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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Courtesy PRWORA, HHS, and Public Apathy, the Good Ol’ Boys Network with help from (speaking of which) Yale University is Re-packaging the Same Old Schlock, in this example, as “Male Involvement Network” [Publ. June 8, 2016].

with 2 comments

Post titleCourtesy PRWORA, HHS, and Public Apathy, the Good Ol’ Boys Network with help from (speaking of which) Yale University is Re-packaging the Same Old Schlock, in this example, as “Male Involvement Network” [Publ. June 8, 2016]. Short-link ends “-3Jv”);

(Written June 8, 2016. For some reason I DNR, including possible amnesia while working on other projects, left in draft…  Found during search of my own blog Nov. 2018 for a post with the word “Male” in it which (other post) I knew detailed several of the statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence (“CADV”) by CFDA#…   The post I’d been looking for referenced the relative difference in size between ‘fathers’ rights” and “feminists'” funding which I wanted to point out on Twitter after the fact that federal government was funding both had been raised.//LGH))

(After publishing any post, I review it, and may revise or clarify with added material, something posted. Anyone who receives the post through a tweet or as a follower is best served by going back to original link for must current version. This time I added a table of annual report filings (underneath the first logos shown below) and some links which didn’t make the “saved” version that was first published 6/8/2016 evening. Post currently runs under 10,000 words….Make that almost 12,000 words, after I added more details on the involved The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven” and its financials and the next paragraph explaining why I added that — and a dark-green background section about the CNCS and Social Innovation Funding…:) 🙂

 I may subtract that, later, but remember to keep an eye on “COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF [name your Metro/Regional Area, or major, particularly port city:  San Francisco, Baltimore, etc.]” (nationwide, and especially in metro regions, which also tend to have some high-profile universities (like, Yale…. in this case); they are fast-tracking “What Works” from federal/private power block to “community level” and are an identifiable part of the MACRO business model privatizing government, in preparation of course for “outflanking sovereignty through functionalism.”  These organizations have local credibility, significant assets obtained over the years, and significant connections to local power.  In addition through such things as the Federal “CNCS” (Corporation for National and Community Service) (URL: NationalService.gov)  helping the big guys pick their favorite programming and make sure the commoners (peasants and/or, low-income population, male and female, and whatever the ethnicity) are run through the “What Works” programs that Big Brother and Relatives have determined are best for all.  Notice that the Social Innovation Fund only dates to Year 2009:

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) is a powerful approach to transforming lives and communities that positions the federal government to be a catalyst for impact—mobilizing private resources to find and grow community solutions with evidence of results.With the simple but vital goal of finding what works, and making it work for more people, the Social Innovation Fund and its grantees create a learning network of organizations working to implement innovative and effective evidence-based solutions to local and national challenges in three priority areas: economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development.

Goodwill of Silicon ValleyIn just five years, the Social Innovation Fund and its private-sector partners have invested more than a $800 million in compelling community solutions. The Social Innovation Fund’s portfolio represents over $295 million in federal grants and more than $582 million in non-federal match commitments. To date, the SIF’s Classic program has made 35 awards to grantmaking organizations and 290 nonprofits working in 39 states and the District of Columbia. In total over 360 nonprofit organizations are being funded by the SIF to conduct diverse interventions and evaluate results through highly rigorous models. Through the SIF’s Pay for Success program, over 25 states across the United States are engaged in testing and implementation of Pay for Success projects. Across both programs, the Social Innovation Fund is committed to expanding the impact of effective community solutions to make a difference in the lives of more Americans.

Authorized by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act in April of 2009, the Social Innovation Fund is a program of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), a federal agency focused on improving lives, strengthening communities, and fostering civic engagement through service and volunteering. Together, service and innovation provide a vehicle to harness the power of ordinary people and unleash the potential of innovative ideas to help address our communities’ toughest social problems and transform lives.
Check Out Our Interactive Map See the General Fact Sheet

Consider Yourself Forewarned to Pay Attention to the CNCS and what the Social Innovation Fund (Big Brother and Big Tax-exempt Foundation) have planned for our local communities.//LGH.)



For example, as to those filings of AFCC and its Chapters, on its website and IRS filings, this (?) organization claims to be legal domicile Wisconsin (see Heading row ending in “M” Legal Domicile”) and having existed since 1963, but the State of Wisconsin only admits to the existence of a Chapter of AFCC, and that only since Year 2012:

ID Entity Name /Type Registered
Effective Date
Status /
Status Date
06 – Non-Stock Corporation
10/15/2012 Incorporated/Qualified/ Registered

Meanwhile, Illinois Secretary of State records the existence (still active) of a business entity since 1975, under two prior names, the current one matching the one on the AFCC logo below.

(Click for search results image: CyberdriveIllinois.com AFCC Search Results.  Use CyberdriveIllinois.com link to repeat a name search showing one prior name, and clickable to read details (including that it’s a “Domestic” Illinois organization originally filed 1975, with two prior names, dated 2001 and 2002 as I recall. Illinois has it File No. “50708497”).


ON THAT UPDATE I ALSO NOTICED THAT ONE OF THE KEY PARTICIPANTS IN THIS REPORT, ONE YEAR AFTER HAVING ITS NAME ON THE SAME, APPARENTLY QUIT FILING ITS TAX RETURNS.  While I’d like to further verify that those returns aren’t on some other database, even if they have filed, I noticed that this organization’s primary source of revenues three years ago was government grants, and primary use of those was on its own employees.  The grants are not being redistributed to anyone (individual or organizations).  Yet the website is still up and, looking quite nice and colorful, having its logo — it still features requests for funds:

New Haven Family Alliance (FYI, EIN#061324343)

A Partnership For Family & Community Empowerment.”

Here’s The Community Foundation Greater New Haven (from “GiveGreater.org“) soliciting for the above organization on a page “last updated 8/7/2015

“giveGreater.org “Your Local Resource for Learning and Giving || The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven” (CT)

Feel free to explore that link, “Leadership and Staff” for from 1996-[8/7/2015]  CEO “Barbara Tinney, MSW” (only former CEO listed Mr. Mustafa Abdul Salaam,** 1991) and the comments at the bottom of its page about some excess administrative costs:

(Google search results on Mustafa Abdul Salaam, May 7, 1998 has him quitting after being accused of forging a signature to obtain Community Development Block Grants, on a different organization:  Neighborhood Agency Chief Quits After Forgery Accusation) (<==read!!)

Neighborhood Agency Chief Quits After Forgery Accusation

May 7, 1998 by Johnny Mason, Jr. of the Hartford Courant:

Mustafa Abdul-Salaam, executive director of the Upper Albany Neighborhood Collaborative in Hartford, resigned April 17 after being accused of forging a signature on an application for city funds.

The resignation was triggered when Mustafa apparently forged the name of Gerald Thorpe, chairman of the Upper Albany Neighborhood Revitalization Zone, on a February letter recommending that the collaborative be given city Community Development Block Grant funds

Abdul-Salaam is the former executive director of the New Haven Family Alliance, a social service agency. A former captain of the 1975 University of Connecticut men’s basketball team, his name was Earl Wilson before he converted to Islam

Abdul-Salaam, who became the executive director of the North End collaborative after a nationwide search, at a salary of $63,000 per year, was the agency’s fifth executive director in seven years. Florence Ehiboir-Cole, assistant executive director, is serving as interim director. The agency, at 1339 Albany Ave., has an annual budget of $325,000. Most of its funding comes from the Ford Foundation, but it also has received city funds.

Interesting as the Ford Foundation in general is heavily involved in promoting fatherhood studies and professionals in the field.

1) NHFA’s fiscal, administrative and programmatic infrastructure has not kept pace with its development and implementation of innovative programs and interventions. This is in part a result of limited non-restrictive, flexible funds. In response to this challenge, the agency is implementing the recommendations proposed in the FMA assessment report

2) NHFA needs to reduce administrative cost in order to stabilize its financial situation in 2015 and beyond. As part of this effort by the end of December, NHFA is moving its office to a less expensive, community based location in the Dixwell neighborhood.

Found under “CEO COMMENTS” on same or related page at the Community Foundation:

NHFA Board of Directors will be working with the Yale School of Management to develop a five year strategic planning that includes a fund development plan.

I don’t know who ‘FMA” is, and this page at “GreaterGiving.org” doesn’t tell me readily.

However, next, go to the “Financials Link” regarding the New Haven Family Alliance and click on “990s” — no 990 past 2012-2013 fiscal year is uploaded. Interesting…. Even if it didn’t file, it takes three years in a row of not-filing for the IRS to revoke a tax-exempt status, and then some additional time to tell the public on “Exempt Select Organization Check.”

Impact locally of endorsement of NHFA by this Community Foundation — see their main page (CFGNH.org):

The Community Foundation is one of the oldest and largest community foundations in the United States and remains the largest grantmaker in a twenty-town region located in the heart of central Connecticut.

The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven is a philanthropic institution that was established in 1928 as the community’s  permanent charitable endowment. For more than three generations, thousands of donors have built our community endowment by establishing permanent funds or making gifts to existing funds that distribute grants to a broad variety of issues and organizations.. [Para. order reversed]

Separate Topic, should be a separate post.  This pattern can be found in metro areas throughout the country. To discuss requires discussing details on the tax returns, not just organization websites.

Notable finds regarding this particular one (CFGNH not NHFA), though:

(1) It is not posting ANY details, not even the names of its grantees and amounts granted on either the IRS form on their own website, or (from what I can see) on other sources showing the same IRS#,  previous years.

  • For example, on June 9, 2016, looking for anything granted to this (non-filing — see chart of annual reports and last known tax returns, below) The New Haven Family Alliance, Inc. I found that the organization simply lists “to various tax-exempt organizations” and no “See Additional Table.”  It does not provide another table.  Yet, it is taking in government grants yearly.

(2) Big Changes/Increased Revenues for 2015 Makes one wonder Why, and From Whom, and highlights that, with or without the word “Community” on an organization name, it’s still by definition a privately controlled (by its board of directors) nonprofit, nonstock corporation, NOT a government entity.  If you compare Schedule F (foreign investments) for year 2015 to (must look up the organization separately) to even Year 2014, it’s clear that the organization is purchasing investments in the Cayman Islands, in a major way compared to prior years when its only overseas activity on Schedule F looked like a minor (about $10,000) donor-advised fund to Ireland.

Any Form 990 (currently) on Part I (page 1) has a “Prior Year/Current Year” column, showing any major changes.  2015 represented a MAJOR increase in CFGNH’s Revenues.  Take a look at this community foundation’s 2015 IRS return posted on its site, its EIN# 066032106.

Notice the upwards jump on both “Contributions” (Line 8. from $24.0M to $65.6M) and Investment Income (Line 10. from $29.6M to $75.4M)?  For Total Revenues (Program-Related only), that’s almost a TRIPLING of revenues in a single year.  From $51.6M to $145.0M (check link).  Did this result in a tripling of donations to other organizations — its primary reason for existing, allegedly?  NO.  The jump was from $20M to $29M.

Shows  huge size (close to one-half billion$ of assets), huge revenues ($69M contributions that year alone, and $79M “investment income” — mostly from selling over $470M of Securities for that amount of net profit. Despite this, it still got close to $1M of “government grants” anyway.  This may have to do with the composition of the board membership which by definition includes gets appointed by public officials and at least one board representative from Chief Executive of the City of New Haven, from Yale, the Bar Association, etc. (see tax return details).

Having received $145M Revenues (but over $500M gross receipts) in 2015, it dispensed $29M of grants (THAT schedule not attached to their website’s 2015 financials).  

I went looking from a different source for prior years, and found that unlike most organization, dispensing that amount of money ($20M/year, roughly) they don’t bother to include a Schedule I.  A comment is made that grants are tracked online.  What should be looked at is the difference between 2015 and 2014 (below) “Schedule F” which is outside investments.  And the major change (almost tripling) in revenues.  All I was looking for is anything donated to New Haven Family Alliance after it stopped filing tax returns and annual reports (apparently).  Not that easy to find when the tax returns available (or offered by the organization) are not producing any Schedule I, Grant to Governments and Organizations in the US.

Search Again**  (COMPARE these to the 2015 posted on their site, above).

**Update Jan. 2, 2020: If that website does not redirect (after Foundation Center bought out Guidestar and rebranded itself as “Candid”, since I published this post in 2016), try  search (use EIN#!) at https://candid.org/research-and-verify-nonprofits/990-finder I believe that’s the user interface page; the search results urls seem to be the same format as before.
I’m adding more recent years’ table with this Jan. 2, 2020, review of this post (for potential re-blogging parts of it).  The lower table (FYEs shown 2012-2013-2014) was in original post.//LGH.

Total results: 3Search Again.  CFGNH.org (EIN# 06-6032106) Forms 990 run Jan. 2, 2020.

UPDATE COMMENTS: The Fiscal Year ends Dec. 31 — so where is the tax return for FY2018?  Not here!  (I did find it on the organization website.  However, like the others below, it, too, utterly omits to record Sched I grantees, despite claiming several million dollars’ worth of grants to domestic organizations or governments.  There are simply ZERO details on “to which ones” and not even (which the form, at the bottom has a blank for) even a count of how many. Much more can be understood about the organization (in addition to its withholding of identities of claimed grantees, even when taking several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of government grants TO it) by reading its “Financials” page subdocuments.

Other comments:  See FY2017:   The Schedule I of ($24M) of grants is — guess what — omitted except for a single statement, “various 501©3s” and no detailed information.  $222M of investments held (per Sched F) in Central America/Caribbean region.  $149M (per Sched D) in “Alternative Investment”.   etc.  //LGH Jan. 2, 2020.

Healthy Start – Community Impact Grants CT 2017 990 59 $594,866,274.00 06-6032106
Community Foundation for Greater New Haven CT 2016 990 55 $487,352,421.00 06-6032106
Friends of Boulder Knoll CT 2015 990 45 $482,430,411.00 06-6032106

(June 8, 2016, table as originally published):

Friends of Boulder Knoll * CT 2014 990 45 $443,530,278.00 06-6032106
Community Foundation for Greater New Haven CT 2013 990 41 $416,295,565.00 06-6032106
Community Foundation for Greater New Haven, The CT 2012 990 40 $363,752,780.00 06-6032106

(*Wrong name here factor of The Foundation Center, not the organization filing its returns).

I just looked at 2012, 2013 and 2014 tax returns available through a different source

The influence of large “Community Foundations” throughout the country should be looked at closely when they become conduits for federal public/private partnerships, helping conceal major private foundation backers’ money.  For example, out of the list of 498 funds at “CFGNH” I see that Annie E. Casey Foundation established a Donor-advised fund in 2003.  They are listed “alpha” but only 25 results per page.  I guess if anyone is then willing to flip through about 1,000 pages @ 25 names/page  (or use the slider bar and guesstimate) this will give name and origin of the funds — but not their individual amounts held.  Annie E. Casey is already a major player in foster care, fatherhood movements, “JDAI” and other “shifting the paradigm” movements in family and juvenile courts. I have a sticky page on its “Kids Count” data book, and this came up again recently in looking at Alabama also.

“Read my lips” — promoting fatherhood is a public/private COORDINATED effort involving major foundations (bipartisan — both sides of the political spectrum do this). I run around behind and look up the grantees, and find them seriously wanting in basic organization filings compliance, which doesn’t seem to be coincidental.

I went to “C.O.N.C.O.R.D.” which is the state’s Business Entity Search Site. According to this NHFA is still active — but still lives at a different street address 370 James.  I clicked details and see that its last filed ANNUAL report was in 2011.

# Business Name Business ID Status Business Address

[Checked post-publication. If that link isn’t still active, repeat the search to learn that, according to this database, The New Haven Family Alliance, Inc. has been filing its annual required reports “periodically” — that means several times since incorporation, they have gone many years without filing, apparently not been administratively dissolved or put on notice (?) as happens in some states, and forced to re-instate. Compare the “Filing Type” column to the Filing Date/Time column to see a gap for 1992 (second year never filed), 1994-5-6-7-9 = its post-PRWORA years!; catch up filings in March, 2000.]

Business ID Business Name
Filing Number Filing Date/Time Effective Date/Time Filing Type Volume Type Volume Start Page Page #
0000624488 12:00 AM REPORT(1994) 0
0000624486 May 21, 1991 12:00 AM INCORPORATION C 11860 0653 0
0000624487 Aug 12, 1993 12:00 AM ORG REPORT C 12330 3315 0
0002094498 Mar 24, 2000 8:30 AM Mar 24, 2000 8:30 AM REPORT (1996) B 00328 3109 3
0002094500 Mar 24, 2000 8:30 AM Mar 24, 2000 8:30 AM REPORT (1997) B 00328 3115 3
0002094501 Mar 24, 2000 8:30 AM Mar 24, 2000 8:30 AM REPORT (1998) B 00328 3118 4
0002094504 Mar 24, 2000 8:30 AM Mar 24, 2000 8:30 AM REPORT (1999) B 00328 3127 3
0002117676 May 24, 2000 8:30 AM May 24, 2000 8:30 AM REPORT (2000) B 00341 0397 3
0002289591 Jul 18, 2001 8:30 AM Jul 18, 2001 8:30 AM REPORT (2001) B 00428 0540 3
0002783858 Mar 01, 2004 8:30 AM Mar 01, 2004 8:30 AM REPORT (2002) B 00685 3086 3
0002783860 Mar 01, 2004 8:30 AM Mar 01, 2004 8:30 AM REPORT (2003) B 00685 3091 4
0002893257 Aug 26, 2004 8:30 AM Aug 26, 2004 8:30 AM REPORT (2004) B 00742 0042 3
0003069936 Jul 05, 2005 8:30 AM REPORT (2005) B 00840 1096 5
0003257554 Jun 29, 2006 8:30 AM REPORT (2006) B 00938 2228 4
0003471885 May 31, 2007 8:30 AM REPORT (2007) B 01049 0537 4
0003741867 Jul 16, 2008 8:30 AM REPORT (2008) B 01187 2344 2
0004569307 Apr 11, 2012 11:32 AM REPORT (2009) B 01636 1123 3
0004569314 Apr 11, 2012 11:34 AM REPORT (2010) B 01636 1138 3
0004569319 Apr 11, 2012 11:35 AM REPORT (2011) B 01636 1148 3

(Any background colors added by blogger LGH). In addition to the irregularity of filing annual reports, there are despite this still years missing as you can see simply looking for all consecutive years since 1991, or at least 1993 filings.  Where are years 1994 and 1995 (first two of its existence?).  

Also, a recent search for this organization by name or the EIN# below, pulls up nothing past its own Fiscal year 2012:  (As of Post publication June 8, 2016.  Reviewing this Jan. 2, 2020 i.e., a new year, in a new decade, I’m re-running the search for the same EIN#).  The comments below FYE 2010-11-12 table apply to that table only.  for consistency (with updated re-run of CFGNH.org Form 990s, above, I’m posting an extra table above the original one (i.e., both rows and the two tables are most recent years on top).

January 2, 2020 re-run of the NHFA EIN# for (the last three) tax returns since then:

Total results: 3Search Again.
(Click on the column headers to sort.)

NEW HAVEN FAMILY ALLIANCE INC CT 2017 990 37 $27,547.00 06-1324343
NEW HAVEN FAMILY ALLIANCE INC CT 2016 990 27 $143,550.00 06-1324343
New Haven Family Alliance CT 2012 990 21 $118,437.00 06-1324343

As originally shown on this post:

New Haven Family Alliance CT 2012 990 21 $118,437.00 06-1324343
New Haven Family Alliance CT 2011 990 25 $246,260.00 06-1324343
New Haven Family Alliance CT 2010 990 26 $148,285.00 06-1324343

Click on any of the above three years, look at Part I Details (main source of revenues, Line 8, is grants, main expenditures (Part I) is “Salaries,” look at Page 2 scanty description of what organization is doing (I saw top row’s only so far), go to Part VIII Statement of Revenues and notice that main source of Contributions (non-government donations) and Grants (government donations) is recorded as $1.4M out of total $1.5M (for YE2013) “Government Grants.”

….I just checked TAGGS.hhs.gov, and so far, do not see any direct grants to NHFA above (=Link to search results: All years, CT only, I entered Organization Name). I searched (org. name only) the Community Foundation for Greater New Haven and found no direct grants. I then searched (CT, all years) under two known CFDA’s: 93086 (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood) and 93597 (Access and Visitation) to see who, in the state of Connecticut, is getting those types of grants. These are the Title IV-A and Title IV-D grants, post-welfare reform of 1996, specifically promoting two-parent families and increased noncustodial parenting time (i.e., more fatherhood involvement where there is a single mother involved).

{{The gov’t grants on a Form 990 could be from ANY government entity; so they might have been state grants.//LGH Jan. 2, 2020}}

Summary, having written the post:

Truly we the public has been weighed in the balance (overall) and been found wanting.  Every four years — and between — we go to sleep on what, REALLY, did welfare reform do, and instead of going for our own close-up sources of reference across multiple sources, take public media, politicians, in combination with accredited experts (ever think of checking out WHO FUNDS THEM?  I sure have been…and posting it when it pertains to this subject matter also.)

If something has an opinion from a Republican and an opinion from a Democrat, making it “bipartisan” we still apparently think that’s meaningful.  Ditto if it’s supposedly religiously neutral because it’s in the sphere of “social science” and couched in economic terms about reducing poverty.

Under the banner of helping the low-income and reducing abstract, generalized terms such as “poverty,” and through ignorance (of how government reports its revenues to the public, not just what it does with them as publicized by the government or those contracting with government to describe how wonderful and transparent it is, and how great its programming and policies) we have been induced to create more and more layers of administration of public-purpose services, and once created, assume they should continue forever.

When it comes to post-PRWORA policy on promoting fatherhood, a look at the tax returns shows this literally props up a middle-class income in the private tax-exempt sector, and far from trickling down, is running into rivers of opportunity and shell organizations for less than public-interest purposes. When I say “shell organization” I mean, the entity either doesn’t exist at the state corporate level (for long), or the tax-filing level (as required to) consistently, but still keeps the website up and the solicitations — long after they’re out of compliance.  THIS is “business as usual” and if you’re in it (as a woman or as a man) it is an extension of the Good Ol’ Boys Network.

Who’s ever going to squeal the truth, the whole truth, or anything remotely resembling the truth?  Should some dare to do this, the means to squelch the individuals and make an example of them to others is already available.  I will say again the ENTIRE family court system is itself one of those tools.  It still matters who and what is running it and who set it up.

Where the post started, yesterday:

I have been having some technical delays getting out an updated Page and current posts. While working on this, in three-year-old posts focused on Connecticut and the AFCC, I ran across the example of “Male Information Network,” “New Haven Family Alliance” and I see with participation from a regionally-based Community Foundation and a single center at Yale University School of Medicine supposedly providing the “credibility’ factor.

I ran across a write-up from these sources of at a government site as HHS Public domain on a highly-credible website dedicated to Biotechnology and Molecular Biology (scientific things at the DNA and cellular level). Apart from it being highly misplaced in that respectable company,  as if some of the respectability might wear off and magically transform the shlock into sound arguments, scientific proofs, and a theoretically (or even practically) solid structure, what it’s saying, and the closed-circuit set of references and authors to justify it, leave me still incredulous that it is to be taken seriously.

That write up inspired this post.  Even as a jaundiced blogger who’s waded through plenty of social science verbiage and circular self-references in this Federal family designer-sphere before, the new levels of “let us all now help low-income men become positive role models in fulfilment of their proper social position as fathers.”  I was still amazed at what we let pass for government services, not to mention some semblance of “science.”

I already knew the rhetoric around the new/old religion of “fatherhood” IS basically a religion, but couched in social science rhetoric (itself, along with sociology a few, not many, politically correct steps away from straight-out eugenics as a former basis for racism and maintaining a master/slave status long after the Civil War.  Eugenics which was tried and promoted in this country, the USA  after World War II in particular, which is to say after more public awareness of Hitler, and the Jewish Holocaust, needed a face-lift to enact, rationalize, to justify policies based on just about the same mentality in post-World War II society.

I also knew in general that what is sold as “fatherhood” and a positive service by government is in fact being used to shunt millions of account entries (dollars, that is) into places where the sun don’t shine and the public will forget about, before the government comes back, year after year, demanding in effect handouts (revenues it doesn’t need, but does want) from its own citizens in exchange for not taking even more things away from them.

So I thought I’d treat, and inside the red-bordered-box below, I do treat followers, readers, browsers, or anyone whose search results happened to straggle onto this page somehow, to an example — just one — published under “NIH” in the HHS Public Domain —focusing on what has been done since the 1990s to promote ALL of our nation (through HHS dollars and at the state-collaboration-level) to continue supporting middle-class men and fathers, low-income men and fathers, and social science authors who, amazingly, come to the conclusion that the way it USED to be in this country (male-dominant, men in charge, women and mothers responsible to domesticate them and, ideally remain economically dependent, but if not, at no point, should those women and mothers be allowed to set strong boundaries against untamed or violent males who have been their fathers) (or the public be able to pull the plug on this===>) instead of helping people off welfare, keeping them on it (low-income) and instead putting nonprofit organizations such as “New Haven Family Alliance” fronting for this practice, essentially on close to 100% welfare.

Also, that being “networked” means good luck finding what money went where for which purposes (in your free time or any other time).

In addition, besides it being unclear how many similar Networks and nonprofits are involved, some of them — like “New Haven Family Alliance” — after stating their spiel, keep the website up and the trappings of credibility — but (apparently) can abruptly stop filing tax returns, and who even knows, if no one checks?

I called this one out three years ago, June 6, 2013.

What I’m about to show as passing for (still not clear WHAT it’s supposed to pass for) I believe demonstrates that we are just about ready to be sold some (more) land underneath the Brooklyn Bridge.  For a clue on the context, one of the references was:

For another clue, here are the “Contributors”  and notice just how few organizations we are looking at, BUT one of them is “Yale University School of Medicine (“The Consultation Center”).

Apparently if Yale is involved, it is NOT to be questioned, period.  Although mainstream media and almost any Republicans have no problem questioning, and expressing hatred for, current Presidential Candidate and among the first classes of women admitted to Yale in the 1970s, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton…And no, I’m not a Hillary (or Clinton) fan for saying that.  I’ve looked at the foundations, and I’ve come to a basic understanding of what Welfare Reform (a Clinton-era product) actually means for women who do not happen to be in positions of governmental (including social services, judicial, or other) positions of power).

Notice that the reference to the Contributor Information doesn’t provide links, when it easily could’ve.

Contributor Information

Derrick M. Gordon, The Consultation Center, Yale University School of Medicine.

Bronwyn Hunter, The Consultation Center, Yale University School of Medicine.

LaKeesha N. Woods, Community Science. {meaning what, exactly?}

Barbara Tinney, New Haven Family Alliance.
Blannie Bostic, New Haven Family Alliance.
Sherman Malone, New Haven Family Alliance.
Germano Kimbro, New Haven Family Alliance.

Dolores Greenlee, The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven.
Sarah Fabish, The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven.
Kenneth Harris, The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven.

Amos Smith, Community Action Agency.

This time I decided to post the goods , the evidence, first and move (most of) my commentary to the bottom.

From this post published 6/3/2013, Someone Got This Evidence.  You Could Too.  What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2), which I was referencing along with one in progress (not published yet), “Conflicting Information about the Family-Conflict-Resolution Organization (AFCC Updates)” and 5/28/2013 Someone got this Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.1.).

On the “Connecticut AFCC/Pt.2” at the top are quotations and commentary from the text below (added as an update).  At the very BOTTOM are more detailed observations I made on the “Male Information Network” (MIN) and its street address, some things about a mortgage taken out a 370 James Street, and more I have not refreshed my memory on this round.

There are even what I believe could be appropriately labeled “AFCC Courts” and I posted on this around the same time.“Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut,” the Underground Economy in an AFCC Courthouse?.  That one, 6/6/2013, began with an appeal for people to speak up before another authorization of TANF.

In current Presidential Primary TV coverage, there are references to Paul Ryan from Wisconsin saying if Donald Trump becomes President, there will be (again?) a “radical restructuring of welfare.”

The Time is NOW to Speak Out regarding TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) Extension!

This frees up the federal $$ which draw down through a single-statewide agency (different for each state) to fund Access and Visitation Funds which seem central to many complaints about the court’s handling of abuse cases. Without this block of money** diverted FROM needy families to “SERVICE” the same families (and no longer limited to low-income, as it was initially sold as helping) — probably many nonprofit contractors with family courthouses wouldn’t have bothered to incorporate. Involvement of the Federal Funding drawdown is the Golden Nugget, possibly the motherlode, in doing business with the courts. …

Parents and others traumatized or exploited by these abusive court programs can speak up NOW as the House Ways and Means Committee is getting ready to re-authorize TANF (extend it).  It was supposed to expire last Sept., they keep extending it.  Two Press Releases March 6th:  At least let ’em know someone is watching! http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentquery.aspx?DocumentTypeID=1496

(**A key change to “TANF” from the former “AFDC” programming was block grants to states.) This particular situation in Connecticut involved what I identified as an AFCC court based on connecting the dots between setting up a special judicial district and placing it under the control of a judge known to be “AFCC.”  The term was  “Regional Family Trial Docket.”  The significance of a subject-matter jurisdiction-grab by a single docket presided over by an AFCC Judge, with the subject matter defined in terms of AFCC-agenda (“high-conflict” “Contested Custody” etc.) is huge.

MEANWHILE at the time, within Connecticut, the AFCC chapter itself, which was (in spring 2013) running a conference, had been operating, apparently for decades, without incorporating privately, which is illegal.  It’s not just a jurisdiction grab by personnel known to have a private association agenda, but it’s also doing it in the context of un-accounted-for cash flow within the judicial system affecting others (including non-AFCC member professionals trying to do their jobs ethically and honestly) within the courts:

Regional Family Trial Docket. special docket in the Middlesex Judicial District; 1 Court Street, Middletown, which handles contested custody and visitation matters referred to it from any Judicial District in the state. ONE JUDGE [caps mine] presides over and manages the docket. The goal is to handle contested cases involving children quickly and without interruption. Cases are referred to the Regional Family Trial Docket by the family presiding judge when they meet the program criteria: child focused issue; ready for trial; family relations case study completed and not more than nine months old; and an attorney has been appointed for the children.

Significance: The existence (formation) of this judicial district (ca. 1994? on a small scale, then expanded?) makes it possible to “grab” cases (jurisdiction over cases) by subject matter. Hence, a case might start (as I understand it now) out of Middletown Judicial District, but get sent there. I.e., centralization of control of certain kinds of cases. Same general idea as the presence of “Unified Family Courts”

(From my post “Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut,” the Underground Economy in an AFCC Courthouse?. )

Perhaps you may notice the common themes in those titles: Connecticut, and AFCC, and getting the evidence.  As you can see on some of those posts, I was by posting attempting to captialize on the public attention, briefly, to the existence of AFCC as a corporation, and THIS time (as opposed to responses in prior years) encourage public follow-up.

In the 6/6/2013 “Underground Economy in an AFCC Courthouse” post above, I also showed it being set up, “coincidentally” around the time of Welfare Reform (1997), and even provided links, and somewhat sarcastic narrative in how it was done, step by step.  Notice I flagged events in 1997, 2004, and 2008, 2012, and 2013 and each one of them was found in different venues (Family Law Journal, Bar Association Training,  press release from the Connecticut Judiciary on their website, and a legal publication (Connecticut Law Tribune)

How much more of a promotional trail, evidence, of what’s taking place could anyone want?

How did it happen, generally speaking?

1997 Publish in a Family Law Journal

19 Fam. Advoc. 43 (1996-1997)
Connecticut’s Child Custody Court; Bernham, Christina P. 
(Ms. Bernham works in this docket).

(HEIN ON-LINE==>) a little history of how this court started with two judicial districts and expanded to statewide where it’s “hotly contested” custody (translation: high-conflict, an AFCC term) and the idea is to “avoid pain” for the children in being fought over. Is that working?

2004 Continue to Train the Bar Association: (run CLE classes, for fees & PR)
Flyer: A January 2004 “Continuing Legal Education” (CLE) on the “Regional Family Trial Docket” (RFTD), New Haven County Bar Association, run by Judge Linda Munro, introduces the court and how to refer business (parents, cases), to it. The two-hour seminar, by the NH Bar Associationis $40 members, $75, non-members, $15 students, etc. and is of course training and preparing for, and publicizing the docket.

2008 Get an AFCC Presiding Judge to Preside over the Special Docket

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 29, 2008 Quick Links Latest Press Releases
PRESS ADVISORY: Judge Lynda B. Munro Named Chief Administrative Judge of Family Matters
Chief Court Administrator Barbara M. Quinn announced today that Superior Court Judge Lynda B. Munro has been appointed as chief administrative judge of family matters, effective Sept. 1, 2008.

2012 Continue to Publicize in Legal Journals requiring special access and seek to establish it as a National Model:

Parental Relocation Cases Pose Challenge For Special Family Court Docket
The Connecticut Law Tribune
September 4, 2012

Back-to-school season looms as a harsh deadline for one of the most difficult types of family court cases – relocations. When a custodial parent is petitioning to leave the family’s hometown, to pursue job opportunities or life with a new partner in a distant city, it can rip aparty a family that’s already tattered. And by August, the kids need to know where they’re going to school. In this challenging type of case, Connecticut courts have tools that make it a national model. One is a specialized docket ? the Regional Family Trial Docket (RFTD) in Middletown ? for the hardest cases. The other is an innovative special masters program for mediating such cases before trial.

(From my post “Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut,” the Underground Economy in an AFCC Courthouse?. )

And, IS Judge Munro an AFCC judge?  Well, check out 2013. 2013 is the claimed 50th anniversary of AFCC. It appears to be a false claim, but that hasn’t slowed it down much, that I can see:

RIDING THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE: GLOBAL VOICES, EXPANDING CHOICES” MAY/JUNE 2013 in Los Angeles. (Notice who is sponsoring the conference, and which nonprofit professional associations are participating, opening pages). Note the wonderful graphics, even a child couldn’t miss the message..

ANYHOW, in this AFCC 2013 Conference Brochure, p. 14 Bottom, Judge Munro presenting on the Mandatory Training for CT courts:

(From my post “Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut,” the Underground Economy in an AFCC Courthouse?. )

Additionally, and in a general on-line context of which (at the time) the “Broken Courts Crowd” and BMCC (Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference) presenters were typically arguing how “parental alienation” was not a sound psychological theory, a source on “Mayalaw” from the lawyers’ perspective showed how, Connecticut doesn’t particularly care about the pros or cons of whether it’s a valid mental health syndrome — they are going to take “parental alienation” into consideration anyhow based on the parent’s behavior.  While this (2013) link is now broken, I did quote it on my post, and the article may exist somewhere else.  This itself should’ve alerted MOTHERS to quit using this argument in their parades, rallies, conferences, and complaints — as far as the courts are concerned, it’s irrelevant.  I said this in a post title also (early 2016).  Arguging Pro/Con “PAS” is letting the officials know that one is easily distracted from other things — such as how the world works, and the underground economy in their courses.  Parents who focus on this are no real hazard to “business as usual.”

Parental Alienation “Syndrome” – Real or Not, a Real Consideration During Custody”(also hover cursor)

The more typical response (myself, and SOME others, obviously not included) is complete oblivion to its existence and many influences and functions of its membership, in coordinating and networking with each other like any true cult at the state level and regarding the family courts and (by association and by plan) through the ongoing expansion and “status quo” of having family (and conciliation) courts around at all, affecting how domestic violence is addressed in custody matters without completely exposing or jeopardizing the status quo of (for example, and in no particular order):

  • problem-solving courts,
  • out-come-based court incentives (at the federal level) and
  • through continual promotion of language change favoring behavioral science framework over the criminal law framework WITHIN family courts, basically psychologizing (instead of prosecuting and through prosecution, effectively sending a message we WILL stop this!) towards– including physical serious injury and at times, lethal, i.e., murder-involved —  violence towards children boys and girls, young men and young women who are still minors, not to mention violence towards women including the mothers of children.
  • Ongoing income streams from the business of (a) officially separating, usually arbitrarily and (b) officially reunifying, usually arbitrarily (although I have YET to hear of a high-profile reunification of children who have run away, or children of fathers who have abducted them — with their mothers).

What also gets to me, gets “under my skin” (it truly irritates me!) –in running across this information, year, after year, after year, after year,  — is that this rhetoric, “scientific” rationalization of sexism (not just racism.  It’s not just the rhetoric itself, but continuing to encounter it pervasively when it comes to exploring social services, period.


Apparently some concessions are made for racism so long as it’s counterbalanced with sufficient sexism) — is debated, publicized and promoted behind our backs.  Meaning, behind the backs of the average taxpayer, and behind the backs of the average American woman and mother who may already have, or might at some time be “forced to divorce” for safety reasons.   It’s an attempt to rigidify gender roles.

I’m not a “metrosexual” or “gender-bender” or particularly in support of LGBTQ activism throughout our public institutions (and bathrooms), BUT there should be some ground which doesn’t require verbal woman-bashing in the social science sphere.


I run across this information simply through following, primarily, welfare reform HMRF funding, the organization deeply involved with the custody and divorce matters of this nation, AFCC, and where some have dug a little deeper, attempting to follow up on this.  I was updating two of my posts from May/June 2013 (not a particularly good year on the personal front.  I was jobless and on food stamps while attempting to dislodge a sister who’d commandeered control of a housing reference after prior years of personal (VERY personally worded and directed) attacks on my right to exist without taking orders on how to exist — being at the time a working professional with two children and in my fifties.  I know this situation resonates with plenty of employed and working single mothers across the country who found their employment either disrupted repeatedly, diminished, or completely lost as they were hauled through the family court systems and attempting to protect their children from being replaced into the complete control and “care” of men who had formerly been beating these women in the home, and behaving abusively towards them.

I doubt all men behave in this manner at home — at least I certainly hope so! — but plenty do, and it is in complete contrast with what supposedly this country stands for to tolerate it.  If this is going to be increasingly tolerated, justified, and the public billed while social scientists — unobstructed and with ongoing funding — are encouraged to rationalize it — I guarantee all of us, we have an increasingly violent and unjust future in the very near future.

Verbal abuse of an entire class of human beings — and I’m talking mothers — by demanding that fathers receive support to “counter” some of the gains we (women) might have made in the work sphere, and in the “protecting our bodies” sphere over the past few decades is harmful.  It is not without effect, and I continue to run across evidence in what are supposed to be not, really, the public square — but in academic exchanges between a CERTAIN KIND of “scientists” (social scientists, that is) and social service providers, many of whom happen to be women.

WHO incentivized WHOM to break down logical thought and managed — in our family’s case — to in ONE generation, reverse academic, financial, and college graduation gains made in my family line in favor of ensuring that I as a single mother CLEARLY understood my subservient position in this corrupt clan (I’m referring to my family’s behavior on learning that I was separating from a violent and abusive, including physically battering and economically coercive and otherwise objectionable husband – and going about my business NOT expecting to become permanently subject to other women (or men) simply because I refused to subject myself, or continue exposing our young children, to this horrible role model and treatment of their mother.

Increasing Outreach, Connection, and Services to Low-Income Non-Custodial Fathers: How Did We Get Here and What Do We Know

found here during a search for “Male Information Network”


Fathering. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 May 9.
Published in final edited form as:
Fathering. 2012 Winter; 10(1): 101–111. 

doi:  10.3149/fth.1001.101

PMCID: PMC4015970

Increasing Outreach, Connection, and Services to Low-Income Non-Custodial Fathers: How Did We Get Here and What Do We Know


This paper documents a model for outreaching, connecting, and serving low-income, ethnically diverse, non-custodial fathers. Men are engaged “where they are” by building their strengths and addressing their needs. The Male Involvement Network’s (MIN) collaborative model was created in Connecticut to help fathers become positive and healthy role models by increasing their attachment to their children and families (Smith, 2003). This clinically informed, case management model addresses their physical, emotional, mental, economic and spiritual health needs. Through a relational approach and social modeling it includes skill development in education, economic stability, family/child support, and mental and physical health. Implications for testing this approach are suggested.

Keywords: Fathers, low-income, outreach, community collaboration


Written and oral history of fatherhood provides evidence to support the role of men in raising children and in family development (Dowd, 2000Marsiglio, Amato, Day & Lamb, 2000Coley, 2001). Traditional conceptualizations of fathers ask that men be married to their female partners, live with their partner and children, and provide financial support (Coley, 2001). They also provide moral leadership, authority, gender role modeling and portray and pass on the traditional construct of the male role to their sons and daughters (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, Lamb, 2000).

Efforts to shape and address father involvement have primarily focused on middle-class, White fathers (Dowd, 2000Marsiglio, Amato, Day & Lamb, 2000) and overlook fathers who are not married, economically sound, and residential, thus limiting their role in child development (Coley, 2001). Over the years, the number of low-income, non-custodial fathers has increased, especially among minority groups (Maldonado, 2006). Meeting the social expectations of fatherhood has received much attention due to the observation that not all fathers, irrespective of income level, reside in traditionally nuclear families (Coley, 2001).

Fatherhood in a Low-Income Context

Low-income, non-custodial fathers are overlooked in fatherhood contexts. They present with needs that affect their economic stability (Sorenson & Zibman, 2003), involvement in healthy relationships, and participation in family and community life (Aronson, Whitehead & Baber, 2003Sorenson & Zibman, 2001). Meeting societal expectations for the father role is challenging for low-income fathers (e.g. physical and behavioral health issues, improving co-parent relationships; Aronson, et al, 2003). In addition to racial discrimination and ethnic prejudice, barriers to employment faced by this population include limitations in health, education, work experience, transportation, housing (Sorenson & Zibman, 2001), incarceration and reunification with families and communities after incarceration (Sorenson & Zibman, 2001).

The importance of father involvement among low-income, minority fathers is also evident in the child maltreatment literature. Families where all children were referred to child protective services for abuse/neglect or who were currently in foster care with an available father figure had higher levels of cognitive development and perceptions of confidence and social acceptance than children with an absent father (Dubowitz, Black, Cox, Kerr, Litrownik, Radhakrishna, et al., 2001). Children with involved fathers also had shorter stays in foster care settings (Coakley, 2007).

Program Efforts to Support Low-Income Fathers

In an attempt to help low-income fathers meet the expectations for their role, many programs have been developed nationwide (New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, 2007Stapleton, 2000). These programs have added to the scientific knowledge on evidence-based fatherhood programming. For example, programs now consider how to incorporate culturally appropriate teaching methods and materials, to select teachers and facilitators who believe in the program and to provide them with the relevant training and coaching, to create a high staff-participant ratio (see Bronte-Tinkew, Horowitz, & Metz, 2008for a complete summary).

In tandem with the development of these fatherhood programs and initiatives, the Personal Work and Responsibility Act of 1996 (PRWORA) was passed by Congress to increase the responsibility of non-custodial fathers by strengthening child support enforcement laws and payments received from non-custodial fathers so that their children and custodial mothers could make the transition from welfare to work or reduce their experience of poverty (US Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 1996). National fatherhood advocates argued for the inclusion and consideration of the emotional and psychological involvement of men and fathers in the lives of their children and families in all policy-related mandates developed through state and national efforts (National Fatherhood Initiative, 2007Smith, 2003). Under PRWORA legislation, all fathers, regardless of their status are to assume financial responsibility for their children. This law assumed that all low-income fathers are able to pay child support, disproportionately targeted them, imposed excessive consequences, and demanded that they pay a higher percentage of their earnings for child support than middle or high income men. They also limited low-income fathers’ ability to receive public assistance while neglecting to address specific barriers to employment (Curran, 2003Sorenson, 1999). Recognizing the limitations of the PRWORA, local and state agencies have, through local responsible fatherhood initiatives and policies, sought to address these disparities (Curran, 2003).

The neglect of non-residential fathers by welfare law, policy and procedures hinders welfare reform’s goal of improving outcomes for children (Maldonado, 2006Orloff & Monson, 2002). Most states have implemented job and employment programs for fathers who are not paying child support rather than address the array of issues (e.g. drug abuse, presence of legal problems, past incarcerations, not establishing paternity) that have been identified as challenges low-income fathers face in meeting their economic demands (Curran, 2003Fagan & Palkovitz, 2007Waller and Swisher, 2006). A father’s financial support of his children is undeniably important. It does not preclude, however, other aspects of fathering, from providing emotional and social support to being incorporated into programs that seek to strengthen men’s skills.

Establishing a Broader Context to Support Low-Income Fathers

Understanding fatherhood requires consideration of the practice of fatherhood across individual, relationship, community, and societal systems. This contributes to a more accurate definition of fatherhood, and highlights each system’s impact on men’s capacity as fathers to meet their children’s needs.

Defining the father role begins with individual conceptualizations of what are the inner psychological understanding, experiences, and motivations that influence men as they assume the role (Daly, 1992; Osherson, 1986). Fatherhood is an emergent identity that is continuously being reshaped and reinterpreted as men encounter new circumstances, challenges, or obstacles (Marsiglio, 1993) with their partners, children, and communities. It is also impacted by their commitment to the role through the development and maintenance of an ethical relationship between father and child, especially when there are competing demands for their time and energy (Hawkins & Dollahite, 1997Marsiglio, 1993). As a father interacts with society, he is expected to achieve certain standards to successfully perform the role (Marsiglio, 1993).

Research shows that the more involved the father is early in the child’s life, the stronger their relationship later in life (Aquilino, 2006Coley & Hernandez 1999Lamb, 2005). Attachment theory argues that the quality of early infant-parent interaction has an impact on the quality of resulting relationships between parent and child, between child and peers, and between child and subsequent romantic partners (Bowlby, 1969). Secure attachment styles between fathers and their children can create a foundation for responsible father involvement. Harper and Fine (2006) suggested that paternal warmth and intimacy may decrease problem behaviors among children. Thus, the attachment between nonresident fathers and their children may have an effect on predicting future father involvement, fathering behaviors, and child outcomes (Aquilino, 2006Lamb, 2005Harper & Fine, 2006).

Fatherhood also requires behaviors and social markers (Lamb, Pleck, Charnov, & Levine, 1987Palkovitz, 1997Doherty, Kouneski & Erikson, 1998Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000Marsiglio, Amato, Day & Lamb, 2000). Included are engagement, accessibility, and responsibility (Lamb et al., 1987). This allows for the expansion of expectations/behaviors/activities of the father role. Engagement includes sharing activities; and providing emotional support, warmth, affect, sensitivity, support, and participation (Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000Doherty, Kouneski & Erikson, 1998Palkovitz, 1997). Accessibility includes planning and consistent availability to children. Responsibility includes running errands, providing financial support, teaching, thinking about children, and establishing legal paternity (Cabrera et al., 2000; Doherty et al., 1997).

The current cultural shift in relation to the role of father in child, family, and community life underscores the need to broaden the conceptualizations and definitions of fatherhood to understand and support fathers. An inclusive definition of fatherhood promotes active involvement in family life and facilitates positive attachment to children, family, and community (Cabrera et al., 2000). The quality of father-child relationships is a strong predictor of the child’s well-being (Curran, 2003). Children whose fathers were satisfied with their parenting roles and nurturing behaviors had better cognitive and language skills (Black, Dubowitz, & Starr, 1999). Although emotional support and guidance are important, men are still viewed and measured by others solely by how much financial support they provide to their family (Roy, 2004). This narrow conceptualization of fathers may leave men, particularly those with limited financial resources, feeling constrained (Roy, 2004).

The conceptual framework of the Male Involvement Network (MIN) is to outreach, connect, and serve low-income, non-custodial fathers and increase their attachment to their children. This may produce healthier children, families, and communities. Attending to the multiple roles of fathers was the impetus for the MIN, a local initiative that encourages and enables fathers to meet their emotional, social, and financial responsibilities to their families (Smith, 2003).

The Male Involvement Network Fatherhood (MIN) Initiative

Program Description/Overview

The MIN is a collaborative partnership between local social service agencies, interested community members, fathers, local community foundations, state entities, and academic partners that was established in Connecticut in 1999 to address the unique needs of low-income, non-custodial fathers. In aligning itself with a diverse group of service providers, community members, and state entities, it builds on their assets and services offered without duplication. The value added to the constituent partners of MIN is the attention that it brings to developing a clear set of “father friendly” practices that welcome men and support their healthy development and the shared responsibility for the program and its ongoing development.

The MIN aims to improve the health status of men; increase their vocational skills and opportunities; increase their general knowledge about their role in child, family, and community development; and increase their financial investment in their children. It acknowledges that low-income, non-custodial fathers present with unique challenges to assuming and maintaining their financial responsibilities. It seeks to provide fathers with the resources, skills and opportunities important for their success (e.g., emotional, social, attachment and financial) to create a healthy environment where children can flourish.

Using Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model, the MIN can be described through three primary systems: individual, family, and community. Individual interventions include providing educational interventions, employment and career development, and addressing the physical, mental, behavioral, and emotional health needs of the men. Family interventions include identifying and addressing family/child support needs, legal services, and mediation/access and visitation challenges. Community interventions include a relational model of outreach and case management, providing modeling and mentoring to promote their attachment, and involving fathers as leaders and community assets. Services are coordinated through partner agencies and integrate follow-up and systems navigation. Fatherhood development skills training, workforce development, individual counseling, consultation and services related to anger management, domestic violence, court readiness, paternity establishment and support enforcement services are embedded into these core-intervention frameworks.

Theoretical Framework

The public health approach to prevention serves as the theoretical basis for the creation of the MIN. There are three levels of intervention that aim to address and prevent problems: universal strategies that target everyone in the population; selective strategies that are focused on populations at heightened risks; and indicated strategies aimed at those in the population who have experienced or are affected by the issue of interest (Brome, Saul, Lang, Lee-Pethel, Rainford, & Wheaton, 2004; see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Structure of Services for the Male Involvement Network

At all levels, the goal of the MIN is to offer assistance and services that promote and encourage health while strengthening the family’s economic and social ties. This allows the MIN to create three parallel levels of services oriented around needs and grounded in prevention: self-serving/universal, maintenance/selective, and intensive/indicated.

The universal/self-serving approaches target the general public and decision-makers/ opinion leaders, seek to increase community awareness and opportunities, advance policy, and foster knowledge about fathers’ roles of and resources. Included activities are educating legislators; holding high visibility public events; participating in other local events (e.g., community fairs); and holding seminars or workshops. These activities are estimated to reach about 3,000 adults and 10,000 children.

Selective/maintenance activities usually are initiated by third-party stakeholders (e.g. court order, DCF, DSS) with the goal of motivating and exposing the men to healthy alternatives. Men are informally screened and oriented to available services and receive preliminary problem solving assistance. The intentions of these services are to promote responsible fatherhood and provide opportunities for men to be better family and community members. These services reach about 150 adults and approximately 225 children.

Indicated/intensive activities provide support for a subset of fathers from the selective intervention level who presented with multiple issues/needs (e.g., legal adjudication, substance abuse problems). An intensive service plan is created where in it direct services and/or referrals to other community resources are outlined. These services reach about 100 adults and 500 children.


The MIN has identified nine core intervention strategies upon which the framework for service delivery is established. Member agencies work with the MIN to deliver these strategies, please refer to Table 1 for a summary of these services.

Table 1

Program Framework for the Male Involvement Network


Low-income fathers present to social service agencies with specified needs that often extend beyond their initial referrals. Fathers can enter into services through any of the MIN’s partners and or nine core intervention areas presented in Table 1.

  • This approach identifies the strengths and weaknesses of each man
  • Is aware that no agency has all of the required resources to meet the needs of this population
  • Each partner agency provides services using strategies consistent with their stated mission
  • This strategy reduces interagency competition and expands the agency’s clientele, while requiring ongoing review of the service model delivered.


The Connecticut Fatherhood Initiative Act of 1999 (PA 99–193) was designed by the state of Connecticut in collaboration with the National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families (NPNFF) to promote the positive involvement and interaction of fathers with their children through programs and resources. It requires programs to identify effective methods that increase the positive involvement of fathers by making services available to them (CT Fatherhood Initiative, 1999). The MIN was among the first cohort of programs certified through this active and critical Fatherhood Certification process. Certification connotes competence across seven core areas required for effective fatherhood practice: purpose and activities, organization and management, parenting skills development, personal and social skills development, workforce skills development, father support services, and evidence of success.

Certification is granted through DSS to programs that have historically and successfully promoted fatherhood through programming; included fatherhood in their mission and purpose; documented and described the fathers’ demographic characteristics; described current services; articulated well, why certification should be granted; demonstrated commitment to the certification process and its quality assurance checks at the management level; and identified technical assistance needs for the program (CT Fatherhood Initiative, 1999).

Lessons Learned in Supporting Low-Income Fathers through the Male Involvement Network

Welfare policies have resulted in unintended consequences for poor men. Policies such as PRWORA and the National Fatherhood Initiative may greatly benefit from the MIN’s approach, design and philosophy: serving low-income fathers and families through attention to the barriers faced and strengths held and addressing them with proven interventions. The MIN, its design, structure, and philosophy hold promise. The current evaluation observations are based on dialogue and review by study authors, MIN actors, and its ability to engage and support fathers through services provided.

The MIN’s strength rests on its acknowledgement that fathers have often not been seen as needing support in their role. Our challenge has been to help our partners recognize these needs, understand them, and develop strategies to address them. The model creates a foundation for assisting low-income, non-custodial, fathers and programs through a collaborative network that uses their respective strengths and needs across the nine core intervention areas** of education; employment and career development; family and child support; health; housing; legal services; mediations, access, and visitation; economic stability; and outreach and case management. The MIN integrates a triage system of care: universal/self serving, selected/maintenance, and indicated/intensive. Men receive more intensive or less intensive care based on his presentation, expressed needs, and success at meeting the goals outlined in his service plan. Intervention areas most often include outreach and case management and mediation, access and visitation.

[**bolding and red font added by blogger, not in original posting, as is bold in next paragraph]

The MIN garners support and buy-in from over 20 key local and state constituents whose collaboration is fostered through individual referral and monthly meetings. This support, however, can be further strengthened through the documentation of its impact and the abilities across its nine core intervention areas. Success in the core intervention areas further reinforces the MIN’s claim that low-income fathers can and ought to be supported in their role in healthy child, family, and community development. Intervention and program structures must also be refined to accommodate the changing needs and presentation of the men, especially through attention to untapped community capital for fathers and their children. The MIN’s long-term view attends to and includes interventions at the individual, relational, community and system levels. It challenges community-based programs with similar goals to engage with the MIN in articulating how they approach their work with low income men. Other evaluation activities include examining service program and participants’ responses and success in this strategy.


Engaging men around their role as fathers can be a conduit to healthy child, family, and community development. The MIN model seeks to extend what constitutes “fatherhood work” and examine how past and current policies and zeitgeist either limits or expands this understanding.** Finally, the MIN seeks to include a more holistic conceptualization of fathers and expand the definition of father as financial contributor to include the healthy role he can play in family and community life. Strategies based on these principles may be more effective and may help to increase the status of low-income fathers’ children and families.

[[Obviously, again blogger added the yellow highlighting and red bolded font.]]

Contributor Information

Derrick M. Gordon, The Consultation Center, Yale University School of Medicine.

Bronwyn Hunter, The Consultation Center, Yale University School of Medicine.

LaKeesha N. Woods, Community Science.

Barbara Tinney, New Haven Family Alliance.

Blannie Bostic, New Haven Family Alliance.

Sherman Malone, New Haven Family Alliance.

Germano Kimbro, New Haven Family Alliance.

Dolores Greenlee, The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven.

Sarah Fabish, The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven.

Kenneth Harris, The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven.

Amos Smith, Community Action Agency.


  • Anderson E, Kohler J, Letiecq B. Low income fathers and “Responsible fatherhood” programs: A qualitative investigation of participants’ experiences. Family Relations. 2002;51(2):148–155.
  • Aquilino WS. The noncustodial father-child relationship from adolescence into young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006;68:929–946.
  • Aronson RE, Whitehead TL, Baber WL. Challenges to masculine transformation among low-income african american males. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(5):732–741. [PMC free article]  [PubMed]
  • Black MM, Dubowitz H, Starr RH., Jr African american fathers in low income, urban families: Development, behavior, and home environment of their three-year-old children. Child Development. 1999;70(4):967–978.  [PubMed]
  • Bowlby J.  Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books; 1969. 
  • Brome M, Saul J, Lang K, Lee-Pethel R, Rainford N, Wheaton J.  Sexual Violence Prevention: Beginning the Dialogue. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2004. 
  • Bronte-Tinkew J, Horowitz A, Metz A. 2008 Retrieved September 10th, 2008 from www.fatherhood.gov.
  • Bronfenbrenner U.  The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1979
  • Cabrera NL, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Bradley RH, Hofferth S, Lamb ME. Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development. 2000;71(1):127–136.  [PubMed]
  • Center for Urban Families. 2007 Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.cfuf.org/
  • Coakley TM. Examining African-american fathers’ involvement in permanency planning: An effort to reduce racial disproportionality in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review. 2007;30i:407–417.
  • Coley RL. (In)visible men: Emerging research on low-income, unmarried, and minority fathers. American Psychologist. 2001;56(9):743–753.  [PubMed]
  • Coley RL, Chase-Lansdale PL. Stability and change in paternal involvement among urban african american fathers. Journal of Family Psychology. 1999;13(3):416–435.
  • Coley RL, Hernandez DC. Predictors of paternal involvement for resident and nonresident low-income fathers. Developmental Psychology. 2006;42(6):1041–1056.[PubMed]
  • Connecticut Fatherhood Initiative. 1999 Retrieved August 28, 2007, from http://www.fatherhoodinitiative.state.ct.us/index2.htm.
  • Curran L. Social work and fathers: Child support and fathering programs. Social Work. 2003;48(2):219–227.  [PubMed]
  • Daly KJ. Reshaping fatherhood: Finding the models. In: Marsiglio W, editor. Fatherhood contemporary theory, research, and social policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1992. pp. 21–40.
  • Doherty WJ, Kouneski EF, Erikson MF. Reponsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1998;60:277–292.
  • Dowd NE.  Redefining fatherhood. New York: New York University Press; 2000. 
  • Dubowitz H, Black M, Cox C, Kerr M, Litrownik A, Radhakrishna A, et al. Father involvement and children’s functioning at age 6 years: A multisite study. Child Maltreatment. 2001;6:300–309.  [PubMed]
  • Fagan J, Palkovitz R. Unmarried, nonresident fathers’ involvement with their infants: A risk and resilience perspective. Journal of Family Psychology. 2007;3(21):479–489.  [PubMed]
  • Fraiberg SH.  Every child’s birthright: In defense of mothering. New York: Bantam; 1978. 
  • Georgia Fatherhood Program. Office of Child Support Services. 2001 Retrieved October 20, 2007, from www.dhr.georgia.gov/DHR/DHR_FactSheets/Fatherhood_program_06.pdf.
  • Harper SE, Fine MA. The effects of involved nonresidential fathers’ distress, parenting behaviors, inter-parental conflict, and the quality of father-child relationships on children’s well-being. Fathering. 2006;4(3):286–311.
  • Hawkins AJ, Dollahite DC.  Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1997. 
  • Hobson B.  Making Men into Fathers. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002. 
  • Lamb ME. Attachments, social networks, and developmental contexts. Human Development. 2005;48:108–112.
  • Lamb ME, Pleck JH, Charnov EL, Levine JA. A biosocial perspective on paternal behavior and involvement. In: Lancaster JB, Altmann J, editors. Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions. Hawthorne, NY, US: Aldine; 1987. pp. 111–142.
  • Lu YE, Landsverk J, Ellis-Macleod E, Newton R, Ganger W, Johnson I. Race, ethnicity, and case outcomes in child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review. 2004;26:447–461.
  • Maldonado S. Deadbeat or deadbroke: Redefining child support for poor fathers. University of California, Davis Law Review. 2006;39:991–1022.
  • Marsiglio W. Contemporary scholarship on fatherhood: Culture, identity, and conduct. Journal of Family Issues. 1993;14(4):484–509.
  • Marsiglio W, Amato P, Day R, Lamb M. Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage & the Family. 2000;62(4):1173–1191.
  • National Fatherhood Initiative. [Accessed October 17, 2007];2007 from https://www.fatherhood.org/father_factor.asp.
  • New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. [Accessed November 15, 2007];2007 from  http://www.otda.state.ny.us/main/fatherhood/resources.htm.
  • Orloff A, Monson R. Citizens. Workers, or fathers: Men in the history of U.S. policy. In: Hobson B, Morgan D, editors. Making Men into Fathers. NY: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 77–124.
  • Palkovitz R. Reconstructing “involvement”: Expanding conceptualizations of men’s caring in contemporary families. In: Hawkins AJ, Dollahite DC, editors. Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1997. pp. 200–216.
  • Roy KM. You can’t eat love: Constructing provider role expectations for low-income and working-class fathers. Fathering. 2004;2(3):253–276.
  • Smith AL. Health policy and the coloring of an american male crisis: A perspective on community-based health services. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(5):749–52. [PMC free article]  [PubMed]
  • Sorenson E, Zibman C. Getting to know poor fathers who do not pay child support. Social Service Review. 2001:420–433.
  • Sorenson E.  Obligating dads: Helping low-income noncustodial fathers do more for their children. Washington D.C: The Urban Institute; 1999. 
  • Stapleton M. The unnecessary tragedy of fatherless children: Welfare reform’s responsePolicy and Practice of Public Human Services. 2000;58:43–48.
  • US Department of Health and Human Services. Promoting Responsible Fatherhood. [Accessed August 16, 2007];1996 from http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/2006Initiative/index.shtml.
  • Waller MR, Swisher R. Fathers’ risk factors in fragile families: Implications for “Healthy” relationships and father involvement. Social Problems. 2006;3(53):392–420.


File this I guess, along side other findings, under How and Why I became a “Feminist”


Some may ask why I’m sounding more and more feminist these days, and how many people is this going to alienate.  Or the tone of my posts might be more sarcastic, or simply adamant about the information I’m continuing to talk about — while too few others do.

This doesn’t come from a place of hate but from having enough love (of justice, of fairness, of truth in particular, and of honesty when it comes to how government — supported by the public — should be dealing with those it’s supposedly serving) to get angry when the standard is so far off.

A very short answer might be:  (1) Christian religious toleration of wife abuse; (2) family courts encouragement of it, and (3) PRWORA welfare reform of 1996s’ and ALL that goes with it punishing women who opt to become single mothers in the process of getting out from under it.

FYI, I’m not a member of NOW and have some serious issues with certain feminist organizations (one that comes to mind recently is “Legal Momentum,” formerly the “NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund” for continuing to talk about Welfare Reform (their link to their summary and articles on  “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families” [“TANF”] under “Programs” which is still, 2016  labeled:

TANF: A Social Safety Net for Women and Families

and “forgetting” to talk about the HMRF funding and propaganda dollars, which is to say $150M/year — as well as the Access and Visitation dollars ($10M/year).  That’s 1996-2016 = twenty years after diversions from TANF (which is the program funding source, and one of the purposes listed under TANF) went to set up classes and curricula promoting marriage/fatherhood, simultaneously with also “forgetting” to mention the “Access and Visitation” grants administered under a different Title (Title IV-D) of the same Social Security Act, intended specifically to increase “noncustodial parenting time” based initially on the theory that more parenting time = more steady child support).

It’s not that Legal Momentum hasn’t, I’m sure, done any other positive work. It’s just that there’s next to no excuse for not talking what you very well must know about.  (California NOW in 2002 did some work about this, but it was later buried.  Apparently protecting mothers leaving violent relationships by informing them and the public reading the website about the “back story” to TANF, or the family courts, is simply not a priority).

Not to mention how the domestic violence (cartel) allegedly in place to protect women, children — and men  does it by way of taking HHS handouts (including some from the HMRF funding), and not telling clients and the public about that funding on their websites.  Go find a reference to what I blog on (and what I blog on is documented to exist, both the organizations taking HMRF funding and the HMRF curricula (and subcontractors, and supported experts) DO exist.
(4) Another answer is that what some call “feminist” is simply confidence.  It’s what I simply call myself.  I don’t really believe that the natural state of existence is asking fifteen people’s permission before breakfast for deviating from a prescribed life path later in the day. I am going to have a conflict with people who attempt to ram this practice, based on that theory, into my face.  When I say “ram” I no longer am talking about the “in your face” physical assaults characteristic of the battering relationship with an “intimate partner” (a.k.a. in this case it was “spouse,”) but all the kinds of “in your face” that can be delivered, in writing (as after a few occasions, I will rapidly restrict phone and personal contact from the party delivering it) and in writing while holding other parts of my life, or relationships, hostage.

It’s one thing to ignore unwanted mail, email, telephone communications/voicemails (although after a certain point we are talking about harassment and/or stalking) from people who do NOT already have an “in” into one’s life’s valuables — things that non-abusive relationships do not attempt to take over on the behalf of other functioning adults. These “takeovers” typically cannot occur until a person has been either isolated from their sources of strength (including relationships) and sustenance (including  a work life which is more than just a paycheck, but it’s also engagement in business with others, and in maintaining an “economic footprint” in one’s own name over time.  That work life affects future potential referrals and/or jobs. Screw with it for too long, and good luck getting more employment that might lead to independence, particuarly independence from exploitation or abuse.

I spent decades of work (and practice — musician) in fields that required disciplined attention to detail, and the ability to produce results when I had been engaged (hired!) to produce results, working with all kinds of people with diverse skillsets, motivations to be there (whether in the office, or, more typically, in some performance ensemble).  I’m also a voracious reader, I do not use drugs, have no criminal background, and am not in the habit of committing perjury when lawsuits are involved.  I have a business sense, which is to say a practical edge to what in other terms would be an awareness of basic math:  + and -.  And, I have worked very hard on this blog and on the research (it is searching, re-searching, comparing, weighing, discussing, evaluating, and reporting) that goes into it, both the about 615 published posts, and the about 630 in draft, plus the about 30 pages of information (not all listed on the sidebar) and a table of contents (yet to be extended all the way back to “Day 1” (2009)), and in DAILY conversations with people local and far away on some of these topics.

When it’s local, I show the information on the laptop. Getting this into portable, visual format for delivery by email or otherwise, is a whole other deal.

Networks don’t just happen, and they aren’t just automatically maintained when individuals on them are dealing with “housed or homeless”  “Incarcerated or not” and “working or not” not to mention “where are my children THIS month/year?”  issues — in addition to litigation currently, in the past, and potentially in the future, affecting all of the above.

Another answer, I will add, in the process of using my mind that apparently I’m supposed to lay aside in favor of the federal government’s decisions of the relative value of men versus women, I ran across and read “The Moynihan Report” and in the process some of the background of this Catholic Senator from New York who, despite having become Senator “fatherless” as it were, still claimed that the real pathology for others was fatherlessness.   Anyone who could, even in the 1960s, call matriarchy “pathology” because it was out of step with “business as usual” in the United States, is seriously off.

Another thing that might make my stance, talk, and attitude sound “feminist” is that I’m not apologetic for having married late (and with the ability to support myself already established), or stayed single after a disastrous marriage.  Admittedly it does take two to decide to marry, but I have more than paid the penalties during and after for that choice.  I refuse to completely apologize, because of two wonderful daughters born during that marriage I would otherwise never have known, or had the experience of being their mother.

In part, I’m reflecting on the past 15 years of what could’ve been as opposed to what was.  For example, what kind of country can’t protect one family member from another, or others?  Or, I should say, won’t?

What kind of family country, realizing it takes BOTH men and women to reproduce a population, allowing that country to continue doing whatever its national goals are, attempts to elevate men over women and tell women that because they have wombs, ovaries, breasts, give birth and take nine months (generally) to gestate a new human being, and much more to raise one, they should be true second-class citizens based on what supposedly welfare did in prior decades, and what it actually did in the form of its own systems of taxation and religion?

Or based on the 1975ff Family (i.e., “Child”) Support Services act, and theories about WHAT will motivate men to pay for children not living in their own household?:

FAMILY SUPPORT ACT, shortly after No-FAULT DIVORCE, set the stage for a fathers’ rights movement in response to demands for payment of child support, inter-state.  Look at the jurisdictions and the courts involved, plus the Federal Support. (I didn’t quote, but first link says a lot):

(1) SUMMARY:  Found at Policyalmanac.org  “
Excerpted from the 2000 House Ways and Means Green Book, “Child Support Enforcement Program”  Child Support Enforcement Program” (read first three paragraphs to see where family courts come in as administrators)

(2) 1975 Bill H.R.14763 from the 94th Congress (1975-1976) Federal Family Support Act.  Summary by CRS.  (I do not know — it doesn’t indicate — that this was the one passed, but take a look):


There is one summary for H.R.14763. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

Shown Here: Introduced in House (07/20/1976)

Federal Family Support Act – Grants Federal district courts jurisdiction, concurrent with State courts, of civil actions brought by a citizen of another State to order a citizen of the State in which the Federal court is located to make support payments in accordance with the applicable law in petitioner’s State. 

Makes it a crime to travel or move in interstate or foreign commerce to avoid compliance with a support order, subjecting violators to a fine of not more than $2,500, imprisonment for not more than three years, or both. Authorizes wives, in criminal prosecutions under this Act, to testify against their husbands without their consent. (Adds 28 U.S.C. 2711-14;18 U.S.C. 21-24; Amends 28 U.S.C. 1332).

(3) http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/2012-green-book/child-support-enforcement-cover-page/legislative-history.  Self explanatory, including what is the Green Book, that this summary is as of 2012, and that it is Chapter 8 of this “Greebook.”  It is in light gray font, but you can see the increasing aggression and participation of the federal government, when wage garnishment came in, how Non-AFDC families (non-welfare families) were added into who Title IV-D qualified for, and so forth.  It is LONG, but has only this to say about the Access and Visitation, under year 1996:

 Sec. 391–Provided $10 million per year to the Secretary to award grants to States for the purpose of establishing programs to facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children.


Public Law 105-33, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, made 28 technical changes to the 1996 welfare reform law (Public Law 104-193).


Public Law 105-187, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, established two new categories of felony offenses, subject to a 2-year maximum prison term: (1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a support obligation if the obligation has remained unpaid for more than 1 year or is greater than $5,000; and (2) willfully failing to pay a child support obligation regarding a child residing in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for more than 2 years or is greater than $10,000.

Arrearages — I just learned that retroactive abatement of arrearages was not permitted. I was also told this (about ten) years ago in a child support office.  That’s strange because it happened in our case, retroactively, when the amount in arrears (with monthly amount still being quite modest) — below welfare level at the time, and involving two children) had suddenly escalated to $15,000.  I never did find out why it was permitted to re-troactively reduce arrearages. This is what the Greenbook says on that, and nothing afterwards seems to have changed it.  However, it allows one parent to notify the other to apply for modification of child support:


Public Law 99–509, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, included one child support enforcement amendment prohibiting the retroactive modification of child support awards. Under this new requirement, State laws must provide for either parent to apply for modification of an existing order with notice provided to the other parent. No modification is permitted before the date of this notification.

The family courts apparently found ways around this.  Our commissioner (without notifying me properly, I discovered MUCH later) also removed all intercepts in place, gave a six-month waiting period to pay anything, reduced the order to less than ¼ of the original (and less than his previous arrangement to make payments on the arrears — never fulfilled.  Instead, the children were stolen, which is a felony — but was not prosecuted as one while a family court into which to dump felonies such as (but not limited to) this one still exists).

Without the incentives to men to steal (through force or abduction, or through court processes) children from safe households, households where the parent has a work life and regular income, and wage war in family courts, many parents and family lines might be peacefully co-parenting OR simply living separately, providing at least ONE working parent per family to raise healthy children.

It is into this context that while going aggressively after fathers, the same federal government doing this then says, separately (under Title IV-A) and even under this same act (Title IV-D) that we should pay to bring back together what it helped split up and start custody wars over.  This being done, then the strict child support enforcement penalties can be brought to bear in their full weight against the MOTHERS< including incarceration for non-payment.  When they are incarcerated for non-payment (and this does happen!), there are no gender-based “perks” such as Kentucky’s (former, or still going I don’t know) “Turning it Around” program, or “Parents’ Fair Share” (evaluated by the powerhouse MDRC (Manpower Development Research Corporation, former name) 501©3,  which helps get support orders modified or reduced in exchange for participating in classes on how to be a woman and mother, as happens for classes on how to be a man and father.  There is no “motherhood.gov” and there isn’t really, any policy of helping such mothers once they have been destroyed through the family courts.  After all, we all know that there is no social scourge of “motherlessness” only “fatherlessness.” …..

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Let’s Get Honest! Blog […]

  2. daveyone1

    March 5, 2017 at 1:38 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: