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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Dialogue from 7/26/2011 post, charting HHS/OCSE Grants to States (CFDAs 93563, 93564)

leave a comment »

This post is 8,800 nearly 12,000 words with updates.  Updates are  a different-color — “seashell” — background, original material is normal (white) background.  Two extended update sections cover two major nonprofits (Center for American Policy and National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, both in Washington, D.C.) and also demonstrate how I go about looking at and up a nonprofit tax return to locate who else it’s funding, how it’s funded, how old it is, and what potential influence it has on public policy, whether then or now.  
Both ones that showed up in this post, this time, happened to be “progressive” in outlook. They showed up when a writer working at one, whose bio blurb indicated she formerly worked at the other, made a statement about fatherhood funding as helping women.

This post shows what’s  being done with significant OCSE federal grants and should be of interest to every taxpayer.  There is a follow-up one (link also at the bottom) coming soon:

 Note:  The link will not be accessible until I publish that post.  It’s written, so that should be pretty soon after this one…

OK, I have a “mouth” and opened it to bring up another point, right before hitting “Publish” on this post. So now, we have 10,600 words, about 2,200 of them in THIS section, which I will also mark with a different background-color (I’ll call it “smoky-blue”)  for those who may wish to scroll below it and get to the subject matter referenced in the post title.

I HOPE (which is to be distinguished from actually believing) that people who currently are engrossed in journalistic reporting of custody disasters, however genuine and genuinely disturbing they are, may eventually wake up with a jolt (or any other way) and realize it’s time to do some catch-up homework on the money trail, as I have been doing for several years now.

Remember that Robert Frost poem about Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening? (co. 1923 & ff)  (“…miles to go before I sleep”) and “The Road Less Traveled” (“….and it has made all the difference”), called recently by a NYT Book Reviewer The Most Misread Poem in America (9/11/2015 by David Orr.  Odd subject matter for any Sept. 11 publication, in America).

Robert Frost in 1913 (from NYT Book Review Link attached)

I probably misread the poem also. So what?

I cited Robert Frost because the poems are familiar, and because I myself have been familiar with spending a lot of (my childhood actually) IN woods, both snowy and yellow (red, etc.) autumn  colors. It simply came to mind as expressing the situation.

But I do have miles to go, and see two paths diverging in reporting this subject matter.  And one path, the one I do follow, does seem less worn.

I don’t consider holding a minority point of view on certain issues being wrong when the majority point of view, in this case, summarized as “if we can JUST get major media coverage, THEN we will call attention to:

  • the federal funding (fatherhood.gov, formerly “Fatherhood.HHS.gov”) etc.) for propaganda, literally, against single mothers, as a social ill not to mention the A/V funding run through the child support system to help women lose contact with their children to violent or abusive men because of ‘co-parenting’ (and because social science “proves” — forget the current President of the USA and a WHOLE lot other exceptions to this demographic rule) that being raised without a father = allegedly being prepped for a life of crime, delinquency, premature sexuality, “multiple-partner-fertility” and retarded academic and economic status.

(Those who may think I’m exaggerating in the above summary probably haven’t waded through some of the verbiage!  Case in point, exposing what’s actually claimed to sunlight might do more to “dry it up” by revealing its  logically withered and humiliating state, than anything that could actually be SAID in response to such inane claims — made in the context, what’s more, of paid-for social science R&D run upon, particularly, low-income populations nationwide….)

Continuing with my list (and the sentence signifying a certain point of view about custody reform):

  • the private, conflict-of-interest, nonprofit trade (a) membership and (b) court-connected, ( c )  policy-influencing associations [501©3s] involving judges (AFCC et al.) and the fiscal behaviors of those running those associations  / corporations;
  • that the judiciary, courts, and government itself is as we speak being internationally aligned through leveraging of the tax-exempt sector (including family wealth housed in foundations) to the detriment of national sovereignty (let alone, “justice”), with a series of networked “centers” at specific public & private universities nationwide; {Footnote “##International”}
  • how federal funds are being POURED down holes where the “sun don’t shine” in multiple ways, one of which ways includes religious-exempt corporations who the IRS has to go through special hoops to audit, not to mention “take the money and run” nonprofits (small and large) and, when it comes to what I, as Let’s Get Honest, have been reporting most recently;
  • that the DV Cartel has for at least a decade (more likely, two) been joined at the hip — despite appearances to the contrary when “domestic violence awareness campaigns are being run — with the fathers’ rights group, which apparently have the lion’s share of the federal faucet).

“Yes, once we can get everyone’s attention through sensationalist and anecdoctal “tell-the-story” journalism on family court custody disasters, and his/hers debates on whether or not the abuse was real (i.e., parental alienation vs. domestic violence), THEN — someday in the lalaland future, NOT NOW — we can being a systematic exposition of the truth (as expressed in part, in some of the bulleted points above).

{Footnote ##International:  Read at least three-and-a-half pages, please!  This is an Oct. 2015 retrospective of articles published before and after WWII by a generation and group of writers who had ties with (London’s) Chatham House and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) published in “International Affairs” as ”

The rise of the dual culture of world development and world government

 in International Affairs, 1930–1950, by  GIOVANNI FARESE

. . . To be clear, entirely new developments are taking place, ushering in a new era whose contours are still barely visible in the mist. [[SPEAKING OF NOW, i.e., OCT. 2015]]  An example is the birth of the BRICS’4 New Development Bank (NDB), including an emergency fund for stabilization (the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, or CRA), and that of the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) both led by China, by far their largest shareholder. It is a breach into the Bretton Woods System based on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Paci c Partnership (TTP) also signal global shifts. Moreover, the re-establishment of the United States–Cuba relationship opens a new chapter of engagement between former Cold War foes.5 Finally, the world will continue to get more connected as shown, for instance, by the MIR initiative for the development of transport and communication in the METR region (Middle East, Europe, Turkey and Russia) to boost social mobility and social welfare in the area, aiming at lowering extremism and proneness to conflicts.

Today, in the age of globalization, only joint solutions will work. We need multiple lenses: the historian’s, the economist’s, the jurist’s, the political scientist’s and the practitioner’s. This is why this virtual issue draws on different disciplines. …

The attempt here is to draw also on the practical culture of ‘men of deeds’, those who did not write scholarly papers, but who—in their capacities as bankers, diplomats, policy-makers—were at some point invited to present a paper at Chatham House (the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs [RIIA], established in 1920).7 …

Ideas did not originate from a void then, nor can today. On the other hand, by presenting the authors and their ties with International Affairs, it also aims at showing the relevance of the journal, and of Chatham House, as a hub for the dissemination of this culture. It is, therefore, also a contri- bution to the history of Chatham House.

Articles, authors, affiliations: a generational and epistemic community

This virtual issue comprises 20 articles, written by 18 authors and published in International Affairs (IA) between 1931 and 1949. Eight were written before the Second World War, twelve after the war. Most of the articles stem directly from seminars held at Chatham House; ….With the exception of two, authors were all born between 1872 and 1900, so they all experienced the tragedy of two world wars. Some of them even fought in Europe during the First World War. All died, except two, between 1945 and 1985. A generational community thus emerges. The two world wars and the great depression of 1929–33 were major events that shaped their conscience—and lives, of course…..

We may want to focus only on the immediate, the local, and the recent.  While I can barely get people to talk about events in the last generation since PRWORA, a WHOLE lot of the US policy — and PARTICULARLY in fields involving “health and human services,” mental health and family structures — including the family court system, itself also a fairly recent creation — has been shaped by policy discussed in London and implemented in the UK.  In a sense, it’s a reclaiming of the United States as a policy-outpost of the former British empire, economically and practically if not legally. …

The next section references major US organizations, and universities from which many “experts” (on fatherhood, family structure, etc. catch my drift?) continue to receive public funding, publish and recommend there be (yet) more social science research and demonstration projects run on the populace, as a domestic “stock” and capital human resource — but we should ask, “WHOSE”??

(The rise of the dual culture of world development and world government

 in International Affairs, 1930–1950, by  GIOVANNI FARESE, continued)

Most of them had various links with their own national govern- ments (typically the Foreign O ce, while Beyen became Dutch Minister of Foreign A airs) or with international organizations (FAO, ILO, UNESCO[8] or other UN organizations). Some were rebuilders of western Europe, engaged in the implementation of the Marshall Plan (Finletter), or of the Common Market (Beyen). Despite their di ering views, they agreed that supranational orders could foster prosperity and security.

Interestingly, these men had ties not only with Chatham House but with a web of sister institutions, including the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, established in 1921), the Honolulu-based Institute of Pacific Relations, (IPR, established in 1925), the Toronto-based Canadian Institute of International Relations (CIIR, established in 1928; today, Canadian International Council), and their journals Foreign Affairs, Pacific Affairs and International Journal.

A network of universities of global reach also emerges from the authors’ multiple ties (including Cambridge, Harvard, London School of Economics, Oxford, New York University, Princeton, Stanford, University College London, Yale). Notably, some of the authors joined larger intellectual circles as part of the global elite of past recipients of prestigious fellowships (Rhodes scholars, Rockefeller fellows).

Finally, though all authors here are men, links with prominent women—such as Marjory Allen and Eleanor Roosevelt—emerge.

8 The Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labour Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scienti c and Cultural Organization, respectively.

That discussion may sound esoteric, academic, far away and long ago.  I ASSURE YOU, if you should start to investigate the CURRENT HHS funding relating to the subject matter of families (especially “child abuse prevention, family violence prevention, and fatherlessness as a solution to both, marriage promotion, etc.) and see some of the institutions (specifically, centers at universities) , as well as the AFCC’s international board of directors, emphasis on “Multidisciplinary professionals” and overt promotion of shared programming across country borders, specifically the USA’s northern border (into Canada) and “Across the Pond” with the UK, in addition to the habit of privatizing government services, redefining government services in terms of social science demographics and running (that is to say, “testing”) behavioral modification curriula on (us) at ALL ages and socioeconomic profiles (except the VERY richest elites), it will be much less “esoteric.”

I have not published, but I did learn more about the University College of London and how the British fund their university systems, this summer, in the context of learning that a USA “NIJ” (National Institute of Justice) had a message about their gradual strategic switch to “behavioral health” solutions to judicial problems .. and in the context of having heard about US Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s announcement that (the USDOJ, as I recall and specific cities) were joining the “Strong Cities Network,” based in London as it turns out.
Specifically, while, ABC’s “20/20″ Footprints in the Snow” articles (links shown below), and arguing with 20/20 news outlets who them out, for being biased, withholding information, and in response, getting out the follow-up evidence,** I think may be exciting — but are not leading to a solution to the custody issues.  They are simply complaining, loudly about it.

This has taken a while to express on top of a blog dedicated instead to the OCSE grants charts, and follow-up.  It was a sentiment added after the post was complete, and after providing some of the links, I’ll remove the rest of my statements on the situation to a separate post which I already started the day after the first airing, which I believe was 4/8/2016.  Meanwhile, be informed, I’m sick of attempting to find common ground with people who are more excited by mainstream media coverage, pro or con (which would seem to indicate a lack of understanding in WHO OWNS IT) and hoping they will recognize that you cannot develop debating skills on a topic you’re ignorant of, two generations after the war’s one, and in the middle of ongoing casualties, which I will have to say, the younger generation of David Rucki and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s children, at this point, are.Not to mention the rest of us, through the colossal waste of money and human resources this all represents….. and time….

**The Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Case after 20/20 (4/17/2016) RedHerringAlert

Did 20/20 manipulate the Rucki story to hide abuse? (4/14/2016) by Michael Volpe (Published in CommDigNews, posted same day under same title at Red Herring Alert):

“20/20” ran a program entitled “Footprints in the Snow” about the disappearance in April 2013 of Samantha and Gianna Rucki; Did they tell the whole story.
Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/entertainment/did-2020-manipulate-the-rucki-story-to-hide-abuse-61696/ 

 Having started with the “hook” (the individual story) it wastes no time into bringing up and starting to argue parental alienation versus there actually was evidence of abuse:

WASHINGTON, April 14, 2016 – A recent ABC “20/20” report on a bitter custody battle that led to the disappearance of two Lakeville, Minnesota girls for more than two years may have ignored critical facts.

On April 8, 2016, “20/20” ran a program entitled “Footprints in the Snow”** about the disappearance in April 2013 of Samantha and Gianna Rucki, who ran away from home during a bitter custody dispute, leaving nothing but footprints in the snow.

The show hinged on claims by the parents. The mother, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, said she was abused by her ex-husband, David Rucki. David Rucki, on the other hand, said she made up the allegations and brainwashed their children into believing her, which he called parental alienation.

In the critical scene of the program, Elizabeth Vargas, the show’s host, asked Sandra to provide proof of abuse during their marriage saying: “I’m asking for any of the documentation you assured us existed and we can find none of it.”

Sandra’s attorney, Michelle MacDonald, went back to her office, where producers rummaged through several thousand papers and then proclaimed, “In more than 20 boxes we didn’t find a single piece of paper or photo to provide that any physical abuse existed.”

**This doesn’t lead to the article directly. Some links obtained from the main website posted below:

Notice this was posted under “entertainment” at CommDigNews.  Similarly, look up who publishes “20/20” and see who its current owners are!

After several links (at the site) on Mom Killing Family Members with AntiFreeze. The articles on the Grazzini-Rucki case and teens appear to have been preceded by: Are Some Divorcing Parents Brainwashing Their Children?” not to mention “Colorado Deputy found Not Guilty in the Shooting Death of His Wife” (March 31, 2016):

The order of links on left side, viewed 4/19/2016:

I understand that when one is fighting to stay out of jail under felony parental interference accusations (which now refers to both the mother (Sandra), a friend (Dede) for assisting, and the couple (the Dahlens) at whose home the runaway teens were found to have lived for two-and-a-half years while missing) one wants to tell, and publicize the other side of the “story” (which ANY media is going to give, including the producers of 20/20).

But from the perspective of someone who has witnessed now over a decade of “telling stories” from women in all sorts of states, the theory that FIRST you get journalistic attention THEN you persuade said journalistic attention to report on the complexities of the family-court-connected corporations’ connection to federal incentives, and where private wealth fits in, while more stories are spinning out (of control) nationwide and the vested infrastructure increases its network, reach, assets, and influence without substantial interference or even exposure  — what’s the endgame of obtaining major coverage of single custody cases and next to zero coverage, by which I mean, systematic teaching about, the grants and grantees and the networked infrastructure?  

……has anyone, to date, seriously considered whether a previous generation — or two — of noncustodial mothers, women, and taxpayers had decided collectively and individually to track their own government’s behaviors pre- and post-welfare reform and exposed what some of us (Liz Richards of Anandale, VA, at NAFCJ.net, Marv Bryer in Los Angeles, “Court Cancer Metastasizes” (regarding AFCC) and about the hiding of private corporations in county courthouses), Cindy Ross (in Northern California, and in association with NAFCJ.net in part) on Conciliation law, and the background story on the D.C. Sniper) began exposing in the 1990s, others in the early 2000s, and myself, since 2009 on this blog and everywhere else I could get to, while still functional?


If you value justice, you should value economic justice.  This doesn’t fall off a tree into your lap.  It has to be sought, and maintained, and that takes realizing one’s role in maintaining it.

Yep… Regrouping from an over-extended (vertically and horizontally, and probably subject-matter-wise) 2011 post….

2016 Update (I will use this background-color for this post to indicate):

RE: OCSE: Child Support Enforcement/Federal Grants to States: Let’s Look at the “TAGGS” HHS Charts (CFDAs 93.563 & 93.564) Originally published July 26, 2011, and at 25,000+ words

This blog excerpts most of the DIALOGUE from an older post, leaving the charts, breaking it into pieces so as to format the post with the real payload — the charts.

This connecting dialogue written July, 2011, may seem in some respects “all over the place.”  It raises many topics I was learning about at this time.  I was, however, discussing what are several elements of strategically networked private interests operating effectively and profitably, for decades now, in the public sphere.  These networked private interests were not networked in a way intended to be seen by most people before the networks were entrenched, operational, and involving the livelihoods of many employees and business owners who would stand to lose if the scope (and purposes) of the network were fully exposed.  Of course that’s going to take discussing individual parts and how parts interact with and relate to each other in non-traditional ways.

Laying it out piece by piece, with labels, and “diagnosis” of the system, of course can be laborious and until it’s been examined in part, and then in motion, in action, it will not make sense to the casual observer.  But that is exactly what I do, inventing a shorthand vocabulary and labeling system (“What’s in a Name”  Public or Private?  Tax-exempt or not?  etc.) to counteract and describe other than in the terms those who set up the system wish to label it — based on “outcomes” or “how holistic / therapeutic” is it? and…. using their own jargon (high-conflict, alienated, out-come based, coordinated, collaborative, evidence-based, “scientific” — in reference to social science events — and more).

So, neither that post nor this one, containing its dialogue, is a priority to completely re-write.  I wished to reformat (clean up visual appearance some).

The older post wouldn’t save, probably because it was top-heavy with large TAGGS.hhs.gov charts.  So, this post is some of the narrative from that one, without the charts as exhibits, but interesting on their own.   Hopefully both individually, or taken together, will communicate the main points.

Point of View in 2011:  After two years of looking at private judicial membership associations and HHS Federal Grants Charts, I was definitely ready to insist on pushing people to look at those charts.  There wasn’t a lot of receptivity towards this, or the collective will to develop — and get others to develop — the habit, and with it, some skills, at looking things up and talking about what was found.

But technically speaking, I was still definitely an amateur blogger — resulting in post size overload.


In summer 2011, I was also still processing additional shock factor from immediate family members’ behavior, affecting safety and functionality at a time when there was, really, no excuse for continued “interventions” of any sort.  My mother had died the previous year under tense circumstances among us siblings focused (2 versus 1) on, from the other perspective, my behavior in taking a stand against domestic violence and after divorce.  When I started setting (appropriate) boundaries and reference court orders as to where they stood, I found myself being forced to choose between intense litigation and a work life, which was (in hindsight) intentional for a prize which I didn’t at the time realize existed, i.e., my own inheritance under someone else’s complete and arbitrary control, to my harm.. AFTER income destruction through some shocking events involving law enforcement, family court (or course) including a single mediator, and a series of judges, hearings, etc.

My younger child had just “aged out” (turned 18), and both paid a very high price — including loss of enforceable child support after the system “validated” the criminal act of child-stealing by financial reward to the father (retroactively abated his child support arrears — which had been, without warning to me, and in my opinion, deliberately, run up into thousands of dollars in two short years, in addition to pressuring my household economically beforehand with family court litigation, AND AFTER “WINNING” continuing to punish me for speaking out (or, on general principles) by completely cutting off contact with my own two children who, basically, I’d raised from birth (whether married or — at the time of overnight custody switch, separated for seven years!!).

At this point I had not one job remaining from my profession, and was in the process of rebuilding an infrastructure.  When I began writing this blog, I was basically destitute AND dealing with issues of stalking leading up to the death of my only surviving parent.


Re-visiting this post some years later this writing (and blog formatting) I can hear the indignation, but find I cannot always read the charts, because margins are too wide.  Images that displayed then don’t now, some links are broken.   Such things as happen if blogs are not tended like houses — or gardens — or any other businesses.  So I decided to re-blog, splitting the post into smaller, and easier to read, parts.

So, ideally, this post is primarily the dialogue — and an upcoming one, those charts (TAGGS.HHS.GOV grants tables).

I did include some charts here as a point of reference between sections of dialogue here.  

You will also see an added section (extended) on “Center for American Progress” (“CAP”) (who was quoted in 2011 version) as a nonprofit, on general principles of understanding the larger picture when any hired writers start sounding off about child support, fatherhood, etc.  

CAP was only formed in 2002 and its assets are $55M already; it clearly has extensive backers, and isn’t even bothering to keep its assets in public, other, or “program-related” investments (as their “Part X – Statement of Balances” shows.  They have $30M in savings!  They also have a related 501©4 (a fraction of the size), a Senator on the Board, as well as Madeleine Albright, and other high-ups….


I learned yesterday [7/25/2011 in context] that a Supreme Court Case had verified that a man (or woman) about to be incarcerated for FTP (failure to Pay) child support does NOT have a constitutional right to a public defender — because it’s a “civil” right involved. That’s official now.

(updated image 4-8-2016 at organization website, “Logos” link)

Families Lose in Child Support Case **

By Joy Moses | June 22, 2011

The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in Turner v. Rogers Suggests More Work Ahead

There were no winners in the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Turner v. Rogers. The Court decided that the appointment of an attorney is not required when parents, who are typically fathers, face jail time for not paying child support. This decision means more fathers will likely end up in jail. The Court required some lesser protections that could help fathers avoid jail time, but more action is needed from outside the courts to help these families. Fathers obviously lose since their freedom is on the line when they’re unable to launch the best possible defense. For many, there is a legitimate defense that they are simply too poor to pay. Half of all child support debtors are the poorest men in society, and 70 percent of past due payments are owed by those making $10,000 or less. Some men are more at risk than others because they have the highest unemployment rates, including those who are black (17.5 percent), Latino (10.1 percent), and/or have limited education and skills (13.7 percent). But mothers lose, too. The Court says {broken link} men can’t be guaranteed attorneys because women may not have them. This is certainly fair—unless you focus on the fact that women may not have attorneys. Equalizing this disadvantage is better than some other options. But what if both parents had the help they needed? . . . Children lose as well. Court and child support systems that are meant to serve their best interests will continue to fail far too many, reaching some issues beyond those that were before the Court. When their dads refuse to pay, punishing them with jail time is helpful. But what about the children with fathers who can’t afford to pay, have difficulty representing themselves, and end up in jail? For them there’s now zero chance that their dad will work and pay support, and it’s much harder to see him behind bars. Importantly, an opportunity is lost to help the child through more family-friendly child support policies that increase the ability to collect via help with employment and fostering father-child connections.

2016 Update (I will use this background-color for this post to indicate):**Link appears to have expired since.  For reference, the “Center for American Progress” is:

(1) A 501©3 based in Washington, D.C., and provides their EIN# for readers under “About” /Donate links:

The Center for American Progress has been incorporated and is operated as a public charity. It has received official IRS recognition of its tax exempt status under sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our federal ID number is 30-0126510. Donations will be tax deductible and may be disclosed to the IRS.

(2) Is self-described as progressive and bipartisan.

(3) In 2016, I’ll add the tax returns per the EIN# lookup.   On general principles, good to look at or look up tax returns when reading from an official source, or well-known group with a well-developed website, such as CAP has.  Also knowing the age of the group would be helpful in understanding its influence:

Center for American Progress DC 2014 990 81 $55,526,919.00 30-0126510
Center for American Progress DC 2013 990 51 $53,153,182.00 30-0126510
Center for American Progress DC 2012 990 50 $50,042,142.00 30-0126510

Quick Look at Year 2014 (top row) from my 2016 perspective:

Program purpose — it’s progressive — and “Bipartisan.”


Part III re-statement of exempt program purpose:


Organization formed only in Year 2002.  Page 1 of return (Heading/Summary) show it is primarily dependent on contributions — Its program service revenues of $88K are only a “spit in the bucket” to  $44M of Contributions controlled by an independently voting board of only 8.  That’s a lot of money for only 8 people to commandeer.

There are nearly 400 (396) employees claimed.  Where does the money go?  Mostly to employeesGrants to Others (Line 13) $6.9M, Salary expenses (Line 15) were $22M and “Other Expenses” (Line 17) $14M, leaving a profit of $2M.

The “Prior Year” contributions were $4.5M less (and their grants to others, Line 13, $1.6M less), so (tax-exempt) profitability seems to relate to simply pulling in more donations.  Part VIII of this type of tax return will specify what part are gov’t contributions and what part are private, that’s Line 1 of Part VIII, “Statement of Revenues.”

(Note:  in a public-traded stock corporation of this size, the shareholders would have more input on the board of directors.  In a nonprofit, which is a nonstock setup, there ARE no “shareholders,” and the control is privately held by that Board and according to the corporation’s own articles of incorporation and bylaws.)

So without further close examination, especially for how young the organization is, either progressive policy ideas have broad bipartisan appeal and grassroots support, or this organization — like many others — has some significant backers.  Those backers are paying the salaries of its employees.  Classic example of money being pulled into the tax-exempt sector.

A look at its page 2 (Program Service Accomplishments) shows relative dollars to each category described (4a,b,c,d):

4a (Code ) (Expenses $ 17,809,686 including grants of $ 548,789 ) (Revenue $ 88,544


4b (Code ) (Expenses $ 5,642,844 including grants of $ 1,908,412 ) (Revenue $ )


4c (Code ) (Expenses $ 5,221,884 including grants of $ 3,965,000 ) (Revenue $ )


See Additional Data

4d Other program services (Describe in Schedule 0)** (Expenses $ 9,209,573 including grants of $524,312) Revenue $ )

Total program service expenses $37,883,987

Form 990,Part III – Line 4c: Program Service Accomplishments (See the Instructions)

(Code )(Expenses $ 2,293,558 including grants of$ 9,299 )(Revenue $ ENOUGH’

(Code )(Expenses $ 2,187,099 including grants of$ 255,174 )(Revenue $ GENERATION PROGRESS

(Code )(Expenses $ 2,081,578 including grants of$ 259,839 )(Revenue $ WASHINGTON CENTER FOR EQUITABLE GROWTH

(Code )(Expenses $ 1,470,533 including grants of$ )(Revenue $ EXECUTIVE OFFICE

(Code )(Expenses $ 1,176,805 including grants of$ )(Revenue $ ART AND EDITORIAL

(By contrast with the list of “Projects” on their organization website, only one of those listed can be matched to at least this Year 2014 tax return, or the logos provided.  Here’s that list:

Projects (seen on website 4/8/2016):

Doctors for America

Fair Shot Campaign

Generation Progress

Leadership Institute

Legal Progress =>=> the progressive nature can be seen well here.

Progress 2050

Progressive Studies Program

Reel Progress

Women’s Initiative

I just paged-down (scrolled) through the tax return, noticing the board of directors and key employees and their salaries (Part VIIA), Main Independent SUbcontractors paid over $100K (Part VIIB — out of 7, only room to show 5 on the return, the top paid one ($195K) was in York, UK (I.e., in England / Great Britain — whatever you call it); interesting.  Madeline Albright is on the board (1h/week volunteer), I also recognized the last name Wyss, Swiss in origin, active in helping buy up Land Trusts.  I may have posted, I do know I looked up the family wealth…

Grants of $6.9M to others — but $3.9M of this went to their own 501©4 at the same address. Other LARGER amounts went to some well-known policy nonprofit organizations whose names any one who reads standard print media (NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, or local major metro-area daily print newspapers) probably would recognize, and some of which I do from researching Social Security Act grantees, and activities for this blog.  From this list, the paid personnel begin with “(10)” but I didn’t include.  Section VIIA employees pay totals  $2.1M + benefits.  The number after some names is the hours/week column.

(3) SENATOR TOM DASCHLE 1 00 …………………………………. X DIRECTOR
(4) GLENN HUTCHINS 1 00 …………………………………………. X DIRECTOR
(5) RICHARD LEONE 1 00 ……………………………………………. X DIRECTOR
(6) SUSAN SANDLER 1 00 ……………………………………………. X DIRECTOR
(7)TOM STEYER 100 ……………………………….. X DIRECTOR
(8) JOSE VILLARREAL 1 00 ………………………………………. X DIRECTOR

(9) HANSJORG WYSS 1 00 ………………………………………… X DIRECTOR
(10) JOHN PODESTA – UNTIL 012014 36 00  ………………….. X X DIR ,CHAIR, AND COUNSEL
(11) NEERA TANDEN 3700 ……. X X PRESIDENT (paid $301K + benefits)
(13) CARMEL MARTIN 39 00 ……………………. X EVP & TREASURER
(17) LAWRENCE J KORB 40 00 ……………………….. SENIOR FELLOW
(20) JOHN PRENDERGAST 40 00 ……………………….. FELLOW

14,502 (#10, John Podesta, and ff, p.1 of Part VIIA)





142,222  (#15, Arkady Gerney & ff)







Total Part VIIA Salaries: $2,136,082

Section B. Independent Contractors (all read “Policy Consulting,” fourth one adds the word “poll”)






Some of the larger grantees (Schedule I).  There is no Schedule R uploaded, but no doubt the first one is a related organization:





(Then a series of grants under $100K, many of them $75,000, to various organizations, and yet smaller ones to a series of public universities.  The amount for UNC (Chapel Hill)was missing an amount.  It could be deduced, probably, by totaling the others and subtracting from total grants# given.).

The related organization — the Action Fund at the same address, EIN#EIN 30-0192708, for comparison.  Its activity page (2) reads similar to the one above.  Their Summary page Line 5 says “0” employees, but they actually list 10 (Part VIIA) and salaries on Part IX (Expenses) and Part I, Line 15.  They gave a grant of $25K to “Virginia Interfaith, PO Box 12516, Richmond, VA, EIN# 54-1362857***.“Year 2014 they ran a deficit of $1.2M…

Search Again

Center for American Progress Action Fund DC 2014 990O 37 $5,252,523.00 30-0192708
Center for American Progress Action Fund DC 2013 990O 33 $8,224,674.00 30-0192708
Center for American Progress Action Fund DC 2012 990O 32 $6,518,990.00 30-0192708

****Virginia Interfaith “social change for low-income” (Virginians), around since 1982, led by their one paid key officer ($88K), “Marco Grimaldo”  — Public Policy Institute (1993) Georgetown

Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy VA 2014 990 33 $1,243,268.00 54-1362857
Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy VA 2013 990 30 $1,251,537.00 54-1362857
Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy (etc…..)


This author (Joy Moses?) has  a B.A. from Stanford and a J.D. from Georgetown and is a Senior Policy Analyst at a Progressive organization. Joy Moses

Senior Policy Analyst with the Poverty and Prosperity program at American Progress. Prior to joining American Progress, she was a Children and Youth Staff Attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. The majority of her practice focused on the education rights of homeless students, 

(Click on Logo; it links to their “About Us” page)

The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, a 501(c)3 based in Washington, D.C., is the only national legal group dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness.  We operate programs across the United States that serve America’s more than 3.5 million homeless families, children and individuals. We believe that the right to a home and food and the rights of children to go to school lie at the heart of human dignity and we envision a world where no one has to go without the basics of human survival.

In the mid-1980s, our founder, Maria Foscarinis, was a lawyer working at a large corporate firm when she volunteered to represent homeless families on a pro bono basis.  After seeing the impact of first-rate legal advocacy on the lives of homeless people, Maria left the firm to dedicate herself to that work full-time.  She went on to become an architect of the 1987 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, the first major federal legislation to address homelessness.  In 1989, she established the Law Center with one goal in mind: ending homelessness in America.

…We will continue to use legal innovations in our groundbreaking cases and policy advocacy to transform fundamentally the landscape of homelessness and poverty is [“in”] this country. . . .  Now, thanks to advocacy by our state and local level allies, more states have adopted such laws and we are providing vital legal support to this growing movement.

As we carry out this work, we are committed to solutions that end and prevent homelessness– addressing its causes, not just its symptoms. For example, we know that domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness for women and, often, their children. In March 2013, after three years of advocacy, we won a major victory that protects survivors of domestic violence when Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, extending housing protections for victims of domestic violence to some 4 million additional housing units nationally.

WOW.  How ironic.  Am I the only domestic violence survivor who is AGAINST the VAWA, now that I’ve looked at the USDOJ grants tracking (hard to track), how many non-entities it’s willingly dealt with and anointed as technical assistance providers over the years, misleading communications about the Battered Women’s Justice Project, in part, and the University of Minnesota’s “IDVAAC” (Institute for Domestic Violence in the African-American Community) which website looks, talks, and sounds like a 501©3 (but isn’t….) — and which has Steering Committee members active in the “Responsible Fatherhood” grants distribution networks, not to mention which has swallowed “hook, line and sinker” that we should continue to facilitate “batterers intervention” and “Supervised Visitation” while not explaining to the public on their website, that I can see, about the Access and Visitation grants designed to remove parenting time from competent, non-abusive mothers

And most ironic at this time (April 2016) is that I have recently, finally, become essentially “homeless.” I am without permanent stable housing, was recently driven OUT of a place I’d rented for a decade and am, as a senior, paying exorbitant fees to stay off the streets and in a hotel, with no immediate prospects of getting into a rental without more litigation involving the landlord’s representative, who filed a retaliatory “unlawful detainer” when I refused to pay for a rat-infested home, which rats weren’t removed within 30, 60, 90, or even 120 days.   I’d hoped to make a quick transition into a new place, but this lawsuit ,which put everything I own at risk (and a good portion of my daughters’ personal life history still in my possession) and threatened to throw them out on the streets AFTER I TOOK A STAND AGAINST CORRUPT BEHAVIOR.

Technically speaking, you could blame this on “domestic violence,” however the DV Cartel, which sold its soul for the federal grants stream (the marriage/fatherhood funding being substantially larger than the DV funds through USDOJ) and prestige, dragged its feet for decades on the matter that the family law system downgrades criminal prosecution of domestic violence.  EVERYONE knows this –batterers certainly do, fathers’ rights groups do, now increasingly custodial mothers do (when their children are ripped out of their households overnight, or in some cases (Grazzini-Rucki) LESS…) and as of at a minimum the publication by NCJFCJ of “The Green Book” in 1999 (Jeffrey L. Edleson, Ph.D./sociologist, and Susan D. Schechter, J.D.), so does almost everyone in the system.  BUT IF THEY TOLD WHAT THEY KNEW, IT MIGHT ACTUALLY MAKE SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE THAT THE VIOLENCE WOULD STOP.  IF NOT, AT LEAST THE COVERUP OF THE “PRIVATIZATION” SELL-OUT WOULD STOP..  BETTER THAT THE “EXPERTS” HANDLE THIS THAN THAT WE HAVE ENFORCEABLE CRIMINAL LAWS IN EVERY STATE, WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON NEEDING ENFORCEMENT IS, OR IS NOT, A WOMAN….

Here are the tax returns. IN addition, that “McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act” of 1987 (reauthorized frequently since) dealt with coordinating and centralizing multiple agency heads (or designees) under the control of the FEMA Director, who would Chair the National Board. The National Board was to be chosen from specific nonprofit agencies, SEVERAL of who were religious and at least one, to my recall (from looking at the VolAgs — Voluntary Agencies (“9” are listed by HHS) who get HHS grants and matching grants under “ORR” (Office of Refugee Resettlement) administered by HHS.

Although this wasn’t the one recommended to help under FEMA back then, among the Volags is what is, actually, “The Episcopal Church” or “The Domestic & Foreign Missionary Society of the PECUSA” (Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America), a nonprofit AND religious-exempt (from filing 990s!!) organization since 1846 (!!!), and no, that year was not a typo. HHS has given it $71M of grants since 1995 (TAGGS database in other words) or just a few years prior…. But when, separately, HHS lists those “VolAgs” it called this particular one, when referencing the Recipient, “Episcopal Migration Ministries.” IN fact “Episcopal Migration Ministries” refers to the program — not the nonprofit. But how good would it look to actually list the religious organizations represented among those nine VolAgs, and call attention to the books the public CANNOT see on them (NOTE: Such organizations are protected from the usual, or normal audits by IRS — except under certain conditions. Go see IRS.gov).

Similar deal with the FEMA-Director-Controlled National Board regarding homelessness here. While the budget for that Board seems to be WAY smaller (Wikipedia indicated about $3M, and original funding was first $250K, then $2.5M in 1987 dollars) — still, it bears looking into further.

Search Again

National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty DC 2014 990 35 $242,964.00 52-1633883
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty DC 2013 990 30 $217,807.00 52-1633883
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty DC 2012 990 28 $281,407.00 52-1633883

Gross receipts just over $1M.  Of this, the nonprofit itself is fairly simple in structure.  Page 1 shows they are getting money from three basic sources:  Contributions $633K, Program Service Revenues, $139K, and “Other Income” (which turns out to be fundraising), $289K.

Where is it going?  Page 1 says, clearly enough, NO redistribution (Line 13 is blank), most is going to salaries ($612K on Line 15), and the rest to “Other Expenses” ($432K on Line 17). Revs – Expenses for the year leave only $33K to spare for an organization whose street address is:

2000 M Street #210, Washington, D.C.

(Central Business District, “Jones Lang LaSalle” — take the virtual tour!)



Therefore, I allege that, although she  (CAP author, above) has been focusing on different (and quite valid) issues she is smart enough to figure out what’s up with the child support & access visitation grants system (among others), and how fathers are already having grants-funded free legal help to “facilitate” their family connections.   It seems she has come to a decision that the Fatherhood Policies are needed, and working — as seen by her other articles, and publishing one with Jacquelyn Boggess, co-founder of CFFPP (search my blog) and also a member of Women in Fatherhood, Inc. (A recent nonprofit profiting from HHS fatherhood grants). . . . . CFFPP, as we may recall, is a nonprofit that changed its name to remove the word “Father” from the title and use instead “Family” to be less obvious about how “fatherhood” they actually are in practice, and focus.

Sisters Are Doin’ It for Themselves, But Could Use Some Help: Fatherhood Policy and the Well-Being of Low-Income Mothers and Children (2010) by Joy Moses (Center for American Progress), Jacquelyn Boggess, and Jill Groblewski >>


EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE ASKS and ANSWERS its own question: The tension between progressive notions about strong independent women and the benefits they get from help with child rearing is just one philosophical question underlying the debate about the relationship between women and fatherhood policy. Others include:

Do policies that promote responsible fatherhood fail to recognize that women also face significant financial hardships and structural barriers on the road to self-sufficiency?

Do all women and families have the same stake in fatherhood responsibility policy without regard to differences associated with socio-economic status and race?

Do discussions about fatherhood amount to attacks on single mothers?

Although the authors understand the underlying concerns giving rise to these questions, we would answer all of them with a “No.” First, we contend that it’s not necessary to pit fatherhood responsibility policies against the interests of women, especially low-income single mothers who rely on federal social services programs. Rather, fatherhood policy is family policy that benefits all family members, including mothers. Suggesting the need for social services programs that encourage and facilitate fathers’ economic and emotional support for their families need not equate to a lack of recognition of the challenges faced by these women or an indictment against single mothers.

]]]UPDATE:  Ms. Boggess associated traditionally with CFFPP:  

These are their top three Publication Topics:


The word “Fatherhood” used to be in the organizations name.  They managed to change the name, but keep the same letters in the logo, which was handy… They are based in Wisconsin.[[[[

I deduce that Ms. Moses has not participated in a custody war against a former abuser and been baptized in the fire of this process, post-1994….  First of all, those questions, while nice philosophically — were not asked here in an open format Notice, the link to the post has no COMMENTS format, typical).     The detached tone and generic terms, asserting that Fatherhood Policy benefits all family members — is simply false; TANF funds are diverted to fatherhood projects on the presumption that there is a trickle-down benefit.   Abstinence Education (still going on), Marriage promotion, and increasing and expanding the child support enforcement apparatus into “family-friendly” ever-evolving programs DOES help provide jobs — for those administering the programs and evaluating them, that is.   I found this site, the other day, chasing down a multi-million $$ organization called “MDRC” (or “Manpower Research Development Corporation”) which puts the giant (as to funding, in the DV prevention arena) “Minnesota Program Development, INc.” (MPDI), a.k.a. the outfit from Duluth which is pushing supervised visitation so hard, and collaborating (or one of its subsidiaries / offshoots, Battered Women’s Justice Project, “BWJP”) with the AFCC (my favorite acronym for this blog, I guess — it comes up nearly every post) — to undermine the language defining crimes as crime, re-characterize individuals as family members, and both responsible for criminal activity by one of them, and so forth  The Child Support Enforcement in Kentucky (Family) Courts has a nice little extortion unit for fathers found in arrears — either go (back) to jail, or get a “get out of jail free” pass if they will participate in a court-favorite program Turning It Around (how to be a man, a father, and other things probably aimed at the 6th grade level, although it’s to men who have sired children)….. the kicker in this one being that it probably also gets grant funding — and if Dads participate, there’s an incentive for the states to get supportive grants. “Turning It Around ” works with the “Home Incarceration Program, yes:

“Turning It Around” is a collaborative effort, which works in conjunction with the Home Incarceration Program, with most of the attendees coming from contempt proceedings in Family Court in non-support ca*ses. The purpose of the program is to increase the collection of child support payments, reduce recidivism in contempt cases, and encourage and increase cooperative parenting. Turning It Around may be offered as part of a plea agreement for those facing sentencing. Compliance with the program requires making weekly child support payments as well as attending a twelve (12) week class.

It appears that in 1975, Kentucky restructured its courts.  This 2002-2003 Report on the courts has a flowchart showing when a Family Court was added, and describing some of its programs, including “Turning It Around”:

In 1975, Kentucky voters supported a constitutional amendment to the Judicial Article that provided for a unified, four-tiered judicial system for operation and administration, called the Court of Justice. Judicial power of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is thus vested in one Court of Justice, which is divided into the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, trial courts of general jurisdiction known as Circuit Courts, and trial courts of limited jurisdiction known as District Courts. In the 2002 general election, Kentucky voters overwhelmingly approved passage of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment, thus creating a Family Court division of the Circuit Court tier. . . . In FY 2002- 2003, the average number of cases heard by family court judges was 1,477 per judge  {X 33 judges in this court}, representing cases originally within the jurisdiction of the circuit and the district courts.  {And it says approximately half the citizens in the state…?} … the Department has coordinated training for family court judiciary and staff, disseminated information via development of a quarterly newsletter, website, a family court benchbook and various reporting materials. The coordination of legal and social services and the provision and support of many programs, including but not limited to divorce education, Families in Transition, Turning It Around, Domestic Violence Information Sessions and truancy court projects have had a significant impact on the citizens of Kentucky

YES of course it has.  This report is actually some good reading, including relating how it was in 1996 that the JURISDICTIONAL basis for Family Court was established in 1996 (odd, funny, how that dates to WELFARE (TANF) REFORM year and the addition of access visitation grants to help support programs such as they mentioned above — divorce (parenting) education, and so forth.   This report shows NINE new justice centers being built (mostly in 2000ff) and notes that:

In the 2002 general election, Kentucky voters overwhelmingly approved passage of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment, thus creating a Family Court division of the Circuit Court tier.

{{NOTE:  In 2001, then-President George Bush initiated — by Executive Order — the OFFICE of FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY etceteras, aggressively helping put faith-based organizations, including plain old churches — on the federal grants stream and interspersed throughout government, meaning that they could also apply for funds to teach:  Parent Education, and “How to be a Man” etc…}}

Family Court. With ratification of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment in all 120 counties, the Kentucky Constitution has seen the most sweeping change in the structure of our court system since we adopted a unified four-tier court system in 1975. This historic moment came during the 2002 general election when more than 75 percent of Kentucky voters approved passage of the Family Court Amendment. This mandate permanently added Family Court to the state’s court system and proved that the people of Kentucky have overwhelmingly embraced the concept of “one family, one judge, one court.” Family Court, which is involved in {{I.E. NOW REGULATING AND AFFECTING..}} the most intimate and complex aspects of human nature and social relations, provides a court devoted exclusively to the needs of families and children. It currently serves 2 million people in 42 counties — nearly half of Kentucky’s population. My goal is to see that within 10 years every family in the state has access to a court that makes families and children the highest priority.

Kentucky’s court pages has one of the most active set of programs for kids, Moms, Dads, of any states that I’ve seen.  It was here I found a parenting education class (Kids First) which led directly to a nonprofit (I’ll say it:  “Front Group”) in PENNSYLVANIA — of course AFCC in origin and intent.  I wonder if some double-billing goes on (and how much) as has been discovered already in other programs around the country, in custody cases. In 2002 also, an “Alternate Dispute Resolution” Department was added (like many others nationwide).  While this may be appropriate in many types of situations, this process is unfair and DANGEROUS to parents, I’m referring primarily to mothers, whose custody case stems from violence issues.  It dilutes protections, attorney-client confidentiality,and to the extent mediators are court-paid (and/or AFCC-trained, meaning they are going to be hostile towards mothers) it is a bad deal for everyone involved.  I obviously am opposed; in what other areas of crime is a victim MANDATED to mediate with the perp, leaving the decisions to be influenced by a person whose very position has a built-in motive to extend the litigation?  Here it is:

Chief Justice Joseph Lambert [<=Link broken. ] approved the creation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Services Department in April 2002. The mission of the Department is to promote, facilitate, and maintain the effective use and growth of alternative means of resolving disputes. Initiatives include mediation training for general civil and family mediators, small claims mediation programs, and guidelines for mediators and mediation training. The AOC-sponsored training program is the most thorough alternative dispute resolution initiative to date. Several week-long seminars are designed to train lawyers, judges, educators, mental health and human resource professionals, family court staff, pretrial mediators, and AOC management. The proliferation …

FEB, 2011 article by this justice defending himself against a newspaper attack:

In any event, let me set the record straight. In my 10 years as chief justice, I established family courts in Kentucky, and those courts now serve 75 percent of our population. At my request, the General Assembly authorized construction of 50 or more judicial centers, almost all of which are located in rural counties that often get little attention from state government. Those court facilities provided thousands of jobs for Kentuckians who needed work, and they were built with money to be repaid over 25 years borrowed at historically low interest rates. I was also instrumental in establishment of the senior judge program, which has resulted in far greater efficiency than ever before in Kentucky courts. Hardly ever is a court day lost because the judge is unavailable. When judges are ill or must attend to family matters, as in the federal system, a senior judge is available to fill that seat for the day or week of the regular judge’s absence. Jurors, witnesses, and others don’t have their time wasted. I also established nearly statewide drug courts, whereby non-violent offenders are given treatment and are closely supervised by judges and caseworkers. Drug court have been about the only significant progress made in recent years in combating the scourge of drug abuse.

He complained that he was not given (by the senior judge) leave to run for Attorney General while in his position as family judge; this JAN 25, 2011 (blog quoting said )article mentions some of the financial conflicts of interest — and the major court-house construction projects in some detail:

Lambert established guidelines for leaves of absence in 2005, a time when he was rumored to be considering a run for governor in 2007. Minton has not granted any judge a leave from the program. Lambert apparently only granted one, for a judge to complete an advanced degree at Yale University. It comes as no surprise that Lambert’s decision about running for public office is so closely tied to his financial planning. As chief justice, he designed the senior judge program that will provide him, and others, a generous retirement. Lambert also conceived the widely criticized $880 million courthouse construction program and hired the residential architect who designed his own home to oversee it. The firm that sold the bonds on the lion’s share of the courthouse projects employed Lambert’s son for a time. And the construction company that got more than half the courthouse business contributed generously to the judicial campaigns of Lambert’s wife, Debra.

Here’s a nice 2007 Continuing Legal Education Commission schedule, from the Kentucky Bar, giving thanks for contributors:

ABOUT THE HANDBOOKS AND PRESENTATIONS ␣ Handbook materials are the result of the combined efforts of numerous dedicated professionals from around Kentucky, and elsewhere. The KBA gratefully acknowledges the following individuals who graciously contributed to this publication: AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination  (the link is a Google search, it brings up my posts on the topic as well as of course a course selling information at a discount to AFCC members on how to implement “parenting coordination” (translation — how to steer a family court case against mothers, I kid you not….), how to basically CHANGE courts, and a potpourri of other AFCC agendas  They really are a marketing outfit….  Parenting Coordination Task Force (a concept pushed by this group) consisted of:  The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.

Overview and Definitions

Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution [ADR] process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan** by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs,*** and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

3 para. of rant, here, plus come copyediting notes:


[**”assists . . . .. to” is a grammar mistake!  “Assist” is a transitive verb that takes a direct object.  They wrote the sentence without one.  It’s “assist in implementing/implementation” or “Help Parents implement.”  And these are the perpetual teachers…The task force boasts TWO “M.Ed.”s, a JUDGE, a JD, and a bunch of Ph.D.’s — did they do this on their dissertations?][***”EDUCATING PARENTS ABOUT CHILDREN’S NEEDS” already has a cash-supported grants stream dedicated to it, called access and visitation ($10 million/year nationwide, and California, where some of these are, gets about $1 million of that still).  Maybe what the parents need, instead, is lower legal bills — and fewer AFCC personnel on their case, particularly the ones that double-bill the grants program, and the parents, and/or are affiliated with the SF court system and Kids Turn (which is trading funds [i.e., a lien!], or was, with the SFTC, Trial Courts, system mysteriously….).


Labeling parents “high-conflict” when one parent may or may not be having a “conflict” with the law-breaking, or child-endangering behavior of the others, is a word-trick used by such professionals to place themselves as the supposed “adults” in the matter, reframe what may be some VERY serious issues as “disputes” and sometimes reframe actual domestic violence, threats to kidnap, etc. as “conflict” — squarely blaming both parents for the behavior of ONE.  There are very, very few truly neutral individuals in this world — EVERYONE has a viewpoint.  However, few parents, particularly mothers, are aware of the influence and viewpoints of this organization and how neutral it is on pedophilia and abuse, and how activist it is in preventing women from leaving such situations with their children safe.   I seriously doubt that many people outside some of us mothers who have been diligently blogging this, in recent years (following upon NAFCJ and a VERY few others original exposures of the origins of the AFCC) understand how VERY large a part of the AFCC is #1.   Driven by simple greed — the money motive to market their own materials, and have a monopoly on the marketplace; #2.  Unbelievably activist, narcisssitically so — they position themselves to, and do, re-write laws (or add new ones), or by PRACTICE simply undermine and reverse existing state codes; #3.  Improperly continue to handle CRIMINAL matters in the FAMILY context — pleading caseloads all the time.        



I have been systematically looking up (researching, if you will) AFCC individuals, task forces, memberships (i.e., who are judges where) nationwide as part of advocacy for noncustodial mothers in shock (including myself, initially) at what happened to our civil rights?    The behaviors and patterns of AFCC are very predictable, and their rhetoric uniform — rarely does an actually new IDEA come up — just a new market niche.  SImilarly, the nonprofits formed by man of the AFCC-personnel have a few commonalities — namely, they are geared to get court-referred business, they take sometimes grants monies, and they relentlessly conference, publish and collaborate to change the language and practice of law to a direction that this group, in particular, likes.  They are inbred with bar associations, the APA and several other groups as well — I know this because I look, closely The success of this organization which began as a SLUSH FUND IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE (from the best I can tell, and others — in articles written about this in the 1990s; don’t take it on my word — go to “the money trail” in Full Disclosure.net which follows Richard Fine’s case and work) depends upon inherent greed and egotism.  Parents are perceived as a PROBLEM, and they are the SOLUTION.   The success — besides who is positioned where in the judicial and court-referral professions — is also demonstrated by the total silence of domestic violence groups on this one.     To take the “veil” off — combine some listening, some reading, and then go check the financials!   Ask, how long are adult mothers and fathers supposed to be forced into educational materials designed at the FIFTH GRADE level (I found one today, may blog it tomorrow)???      


The people most qualified to help their children, for the MOST part, are the parents — they live with them, they know them!   With this court system having been around now for several generations, many of the troubles we are seeing — like familicides, terrorism, fatalities on court-ordered exchanges, and/or kidnappings by parents to avoid payment of child support ! ! – or to get even — are now elements of the difficulties single mothers face.     I do not believe that the family court system (which exists primarily because of these individuals — some still practicing — to start with) is reformable, and I DO not believe it is broken — I believe it is doing exactly what it was designed to do — provide steady income growth for an otherwise low-paying field (psychology, absent the Ph.D.s), and a cult-like evangelizing of products (parent education, batterers intervention, supervised visitation, etc.) — which will provide secure retirements for the people who (a) designed and/or (b) parroted and helped affiliate-market them. )      

OK, I know that was 3 LONG paragraphs, but at least I kept it to only 3 (+ “3a” on revision = 4…)!
Parenting coordination is a quasi-legal, mental health, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process that combines assessment, education, case management, conflict management and sometimes decision-making functions.

Correction:  It is an all-expenses paid (to the coordinators) method of engaging in dubious QUASI-LEGAL and so-called “MENTAL HYGIENE” processes which BECAUSE OF THIS have ZERO business in OR around the courtroom UNLESS the parents opt for it — BOTH of them, and WITHOUT court coercion. Do they expect, in the cases of impoverished parents, to take some of their fees from the already compromised TANF funding, or what? ALSO — PARENTING COORDINATION is yet another tool of the trade of playing the PARENTAL ALIENATION card in a custody hearing and calling for “intervention” (a la Dick Warshak or Matt Sullivan, Ph.D. & Friends) “reunification.”  In other contexts, this would be called deprogramming, a practice which in the 1970s was played on some young adults by their parents, and was criminal — because it involved kidnapping.   It’s claiming that brainwashing happened (whether or not it did, and without true discretion) and so justifying coercive, “INTERVENTIONS” “Intervention Strategies for Parenting Coordinators in Parental Alienation Cases” (AFCC author Susan Boyan and probably the other one also) Divorce Wars: Interventions With Families in Conflict Ms. Ellis’ book, above is Copyright 2000 by the APA, and has of course a chapter on “Parental Alienation Syndrome:  A New Challenge for Family Courts (p. 205)” and by the end, p. 267, she gets around to “Evaluation of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Cases.”  (Note:  PAS is real — see chapter title; but Sexual Abuse apparently is not, because it only surfaces next to the word “Allegations” emphasizing doubt (like Sexual abuse just doesn’t happen in families, or in divorcing families?) — and in the context of how to EVALUATE . . . . ALLEGATIONS.     Typical AFCC priorities…..”Lead” with PAS, and then — if forced to — say “sexual abuse” but never as if it were truly an issue.) It is a MAJOR issue….. (The Franklin Coverup)  Click on the link summary — the material is very disturbing, though…. Now, let’s reconsider why the AFCC, with it UNTRACKED and EVER-EXPANDING FUNDING AND REVAMPING OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS emphasizing instead PROGRAMMING activities (endless trainings……) IS SO URGENT TO DESTROY ANY LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION OF THE HORRORS OF THIS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN, AND AGAINST ONE (OR MORE) OF THEIR PARENTS WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO STOP IT. https://events.afccnet.org/store/online_bookstoreSusan M. BoyanAnn Marie Termini:The Psychotherapist as Parent Coordinator in High-Conflict Divorce: Strategies and TechniquesDecember 2004Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: A Parent Guide to Effective CO-Parenting   August 1999 WELL, this post was to be a little sample — only — of some places that “child support enforcement” monies (grants/which are incentives) are going to the states.

 BACK to Ms. Moses’ (Jacquelyn Boggess & Jill Groblewski’s) article though:

Sisters Are Doin’ It for Themselves, But Could Use Some Help: Fatherhood Policy and the Well-Being of Low-Income Mothers and Children (2010) by Joy Moses (Center for American Progress), Jacquelyn Boggess, and Jill Groblewski >>

To be fair, the Supreme Court decision did include some important protections the Obama administration suggested in its brief to the Court. The Court required safeguards that are alternatives to an appointed attorney such as telling men that they can avoid jail if they can’t afford to pay and providing them with an opportunity to demonstrate that they can’t pay.

The man in question from South Carolina did time forfailure to pay amounts less than $60/ week. I’m so glad to know that our country is willing to go after the “real” culprits and thieves in lifes — people who cannot afford defense attorneys — and just SO “uninterested” in actually distributing money garnished (improperly and sometimes, in excess of court orders) from parents amounting to, sometimes, millions of dollars per state. …)


CHARTS from Original Post would go here:

SOME CHARTS: I did a basic search on the CFDA category “93563” which is Child Support Enforcement, plain and simple — and I selected only the years 2011 and 2010. I’d like this to exhibit how in different states (and tribes) different agencies collect, and how much money is spent on this. By publishing the street addresses fo the state (or tribe) designated agency, people can then search on-line for those addresses and see what else is going on at that street address. Although this is more helpful for private companies or nonprofits, it’s a good habit to develop. For Year 2010 only (seeing as we are not through with 2011 yet), this is the report:

FY 2010 Grants to States, Tribes, and D.C. for Child Support Enforcement

(Re-run 4-8-2016pm, selecting “Reports by CFDA#” (93563) and “Year 2010.”  Data goes to about 1995.)

All HHS Selected CFDAs Summary Report for FY 2010
CFDA Prog. No.
Program Title
Number of Awards
Number of Award Actions
CAN Award Amount
ACF 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) 180 1,227 $3,604,010,339
1 180 1,227 $3,604,010,339

I ran an “Advanced Search” on Year 2010 for this, selecting certain fields.  Saved Search URL (very long, click to read charts, Grand TOTAL displays at top left, above report table, and page total at the bottom of each page) This report stretches over 29 pages (as you can no longer, in the new improved version of TAGGS, select “show 500 results/page”).  Click on any column heading to sort by that column; I clicked on Award Action Date.  Notice who the recipient state-level agencies are; it differs by state (Column is further towards the right).  I also found it interesting that they begin the fiscal year 2010 by many negative entries (sometimes in the millions) for “Fiscal Year 2010” as part of the routine.  Also note — no “Principal Investigator,” i.e., no particular contact it sited for the entity.

I just sorted the chart by largest chunks of $$ and was surprised to see the order go:  California, Texas (not surprising there), OHIO, MICHIGAN ($64,500,000 even) and eventually New York, then finally, Florida.  (Look down the State/Recipient columns to see).  These are all sizeable award in “chunks” over $50M in the 2010 results.  CFDA 93563 is for basic child support enforcement purposes.

Data Fiscal Year: 2010
CFDAs: 93563
Report Total: $3,604,010,339
Distinct Award Count: 700
Award Number
Action Issue Date
Awrd Title
CFDA Program Name
Recipient Name
DUNS Number
Sum of Actions
Sort Order Descending
1004CA4004 10/1/2009 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) CA CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 196749068 $145,968,345
1004CA4004 1/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) CA CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 196749068 $129,832,458
1004CA4004 7/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) CA CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 196749068 $107,984,151
1004TX4004 7/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) TX TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 093473705 $90,753,538
1004TX4004 10/1/2009 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) TX TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 093473705 $71,064,939
1004TX4004 1/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) TX TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 093473705 $69,908,409
1004OH4004 1/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OH OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 809376072 $69,356,592
1004TX4004 4/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) TX TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 093473705 $65,216,329
1004MI4004 7/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) MI STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 805340163 $64,500,000
1004OH4004 7/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OH OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 809376072 $64,157,043
1004OH4004 10/1/2009 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OH OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 809376072 $64,014,992
1004CA4004 4/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) CA CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 196749068 $62,305,239
1004OH4004 4/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OH OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES 809376072 $56,694,714
1004NY4004 7/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) NY NY ST OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES 138266411 $56,553,560
1004NY4004 10/1/2009 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) NY NY ST OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES 138266411 $56,436,940
1004FL4004 10/1/2009 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) FL FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 046558131 $56,042,541
1004NY4004 4/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) NY NY ST OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES 138266411 $55,341,800
1004NY4004 1/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) NY NY ST OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES 138266411 $54,789,020
1004FL4004 1/1/2010 2010 OCSE Child Support Enforcement (CSE) FL FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 046558131 $53,033,364

Continued on a post

Child Support, Fatherhood Promotion:  More DIALOGUE and TABLES of OCSE Grants to States (CFDAs 93601, 93563, 93564) from my 7/26/2011 Post

 Note:  The link will not be accessible until I publish that post.  It’s written, so that should be pretty soon after this one…
As ever, feel free to submit comments; I am notified and will reply…and generally approve, except if it turns to hate-talk re: individuals or otherwise would be too horrid for the typical reader of this blog including people who, many of them, have already been through some personal hells in this system…..


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

April 18, 2016 at 7:58 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: