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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Early Morning Intuitive on “The Larger Picture” (#1 of 3, Intro.)

leave a comment »

It’s taking too long (nearly a week, sometimes) to get out these posts. While I’d rather just do this as one long one — as I learned, I added the material, which has now resulted in 18,000 words. Splitting this into three posts seems fair enough — the alternative being, I shut up — so it is now partitioned. Some language in the middle may refer to “below” when it’s actually in another section, but for the content, the value is still delivered. I used the same tags are the same for all three.

Speaking of value delivered year after year free of charge, here’s myDonatebutton for those with the inclination and the wherewithal. It’s processed through PayPal, so any amount accepted. I’m not a 501©3 though, so don’t do it for tax exemption purposes…because it’s not tax-deductible.

I included some of the surrounding text from my appeal on the sidebar:

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be!

What I do here: I expose the Systems Design, and the Designers, so Y.O.U. can Show Others, and to notify those playing certain games, “you’ve been flagged.”

Heard of “disruptive technologies?” Disruptive innovations?  Well, this is a disruptive blog. I give people who’ve already been strung out and stripped down BY the system another place to stand and look at it, and a clear, fairly diagnostic language (vs. pretty logos and moving pictures) to describe it to others. AND, which many don’t do, I tell how I found the information; links databases and all.

Despite the blog’s appearance, I know what I’m doing! You’re looking at long-term leverage, in the hands of the “non-experts,” in the public interest, not public funded propaganda to drive business to private pockets. Hence, I’m not afraid to ask:

Donate Button with Credit Cards
The formula wasn’t complex, but the concept itself was just so devious insidious, parasitic, grandiose, and by now, so baked into the economic, institutional infrastructure, people either don’t notice, or, in a common, cowardly, but all too human response they see, and just start denying, or looking for nicer explanations of an ugly truth — where it’s heading, and for lack of nicer, but still honest terms, it’s heading towards yet more slavery (and tolerating it) and genocide (and tolerating it).

Thanks for any contributions to the cause…



The post has three major sectionsinstallments marked by titles of this size, alignment and color: each preceded by “Early Morning Intuitive on “The Larger Picture.”  This post is “Introduction,” then, the next will be:

Intermediate Section 

(TAGGS, FBOs, and Sex Prevention*) 

(a.k.a. “Abstinence Education”)

[And the last will actually be that “Early Morning Intuitive” writing]…and the one which inspired this post is the third (see below).  It started as a comment on a post over at Red Herring Alert, which had brought up things I report on, as well as progress of a case I’m also interested in for several reasons:  like how in the heck does an entire system, the family law system, whose self-declared leadership back in the 1970s emphasized new words and new practices to reduce the OLD language of criminal law in favor of the NEW language of behavioral health** — in order to rescue families, better, my dear— end up with multiple state-level, felony criminal prosecutions against one mother, another mother, and a married couple for actually helping protect children who had run away from, several say, an abusive situation?

**Check out that “Combating Divorce” link  which starts with a quote from parental-alienation-original Richard Gardner, M.D., or at least referencing him, followed by the sales pitch for “Collaborative Divorce” and Mediation — followed by the quote I was referencing above:  “new vs. old.”

In 1975, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Review Editor Meyer Elkin, editorialized on the language of family law:

“Why do we continue to use the language of criminal law in family law? Is it primarily tradition that causes us to continue to use the old words in family law? Or is it something else? Is it a reflection of the prevailing ambivalence of this society which, on the one hand, tells people that divorce is okay, but by its actions, or lack thereof, shows that many still do not accept the idea of divorce in a pair-oriented society? We need to develop new words that will alleviate stress on the divorcing family rather than add to stresses already present…. Family law is entering a new period. There is now present an opportunity for introducing new practices and procedures—and words that will represent the combined expertise of both law and the behavioral sciences who, after all, are equally concerned and have similar goals regarding the strengthening of the family. Lets us now start the search for the words.”

And in the 20th Anniversary issue (1983) of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Elkin commented on the ripple effect of transforming divorce from a battle into a process of healing and growth:

“Let all of us, in our own unique way, recommit ourselves to the search for the pebbles of change that can be cast into the social pond. Let us create a divorce process that recycles divorce pain into new patterns of personal and familial growth, which, in turn, will also strengthen our entire society. Let us protect our children from the unnecessary hazards of the divorce experience so that they, like their parents, can be strengthened by divorce rather than defeated by it. And let us never forget that if the lights go out in our children’s eyes, be they children of divorce or any other children, we will all live in darkness.”

What’s interesting — I found this by a straight Google search for Meyer Elkin’s 1975 speech.  However no link on the current menu of the fairly simple web page “divorcepeacemaking.com” leads to this page, or would alert the unaware that this individual has a high allegiance to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, as a “neutral” professional in the divorce field. Unless through exposure one knows the authors and noticed those on the Resources page as, largely AFCC also, i.e., Wallerstein, Kelly, Constance Ahrons, Philip Stahl, etc…

Yes, let’s get divorce away from the courtroom and into better and MUCH less scary-looking hands whose academic interests appeared to have been Germanic languages, apparently brilliant, but then(?) took a turn into a more guaranteed line of work — clinical psychology, educational psychology and counseling psychology in California’s State university system…====>

Carol R. Hughes, Ph.D., L.M.F.T., psychotherapist, in Laguna Hills, CA

And, rather than presenting evidence before merely a judge, why not get more paid professionals involved and let them work it out with divorcing couple?

Traditional Litigation — Courthouse and the couple below (“Subjected!” and the text says there are actually winners and losers, and it’s a battle);  Mediation, no judge and the couple on top (“You”l be in charge” and the text says the mediator is a neutral);Collaborative Divorce — the Gang’s all Here (images from same website FAQs page).

Each Parent has Divorce Coach & Attorney. “Family” has “Child Specialist” and “Neutral Financial Professional.” More accurately, this would have (3+3+2=)8 stick figures shown. The circle “Family” is emphasized, however more accurately it might read “Children” and have more figurines. What there really are more of is involved professionals — but no Judge. NO JUDGE and NOT IN COURT seems an overall goal, although most of one’s legal rights to due process, codes of evidence, the right to subpoena, etc. seems to exist when there IS a legal case.


What’s that about — reducing the competition in the “modern family rescue team” business– “No Parents Allowed!” ???



I’m starting to think the overall picture was to disarm and dilute prosecution of crime, in general, giving safe haven to certain kinds of crimes which are fairly unique to families.  (See also elimination of the seven prior causes of divorce — one of which included involvement in felonies — which “no-FAULT divorce” facilitated).   Redefining what is, and is not, a felony ???   Which brings me to the third section title:

Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture.

Which is below the other sections, the bottom “third” of this post of this series.

In between are several charts, tables, basic vocabulary, and how to tell an HHS “tell”  for consideration.  It’s called “Early Morning Intuitive” because that’s what it was.  I’d had a nearly sleepless night after another, recent, psychic shock, although its accusations as some of the others, were pure “schlock” and was almost absent-mindedly reviewing a recent Red Herring Alert post, and noticed it had mentioned the federal funding.  This being familiar territory, I just opened my mouth (sic) and went into what ended up being a nonstop narrative that pretty much distills the essence of (this blog, and the larger picture).  It came out at least coherent enough to preserve on a post, not comment alone.

Pretty much what’s in between is much more analytical, show-and-tell, and labored.  That doesn’t make it any less valid.

Show and Tell is important.  But, if you just want “Tell” for a change (not my style), scroll or page down to that bottom section, and hopefully your eyes may peripherally catch some of the substance in between, for example, that it’s time to for more people to get hands-on to TAGGS.HHS.Gov, start using it (with observation in the “on” position) and asking some intelligent questions about what they see there, and what they do NOT see there, and how it does (or does NOT) correspond to other sources of information on the same data.

One reason my posts tend to get so long as I am talking about things people tend NOT to talk about it, and doing so using terms and resources that are also typically under-utilized, and some, so broad and vague in their symbolic meaning (example:  “Fatherhood” “Marriage” “Faith-based Organizations” and anything labeled “_______ Prevention”) I feel it necessary to continue re-iterating what vocabulary might better describe how the entities (often government entities — here, a federal agency called “HHS” — actually are talking about — without really talking about it — if you know what I mean…

First of all, anything labeled XYZ “Prevention” (case in point in this post, having sex outside marriage, especially while a teenager) means running some programming, possibly developed originally by another organization already on the HHS grants stream, as a nonprofit or for-profit.  Case in point “Abstinence Education,” “The Center for Relationship Training” (Colorado) and it’s “WAIT Training” as well as a Stone Mountain, Georgia (?) FBO (Faith-Based Organization) called “More Than Conquerors, Inc.” whose most recent nearly $10M of funding and historic activity has centered around Abstinence Education — including using that WAIT Training Curriculum and targeting at-risk youth.  Meaning, typically, poor and/or of the darker-skinned ethnic backgrounds…

So, regarding some of these terms SHOULD you happen to stumble across the existence of $150M/year allocation (since 1996) and $10M allocation (since 1996) being run through HHS using such terms as “Fatherhood” “Marriage” “Faith-based Organizations,” and “_______ Prevention” including “family violence” or “child abuse” prevention, as well as good, positive words like “Healthy” and “Responsible” — know that:

There’s the intended meaning for the target audience — the bystanding public who IF they even hear about these social policies and programming, and the family courts as they exist now vis-a-vis diverting criminal prosecution of so-called “family/relationships” matters [[which what we used to mean by “domestic violence” or “child abuse” is rapidly becoming]] is supposed to feel great about all this when they file income taxes or deal with the IRS, or even thank their “lucky stars” (or God, or whomever, including perhaps their own wisdom in not having such crazy lifestyles?) that they aren’t facing some of the hellish circumstances some neighbors, or others heard about (on-line, in print, or locally/nationally) are, Grazzini-Rucki case in point, in which one family with young children is split into multiple pieces (including potentially some runaways, some in foster care, one or more pieces in jail or threatened with it) locked in chronic war with each other +conflicting stories about WHY from the presiding court-appointed professionals, and law enforcement and/or MSM contributing their insight and opinion on who’s the good guy and who’s the bad-guy and just how this ties into XYZ national problem….

….and then there’s the telegraphed meaning for those on the inside, participating program recipients, curricula providers, tax-exempt foundation backers, and I suppose potentially HHS employees** who thankfully, can routinely choose the same, or similar, organizations to distribute the largesse (grants) to THIS time. Many of these will be thanking their “lucky stars” (or God, or whomever, including perhaps their on sagacity in hooking up with, or forming 501©3s exempt from paying taxes on corporate revenues because they ARE the good guys (charitable service providers) — and these people know more directly what the symbolically, internationally, quasi-religious language actually means to their bottom line, conference circuits, write-offs, and social networking.   (**whether or not HHS employees feel this way, they at least currently have a job — and probably have a nice pension also….and health insurance, etc., and if they get laid off, some business connections in this field….)

So, this post is a continuation of a number of posts following up on just ONE more blogger starting to expose that there actually is an ongoing set of programs and grants by the US’s largest grant-making agency, HHS, the one that handles Congress-appropriate payments relating to: welfare (through “OFA” — the Office of Family Assistance) , foster care, adoptions, medicaid, helping the medical professions and universities who train doctors, health-based research, population demographics-based studies, did I mention mental health and psychiatric matters (and institutions), and as to the family court matters, child support enforcement (through “OCSE”)— which WILL affect the climate, conditions, and outcomes of divorce and custody matters where children are involved, and it also is impacting the outcomes of mothers, by gender specifically, who are reporting domestic violence in their marriages, or as a reason for separation, or afterwards.

THAT post was over at Red Herring Alert and featuring one thing, but packing an additional punch on the bottom half which might be missed if you don’t click and read the entire post.  You’d also miss my first comment on there, which I realized at the time, might be more appropriately posted than stuck on a comments field….on a rapidly-posting blog with a wider subject matter and ongoing narratives on a specific subset of criminal cases surrounding the Grazzini-Rucki family-court-jurisdiction nightmare.

Dakota County Commissioner Nancy Schoulweiler (see RHA post 4/26/2016)

<===”A call was made to Nancy Schouweiler, Dakota Co. Chair, Board of Commissioners on Monday, April 25, 2016 to discuss refusal to provide discovery/public data by Dakota County for Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227

and on the bottom half: a letter combination we should probably just memorize — as it’s part of a domain name under ACF.HHS.Gov which tells us why we are still being taxed despite the largest owner of the asset infrastructure (hard assets, not including software systems, etc.) already IS the USA (federal government), still..[https://hmrf.acf.hhs.gov]==>

And under, this I was “updated on new developments” within the specifically “responsible fatherhood” portion of “WHERE did those Public Funds Go, recently???

Program Components” (of “ReFORM” program funding).

{{copied from RHA post, but available elsewhere on line.  Only here with my emphases and different colors, though!}}

With a funding level of up to $1,500,000 per year [PER RECIPIENT] for five years, ReFORM programs are encouraged to develop collaboration opportunities with other federal resources, including the U.S. Department of Justice’s Second Chance Act grantees, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s local Public Housing Authorities, and resources from local offices of child support enforcement.##

Did you pick up on those departments?  USDOJ (Second Chance grantees), and US HUD’s Public Housing Authorities AND resources from “local offices” (generally speaking means county-level) offices of child support enforcement. In federal jargon, it seems there’s federal, regional, THEN state, THEN regions within each state (usually), THEN Metro/Non-Metro (i.e., between County and City is likely to be a “Metro” area with coordinated policies), THEN county.

One set of definitions seems to relate to things people locally might be more aware of — or even learned in school.  Such as, Our State has ___ Counties and in these counties are Cities.  This City is our capital, and other major cities are ____. The UNITED STATES has 50 states, and the Nation’s Capital is in Washington, D.C. …..

However a different set of definitions relates to the Regionalization and Privatization of Government, by Subject Matter, into the hands of experts, and presided over by inter-agency, inter-jursidiction (whether county, state, or even national) Councils and Roundtables and Task Forces to develop Centers of Excellence and Model Practices on “What Works Best.”

Then, of course pilot studies will be done in a FEW places and, like as not, those who came up with the bright ideas to start with will themselves, or will recommend their friendly associates in specific organizations to “EVALUATE,” and their own private association or nonprofit (or, for-profit consultancies) to “technically assist and train” others in the right way to do what works best in ALL locations possible, using both public and private funds, naturally.

The key feature of most of these roundtables is who is NOT on them, typically MOST of the people/s who will be financially supporting any policies and affected most by them, through the sweat of their brow, their “gray matter” (brains), and of course, their income taxes.

Those without taxes to offer sometimes go on public assistance, in which case the question often becomes, first, how many minor children do you have to offer (to the programs), are their any other assets among extended family to be extracted, and for which projects can/will you and your offspring be submitted to at LEAST provide material for our ongoing social science,demography/geography/ethnicity/gender/national-origin research and demonstration projects.

Source (not a government site) describing the USDOJ Second Chance Grantees, apparently this came up in 2008:


The Second Chance Act (SCA) supports state, local, and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations in their work to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes for people returning from state and federal prisons, local jails, and juvenile facilities. Passed with bipartisan support and signed into law on April 9, 2008, SCA legislation authorizes federal grants for vital programs and systems reform aimed at improving the reentry process.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) funds and administers the Second Chance Act grants. Within OJP, the Bureau of Justice Assistance awards SCA grants serving adults, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention awards grants serving youth. Since 2009, more than 700 awards have been made to grantees across 49 states.

From the Criminal Justice System to the Department of Justice
APRIL 26, 2016
If America does not embrace a Second Chance culture, we miss the opportunity to reduce victimization, save precious public safety resources, and, most importantly, capitalize on the potential of people who have paid their debt to society and now want to contribute to their communities.*   Missed opportunities risk negatively impacting the economic vitality of the country as we undergo important demographic shifts. Over the next few decades, the Baby Boomer generation will age out of the workforce, while the majority of our nation’s population will become people of color. If African-Americans and Latinos, who comprise roughly 60 percent of the prison population, are denied the ability to get a job or an education to build their human capital, then there will be fewer qualified people to replace a dwindling workforce. A less qualified workforce means lower economic activity and production, which hurts the entire country.

That is a stunning figure, and a serious problem.  But, see below, where I talk about “A Kingdom Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand” quote — when the same government entities which CAUSED the problem come up pushing their solutions to the same, I think a bit of caution and skepticism is in order.  There are other things which reduce economic activity and production — ONE of which is the family law situation, redirection multi-generations of individual family lines into spending their financial resources, if any exist, on lawyers, or for expensive court-ordered services.  There is a proliferation of government-funded nonprofits (non-tax-producing entities) whose “Charitable activities” consist of running classes for for-profit institutions, and so forth.  There is plenty to talk about besides claiming that, if we DON’T simply take advantage of the re-entry “Human Capital,” by further training, support, housing, legal assistance, carefully avoiding any negative descriptions of the same, overcoming barriers to work once sentences were paid — at some point, what is to protect the NON-criminal-justice-involved individuals, often also parents, who do not qualify for social assistance, when run through the same systems that impoverish THEM to the point that they then DO qualify for food stamps?  This happened to me, and it also happened in the Grazzini-Rucki case in Minnesota, in which it would appear that BOTH sides of the couple (both family lines) had substantial wealth.  Yet, somehow there was criminal involvement anyhow…

What kind of public resources were spent making sure that Sandra Grazzini understood in NO uncertain terms that the domestic violence she experienced, and reported, did not really happen, was no longer relevant in determining who should raise the children, and that if she didn’t buy this, SHE was the criminal?  As was anyone who happened to assist her of the children in some way.

Right now — the State of Minnesota has THREE open CRIMINAL cases regarding ONE custody situation, I believe — one against Sandra, one against Douglas and Gina Dahlen (who had the children at a horse-ranch for 2.5 years when they refused to go to their fathers, and they were forbidden by the family courts, to associate with their mother….) (I reserve my opinion that situation — I’ve been on the other side of the fence when my own children were taken, and then contact cut off), and a third one against Dede Evavald.

Dale Nathan (elderly, retired lawyer) who apparently also aided and abetted initially (He was interviewed recently by 20/20 on his role in this case) was the one who provided law enforcement the lead to eventually go find the two girls — but within six hours of that 20/20 show having been aired, in April, 2016, he died!

If all three people do jail time (three of them being women) will they get job assistance, housing, expungement, and encouragement from the next President’s administration (whosoever it be) to “speak nicely and don’t talk about the criminal background” ???

I don’t know how old Douglas Dahlen is, but I did see Gina, and deduce this might be a second marriage situation — those individuals are middle-aged, not minority, and I doubt they’d be in any demographic which qualifies for “Second Chance Act.”  Perhaps these court actions are a sort of weird “fiscal” way of evening the balance — getting some middle-aged workers OUT of the work force through harassment, while generating some revenues SOMEWHERE by publicizing how police, judges, custody evaluators, and U.S. Marshalls (?) resources — interstate — should SPRING into action in “parental alienation” and “parental interference” cases where the interferences is between a father (not a mother) and the children.   (???)  (You tell ME why the outsized response to the situation.  Again, the same situation happens to mothers in other states — does law enforcement spring into action when the children involved are young teens?)

National Reentry Week is an opportunity to acknowledge that no person is defined by their contact with the criminal justice system—and everyone deserves a second chance.   [*the excerpt used to describe the article actually comes from further down in the article.  I put the rest of the same paragraph next to it.]

(on clicking to read, it begins like this)


By Daryl V. Atkinson, Second Chance Fellow with the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the U.S. Department of Justice

For the first time in its history, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has designated this week National Reentry Week, observed this year between April 24th and 30th. As part of this designation, Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked United States attorneys, wardens at the Bureau of Prisons, and members of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council (Reentry Council) to organize reentry-related events across the country. The response has been tremendous with over 200 events planned by our federal partners, ranging from job fairs for the formerly incarcerated to events at federal prisons for children of incarcerated parents. As the inaugural Second Chance Fellow in DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, I have the opportunity of using this week to reflect on my own reentry experience.

Sixteen years ago, I left prison like many of the 600,000 people released from federal and state institutions each year: …..

The Obama Administration and DOJ—through the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the Reentry Council—have taken great strides toward creating a Second Chance culture. Since the passage of the Second Chance Act in 2007, OJP has made over 700 grants, totaling over 400 million dollars, to local reentry programs. These community-based programs meet many of the basic life needs of people with criminal records by providing housing assistance, job training, and substance abuse treatment.


Using “functionalism” to obtain public CONSENT to relinquish overcome political jurisdiction and sovereignty.  Prime example (search “David Mitrany” with the prime example inspiring him, while working at Princeton University’s “Institute for Advanced Studies” was the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority).  Under the “Functionalism” policy, if an appropriate crisis exists (in that example, the need was WATER (!!)…. the public can be persuaded to relinquish some legal rights.  The TVA was a multi-state project…. David Mitrany, who was Romanian-born, had been educated at London School of Economics.  His writing on “Functionalism” was revived deliberately in the 1960s/1970s including at a Bellagio Conference… Anyhow, just mentioning that this is rampant in our system.

I saved a search string on this. Among the results, see his 1948 “The Functional Approach to World Organization” published in “International Affairs” (by the RIIA), Copyright 2002 JSTOR.  Unlike many JSTOR articles, it seems you can actually read this one.  I would…..only about 13 pages long.

David Mitrany, D.Sc., Ph.D., was formerly Professor and Permanent Member in the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton,N.J.; Visiting Professor at Harvard, Yale, Smith College, etc., Hon. Fellow of the Institute for the Study of International Organisation; Associate of the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex. Author of various works on the functional theory of international organisation, beginning with “A Working Peace System”(1943)

Also, check out this German Development Institute (“Die” in the url) dialogue with China’s SIIS on the UN Post-development Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  Mitrany is only quoted once, but just in case we struggling with lack of due process and instability due to a rogue court system might want to think there IS no MUCH “larger picture” and perhaps an appeal to the Tooth Fairy might be more practical…. This GDI it says has been around since 1964.

AWARE of anything else which dates back to about 1964, or a series of major events in the USA to about that time?  Hopefully, yes.

The United Nations Post-2015 Agenda for Global Development:
Perspectives from China and Europe, by Timo Mahn / Pio Wennubst (seems to be at the 50th Anniversary of this institute:  1964-2014)

On page 342 (of this article I just found as a search result:)  They’re talking about the UN’s “Silos” and “sectorization” — I think as a hindrance — and reference how solving problems by “issues” has led to a proliferation of institutions.  Talk about “case in point” on this family law subject matter and HMRF funds!!!

1.2 Contours of the UN development system

The UN development system is formed by 37 funds, programmes and specialised agencies which generally provide capacity-building and technical support in specifc areas of activity. Because member states have opted for a sectoralized system of management, the relationships among the different UN entities are generally characterised by coexistence and loose coupling (Righter 1995). This carries the dual burden of fragmentation and complexity. In a nutshell, the UN development system has compartmentalised how it handles development challenges (Jenks / Jones 2013, 104).

Look above — the issue being “Re-Entry,” and the advice is to combine federal agencies around this one topic (HUD, HHS, DOJ) — that’s happening across the issues.  Also consider (or read) about how Domestic Violence was supposed to be handled — COORDINATED Community Response, which I think is a euphemism for “Centralized Control in the hands of our (not your) experts.”  I do believe this past has documented it pretty well, especially over the past few months…

Consider the language in any “Family Justice Center” and they are presenting their business model (public/private cooperation in handling several issues) as oh-so-wonderful because it addresses the (alleged) problem of “Fragmentation.”  Then go to some CFCC site or other focused on the family law issues as to children, and look for the word “HOLISTIC”  — “holistic solutions” to problems.  “Holistic” means — combining resources, i.e., experts.. Then, just for fun, go back to who has been promoting “Unified Family Courts,” etc.    This language appears throughout the family court systems.  Family courts, what’s more, have been used as an excuse to “INTERNATIONALLY ALIGN” our justice system — and (See bottom section of this post) again, a private association of judges (et al.) has been one among several means for achieving this minority-of-people (i.e., private oligarchy)-approved goal.

THAT is the larger context of the family courts ,and of at least two of organizations involved in them — the AFCC and the NCJFCJ.

(The United Nations Post-2015 Agenda for Global Development:
Perspectives from China and Europe, p. 342, cont’d…)

The ‘compartmentalised’ structure of the UN development system goes back to the concept of ‘functionalism’ developed in a groundbreaking article by David Mitrany (1943). Functionalism has historically been at the heart of the UN development system’s setup. Its influence has been traced back to the debates among member states prior to establishment of the United Nations (Righter 1995, 32). In essence, functionalism views international objectives, above all peace and stability, as an intended spill-over effect of increased technical and issue-driven cooperation. There is a close linkage between functionalism and the proliferation of institutions. Moreover, since sectors for cooperation are principally limited, there is also an in-build tendency for increased differentiation and compartmentalisation of development cooperation activities. Preserving the organizational autonomy of individual entities has been an integral component of functionalism.

Systems change, how ironic — the intent to break down political borders by way of private institutions leads to a proliferation of those institutions.  Now the complaint is that those institutions themselves are too compartmentalized (previously, it was ‘Nations” themselves that were too “compartmentalized…”

In addition to the compartmentalized concept and setup, the UN development system has further suffered from its subsequent growth and expansion “without a pre-established blue-print” (Fomerand 2003, 2). More recently, it has been suggested that institutional growth may also have been stipulated by the overarching policy agenda, namely, the MDGs. Notwithstanding the positive effect the MDGs undoubtedly had for the promotion of development cooperation and for rallying and aligning the international community around a common set of goals, it has been suggested that they also affected the institutional setup of the UN development system in a less than positive way. In essence, the MDGs may have “helped to proliferate institutional structures” (Jenks / Jones 2013, 104). The fragmentation of efforts and activities across various entities and projects and programmes within those entities, as well as the institutional proliferation may be seen as the two main legacies that beleaguer the UN development system today.

2 The dual role of the UN in the post-2015 agenda

With regard to the post-2015 agenda, the United Nations have a crucial role in two respects.

First, the UN is the institutional guardian of the post-2015 process until its culmination in the adoption of a new agenda in the fall of 2015 and is the main driving force in the agenda’s formulation. It has this role because it is the only global platform of nations that is both legitimate and universal, which makes it a natural forum for debating the post-2015 development agenda. Much like the UN had a major role in the emergence of the MDGs based on the Millennium Declaration adopted in the year 2000, the world is again looking to the UN to manage the post-2015 process. Indeed, goal setting has been one of the major contributions of the UN to the field of development of the last fifty years. In the words of some UN experts, it has been an idea that “changed the world” (Jolly / Emmerij / Weiss 2009, 87). Without the UN and the MDGs, global development policy would have been much less conjoint.

They go on to talk about the issues between MDGs and SDGs (“Sustainable Development Goals”) but a no point is the concept of a globally-coordinated “development” ever being off the agenda brought up, that i can see.

In other words, 9/11 and “Homeland Security” “The Patriot Act” were not the first examples.  Just perhaps an escalated example of the same policy.  Create a big enough crisis, get big compromises in civil and legal rights.  The overall goal is one world government, by REGION, with experts handling administration by chosen subject matters.

FYI — it seems to me that the family courts was just one part of this larger whole…

(HHS Regionalism)

Yeah, true, but ALSO (and not taught so much in school) is the federal agencies view of things, for which you have to deal with the regions, and the “priority areas.”  For example, the Healthy Marriage Grant Awards are sometimes named “Priority Area I, II, III, etc.”


I just ran a search on the “CFDA 93086” (which is labeled “Healthy marriage promotion and Responsible Fatherhood”), selected NO years, and typed into the Award keyword search” only “Priority Area.”  It came up with:

That link above displays (with same select filter) the entire report, all 627 awards.  Unfortunately, only 25 per page… part of TAGGS “New, Improved” public access website…  Formerly, you could specific results per page to 25, 50, 100, 250, or 500.  “Go figure….”

Most, not all were “Metro.”  Apparently “Metro areas” are “Priority Areas” for healthy marriage.  Here’s a sample:

2010 The Center for Relationship Education CO Private Profit ( Small Business ) Organizations 90FE0051 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 NON-COM-PETING CONTINU-ATION JONEEN MACKENZIE $1,010,330

This organization got the above amount (from the same multi-year grant) in 2006, 08, and 10, and a bit less in 2007 and 2009.  Click Sum of Awards to see smallest to largest.  Texas wins (Longview Wellness Center) with $1.5M several years in a row, followed by a group in California which I was surprised to find labeled “City Government” and a group in Oregon (“Northwest Family Services”) alternating places, then one in Florida, etc.  Interesting stuff….

Here are two more which are labeled “State Government.”  For Arizona Youth Partnership, I”m wondering why… The other one, I’ve probably posted on already (Krista Sisterhen) With the change of administration in Ohio,an audit of the Ohio GOFBCI was required to straighten out where THAT money went.  Krista wasn’t around to clean it up, though — someone else’s problem.


(Do scan the report; (CFDAs: 93086 Award Title:Priority Area Report Total: $350,022,804 Distinct Award Count:627) click on any column title to sort by that column, click again to reverse the sort)

FYI, “Arizona Youth Partnership” says the IRS isn’t state government, but a nonprofit formed in 1990.  A related organization (Schedule R) is shown, which is a Charter School, its tax return says, formed in 2011, and  at the same address.  Because AYP is mostly government funded, it might LOOK like government, but its incorporation appears to be classified wrong by HHS:

Search Again

Arizona Youth Partnership AZ 2014 990 32 $394,859.00 86-0669087
Arizona Youth Partnership AZ 2013 990 29 $459,145.00 86-0669087
Arizona Youth Partnership AZ 2012 990 30 $419,730.00 86-0669087

and the Charter School (“related organization”) is also a nonprofit

Search Again

OPEN DOORS COMMUNITY SCHOOL INC AZ 2014 990 29 $86,175.00 45-3089294

AZYP (above) shows 50 employees.  Judging by the figures, the average salary is about $27K (lightly different if you subtract one underpaid executive director salary and then divide by 49) to do all this, which description you can see is squished into ONE fine-line run-on paragraph when the IRS form actually prompts to divide this up into four categories, and show revenues expenses and grants.  Notice they reference 1990, then 2006 in this run-on sentence (more Marriage grants allocated in 2006….):

Arizona Youth Partnership (AzYP) was founded in 1990 by a group of concerned Pima County citizens who sought to provide rural communities in the county access to the services available in the Tucson metro area In 2006, AzYP expanded to serve rural communities across Arizona and seeks to employ a root cause approach to fight poverty by building healthy, self-sufficient youth and families through evidence-based prevention programs and community involvement that utilize a three- pronged approach to accomplish our mission Cultivating Healthy Foundations for Youth AzYP offers evidence-based relationship education, afterschool and youth leadership programs that equip youth to focus on life success goals and work to prevent teen pregnancy, alcohol and substance abuse and anti-social behaviors AzYP served 14 school districts across nine counties in Arizona and served over 4,600 youth through these programs AzYP also served 36 youth in our Basic Shelter (Harbor House) which serves homeless and runaway youth in Mohave CountyPromoting Strong Families AzYP family programs offer practical knowledge, strategies and tools to build and sustain healthy marriages, parenting, and economic self-sufficiency This past year, 135 families across Arizona completed a 7- week, Strengthening Families parent & family education program that focuses on building family communication, 599 individuals participated in AzYPs Building Futures for Families program which combines relationship education with job and career case management for low-income families and as a result, 266 individuals found jobs, or received advanced certificates Mobilizing Communities through Coalitions AzYP assists community coalitions with resources that facilitate community-wide change focused on prevention of substance abuse and underage drinking AzYP facilitated coalitions in rural and underserved Arizona communities and through these mobilization and resource development strategies enabled the advancement of six successful community coalitions in Ajo, Catalina, Marana, Pascua Yaqui Nation, southern Pima County and the Tohono Oodham Nation

In California last I looked the “LCSEAs”  (Local Child Support Enforcement Agencies) if you want enforcement, but the distribution unit is at “Statewide” level through the SDU (a unique requirement of welfare reform, 1996)….

“Local Child Support Resources” factoids….. Take’ em or Leave ’em…

  • Practically speaking, as a user, it’s up to individuals to have prescient awareness, when approaching either the state level or the county level for information — or services — of somehow knowing in advance which one is going to thumb its nose at your attempt to get an answer or, if owed child support, enforcement or paying it, an accurate record of what you actually paid) and say “Not Our Jurisdiction — go ask the other guys…”
  • One thing I learned (trial and error over time) is that if OWED child support, you could still run up a negative on their debit cards for asking too often per month by phone (rather than navigate a computer system which requires two or more types of identification each time — eventually I gave up, and I’m pretty computer literate!) “did you distribute it yet?” because to enquire what’s on that card by phone costs $0.50.
  • While the dribbles of payments on arrears did come in (usually) twice a month, the day kept switching which might at one point in my life, have led to calling to find out if something, or nothing, was on the card.  It might pay a phone bill, for example.  One time I kept someone on the phone long enough to hear what the system was on which cases were delayed a few extra days before releasing funds ALREADY received, and which were not.  It sounded more arbitrary than automatic– but no question, when any agency holds onto funds of such a large scale of operations even two or three days longer than the law says — that agency or wherever those funds are — is earning some interest, if not contributing to the overall dividends for someone.
  • Another factoid I learned is that it is possible to literally be a NONcustodial parent according to the court order, and custodial according to the child support agency:   You go home, the children are not there — ever — because that’s what the family court judge commanded (ordered) — that’s NONcustodial.  But the LCSE doesn’t get this and their definition of “Noncustodial” means “Owing child support.”  My ex grabbed the kids when he was far enough in arrears (even after retroactively reduced by one-third, post-snatch) that I did not owe him one cent.  So the local DCSS called me the “Custodial” parent long after I had no contact at all with the children I’d raised — until they were stolen overnight and switched to the other household in blatant violation of the existing arrangement, dumping me back into that system again….
  • Regarding my case, and just incidentally– I seriously doubt that the source of payments providing the bits of payments on arrears (which were uniform, lower than the total ordered per month, and coming twice a month at, as I said, not quite regular intervals) actually came from my ex’s garnished income.  He didn’t work regular hours.  But, finding out exactly where it did come from was not top priority, considering what else was taking place surrounding all of this. I THINK CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS are not always directly connected to wage garnishments and in more than a few instances, might be paid from other funds held within government resources.

The talk is of services, but the action, throughout the system, is of increased combining of department agencies (above, we just saw HHS/OFA/TANF-(Title IV-A)-based Responsible fatherhood with HHS/ACF/OCSE (Title IV-D-based).

“resources from local offices of child support enforcement.##” is all but code for “the Access and Visitation grants.”  OCSE also handles (conveniently NOT mentioned here) the Access and Visitation grants system, which helps also facilitate the means — and rewards states financially for using them — to “increase noncustodial parenting time” through supporting programs and means which are likely — if I may summarize this — to overcome hard evidence of inappropriate activity, or child placement, through a variety of avenues which usually are going to involve SOME nonprofit, court-connected corporations at the LOCAL (County) level.

This setup alone, regardless of if it’s not exercised, still provides an opportunityfor those immoral and unethical to engage in it, to transfer kickbacks or bribes to an involved judge; i.e., the family lawyer donates to the nonprofit the judge started, or is on the board of — after all, it’s for a good cause, right?  Or, there’s also the vulnerability to forcing the designated “losing” parent to be billed for services that the government has already subsidized through A/V funding.  These have been documented by people who went through some of the horrors — but they aren’t talked about much.  Search Viola Stroud (who got caught in, as I recall, grand theft larceny in Dutchess County, NY in 2004; one case she was one was the Genia Shockome case handled by then-attorney (but not for much long afterwards) Barry Goldstein.

ReFORM projects offer ex-prisoners reentry and support services to fathers returning from incarceration.  Services include responsible fatherhood and healthy relationship activities, employment, housing referral, case management (e.g., counseling, legal aid, and mentoring), transportation, substance abuse and mental health services referrals, and family strengthening activities. Grantees may offer other interventions designed to help stabilize fathers returning from incarceration to assist them and their families and that contribute to a reduction in recidivism and progressions toward self-sufficiency.

Marriage and family strengthening programs address a myriad of issues, which result from a fathers’ absence or involvement with the criminal justice system. *** The ReFORM programs differ from New Pathways for Fathers and Families programs in that the exclusive target population is incarcerated and re-entering fathers or fathers otherwise involved with the criminal justice system. All Responsible Fatherhood programs, which include New Pathways for Fathers and Families and ReFORM, are required to offer all three activities

Sub-section to “INTRO” — “What meaneth this?”

Here’s my attempt to provide some faith-based parallels to make sense of the above SALES rhetoric. Hopefully this won’t either confuse some Christian readers when I then below take a hard-line position against one of the FBOs in Georgia I happened across in the last post (reviewing some of the 90FM00## HHS Grants) posts, or  offend atheists and others that I’m quoting Bible to the point they miss my point and don’t get around to reading about either the hard-line on the Georgia FBO, some very interesting TAGGS grants since 2012 on continued “Competitive Abstinence Education” (CFDA 93060, administered through FYSB, not through OFA) , OR miss my proof that TAGGS itself does not even measure (distinguish between) faith-based organizations (an idiotic term) and non-faith-based organizations by classifying them as such.  (I post TAGGs.hhs.gov’s RECIPIENT TYPES and RECIPIENT CLASS available categories below, as I did on another post ca. 6/9/2014).

Hopefully anyone who’s mostly curious about the “Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture” section — which is last on the third of these three posts — will use the scroll bar to get to there if they’re less interested in the material in between.  It’s well-marked.*

[practical  decision made later to split into three posts]

**That’s real cute how “fathers’ absence or involvement with the criminal justice system” present “issues” — which the HHS grants series is here to allegedly address. Some of those issues deal with disproportionate incarceration of minority males in the US prison systems — which is, again whose fault?  Well, who incarcerates?

So– it is logical to believe that, as Jesus said (hey, “faith-based” comes up in this post, so I’m just putting this out there), that HHS-administered  ReFORM (and similar programs under HHS, including the HMRF ones) financed under the Social Security Act of 1996 and ff, are now here to correct the bad, bad, devastation of fatherlessnesswhether caused by “criminal-justice-system-involved or incarcerated or re-entering after incarceration” fathers OR, still just as devastating if caused by  [Not specified in that phrase — BUT, if you follow back, allegedly by unfair HHS, social services practices favoring women, including slutty women on welfare — and the bad, bad, custody courts granting mothers sole physical custody of minor children, so much) — under the same Social Security Act Welfare [AFDC and Child Support Enforcement] Funding, under HEW 1953-1980, or HHS since 1980 and ([also not mentioned, but it’s discussed in these circles also] Disproportionate incarceration of minority males — (obviously this would be by a different agency — but of the same government, same branch (Executive, whether federal or State) or if you will “kingdom….”

I know that last paragraph was a mouthful, but what we do have here is HHS offering to correct problems historically attributed to HHS programming to start with, and some of other branches of government which imprison fathers…  In short, we are talking about double-talk — and the principle on hearing such double talk IS that it makes no sense.  I’m not the master of parables, so let me refer it to someone better known for them:

“…And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand….”

Here’s that entire chapter (KJV, Mark 3: — earlier gospel than Matthew.  Any headings and cross-references probably added by Biblehub.com, you can see “Twelve Apostles” and the “House Divided.”)   Grammatically speaking (regardless of whether you are a believer in this), this section makes sense in its own context; it’s talking about the power base and how power is exerted and not exerted.  

When faced with an “ad hominem” attack (he was casting out devils by Beezlebub) he answered, in parables (three similar and parallel to each other in structure, and the last one, stand-alone to make the main point — don’t blaspheme by confusing, basically, God with the devil….)

… (subsection called “Great Crowds Follow Jesus” — notice what he was doing).

9And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him. 10For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues. 11And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. 12And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known.

Healing and authority over spirits (whether or not one believes in them) are in this context of the famous verse.

The Twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:1-4Luke 6:12-16)

13And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. 14And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 15And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils16And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

Getting organized — delegating authority, but I underlined the “agenda” — preach, and as needed, heal and cast out devils.

Next thing, his (Jesus’) friends said “he is beside himself” (another word for this is “divided,” had a personality split, he’s nuts…) and the scribes, said — he’s possessed by “Beelzebub, and that’s how he’s casting out devils.

A House Divided (Matthew 12:22-30Luke 11:14-23)

20And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself22And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

This is the response, and my point is not preaching here, MY context is federal agencies, talking about the benefit of the people, going about AS IF one was going to correct the problems of the other, without encouraging anyone to analyze where those programs arose from in the first place.  I am simply elucidating that chances are, if one arm of a kingdom (or country) IS saying, “we are casting out the (social) problems of one previously caused by ourselves” — it’s time to question the logic.

That’s what, in this context, Jesus did (is said to have done, in this chapter):

23And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? 24And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 27No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

and then the website Biblehub.com puts another subtitle in — right in the middle of a parable or illustration and before the end of it (will explain in a minute, right below).  After this one-sentence (if you look at it closely) “subsection” it then goes onto a section on Jesus’ “Mother and Brothers.” (Apparently he was raised by a single Mom, too….)  I call this “ADHD Bible reading…”

The Unpardonable Sin (Matthew 12:31-32)

28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Jesus’ Mother and Brothers (Matthew 12:46-50Luke 8:19-21) (etc.)

Apparently whoever put in the subtitles missed the subtlety of the repetition in the parable.  Read it without the visual coaching by interpreters and it has a flow and makes a point.  The introduction, answering an accusation with a question — how can this be?, the parable (illustrations) in a specific, parallel structured order, and the main point, Whammo!

“If a Kingdom-House-Satan be divided, that kingdom/house/Satan cannot stand,” repetition, but the addition regarding Satan is “but hath an end.” [One senses there is no love lost between this man Jesus and “Satan”]. Second (grammatically speaking) parable on the same topic (by what power he allegedly was casting out devils), a strong man and his house.  You don’t spoil the [rob] house until you’ve bound the strong man.  What Jesus was doing — in this context — was throwing out Satan and taking over his “property” because he was, evidently, stronger than that “strong man.”

How can Satan cast out Satan?24And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  25And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand26And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

27No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.  28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Jesus, possibly, was pissed off at having the power by which he’d been anointed to cast out devils be confused with power behind the opposing side….So again, the context was when he was accused of casting out devils by the prince of devils.

“…And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand….”

Well, who’s demonizing whom here, when it comes to social policy?  Are we really supposed to believe that HHS, a federal agency under the Executive Branch of government, purpose is to heal the egregious problems previously and to this day, caused by another arm of the Executive Branch of government, which is the Enforcement sector? Or POSSIBLY could something else be the agenda here?

The purpose is not to form one-world government to prevent and repair all divisions.  MY point is, be smart enough to understand when ONE kingdom is presenting itself as if in TWO or more parts, and ONE comes in claiming to correct and “heal” (repair, etc.) the sins and problems OF THE OTHER.  Government itself exists by power obtained from the people it is there to allegedly serve and help.  Government has been so long funded by the people it is to allegedly serve and help that it now has enough income-producing assets to fund itself — but still chooses not to.

THE SAME could be said for many of the HMRF grantees, which I learned by observation (you could too) and the same would seem to apply to a continued expansion and justification of the sameinstead of reducing the funding streams, now that after twenty years, they haven’t solved the “fatherlessness” problem and lowering the income tax on people who lack the typical loopholes that the wealthy and savvy – and on the government dole AND running nonprofits also on the government dole — already have. It’s “get real!” time about this programming.

Some of this fatherlessness problem persists in part because of, again, disproportionate incarceration of minority males — in other part which I believe is a factor –failure to incarcerate some of any color who more properly DO belong in jail, such as white-collar crooks setting up systems within government which finance private businesses feeding of HMRF grants streams — and doing it tax-exempt often, too, with some tax-exempts actually controlling other for-profit businesses and etc.

The solution to this problem caused by public/private partnerships is not about to come from more public/private partnerships — only targeted at different populations.  Why not disarm (expose and as necessary, defund) the same, and make the world a safer place for mothers, fathers, and children?

Regarding ReFORM Responsible Fatherhood programming: (I see from the website (see last post also) it’s only $6.8M so far in 2015.  Look at my charts below and see how long you think it’s going to stay at that low level…. compared to the part of the same funding stream (CFDA 93086 here) — being targeted to the “criminal-justice-involved” fathers?  Well, for a clue, you could look back how the proportion of “Healthy Marriage” to “Responsible Fatherhood” allocations (if HHS websites announcing the grantees are to be believed) was first 2:1  HM:RF ($100M/$50M), then 1:1 ($75M/$75M), and now that this fake (when you get down to it anyhow) division has been allegedly “equalized” the plan is to add a Re-Entry” (3rd fake classification from the accounting point of view — it’s STILL CFDA). ANother factor is that grants the do one do the others anyhow (and have been — for years).  BUT, in the new funding stream (New Pathways for Fathers), this is now required, and in the ReFORM portion, collaborations are encouraged with other federal agencies.

HOW — go follow the money from:  HHS, HUD, DOJ and miscellaneous 501©3s fake or real, and state and county level agencies.  (Good luck with that endeavor….)

The “new, improved” is separating out the “ReEntry portion” (which has been part of it for at least 15 years anyhow — track some of the recipient organizations, such as the ones in Ohio or New York  and you’ll see).  What’s not said — “before now, we aren’t highlighting that responsible fatherhood activities HAVE been used, at times, to help abusive, battering or otherwise criminally-behaving fathers have better relationships with their offspring — and force the mothers of their children to either undergo co-parenting re-indoctrination processes, or risk, or BE, simply booted out of their children’s lives in the name of this cause, but without associated, federally endorsed social policy to help them (the mothers) once that actually happens.

Another well-kept, dirty little secret of this HMRF & A/V (Access and Visitation) programming is that sometimes these men — or men who have been cited, and/or separated because of domestic violence proceedings, and the family split up between parents anyhow under “fatherlessness is the REAL social problem” can and do murder their wives, children and/or themselves (including “suicide by cop”) around court-ordered visitation exchanges, supervised or non-supervised.  This isn’t emphasized in the policy material, but does come up in newspaper headlines, year, after year, after year, after year.    What is that — population reduction measures?  I could say more on this, but I have to watch the PTSD factor, too.  I’d bet that people in almost any major metropolitan area in the country can recount some high-profile incidents.  How’d you like THAT potentiality in the background of the average weekend visitation exchange?

At a scale less than lethal, but still devastating, there is then the potential for parental kidnapping (or, child-stealing) further disrupting the mother/child and father/child relationships, both.  THIS HAPPENED TO MY CHILDREN, and ME, and people associated with me (such as, in work relationships, friendships, other supportive communities at the time) and it definitely affected my housing status as it affected my economic status — after I’d been focused personally on building a stable housing, work/school (for them) balance around escalating incidents with their father, per the family court’s orders.

I then was allowed to learn by process of deduction over time, during which time the father, as it turned out, eventually abandoned our daughters (another felony in this state) that the felony laws against such behavior were enforced arbitrarily and it would appear to be, somewhat on a gender basis — are you a mother?  Forget it, go back to family court.  Are you a father? — how dare that bitch.  Hunt her down… call the newsmedia…. contact the experts…. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS JUST NOT PROSECUTE OR ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS.  In general, I’d say the law enforcement sector is pretty well-informed on what they do not HAVE to enforce, should it not be on this year’s agenda….

What gives them this out?  Just call it a family court matter.  So, do you think “Just maybe” we might want to start looking at the federal grants and grantees directed at the family court sector — for a change???  Hopefully, Yes…

These grants are designed to engage the public with the “behavioral health and social science” network, and consent to accommodations and flexibility in the criminal law as a result. These were originally justified to reduce poverty and other social ills.  Somewhere along the line, “fatherlessness” became a major “social ill” and unmarried mothers became the scapegoat.  An antidote to this scourge MUST be urgently ordered — and it was.  So, the “HMRF” funds come through the OFA and the source of those revenues is money appropriated for welfare, under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, as revised.  The Access/Visitation funds come through the OCSE and the source of those revenues is under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, as revised.

Like the VAWA (passed in 1994), the Social Security Act has been revised a number of times, and there were years where it was simply re-authorized several years in a row.  But, we should remember that in 1996, THAT revision, named “PRWORA” was described as the biggest once since 1934. “Just Maybe” some of us ought to read up on it, with a view towards programming designed to, well, design the desirable family structure across the country.  Federal Designer Families aren’t exactly legal — nor is being a single mother or father illegal — but where there’s a will, there SEEMS to be a way, and that way IS Economic.

It has to be both sold to the public (at public expense, with private help) and forced on the public. It can be forced on an entire state at a time if and when the states are dependent on federal assistance to them to take care of the poor, the hungry, the homeless,  the “Huddled masses”  who are made into a stable civil society’s nightmare.  So, 1996 PRWORA changed AFDC (aid to families with dependent children) to “TANF” “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families” done as “block grants to states.”  In fact, the money goes to the states based on their demographics, with more, better inducements to DIVERT that money from the actually needy families, redefining need (i.e., “fatherlessness” is a need, and “barriers to participation” in any biologically fatherless (despite the presence or absence of a stepfather, or other positive male role models in a minor child’s life) household.

After having sold the biological connection fatherhood role, the same programming has since expanded to admit other “positive male role models” — but they  can’t get to them without going through the biological father where one exists and is potential perhaps for rehabilitation (if in prison, or a batterer, or drug user — or even child molester– for example)…  etc.

Secondarily — or perhaps not so secondarily — changing the paradigm from individual rights as citizen (including to being treated as full-status human beings with legal rights to due process under the law, etc.) to prioritizing the collectivist, group and gender identities “for the greater good” and telling people they must “for the greater good” sacrifice more privacy, freedom, and specifically due process — by being in the family court system at all in the first place!! — is part of privatization and regionalization of government itself (economically and legally both) as simply a piece in the greater whole of one world government.

The “subject matter jurisdiction grab” and “Leave it to the experts” mentality when doing so weakens political jurisdiction boundaries is no accident.  I have for YEARS as a blogger been warning people in different states and counties, when on-line blogs are put up to protest injustices in these family courts, to pay attention to the entities OUTSIDE the courtroom who are building power alliances, and accumulating economic assets which can be directed at those courts, and the professionals in them.

I have told people to pay attention to the nonprofit trade associations involving civil servants (and NOT just “AFCC” although its role is significant given the membership involves judges) (as does another under-reported on, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) who are part of the ‘DV Cartel” and I just this year discovered, were promoting a single employee (and board member at times) who, it turns out, had been on the Board of Directors of Providence Service Corporation, a NASDAQ-traded (as of about 2004) multi-million-dollar for-profit company specializing in THE same businesses to which the NCJFCJ and some of its allies were promoting as a practice — diversion of prosecution, and ordering privatized treatments.  With foundation backing from Annie E. Casey Foundation, the “JDAI” program purposes.  ORDERING MORE SERVICES.)

I have yet to report on the practices of some of the related companies of Providence Service Corporation, or some of the companies with which its (earlier) board of directors were involved.  I recommend someone else look into this, because it doesn’t appear that my life will have room for it in the near future.  These can be looked at starting with their business identity (and legal domicile) — C-corp, LLC, for-profit, not for profit, and what programs are they perhaps running through their owned institutions.  To follow any money requires at least some vocabulary.

And, what’s the use of having vocabulary if it’s never used in conversations, and I mean, introduced into conversations about “family courts” and custody nightmares, etc.  How hard is it to identify if a judge, GAL, child custody evaluator or family lawyer has a private professional association with certain groups whose tax returns ones has read, and who have already been exposed as failing to stay properly incorporated, or failing to maintain their IRS tax-exempt status while continuing to collect donations as if they were legit?

I hope this “early morning intuitive” (look for that subtitle, after just a few more paragraphs on the lack of a measurable category for “faith-based organization” at TAGGS.hhs.gov) for perhaps an example of how, after obtaining some understanding, ANYONE can start talking about it.  However, first go expose your eyes to the material so it starts to make some sense.  I assure you I have lots to learn in this category, but have also exposed my eyes to this on my own initiative (which is often more rewarding than participating long-term in pack behavior) to the point it has been making sense.  BUT you must also read for context, and key in on several more objective than the social science /behavioral health fields as a point of reference.  I feel that the accounting practices of networked organizations — which by looking up also tells me about their respective size, age, and “related businesses” they are in, as well as to a degree, where they tend to congregate, and how, with each other (see “nonprofit membership trade association) in a way the public is not, really, supposed to be “in on” until the show is rehearsed and ready for presentation, like any new product about to be introduced to the wider market, with appropriate media buzz.

Intermediate Section 

(TAGGS, FBOs, and Sex Prevention,

pardon me, make that

 “Abstinence Education”)

(continued on next post, title containing that text)

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: