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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Red Herring Alert’s “Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner/HMRF funds,” and about those funds…

leave a comment »

Dakota County is in Minnesota:  look for the Twin Cities (St. Paul/Minneapolis) metro area.

That RedHerringAlert (blog) post, Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner Chair Nancy Schouweiler Posted on April 26, 2016Dede Evavold’s continued attempt, with assistance, obviously from the individual over at LionNews …

Image from Lion News

…to communicate to a County Commissioner (image below-right, red suit) that it’s high time

Dakota County Commissioners (image from the RHA blog post 4/26/2016)

to make some crooked things straight and for Dede to refuse to submit to being (my disclaimers:  “possibly,” or  “apparently”) framed for criminal activity and forced to show up without information sufficient to defend herself, as is required by law to be provided her.

Underneath that detailed, case-specific information and posting of correspondence on that ‘Conversation,”and neatly tied into it under things that County Commissioners do — like “authorize receipt of federal/state funds on healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” — was the bottom half of the post on the same, which I discovered while myself in a somewhat sleepless state from having just learned  about, ah, er, some yet still more recent “developments” in my personal, legal, and safety-focused saga of separating from certain, ah, “individuals,

I am again seeing just how far certain kinds of “individuals”*  may go in assuming multiple persona (and often bringing others with similar schizoid, multiple-persona-issues proclivities (=habits!), referring less to things psychological, but than things incorporation-al) in the process of smoke-screening (his/her/their) own (“apparently” or “possibly”) previous unethical/negligent/illegal activities vis-a-vis (as regards) the targeted individual — which is more appropriately understood as “ANY AND ALL RESOURCES POSSIBLY ASSOCIATED WITH AND UNETHICALLY OR ILLEGALLY OBTAINED/ EXTRACTED and/or even EXTORTED FROM THE TARGETED INDIVIDUAL  FOR FUN, INCLUDING KEEPING ONE’S TECHNIQUES IN THIS SHARP, and the THRILL OF HAVING GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT, etc., AND PROFIT. “

Part of this includes not just obtaining more, but safeguarding existing profits (obtained legally or illegally, ethically or unethically).  For protecting that status quo, threatening to engage, or engaging in pre-emptive litigation strikes against any further public exposure of what has, known to the same, been taking place for months or years previously, under their aggressive initiative or, as it may be, chronic, passive negligence, whichever mode (“Passive/Aggressive”) suits the overall strategic goal of — building income-producing, ideally, tax-sheltered and not in one’s own name (in case of guess what else? litigation from the targeted individuals — or competitors) assets for fun and profit and in part by defrauding others.  The “not in one’s own name” is where the “Multiple-corporate-persona” comes in.

So, the unethically, illegally at times will include “fraudulent” which in essence is what in common terms would be called lying.  For added bonus and impact, such blatant lying is also psychological attack on the other, and asserts a position which the targeted individual may very well know is false, but it is intended that the eventual audience (in the intended theatre — whether a courtroom, a police station, or elsewhere — whose influence is desired to bring up on the targeted person. It’s a form of bluster and boasting, and it keeps the other side busy (and lawyers in business), calling them out) either does not know, or chooses not to admit that they know, participating in the charade, for THEIR fun and profit..

For the term “For Fun and Profit” I have to credit Catherine Austin Fitts’ analogy of “Sam and Dave Unload Boatloads of White Agricultural Substances.”  The shortest summary of this is that those who operate above-the-board legally are hard put to compete against those who completely evade corporate and/or personal income taxes by  operating under-the-table in the criminal sphere.  I wrote and posted it, get this:  12/12/12 (Dec. 12, 2o12) over at another blog, Cold, Hard Facts.  “Nothing Complicated Here: Want Real Change?  Enact This!”  Huh, another Presidential Election Year, then, too…..  within a few paragraphs, it makes its point (and links to the Fitts article too).

(Continued at bottom of the post under FootnoteUnethicallly or Illegally Obtained for Fun and Profit through Targeting Specific Individuals“)..

It’s important for us all to understand how this happens, in that “resources” can be made available not just from people with wealth in the family, but also from almost any low-income people who have minor children for which social services may be ordered, ad-infinitum, to help settle disputes which may have been originally incentivized (in the general population, in general ,i.e., father-friendly policy, but possibly using those distributed funds, from specific organizations in specific custody cases, specifically) from the social service sector to start with.  It just sometimes takes some legal sector involvement (can you spell, among other places “Family Court?” and “Dependency Court” (CPS, etc.)  and “Office of Child Support Services” (OCSE)) to get at them… So, — and this is where I disagree with many — you CANNOT look at just one sector, the legal or courts sectors.  Just as with any financial matter, it’s rarely just one person’s (or entity’s)balance sheets to be looked at — what’s INCOME or REVENUES for some, is EXPENSE for others.  Even “Rich Dad/Poor Dad” talks about that.

So, it is a BIG mistake to assume that government entities are on our side, accounting wise, simply because they also provide services and tell us what wonderful new programming and services they are providing, and intend to provide in the future.  “All men are liars.” Get the bigger picture!  Who funds Whom and How?

When — as happened I think in the Grazzini-Rucki case — there WAS family wealth, but over time, one member was forced into dependency anyhow — perhaps that’s just a double-bonanza for anyone involved.  For example, I’m hearing that it’s possibly helping attract readers (sell) at the Minnesota Star-Tribune, and continue promoting “parental alienation theory” over at 20/20, despite the evidence made available to the same.  But those are not the topic of this post.


*re: “individuals”

I put “individuals” in quotes and plural, because you would not BELIEVE how many “persona” and I’m talking of two kinds here:  corporate “persons” (legitimately tied to property ownership) and trusts — which I recently learned are NOT “persons” in the sense that a business is, and as such cannot sue or even BE sued — one angry (or is it simply greedy, and amoral, i.e., fabricating not just situations, but also relationships, and possibly entities, in the accusations).  The individual so targeted then has the task — pretty much impossible — of determining which authority will, or potentially simply will not, handle which types of illicit activity by subject matter jurisdiction, and who gives a damn about just how many corporate persons — or trusts — may be involved in a single filed action.

So while I am not involved in the criminal court system, and haven’t (YET) gotten anyone else as properly involved through reporting criminal activity against my person, my property and currently threatened, when fraudulent litigation is set in motion, financial resources, I am more than interested how Ms. Evavold and LionNews blogger are handling her situation, a direct consequence of having gotten, somehow, into the middle of a family war over money and children which had caught the interest, at a minimum, of a certain Judge David Knutson (who somehow managed to take over the divorce case) and related cronies, including — of course — the evaluator and probably if I have it right, a GAL.  “The Modern Family Rescue Team:  Judge, Lawyer and Behavioral Scientist” concept apparently pre-dates the 1970s, and there’s no question that all three professions are well aware, nationwide, in individual custody cases, and in Dakota County in the Grazzini-Rucki case, of on which side their respective loaves of bread are buttered.  So, in part am I, as posted earlier on Carver County Corruption Blog (appealing people to look at the money involved, including federal incentives) and earlier this year on THIS blog, and as I, in general do when commenting on others blogs.

Circumstances MORE than a few times in this family line’s past might have merited, starting first within my marriage, but shortly thereafter, within my side, my generation of the family I was born into.  For a summary of a decade of this (post-DV) scenario as of June, 2014, see my post of June 9, 2014, which contains the word “Oxymoron” in its title:  My Challenge: Talk Sense, or become an OxyMORON (and Someone Else’s Dinner) LOOK FOR SECTION WITH THE BLUE JAY IMAGE to see that petition:

This Blue Jay picture is reminds me of taking flight and being free

= = = >

Section with light-tan background describing (for the first time), my public petition at Change.org for help in getting my older sibling out of a position of financial control which had been used to attempt to control the entire situation surrounding (her, and spouse’s) disastrous interventions (for me, and my children — not this sibiling and her spouse; it appears to have been a psychological and financial “triumph” justifying their original interventions — so long as NO ONE publicizes the long-term consequences from the other — or even a neutral — point of view — in my domestic violence, divorce, and custody issues.

Knowing in personal detail over time, and well as through networking and on-line resources, HOW these situations can come to pass, I find the social science, dissociative attempts to blame the “WELL-BEING” of, say CHILDREN or ‘FATHERS and their FAMILIES” on marital structure, to be scientifically not even close to neutral (despite the extreme levels of control exercised, they are not “controlled” experiments in anything close to the scientific method.  They are experiments in mass- manipulation of the public without its informed consent.

And it’s up to the public, not the practitioners (I mean, who wouldn’t like a steady stream of public-funded research and public-funded, nonprofit-employed, practitioner resources, with less than strict quality control, of fiscal oversight?  Income is income, and for a nonprofit, revenue is revenue.  “We are the good guys…”) — again, it’s up to the population at large who are targeted for Social Science R&D AT ITS OWN EXPENSE — to figure GET INFORMED on what’s going on and either CONTINUE to CONSENT by DEFAULT THROUGH IGNORANCE, or START WITHHOLDING CONSENT — and through making it a tax issue.

Because I assure all of us, most of us have little direct control over private 501©3 trade associations, institutes such as Brookings, The Urban Institute, and various Centers at Columbia University (NCOFF), Temple University (FRPN), in Denver (501©3 Center for Policy Research partnering with “FRPN,” or even the really badly-behaving 501©3 “National Fatherhood Leaders Group” which FRPN was recently blogging positively, and (trust me!) MANY others.  That is because they are private, nonstock corporations or otherwise not run by you and me.  But collectively speaking, use of public funding TO and FOR Government entities IS something we are to have a say in — and most of us are so used to the IRS that we have not really gotten around to figuring out how this central (federal) government is (a) financed, (b) operated to receive and expend resources and © NOT to be ignored, coordinated with the State-level university system.  Let us also NOT forget that the State level university systems (whether it’s — I’ll use my state for an example — “University of California” or “California State University” SYSTEMS — both produce CAFRs and are essentially government entities.

I was recently revisiting the UMN Comprehensive Annual Financial Statements (looking for that “School of Social Welfare” balance sheet). A little dry, UNLESS you realize how relevant its presence, and its organization, is to the State of Minnesota — and, speaking personally — to people dealing with marital abuse and thereafter the family court system — nationwide.  I might post on that, so will shut up about it for now.  Look at their Notes to Financial Statements and MDA (Management Discussion and Analysis) and list the Blended, Discrete Component Units, and start listing the various corporations.  I was just getting to the part where the University itself (as a constitutional corporation) was listed as a partner in another Joint Venture Partnership.  the University (five campuses, among the nine largest research universities in the country, also runs two major tax-exempt foundations which not too long ago decided to merge (University of Minnesota Foundation (“UMF”) and “Minnesota Medical Foundation” (MMF).  Remember Rochester’s famous Mayo Clinic is in this state…   SO– now exercise some conceptual thinking about something you can’t literally see — like a building — and attempt to picture a Joint Venture Partnership of which this WHOLE University is just ONE PARTNER.

The second half was blogger’s alert that our federal government continues to fund social policy based on what I call “Federal Designer Family Values” which might be having a local effect on how did these criminal cases arise in the first place.

Connecting the top half (personal local situation in which a bystander somehow became a criminal defendant in Dakota County) with the bottom half (an alert that our federal government continues to fund social policy based on what I call “Federal Designer Family Values” but it calls — and funds — “Health Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” (“HMRF” for short)  Dede posted, after her recent developments in attempting to stay out of jail in a possibly rigged court situation:

County commissioners also authorize the application for and/or receipt of funds from federal and state governments and their use within the county budget.

What are some of the federal funds that the county receives that led me to the criminal charges that were made against me? Well, as I’ve learned from my brilliant friend Victoria at familycourtmatters.wordpress.com,* the family law system is incentivized to divert billions** of dollars to unfit and unwilling fathers through the Health and Human Services Healthy Marriage, Responsible Fatherhood and Access & Visitation initiatives.

There is very little oversight of this money, which means that such programs have gotten away with using fatherhood funds to assist abusive and violent fathers in custody battles against protective mothers.***

*Thanks for the adjective, but what may be seen as “brilliance” is in fact more “diligence” and major motivation.  There is also some discipline developed early in life through musicianship (piano) and other studies, which are habitual but anyone would be HIGHLY motivated after some family court experiences.  I just took a different approach to focusing my energies knowing there is only one of me, but many different paths of inquiry.  It’s certainly wasn’t “rocket science” at a certain point to see where certain lines of inquiry — and the associated language used by on-line aligned groups to beckon others down those paths (selling hope for a cheap fix?  the courts aren’t crooked — they’re just “broken” and need to be ministered to by some trained experts who “understand” what the judges allegedly don’t….  SURE….)

**I felt uncomfortable with the term “billions” but let’s do some math.  Minimum amount yearly since 1996 — one ONE of those grant streams alone — was $100M (it was more, but that’s an easy figure to work with.  It was actually to be $150M, but having looked at the grants I dont know that all $150M was actually distributed each year.  SO, let’s call it real conservative and say $100M/year since 1996.  Do the basic math 1997 – 2006 = 10 years.  Through 2016 (this year), 20 years.  10 X $100,000,000 is obviously $1 billion.  (add a zero:  $1,000,000,000).  If we consider it was actually $150 million authorized by Congress, make that $1.5B, times two = $3 billion.  Add the Access and Visitation grants, that’s, conservatively, $10M/year X (call it through the end of this year) 20 years = $200M.  What’s more, anyone who visits the grants on the TAGGS.hhs.gov database can see that things “fatherhood” do not occur only under those two categories of Federal DOMESTIC (to the States and territories) Assistance, i.e., “CFDAs” 93086 and 93597.  What about Capital Compassion Grants (another CFDA#) for fatherhood groups, and CAPTA funds being labeled “fatherhood promotion” (etc.).  It’s an entire industry, profession with practitioners, and networks.  More income is generated from those practices, obtained from parents as court-ordered into services or otherwise availing themselves of it.

*** Yes, although my main point in the meaning of “very little oversight of this money” is that there is VERY LITTLE OVERSIGHT OF THIS MONEY — and it attracts crooks to the field who know this.

Then the post apparently had found a link describing the grants — possibly at GRANTS.gov.

I learned about (yet another) new one, which of course to be sold to the public, needs a sound-byte and handy acronym / buzz-word / sales pitch: take a look below for “ReFORM”  (the Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility”).  Prior sound-bytes were less pronounceable (in fact I did a post mocking the shortage of letters from which to derive new programming), for example:   “NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD.” Again, look at any or all of these as to which grants are funding which organizations to do what.  Get a workable definition of “W.T.F” is going on with any one, and overall.  Found under “Grants” on this web page:  https://hmrf.acf.hhs.gov/programs/grants/#Footnote1 (along with three other categories:  Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education, Responsible Fatherhood and “Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility (ReFORM)” formerly “Prisoner Re-Entry.” One senses that, like the word “mothers” as anything positive, in these circles and when discussing this programming, i.e., it’s “Fathers and Their Families” not “Fathers, Mothers, and their Families” the word “prisoner” as representing anything bad, is supposed to quietly disappear from usage.  Read enough of the material, you’ll see what I mean.   ….I see that “ICF International” — formerly shown under one of either HM or RF grantees, now has its own category under “National Center” (HMRF.ACF.hhs.GOV site, under “Grants” menu, which lists recent ones.  As it did five years ago, no helpful reference to the organizations (as in, their links), no identification of actual Award numbers, and not one whiff of an indication that the public might look for the actual grants, once appropriated, over at that TAGGS grants database….  In fact, at the bottom of this post, I actually went looking for the year 2015 appropriations under these programs, and I’m not half-bad at looking such things up (for Year 2011 or perhaps it was 2006, appropriations, I looked every single one one up, and my attention was called to the one to “I C F, Inc.” because HHS grants database had (probably intentionally) spelled its name wrong.  One wonders why….)

National Center for Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education
Organization City State Funding Amount
ICF Incorporated, LLC Fairfax VA $1,500,000
Total Award Amount $1,500,000

Also, what kind of company calls itself “Incorporated” as part of an LLC?   Usually it’s one or the other.

For example, while the initials “HMRF” imply only “Healthy Marriage, Responsible Fatherhood” — the website at HHS under this URL, and using those initials, NOW shows clearly a third program focus — Re-Entry.  Take a look at the three major sub-headings (beneath some moving graphics to recruit and retain reader interest — for example, did you know LAST WEEK was “ReEntry Week?”  In fact, many HHS pages tend to read more like billboards that informative explanations of what is actually being done with public funds, other than positive “press” and anecdotal evidence, or program promotion.

For example, how many HHS sites have any of my readers been on which contain sidebar references (or a link) to the grants database TAGGS.hhs.gov? If this database exists, and is so handy, and some people are being paid to enter data, maintain it, etc. — why not promote TAGGS.hhs.GOV as much as “HMRF” programming?  Huh?  Anyhow, graphics-instensive, and 4-part sliding display at the top includes one on National Reentry Week (last week):

The Office of Family Assistance is proud to support National Reentry Week from April 24 to 30, 2016 to raise awareness around the struggles of returning to the community after incarceration and encourage action to help these individuals who have paid their debt to society gain meaningful access to opportunities.

On the “Grants Page” at this website, I chose only the ones posted under the ReFORM section, which contains a disclaimer “funding contingent on appropriation” and the amount is (smaller than the others) only $6,800,000 — but distributed between fewer organizations.  One of them being the Ridge Project in Ohio, famous in that the father involved was incarcerated for sexual molestation of his wife’s brother.  Despite him being convicted and serving time for this, both husband and wife are now in FINE financial form with the assistance of millions of dollars of public funding under CFDA 93086 and running their curricula. Did I mention the religious backing of the individuals involved from the start?  And what’s with the federal government financially rewarding individuals who the State of Ohio incarcerated, or are they simply using each other?

Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility (ReFORM)
Organization City State Funding Amount
Mountain Comprehensive Care Center Presonburg KY $1,000,000
The Osborne Association, Inc. Bronx NY $1,300,000
The RIDGE Project, Inc. McClure OH $1,500,000
Washington State Department of Corrections Tumwater WA $1,500,000
Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action, Inc. (KISRA) Dunbar WV $1,500,000
Total Award Amount $6,800,000

1Funding contingent upon annual appropriation.
[= circular link — leads back to the same page]

I would like to note that the section of grants allocated to “Responsible Fatherhood” on the same page includes more than one directly to a government entity.

By now anyone reading or following this blog with some regularity ought to be able to glance down a list of grantees and have a general idea which are government entities, and which are private corporations — or if not, know where to go to find out. And be inordinately curious about those pulling close to or over $1,000,000 grants — and what is the history of their involvement in the field, and what is the corporate- and tax-filing history for that entity, too. Any and all such information certainly won’t hurt, and might just start making one a local, community resource, on government financing AND publicizing to the public, what’s being done with public funds.

For example, how hard would it have been for HHS/ACF/OFA here to have posted grant numbers, or a link to TAGGS.hhs.gov and any instructions on how to locate hard evidence on the actual grants they are publicizing, not just the grantees? SOMEONE knows, and if anyone knows, it ought to be an HHS employee who is putting together this information, and Program Office heads at OFA, or whoever decides what goes onto these web pages. Whoever is making these decisions is NOT taking “provide relevant information to taxpayers” into account, clearly, other than a few gestures at so doing. QUESTION: WHY do these tables not come with links, and more basic information?

Milwaukee County Department of Child Support Services Milwaukee WI $2,000,000

Interesting. https://hmrf.acf.hhs.gov.  “HM/RF” Is characterized as two separate things, but in practice, it’s ONE Category of Federal Domestic Assistance (“93086”) which should tell us something important — we are not supposed to be able to run an HHS grants report separating HM from RF.

“HMRF” you can see from that link, is actually simply part of a url on a website run by HHS “OpDiv” of ACF and “Program Office” of “OFA” (Office of Family Assistance.  For a translation of significance — they handle welfare grants, block grants to states for “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families,” a.k.a. “TANF.”  Another translation of this, in general, is the OFA administers “BIG BUCKS.”  I wonder if some future year, this may then read HMRFR for “Healthy Marriage ~ Responsible Fatherhood ~ Reentry” all “holistically” under one OpDiv and CFDA — or whether the Re-Entry (previously a little more “below-the-radar” as part of fatherhood-focused grants) — will be spun off (as nonprofits do) into a separate funding stream. which can then be expanded.

Take a look at the webpage:Home-HMRF-National ReEntryWeek Apr 24-30, 2016 displayed (<== pdf, but better yet, just visit the page.  It shows three photos of happy families:  Dad, Mom, and children hugging and smiling.  What it doesn’t show, and is closer to the reality — many of these “families” are in fact, divorced or living separately households, and some of the men have a history of domestic violence or other serious criminal behavior, even if that’s not what the current incarceration was for.

This is quoting Red Herring Alert post quoting (?) on the HHS grants program.  Watch the language when it describes WHO or WHAT is funded.  Certain words are used, but for sure you do not see any helpful information to the public on just what to search — over at TAGGS.hhs.gov — (or that TAGGS.hhs.gov even exists…) if they might like to see a real live one’s record of grants received and who-all was involved:

THE SOLE REASONS that children are being stolen from their families and homes are the financial incentives associated with each child and circumstance. There is federal grant money given to states and child placement agencies to CREATE SITUATIONS THAT DO NOT EXIST TO GENERATE THESE FUNDS!

Again, I feel uncomfortable with this level of over-broad generalization, but I’m not disagreeing with it. To claim a “SOLE” reason would require to rule out other reasons.


The Office of Family Assistance (OFA)  administers several key federal grant programs, including the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood  Grants. These programs foster economically secure households and communities for the well-being and long-term success of children and families.


Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Program Overview

The Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Grant Program (HMRE) is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) efforts to promote healthy marriage at the community level.  The Healthy Marriage Program funds organizations that combine marriage and relationship education efforts with a robust effort to address participation barriers and the economic stability needs of their participants.## The programs directly, or through the affiliates or partners with which they are collaborating, have a physical presence in a community, city, or county where services are provided.

Verbatim, it tells us (all we need to do is comprehend the meaning):  “The Healthy Marriage Program funds ORGANIZATIONS.” — first of all, the people’s tax revenues fund the federal government.  NOT all of it — there are plenty of investment dividends and returns throughout the system (for more on that, read CAFRs and Walter Burien or Carl Herman (or me at Cold Hard Facts or SOMEONE who will (a) show you the consolidated annual financial statements and insist that you stick your nose/s into them, and put your eyes in front of them before making further assertions about budget deficits) and (b) get yourself up to speed on the actual income-producing assets, and business enterprises the federal government — that means ALL of its agencies — is actually into).  My first ten posts has plenty of leads and links on this to that type of information.

As these taxes and federal receipts continue coming in from the fruits of our labor (so to speak) and filing (including COURT filing) fees, people are run THROUGH the social services system just like any manufacturing enterprise:  Inputs, costs, overhead, capital expenses, operating expenses, losses, and write-offs, and OUTPUTS.  And these courts have indeed been called “out-come based” and “problemsolving” courts.

So the “Healthy Marriage Program” (which is not a legal entity or government one — HHS, however, is and its Operating Divisions are — government entities) doesn’t fund anything it doesn’t bill the public for through Congressional Appropriations — or take other donations for in different forms as well.   Don’t let public relations / promotional language obscure the larger situation:  We are being taxed allegedly for the purpose of providing services — and there’s a lot more of “US” than of government entities, that is a VERY large and diverse tax base!

I do not know what proportion of human beings (citizens or others with work permits) work within the thousands (well over 100,000) of government entities, but I seriously doubt it’s the majority of the population).

This sentence “The Healthy Marriage Program funds organizations that combine marriage and relationship education efforts with a robust effort to address participation barriers and the economic stability needs of their participants” is pretty vague.  It alludes to “participation barriers.” it might mean to work, but more likely (I’m here to say) it refers to “in their minor offspring’s lives” and is a reference to the custody situations.  

However, it’s not really helpful information — it’s advertising for continued promotion of these programs as “the good guys” in life.  If all the funds were appropriated, and expended, and HHS put up NO “This is what we, the good guys, are doing, that’s good to help Moms, Dads, and the public, and healthy positive values institutions like marriage, parenting, economic stability and overcoming BAD things like “Barriers to participation.”


New Pathways for Fathers and Families Grant Program Overview

The New Pathways for Fathers and Families Grant Program (New Pathways) is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) efforts to support responsible fatherhood. The New Pathways program funds projects that integrate robust economic stability services, healthy marriage activities, and activities designed to foster responsible parenting.

This is a picture of a father building a model car with his son.New Pathways programs provide services to promote responsible parenting (e.g., promoting positive father-child engagement, counseling, mentoring, and mediation; teaching parenting skills); to foster economic stability (e.g., job training, employment services, and career-advancing education); and to promote or sustain marriage (e.g., enhancing relationship skills; education regarding how to control aggressive behavior; disseminating information on the causes of domestic violence and child abuse)

New Pathways grantees must concurrently implement all three Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Authorized Activities (Healthy Marriage, Responsible Parenting, and Economic Stability).  All New Pathways programs are required to offer all three activities:

This morning on my cell phone, I looked for some links, and descriptions of these programs at “fatherhood.gov” which is the “National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse” (itself an HHS-funded operation, I’ve posted on it before, see the Table of Contents herein):

 (that little “17” — see site — refers to (only) 17 “Google+ likes” on the social media icons on the page:  facebook, twitter, etc.

Please click for access to the updated Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education FAQs.

Please click for access to the updated New Pathways for Fathers and Families FAQs.

Please click for access to the updated Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility FAQs.

UPDATE: OFA is pleased to announce that the FY 2015 Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood funding opportunity announcements (FOA) are published. CORRECTION ANNOUNCEMENT included for (HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FO-0992).

ORIGINAL ANNOUNCEMENT: OFA is pleased to announce that the FY 2015 Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood funding opportunity announcements (FOA) are published. For more information on the FOAs and application kits, please go to www.grants.gov.

FOA is “Funding Opportunity Announcement.”  What’s odd about this — if one goes to “Fatherhood.gov” there’s no direct, sequence of following the menus, that would get you to this page.  I had to literally know the program names search, then search them on Google (or, I could’ve browsed “Grants.gov”), and then found them on this website.  here’s the rest of this page which gives a sequence of letters (HHS-OFA) and other letters and numbers which I THINK probably translated into Award numbers, and may be searchable (now that these programs have actually started) on TAGGS.hhs.gov.  I”m certainly going to look before I finish this post!):

Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Grants
Funding Opportunity Number: HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FM-0985
Current Closing Date: July 7, 2015

New Pathways for Fathers and Families
Funding Opportunity Number: HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FK-0993
Current Closing Date: July 7, 2015

Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility
Funding Opportunity Number: HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FO-0992
Current Closing Date: July 7, 2015
CORRECTION: The following correction applies to the Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility (ReFORM) (HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FO-0992) FOA ONLY:
“Page 13 of the Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility (ReFORM) incorrectly lists the Anticipated Project Start Date as 10/30/15. The correct Start Dates for all FOAs is 9/30/2015.

National Center for Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education
Funding Opportunity Number: HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FH-0990
Current Closing Date: July 7, 2015

Now I want to point out a few other groups and people that are circulating the availability of these grants.  I searched the phrase “UPDATE: The Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood FOA FAQs have been updated”

The posting was only made for a two-month period before “closing date” so to get them, you had to be aware they existed in the first place, and go for them quickly…..

  • The NFRC site above was at “Fatherhood.gov
  • Bill Coffin (now retired) posted them on June 30: If you read my blog earlier years, (searchable still), I reported on some of his positioning as HHS employee, in promoting marriage curricula and nonprofits that wanted to line up and get grants to help them distribute (run the curricula).  For example (brief search, currently), you should know as a matter of general background on this grants series (in general –I mean, since 1996)….
    • Some information on “Who is Bill Coffin, and why would he forward that post?” below.

Obviously the next three all branch off of one main URL starting with “HMRF” which (see logo above) by now, you should know what it refers to.  Odd that I couldn’t back up just one link and see all three of them on the page “Update the healthy Marriage…” page.  Each of these pages (as of today) had only the grant title, underneath it, the category (“Update” phrase), link to a “pdf” file, a “SHARE THIS LINK” and no other description on the main part of the page.  Two links to the right (unchanging for all three) are more generalized information, and more in the footer info.

Information from GRANTS.gov tells the total amount of the funding opportunity and the bottom and top limits of individual grants, as well as when was it posted ,who can apply, and other information I think the public ought to know, and think about.  It’s a Presidential Election Year.  Perhaps we can get one of the (remaining) candidates to talk about this, in public?

  • HEALTHY MARRIAGE Grants.gov View Opportunity Page (to find others, search the “funding opportunity number” which is hyphenated, shown above for each one).  I couldn’t get the full page to a visual image; you’re best off clicking, but the format will look (first page of 3 from print-to-pdf, anyhow) approximately like this:

View Opportunity | GRANTS.GOV %22HMRE%22 FOA %22HHS-2015-ACF-OFA-FM-0985%22 ($53Total, $2Mtop:$350Kfloor)PAGE 1 of 3

Posted Date: May 08, 2015
Last Updated Date: May 08, 2015
Original Closing Date for Applications: Jul 07, 2015 Electronically submitted applications must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m., ET, on the listed application due date.
Current Closing Date for Applications: Jul 07, 2015   Electronically submitted applications must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m., ET, on the listed application due date.
Archive Date: Aug 06, 2015
Estimated Total Program Funding: $53,846,875
Award Ceiling: $2,000,000
Award Floor: $350,000

Who is Eligible to get these?  See link above, or as it says below, which is from that link

  • {{except the smart-ass bulleted comments which I added}}
Eligible Applicants:
Nonprofits that do not have a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education
  • {{and nonprofits that DO have a 501©3 status, see below}}
  • {{and Private institutions of higher education, see below}}

For profit organizations other than small businesses

  • {{but — see below, small businesses also}}

County governments
State governments
Public and State controlled institutions of higher education
Public housing authorities/Indian housing authorities
Private institutions of higher education
Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS, other than institutions of higher education
Small businesses
Native American tribal governments (Federally recognized)
Native American tribal organizations (other than Federally recognized tribal governments)
City or township governments
Independent school districts
Special district governments

Additional Information on Eligibility: Faith-based and community organizations that meet the eligibility requirements are eligible to receive awards under this funding opportunity announcement.** Faith-based organizations are encouraged to review the ACF Policy on Grants to Faith-Based Organizations at: http: //www.acf.hhs.gov/acf-policy-on-grants-to-faith-based-organizations.*** Applications from individuals (including sole proprietorships) and foreign entities are not eligible and will be disqualified from competitive review and from funding under this announcement.

***Faith-based organizations are going to be nonprofit organizations. In fact, about the only type of entity which cannot receive these grants is the corporate “person” whose federal tax identification number occurs as a Social Security Number, and not an “EIN#”…

***Almost unbelievably, this ACF link to faith-based organizations (and making zero mention of tax-exempt status with the IRS, i.e., is it literally, a church or organization which doesn’t even have to file Form 990s, which historically some very powerful organizations ARE).  I know from prior checks that HHS does give millions of dollars to church and religious-exempt organizations (see some of the Nine “VolAgs” for starters).  So here’s that coaching, rhetoric:

***The American people have long shown their considerable compassion and generosity through a broad range of community-based entities, including a diverse group of faith-based organizations.  Faith-based groups provide critical human services, and, in emergencies, they consistently stand shoulder-to-shoulder with government in the first line of response.  Our nation is stronger for their work.

As a result of the considerable capabilities of faith-based organizations, the federal government frequently provides grants or contracts to them to carry out needed services.  For the Administration for Children and Families in HHS, faith-based organizations have long been and will continue to be partners in our work.

We are mindful that some potential grantees may have religious objections to providing certain kinds of services, including referrals.  This administration is committed to providing the full range of legally permissible services to people who need them, and to doing so in a timely fashion and in a manner that respects the diverse religious and cultural backgrounds of those we serve.  At the same time, we also are committed to finding ways for organizations to partner with us even if they object to providing specific services on religious grounds.

The following are ways in which organizations with such objections may be able to participate in human services programs:

Who got these grants, from this program, so far?  Searching “90FM0985” (the digits “90” appear on most of these HMRF grants, so I tried that), not selecting on any year, or anything else, I came up BLANK.  No results.  Has this grant been awarded and distributed yet (or that it has been distributed acknowledge by the people who upload data to HHS) now July 8 – almost May 9 = NINE months after the application date for it closed?  Without the name of awardees, how could we find it?

I did a search for 2015 (only) of all grants named “90FM” (and no other digits) — and came up with a total of $53,428,354 and 77 “awards” (each line item).THIS is the Link (HHS now generates links for any search results.  IF you go back and use that link again, however and the uploaded data has changed, the results may be different.  It is a “saved search” in that it saves your Columns and Filters –= not the actual number produced on a specific date.).   Of this $53.4M and 77 awards, I then clicked on “Sum of Awards” to sort from lowest to highest (recommended) and came up with the ENTIRE first page (maybe 25 rows) having a total NEGATIVE sum of ($533,963) which I also checked by cellphone calculator (not hard, as many awards were just “$0”).  RAMIFICATIONS — about ½ million (almost $600M) of adjustments are being made, apparently, meaning someone is correcting errors, or overfunding to the grantees is possibly occurring, and having it refunded? to the HHS?

These “90FM_ _ _ _ ” award numbers throughout Fiscal Year 2015 were of course all “93086” and HMRF (CFDA # and CFDA Title). Incidentally, I checked the new “Metro/Non-Metro” option (very recent development) and ALL of these were Metro.  Since I’ve just told you this (and it can be re-checked), I then omitted that column in this next same “Select” filter, but fewer columns to display) search.  I sorted them highest to lowest, and below are those grants for “Fiscal Year 2015.”  Keep in mind that among the “lowest” some of the same grantee may also show up with a negative value in the “Sum of Awards.” This time it (inexplicably) generated a url of 870 letters, which I took over to TINYURL.com to get this one of only 26 letters;  http://tinyurl.com/hbog3mx

This table represents every Award over $1,000.00. I’d like to point out that just a few rows below the cutoff line was “Santa Barbara (that’s in Calif) Family Services Agency” as well:

Data Fiscal Year: 2015
Award Number: 90FM
Report Total: $53,428,354
Distinct Award Count: 77
Fiscal Year
Recipient Name
Rec State
DUNS Number
Award Number
Award Title
Budget Year
Action Issue Date
Principal Investigator
Sum of Actions
Sort Order Descending
2015 NEPPERHAN COMMUNITY CENTER, INC NY 098484595 90FM0098 Lower Hudson Valley Healthy Families and Relationships Intiative 1 9/29/2015 JIM BOSTIC $2,000,000
2015 FAMILY BRIDGES IL 962377003 90FM0071 Family Bridges – Deep Roots, Long Branches 1 9/29/2015 ALICIA LA HOZ $2,000,000
2015 AVANCE, INC TX 111977539 90FM0086 Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Grants 1 9/29/2015 JOSE VILLARREAL $2,000,000
2015 PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC OK 869106179 90FM0064 Family Expectations 1 9/29/2015 SAM CRAVENS $2,000,000
2015 AUBURN UNIVERSITY AL 066470972 90FM0082 Alabama Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Initiative (AHMREI) 1 9/29/2015 F M ADLER-BAEDER $1,999,874
2015 The Center for Relationship Education CO 137401704 90FM0089 The Healthy Marriage Project 1 9/29/2015 ENRICO FIGUEROA $1,999,500
2015 U.S Committee for Refugees and Immigrants DC 075198242 90FM0092 Refugee Marriage Strengthening Program: To Help Refugees and Immigrants Build and Sustain Healthy Relationships and Marriages 1 9/29/2015 ANNA SIEGEL $1,988,911
2015 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, KANSAS CITY MO 153890272 90FM0080 Show Me Healthy Marriages and Relationships (SMHMR) 1 9/29/2015 CRAIG DAVID $1,947,375
2015 UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA FL 150805653 90FM0078 Project Harmony 1 9/29/2015 MICHELLE ROSENBAUM $1,925,524
2015 More Than Conquerors Inc GA 141833140 90FM0103 Marriage Appreciation Training Uplifting Relationship Education ( MATURE Plus II) 1 9/30/2015 PHILLIPPIA FAUST $1,868,395
2015 UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA GA 619003127 90FM0081 The Integration of Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education into Family and Children Services: A Campus-Community Partnership 1 9/29/2015 LASHANA LEE $1,659,362
2015 CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER NY 148968261 90FM0084 Thriving Family Program of Wayne County 1 9/29/2015 PETER DOHR $1,658,429
2015 PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE CA 128663390 90FM0090 Healthy Relationships and Economic Security for California’s Central Valley Youth 1 9/29/2015 TAMAR DORFMAN $1,546,788
2015 VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY VA 003137015 90FM0077 TOGETHER: A couples’ model to enhance relationship and economic stability 1 9/29/2015 MARIANA FALCONIER $1,499,231
2015 Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee, FL 795256627 90FM0070 Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education 1 9/29/2015 ROSE CHAPMAN $1,480,654
2015 CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL, INC. FL 620321521 90FM0088 Positive Parenting Partnership. 1 9/29/2015 BRIAN MCEWEN $1,420,059
2015 Parenting Center (The) TX 115982415 90FM0073 Empowering Families Project – Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education 1 9/29/2015 PAUL GRAVLEY $1,380,540
2015 CHILDRENS HARBOR FL 059727433 90FM0069 TRUE NORTH- Forging Pathways to Healthy Relationships & Economic Stability 1 9/29/2015 ELIZABETH WYNTER $1,032,412

Several of these I recognize (especially those highlit in yellow, not that I’m discussing them on this post), some are new.  Obviously More than Conquerors, Inc.” will have something of a Bible-belt appeal.

Click “Grantee” there to see that their grants started at $600K+ in 2010 and quickly went up to Million-Dollar levels, that they include Abstinence Education, and that the street address is 1268 Mannbrook Drive STONE MOUNTAIN, GA 30083 and it is classified as an “educational Organization.”

I could look it up (and being curious, am about to), but the point is — WHO is looking ALL of them up, among the general public?  Put another way, WHAT churches and nonprofits AND universities and possibly government entities IN YOUR AREA are taking federal grants to push marriage, discourage divorce, and in general give people who do divorce, a hard time about it?  Put this together with the religious domestic violence that we (and I) absolutely do know is occurring — wife-beating, church folk know about it, church folk, looking to their leaders, also often do nothing about it.  Bye-byethat support system for any woman and mother who dares to stand up to it on her own!  Hang around, and expect to get lectured, perhaps, on fighting for the relationship; go church-hopping (not recommended) and regardless of faithful years, and Bible literacy, ethical character, or etc., be viewed with skepticism and suspicion for being single — and possible threat to the status quo (as so many churches, particularly in among the Protestants, are still competing against other sects/denominations etc. for “clientele.”   ….

Search Again

MORE THAN CONQUERORS INC GA 2014 990 20 $1,790,144.00 15-8211626
MORE THAN CONQUERORS INC GA 2013 990 30 $1,375,301.00 58-2116261
MORE THAN CONQUERORS INC GA 2012 990 30 $1,077,563.00 58-2116261
More Than Conquerors Inc. GA 2011 990 26 $1,273,047.00 58-2116261

I just searched only the EIN# 15-8211626 at the same website and came up ONLY with the top row as shown above.  I then went to the IRS “Exempt Organization Select Check” and clicked the first of three buttons “ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS,” copying in the same EIN#, and came up with a blank — this EIN# is NOT listed with the IRS as eligible to receive tax returns (and I’m checking on May 2, 2016) YET the above tax return represents a fiscal year ended 12/31/2014 and $2.1M of “Government grants” received anyhow.

I then clicked in the other EIN# on the same IRS site (above) and came up with Eligibility Status “PF” which stands for “Private Foundation” in Conyers (not “Stone Mountain”) Georgia.  However, as you can see, the above filings are Form 990s, not Form 990-PF.  Here are the IRS results:

Results Per Page « Prev | 1-1 | Next »
EINSorted Ascending Legal Name (Doing Business As)Sorted Ascending CitySorted Ascending StateSorted Ascending CountrySorted Ascending Deductibility StatusSorted Ascending
58-2116261 More Than Conquerors Inc. Conyers GA United States PF

Oh my goodness, this organization (website “WWW.MTCIGA.ORG” per the 2014 return, above) is “something else…”

Oh my goodness, this organization (website “WWW.MTCIGA.ORG” per the 2014 return, above).

Under the link “Media” The PSA for “Fatherhood” are two Youtubes, bottom left and bottom right.  Neither one mentions mothers; they are titled: MTCI’s PSA:  Father a Generation (showing a man) and on the right (showing a young woman in a padded chair wearing a T-shirt labeled “FUN”) Positive Parenting Month Testimonial.” If you start the video, it then displays “MTCI’s Mature Plus Program Presents…”  She is in her senior year of high school.

The PSA Fatherhood” has a brief (under 2-minute) close-up video of a man talking to his adolescent son, headshots only.  At the end, it zooms out and shows the father in prison stripes, his visiting session over and this, voiceover, “A father’s presence should be felt regardless of where he is.  Instead of a fatherless generation, let’s father a generation.

This organization (per its tax returns) says it has been around since 1989, and it took me less than 5 minutes to find major reporting oversight (error) in, so far, TWO categories — no program service revenues were reported, but ALL program service accomplishments (page 2) show operating at a profit, which represents program service revenues!  (second quote below) And, the Part VIIA paid people (only three) totaled about $250K in salaries (plus benefits) — yet in the corresponding section of Part IX, Expenses (line 5), only “$50K” (roughly) shows.

Good grief! And they are almost exclusively dependent on government grants, too.


*(sic — “Consistent”)

Part III (on second page), “Program Service Accomplishments” shows three activities, for all activities Revenues exceeded Expenses — but this isn’t shown on Part I, Line IX, or in Part VIII, Line 2, where this type of information belongs.

==== I see this is another post and accordingly have removed that discussion =====


The topic, again, is:

…to point out a few other groups and people that are circulating the availability of these grants.  I searched the phrase “UPDATE: The Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood FOA FAQs have been updated”

An internet search pulled up, among other references to Bill Coffin (who I remember encountering previously in tracking some of the grantees),

Bill Coffin’s blog mentioned on http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/for-the-media/news/featured-blogs/index.aspx.

(Bill Coffin was a presenter here).

ill Coffin, the Special Assistant for Marriage Education, joined the Administration for Children and Families in Jan 2002. He is helping to orchestrate an important culture change, where those who marry will have better access to knowledge and skills to form and sustain a healthy marriage. In recognition of his work he was awarded the 2006 Smart Marriages Impact Award. Bill spent most of the previous 3 decades working for the Navy, initially on active duty and then as a civilian in the Navy’s Family Support Program Headquarters in DC. In addition, for two of those years, he served as the Marriage Preparation Coordinator for the Archdiocese of Washington and as a consultant to the U.S. Bishops Committee on Marriage and Family Life. He co-authored a book chapter on Preventive Interventions for Couples. He is also the author of “Marriage.gov” (2009) in H. Benson & S. Callan (Eds) What Works in Relationship Education? Lessons from Academics and Service Deliverers in the United States and Europe . See http://www.relationshipeducation.info . He posts daily at http://go.usa.gov/lbL  Bill is a graduate of Fairfield University in CT and has two master’s degrees, one in Human Relations, and one in Counseling. Bill and Pat have been married for 41 years. They have four children and six grandchildren. [back to top]

“Fairfield University is a Jesuit, Catholic university in mission and spirit.” (https://www.fairfield.edu)

My 10/9/2011 post “70 Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Grantees (Series “90FM”) (and why Let’s Get Honest is NOT Amused).

That post is over-long from all its charts (over 20,000 words), but gives a good visual from TAGGS on some of the grantees (large ones, smaller ones) from five years ago, and related business entity filings.  It raises some important points, names some key groups (PAIRS Foundation in Florida), and shows a “Moonie” (Unification church loyal) employee of a healthy marriage group, among other things.  That’s relevant.  The Unification Church has been exposed over time, including around the time its leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, as an international money-laundering cult engaging in the use of front (shell) groups to raise funds, and there’s a LOT more involved in the healthy marriage movement through USA HHS and right-wing politics (and religion) that might be actually tracked back to the same collectivist,. anti-individualism (including anti-individual RIGHTS as citizens) mentality coursing through our government at this time.  I have some material on this on my right sidebar, some About pages, and some “Vital Links.”  Just FYI.

I showed the already obvious at the time, problem with many of the grantees (especially two LARGE ones in California, “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” and “Sacramento Healthy Marriage Coalition” (or similar names) and how one of the involved people (Dennis J. Stoica) then showed up cross-country in FLORIDA registering an outfit (501©3 called “NARME” (National Association of Relationship and Marriage  Educators) which conferenced and coached each other on how to get the HHS grants.  This next section references BILL COFFIN in association with this. (I marked the quote with the aqua blue background color between two horizontal lines.  No doubt some links will have expired).  I noticed that an AFCC conference presentation was referenced on this post, the year being 2007.

(Top of the post, my sentiments in October 2011) (Five years after both children were stolen by the other parent on an overnight court-ordered visitation, and not too long after both children had reached the age of majority in a father-AND-mother-absent household due to abandonment by this particular IRresponsible father benefitting, no doubt, from the favorable climate towards ALL fathers when an opportunity presented itself to keep the court case churning and the child support case open also….)

“After an exhausting, bloodhound-trail-following attempt to get the “REAL” California Healthy Marriage Coalition” (complete with whoever is running it) to Please Stand Up (on-line, in the form of a historically coherent, traceable set of incorporations, nonprofit registrations, and if I”m lucky, even 990s filed on-line), I determined to post the entire list, and talk about some of them.  ….Moreover, when scrutinized, the financial — business – profit is actually going to any company that has developed a marketable curriculum.  This is not only in the form of money, but also in the form of reputation, and anything that would help them keep their place in line for more federally-sponsored business promotion.  Meanwhile, one or both of the parties being forced or induced to consume their material — or divorce in front of judges who believe they should, and have some stake in some of those nonprofits or for-profits — are most likely losing finances and reputation.

In that regard, these guys put AFCC to shame. AFCC markets quit a bit of its own material, including the usual Conference CDS, DVDs) including BOOKS — and does this through mandated participation via family law system.  But I think they have to work a little harder at keeping it going — in other words, it takes a court order to force someone in front of a parent educator, parent coordinator (unless they can be induced to do so voluntarily under duress) and into a parent education classes aimed at a 5th grade mentality and taking up one’s dwindling resource of TIME.

But it does NOT take a court order for the manufacturers of a marriage curriculum to get their local pastors, priests, and the occasional rabbi or imam,* to (1) form a corporation with profits anticipated and grants to set it up and (2) set up a website soliciting business, after they understand of course that step one is to join a coalition and then buy into being trained to market membership in the same corporation.  Brilliant.  Of course, AFCC’s preparatory work in wearing down couples and pushing for legislation, and forming associations to endorse each other’s policies while pretending independence, is going to be helpful overall publicity….

(no relation, but interesting reference:  I.M.A.M. organization, incl points 1& 2 out of 5:)

  1. To be a central resource for the Shia Muslims in North America and their religious and spiritual leadership (Marja’iyyah) in all that pertains to matters of their religion and beliefs away from any political or party influence.
  2. To organize matters of the Shia Muslims in North America in relevant areas such as worship, marriage, divorce, wills, inheritance, or other religious legal matters.

No, if we want to eradicate poverty in this country we should teach someone to set up a corporation selling healthy marriage curriculum, and trying to persuade teenagers not to have sex.  We are not likely to run out of sexually active teens (or for that matter, mature adults) and I don’t think divorce is going anywhere — so there is definitely a market niche.  Too bad some us didn’t get in on it in the 1980s, but judging by the 1990s and 2000s, there’s hope for newcomers if they buy in, imitate the business model, and don’t rock the boat.

Ideally, this curriculum should be completely self-promoting and self-executing by internet download.  That way, more is left over from the grants gotten to promote it — not including whatever is lost in the black hole of “No accountability,” several of which are showing up, the closer one looks.

The names of this curriculum tend to run in cutesy-sounding acronyms, one summary of which shows up here:

MMLLoveU2(tr), PREPPREPARE/ENRICH, “PAIRS” (and so forth), plus a whole variety of BootCamps

MML — “Mastering the Mysteries of Love”; PAIRS – “Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills, PREP – “Prevention and Relation Education Program

(link shows that PREP is hoping to adapt a version for Muslim Couples, working with a group in Qatar).

[several inches down on the post….]
…Try it now (takes a few seconds) — Please!   Then, from “foundationfinder” look at their 2006 IRS 990 form:  Executive Director Carolyn Curtis drew a moderate salary of $32,731,”  plus obviously also the $7K she got with Mr. Stoica under the other group.    …..

Pause to update a broken link and show, judging by the EIN# at the “2006 IRS” link, this now refers to an organization (formed in 2004, it says) “Relationship Skills” with the website “Skillscenter.org. They claim 74 employees, but in the small (8-person) board of directors (Part VIIA) only one person — an executive director — is paid $70K (“Erin Stone”). Of the $823.3K “gross receipts” the top year shown (mostly contributions and grants) fully $798.8K were “government grants.”

Search Again

RELATIONSHIP SKILLS CENTER CA 2014 990 22 $167,291.00 13-4280316
RELATIONSHIP SKILLS CENTER CA 2013 990 21 $113,760.00 13-4280316
Relationship Skills Center CA 2012 990 21 $135,065.00 13-4280316
I checked the Secretary of State on this corporation name (again in April, 2016) and came up with two “dissolved” corporations. DISSOLVED, incidentally, means intentionally by the owners (with permission from the state authorities) and not “Suspended” or “Forfeited” status.  So the suspending of corporation status was intentional on part of ownership).

Results of search for ” RELATIONSHIP SKILLS ” returned 2 entity records.  (from “KEPLER.sos.ca.gov” I didn’t add the usual tan/brown coloring:

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

Modify Search

 OK, how about its status with the California Registry of Charitable Trusts? Here’s that search site (use EIN# of Entity# minus the “C” to search). (This actually was just a name search):
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
RELATIONSHIP SKILLS CENTER 130981 Charity Dissolution Pending SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
Relationship Skills Center EIN 134280316, RRF-1 2009 (2pp)
<==RRF-1 2009-49 (Same thing as a pdf, clickable).  See page 2 which shows another (California Healthy Marriages)  HHS grantee donating $50K to it.  At this time it was called “Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project.”  Below, we see that the permission to dissolve (OAG waives objections to dissolution) was a recently as March 2, 2016!

March2,2016 Calif. DOJ (OAG) waives Objex to %22Dissolution of Relationship Skills Center%22 (1pg)

{{I believe this link shows clearly the HHS connection, or at least one of them, to STOICA and HHS:  Bill Coffin promoting a Stoica Webinar on how to get ACF grants.  Bill self-describes as “
  • Bill Coffin
  • Working with NARME and CA Healthy Marriages Coalition on a part-time basis.
    Was Exec Dir of IDEALS (Jan-Aug 2011) [[Has links to these groups, too, based in PA & Kentucky]]
  • From 2002-10 I was the Special Assistant for Marriage Education at ACF/HHS
BILL also, in “MARRIAGE.GOV” summarizes the Healthy Marriage Movement with glowing descriptions of Wade Horn & George Bush
It should hardly surprise us that Mr. Coffin is also found presenting at AFCC (Washington, D.C.) in 2007:

14. Marriage Skills Education and the Courts

Saving marriages was once a goal of family courts, but was de- emphasized amid all the other problems courts address. Recent developments in relationship skills education offer new hope for improving marriages. Meanwhile, there are increasing demands to do something to reduce the damage to parents and children in fam- ily separation. Can courts not just mitigate the effects of family breakdown, but also help reduce it? First, they must study what works, and carefully adapt programs to the people they serve and to other real-world constraints.

Bill Coffin M.Ed., Special Assistant for Marriage Education, Administration for Children and Families, Washington, D.C.

John Crouch, J.D., Arlington, VA Fred J. DeJong, Ph.D., Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI

Dennis Stoica teaching a webinar on ACF grant announcements June 17 for NARME members

On Friday June 17 from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm (ET), NARME Board Member Dennis Stoica (President of California Healthy Marriages Coalition) will conduct a 90-minute webinar – for NARME Members only – comparing and contrasting the six different grant announcements which are scheduled to be released earlier that week.

GOOD GRIEF:  This is Fathers Day, 2011, and STOICA is, despite website, I’d lay a bet, NOT President of “California Healthy Marriages Coalition,” however if he by some stretch of the imagination still is involved with Patty Howell’s “Healthy Relationships California” group (which now owns the CHMC Fictitious Business Name), THAT group appears to be evading taxes.  They didn’t even send in $75 with their last registration, and failed to report contact information for which government grants they were getting!”   This 2011 announcement indicates that someone who claims to have been working for ACF from 2002-2010 is using (inside information?) to help this faith-based group get a heads-up on grants applications before they are announced.
The group NARME was formed in Florida (under STOICA) only in 2010; it is a membership group rejoicing at the diversion of TANF funds for abstinence education, etc.
Hundreds of organizations participated in a similar teleconference that Dennis conducted back in 2006 when the original Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Grants were released; and many of those participants attributed their subsequent success in being awarded grants to a combination of that teleconference and the subsequent grant-writing tele-trainings that Dennis conducted during that year’s grant-writing period.  Since this webinar will only be offered to NARME members, if you have not yet joined NARME you should do that right away by going tohttp://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=881238.
ANOTHER WEBSITE (don’t start bringing out the tomatoes to throw!  Just tell me why this site lists Stoica as “co-founder” of “EPISCOPAL CHURCH-OUR SAVIOR” (in Placerville, CA) and the employees just happen to match the CHMC employees!:  From SPOKE.com

Dennis Stoica People named Dennis Stoica

(April, 2016 click on that link brought up this quote):

Co-Founder at Episcopal Church-Our Saviour Company Address: Po Box 447 PlacervilleCa 96114

I don’t know about that “Episcopal Church/Stoica” connection referenced 5 years ago.  I do know about NARME.

This next 2003 article from “Womens E-News” mentions some of the key personnel in this marriage promo (as far back as then) and a paragraph under promoting marriage to welfare families, too, references Bill Coffin’s position at the time.  At the bottom are also two more links (resources in the promote-marriage/run the curricula network) — significant ones — followed by a few articles protesting the concept.   Mr. Coffin has been in the military, has been employed as a “Special Marriage Assistant” by HHS, and is noticeably Catholic, which is quite likely to influence his perspective on both marriage and divorce, I would say….

Next article though really old (13 years old) mentions some key programs and people still around, as well as the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.

Marriage-Ed Courses Sweeping College Campuses,” 8/31/2003 by Frances Whittlesley:

Ball State is one of a growing number of institutions of higher learning that have added academic courses on marriage. A list compiled by Dr. Dennis Lowe, professor of psychology at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif., indicates that 49 colleges and universities now offer such courses. …

The trend is part of a broad national movement, led by the Bush administration with bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress, to try to lower the divorce rate and encourage people to marry.

Classes Offer ‘Road Map’ to Success

A young couple marrying today has a 40 percent lifetime risk of divorce, said Dr. Scott M. Stanley, a professor at the University of Denver and co-developer of one of the most widely used marriage education curricula, known as PREP, or the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program.

Proponents say their support of marriage classes is not motivated by moralistic criticism of divorce, extramarital cohabitation or gay relationships. They say that marriage skills are worth teaching simply because statistics show married people and their children to be healthier, happier and financially more secure than families split by divorce. “Whole families disintegrate with divorce and it affects generations of children,” said Diane Sollee, director of the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, in Washington, D.C., and organizer of the “7th Annual Smart Marriages/Happy Families Conference” in Reno, Nev., last June.

[the year is 2003, summer.  Do the math — she started this right after 1996 welfare reform. THE SAME YEAR, Battered Mothers Custody Conference started up, meeting regularly in New York, and until at least 2011, to the best of my awareness, said NOTHING significant about the existence of these programs or the federal funding.  That was a coverup, not an accidental omission….]

Federal Welfare Law to Fund More Marriage Promotion

Bill Coffin, special assistant for marriage education within the federal Administration for Children and Families, said that pending congressional welfare legislation could spur more colleges to add marriage-ed classes. If passed, that legislation would mean that $300 million was available for marriage promotion and education in a variety of venues, including colleges, high schools and even prisons, Coffin said.

Some colleges and universities, however, have been reluctant to add the courses, feeling they lack academic rigor, said John Wu, associate professor of psychology at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego and a co-moderator of a workshop at the June conference in Reno.

Some feminists, legal scholars and social scientists also view marriage promotion with suspicion, particularly as it applies to women on welfare.   (para. omitted) Linda C. McClain, professor of law at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., said the underlying premise is that poor people with better families won’t need so much government support. “Poor women marrying poor men is not the solution to poverty,” said McClain, an organizer of a marital-law conference at Hofstra last spring

That’s ironic; I just looked up McClain.  She’s now (since 2007) at Boston University,  majored in religion (at the same college I went to) with honors, then MDiv University of Chicago, then a JD cum laude at Georgetown School of Law (in D.C., affiliation, obviously, Catholic Jesuit), and lastly LLM at NYU.     She surely knew, regardless how feminist she was as a professor, of the Family Court Review being published jointly with AFCC at the Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law, where she was employed.   Per the C.V. at that link, this was probably that conference:

Intimate Affiliation and Democracy: Beyond Marriage?, 32 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW 379 (2003) (symposium) (was lead organizer of this symposium)

(I’d like to read this one!):

Federal Family Policy and Family Values from Clinton to Obama, 1992-2012 and Beyond, 2013 MICH. STATE. U. L. REV. 1621 (symposium issue)

More from the same article — because it references the Oklahoma situation.  Also (not posted here) look at the only three links provided at the end of the article.  I think this was basically a promotion piece for the Bush agenda, affecting a neutral tone and quoting one token feminist and one sociologist, perhaps to balance the overtly Christian personnel featured throughout the story.  Then at the end, the article posts a promo link to Stanley’s Prep and Sollee’s “Smartmarriages.org” conference.  Oh well!

Marriage Rallies’ on Oklahoma Campuses

When former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating decided in 1999 to put $10 million into a comprehensive marriage-education effort, he invited the Parrotts to take up residence in Oklahoma, for a fee of $250,000, and to hold “marriage rallies” at the state’s college campuses. Consultants had convinced state officials that cutting the divorce rate was a way to improve the economy.

The Parrotts, co-authors of “Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts,” spoke at more than 20 Oklahoma colleges, letting the students know, for example, that there’s a shift away from the “starry-eyed experience of dating” after marriage, according to Les Parrott. “We know from research that the man’s focus goes from wooing the woman to making a living,” he said, “but many times couples feel they married the wrong person because they don’t have the same passion they started with.”

One of the problems with campus marriage-education efforts, however, is that enrollment is “predominantly female,” according to Pepperdine’s Lowe

Footnote “Unethicallly or Illegally Obtained for Fun and Profit through Targeting Specific Individuals”..

This is one reason I’m more often on this blog looking at “who funded, and how did those funded behave after receipt of funds” which gets into tax returns.  These are character indicators on how the charitable organization (often) grantee taking the funds, and the charitable (or federal agency/government entity) view the public at large.  In other words, do they believe the public will ever read those tax returns, and if so, telling the truth on them, or even filling them out with a bit of professionalism, take place? Too many times, the overall quality of 501©3 reporting is basically “up yours” — “who’s to ever find out, and if so, who’ll ever do anything about it?” — and particularly in this field of healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood, it’s just about predictable.  I cannot show all this on one post, or even a few posts, but I have been showing it and encourage readers to look for themselves. Maybe take a break from” the causes” and focus on “the accounting” and see what you find!

It’s not just that such things are more objective indicators than “he said/she said.” It’s also that IF and WHEN one finds patterns of consistent mis-representation (a.k.a. LYING), that alone is an indicator of something significantly wrong with the entire process – -not just the individual report, or grantee.

As you may deduce, I am also rejecting the “social science” or “psychological” indicators based on the professions themselves (both tie so closely into government resources and are actually used to justify government policy, when it’s government policy being questioned, a debate on legitimacy cannot be one on those terms.  For every demographic study of the effects of one policy on certain demographics, there are, or could be, countering study coming to the opposite results.  How this is maneuvered around is coordinated control of the funding resources both to frame the question, pay the researchers, pay the evaluators, and pay the people who publish the results.  Unless the public is at least reasonably aware of who (which networks) is paying whom, than the public is, essentially, defenseless against ONGOING social science or psychological studies targeting certain demographics to justify interventions for the same.  If you don’t get this yet, read or re-read the “Dumpster Diving in the Credibility Gap” post from earlier this year for some examples.

I’m well aware that accounting, too, can be framed pro- or con- pre-chosen ends (obviously, this is habitual too).  BUT, with disclaimers for the databases run by most government entities which post such disclaimers (HHS and others do this, state court docketing-line does this, Secretaries of State Business Entity Search websites do this — it’s a big issue), it’s still better, in my opinion, for example, when one source says “we distributed X Million to This Entity on This Date” and in a timespan encompassing ANY possible dates when the same entity might have received it, their tax return doesn’t show this — exactly what the “Dumpster Diving” post showed of, I believe it was, Washington State-based “Relationship Research Institute” associated with the Gottmans, who are famous in the Marriage/Relationship research field!  I then showed how another person on the same profit (who also had connections to — as I remember, but that’s just memory, double-check, recommended — GEORGIA) ended up positioned high on a California Statewide commission (or council) regarding programming for “Mental Health Services” (MHSOAC or similar acronym).

Something definitely ain’t right about all that.

So, as for ‘FOR FUN AND PROFIT” ….

To say this again, another way, from the custody perspective — and as I’ve been saying for years on-line and herein, and over the phone, and at times in person — it’s not always about YOU (or, me), MY case — it’s often about the resources associated with you (or your kids).  Stop focusing exclusively on “anecdotal information” and targeted local jurisdictions only.  The world no longer works this way… It also doesn’t build respect, or credibility in outsiders (non-eyewitnesses or participants) to listen to the excessively personal information, in fact, information overload, which lacks the larger scope and as it fits into the historical development of the family courts, nationwide.  Better to project or assume motives less, and document more.

In fact it may not be so much personal vendetta as imagined, it may be just cold decision, that the targeted individual is (or targeted individuals are) inbetween the aggressor and what the aggressor wants, typically money, for themselves and their companions,  and clear, unobstructed pathways to obtaining it.  It may also well be about seemingly unrelated activities said aggressors are involved in, which were unwittingly uncovered by one person reporting on ONE of those activities.  This is why being ignorant on what other actions, including legal actions and business investments, or businesses, are swirling around involved parties, is rarely irrelevant to the bigger picture, or failing to influence it.  A local court may be completely uninterested (“not our jurisdiction”) but if YOU are involved, you’d better darn well be informed about this.  Yes, that is a heck of a lot of work, and probably not billable hourly, either, or by project.   It may not fit into the average parents’ or person’s “leisure time” or “discretionary spending” budget.

All the more reason to get smarter, faster, about the larger picture and  useful vocabulary to talk about it in.  This “useful vocabulary” had better take into account the various cashflow and resources (income-producing, revenue-producing, or stockpiled) which exist in this country.

  • When said “individuals” also occupy professional-status occupations typically implying professional standards, and social status to go with it, but behave in this manner, there’s also the abuse-of-professional privilege situation.
  • See user name “Let’s Get Honest.”  There’s a reason for it (I have two lawyers in the family line, and I’ve been shocked at the casual nature of what appears to be deliberate mis-statements surrounding known situations….. A single one may seem innocent to outsiders, but a train of them over time, is not.  ….  I’ve been in family court AND other litigation over the years, and you’d think I don’t shock easily.  There’s always another level that can be obtained when it comes to malicious and false allegations (and I’m NOT talking DV here).
  • So, as a matter of habit, one thing to become sensitive to, in general, is chronic lying, either to the public, or to the courts (or, at times, to the police/law enforcement).  There are many things (for example, motive) a lot harder to pinpoint — but lying or speaking in chronically mis-leading, and/or vague terms, is not.

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: