in Public Securities (most of them). Balance Sheet, Assets, Line 11: Beginning of year: $68,075,177; END of year, Value: $91,293 ,675. Actually, they are an investment platform controlled by the board (because a nonprofit is a nonstock). … In addition for revenue, this year they sold $22M at a cost of $21M for a profit of $1.6M.

They have a “Related Entity” CMCF PROPERTIES 101 S 7TH AVE STE 100 (St. Cloud), also called a “Disregarded Entity.” And there is a completely illegible (without tweaking, zooming, expanding, and re-arranging) detailed listing of where the $5.5M of grants went. Here’s a section:

BethelUniversityFoundation,3900BethelDriveStPaul,MN55112Total Brick by Brick Partners,232 7th Street Brookyn, NY 11215 Total
Act One Arts Initiative Inc PO Box 11141 Saint Petersburg, FL 33733-1141 Total
AlbanyHighSchool,POBox40 Albany,MN 56307Total AlexandriaAreaArtsAssociation,Inc,618BroadwayAlexandria,MN56308Total AllianceMlmstrles,4000fflceParkDriveSTE301 Birmingham,AL35223Total AmericanCancerSoclety,372123rdStreetSouthSTE102 SaintCloud,MN 56301-5094 AmericanRedCross,1301WestSaintGermainStreetSaintCloud,MN56301Total ApolloHighSchool,1000North44thAvenue SaintCloud,MN 56303Total AtonementLutheranELCA,114429thAvenueNSaintCloud,MN56303Total CityofAtwater,123FourthStN,POBox59,Atwater,MN56209Total AvonCommunityChurch,204AvonAvenueNorthPOBox248Avon,MN 56310Total BethlehemLutheranELCA,4310County Road137 SaintCloud,MN 56301Total BigBrothersBigSistersofCentralMN,203CooperAvenueNorthSuite162SaintCloud,MN 56303Total Birthline,Inc,1411WestSaintGermainStreetSuite5SaintCloud,MN56301Total BoyScoutsofAmericaCentralMN Councll,1191ScoutDrive Sartell,MN 56377Total Boys&GirlsClubOfElkRiver,Inc,905SixthStreetNW ElkRiver,MN 55330Total BoysandGirlsClubsofCentralMN,34530thAvenueNSaintCloud,MN56303Total BrainerdPublicSchoolsFoundatlon,804OakStreet Brainerd,MN 56401Total
BrainerdYMCA,602OakStreet Brainerd,MN 56401Total
CamphillVillageMinnesota,Inc,15136CelticDrive SaukCentre,MN 56378Total CampusCrusadeforChristInc,100LakeHartDrive Orlando,FL32832Total CathedralHighSchool,312SeventhAvenueNorth SaintCloud,MN 56303Total CathedralHighSchoolFoundatlon,3127thAvenueNorth SaintCloud,MN 56303Total CatholicCharlties,POBox2390 SaintCloud,MN 56302-2390Total CenterforNonprofitExcellenceandSocialInnovation,101 7thAvenueSouthSte201 SaintCloud,MN 56301Total CentraCareHealthFoundadon,14066thAvenueN SaintCloud,MN 56303Total CentralMinnesotaHabitatForHumanity,3335WestStGermainStSuite108StCloud,MN 56301Total CentralMinnesotaSustalnabllityProject,POBox7154 SaintCloud,MN 56302Total CentralMinnesotaTaskForceonBatteredWomen,POBox367 SaintCloud,MN 56302-0367Total  ($33.9K)

CentralMinnesotaYouthforChrlst,130Box375 SaintCloud,MN 56302Total ChamberMusicSocietyofStCloudIncPOBox205SaintCloud,MN56302Total CheetahDevelopementInc,906EastFirstStreet Hastings,MN 55033Total ChestertonAcademy,5300FranceAvenueSouth Minneapolis,MN 55410Total ChurchofSaintPaul,112511thAvenueNorthSaintCloud,MN56303Total ChurchofStAugustlne,4422ndStreetSESaintCloud,MN56304-0717 ChurchoftheSacredHeart,287510thAvenueNE SaukRapids,MN 56379Total CitizensCouncilforHealthFreedom,161St.AnthonyAvenueSte 923SaintPaul,MN 55103Total
City Impact,400 N 27th Street Lincoln, NE 68503 Total
CityofLakeLilllan,531LakeviewStreetSLakeLillian,MN 56253Total CityofStCJoud,4002ndStreetSSaintCloud,MN 56301Total
CollegeofSaintBenedlct,37SouthCollegeAvenue SaintJoseph,MN 56374Total CollegeofSaintScholastica,FlnanclalAidOffice1200KenwoodAvenueDuluth,MN55811Total CommunityActionCouncilofCrowWingCounty,Inc2135thStreetBrainerd,MN56401Total CommunityBasIa,1008PleasantvlewDriveSE Willmar,MN 56201Total CommunityChristianSchoolofWillmar,130019thAveSW Willmar,MN 56201Total CompassionInternational,Inc.,12290VoyagerPkwy ColoradoSprings,CO80997Total ConcordiaUniversity,StPaul,1282ConcordiaAveSaintPaul,MN55104-5494Total ConfidenceLearningCenter,1620MaryFawcettDrive EastGullLake,MN 56401Total
Southeastern IllinoisCommunity Foundation, PO Box 1211m Effingham, IL62401 CrossroadsAnimalShelter,260010thStreetSE Buffalo,MN 55313Total CuyunaRegionalMedicalCenter,320EastMainStreetCrosby,MN56441Total
DakotaWlcohan,POBOX2280N CentennialDriveMorton,MN 56270Total
DioceseofSaintCloud,POBox1248 SaintCloud,MN 56303Total DiscoverySchool,700SeventhStreetSWaitePark,MN 56387Total
Doctors Without Borders,333 Seventh Ave, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10001 Total

[I also see Safer Avenues got $7,000 this year]

In addition to the $5.5M, they also it appears are distributing over $2M “on behalf of agencies.”

[Footnote, THE MIRACLE OF MEDIATION, My Comments]

As a woman, mandatory mediation in this area, so far, lost me, inexplicably:  (1) a DV protective order I very much needed in order to WORK; (2) significant educational input on my own daughters’ school choices (when they were living with me, and I was the adult involved who actually had a long-term background IN Education stretching back decades, and was working in the field at the time); and finally, (3) contact with two daughters after an overnight child-stealing event facilitated by the local county sheriffs, despite their awareness of the existing, and recently re-affirmed court order which was at the scene at the time, and despite having been alerted previously of the fathers’ (not my) threats to kidnap.  This aftermath effectively destroyed my worklife, and had multiple other negative impacts upon all involved, including the father who “won” that “debate.”

The 3rd event above happened in 2006, so when I later read about this judge’s tribute to “The Mediation Miracle” — I felt sick in my gut.  Mediation apparently IS truly miraculous — it can subvert due process and turn a criminal event into a so-called minor family dispute, and like famous “water into wine” account about Jesus Christ in the gospels, keep certain types of government/private DV and District Attorneys’ Offices funds flowing smoothly.  Classifying the criminal acts as minor disputes also protects the “Victims of Crime” funding from being distributed in such cases.

The same year 2006, additionally, and nearby, another “Family Justice Center” broke ground, featuring their concerns for those affected by family violence…  What a joke….(one of the key personnel in there also active in the Victims Of Crime sector). In the ten years since, I have not been able to get help from there.  Apparently, I lacked custody of any minor children to ‘sell’ in exchange for services, and certainly no “motherhood.gov” to balance out the “fatherhood.gov” was around to facilitate the existing access/visitation funds actually work for mothers… 


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: