**[1] FEDERAL INCENTIVES: 1996 wfare Reform (PRWORA-related) overt sponsorship of fathers’ rights throughout social services, regarding child support, and with intent to favorably influence fathers (as opposed to mothers) in custody outcomes, through HHS funding streams under [at a minimum] two different + complementary titles (IV-A, IV-D) of the Social Security Act.  Fatherhood.gov.  HealthyMarriage.org.  Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (1999ff) and its connection to mass-marketing curricula trademarked and owned by individuals, to welfare populations, through churches, through child support agencies, etc.,  and

**[2] PRIVATE PROFITS ORGANIZED & STEERED THROUGH FAMILY-COURT SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION/S: The existence, nature, activist membership categories, and agenda of the IL-based nonprofit, “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC” for short), with tax return claiming (year after year)  instead Wisconsin legal domicile.

How Relevant is AFCC — and Who, UNLIKE many ‘Crisis in the (or Enhance/Reform the) Courts’ groups and associated professionals who won’t, in public or on-line), Acknowledges Its Existence and Significance? (started May 7, 2018) (Case-sensitive shortlink ending “-91l”; that’s two numbers, as in the year “1991” and a lower-case “L”)This post will illustrate both those who won’t (while talking on the same topics) and those who, obviously do, when presenting at the conferences or listed as ongoing board members.

Disclaimer: All along, I have also pointed out a series of earlier bloggers or activist men and women at least bringing up those two factors (HHS fatherhood/marriage grants and AFCC) also spoke up, but were likewise sidelined, dismissed, and discredited in the way only a loyal, emotional and experientially-bonded cult, excuse me, group can do.  (Liz Richards of Anandale, Virginia (NAFCJ.net), Cindy Ross of California (working with her), Nancy Anderson of Amador County (who, however, remains loyal to CPPA and friends, for reasons unknown to me), myself, for a brief period, California NOW (under Helen Grieco) (“CA Now Family Court Report 2002” [which also had a full chapter by Marv Bryer, also featured on this blog]) at least ID’d AFCC, and a later 2005 ltr on the website from Gloria Steinem (!) asked HHS to self-audit its fatherhood grants), ca. 2011ff (or possibly earlier), Anne Stevenson (East Coast: Massachusetts, Connecticut) also investigated, reported (getting published) and as I understand it, got some political activity going on this (reflected also in my blog:  Search “Ground Zero in Connecticut”).

I do not, however, know anyone else who stayed on it so long, showed so much of the TAGGS database and related nonprofit filings, connected the smaller nonprofits to the larger ones as networked and (“fair’s fair!”) also dealt with the role the domestic violence statewide coalitions and special advocacy groups play in the mix, and was so adamant about not compromising on this information, to the point of identifying (naming names if professionals, and groups if so-identified) those who refused to talk of it, and, as much time and personal energies allowed, also seeking to find the tax returns of said groups — as well as the larger ones.

EXHIBIT “2010” Discussed:

By 2010, an (as I recall) “NCADV” conference in California involving also some of these organizations as presenters, and NOMAS (National Organization of Men Against Violence, one of whose leadership was also involved in the “protective mothers” movement, so-called)  and a special “Custody Track,” was timed to coincide with the release of a new book, or rather volume of essays (chapters) co-edited by Mo Hannah, PhD (who with another, Liliane H. Miller), started the ‘BMCC’ (Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference — held in New York until very recently, some meetings in Washington, D.C.) + Barry Goldstein, disbarred attorney who became involved with the BMCC early on and (as I recall from one of his blog posts, although I do not have the link.  Mr. Goldstein is as verbose as I am (though usually with far fewer supporting links to statements made!)) brought in the “DV” (Domestic Violence) leadership, which nonprofits by then were taking — though the amounts weren’t much — HHS grants under (I gather) FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) in the form of statewide coalitions, with the Denver-Based National (umbrella) organization, “NCADV.”

2010-2013 website announcing new bk ‘DomesticviolenceAbuseandChildCustody’com’ (viewed) 2018Apr22. “Only” $149.00 hardback, $89 paperback . Protective mothers were encouraged to buy (at slight discounts depending on the context) and show to experts or lawyers in their individual cases…

I see the book website is still up under “the book’s basic name (“domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com“) Notice the organizations and topics involved, and what is NOT involved (anything about welfare reform, child support (as a chapter heading), fatherhood grants, access/visitation grants, or the active presence of a membership organization called “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” which many of the authors by this time reasonably (and for several, I checked) knew about and could easily have considered as potential influence on the custody courts (especially as that was the stated purpose of specific grants streams in the first place!).

Even in 2009 it took me less than a “New York minute” on-line to realize this topic had been previously written up, covered, and conferenced by others — leaving open the question, why a new book now, when previous trainings were known?

In promoting it to battered mothers and protective parents and non-professionals (i.e. any public) attending domestic violence conferences such as NCADV was holding at the time in 2010, would it not have been more honest to reference previous, similar events, and explain why THIS version was better and needed now?  Eventually I discovered the 2000 Greenbook Initiative and 2007 Wingspread Conference (which AFCC had participated in), much better funded groups handling the same basic material!  

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE, and CHILD CUSTODY:

Legal Strategies and Policy Issues

Co-edited by Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein ©2010

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY brings together experts from the US and Canada for a multi-disciplinary review of the most up-to-date research and recommendations for handling, domestic violence custody cases. The book’s 25 chapters are written by those in the know:  judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists, domestic violence advocates, and others intimately familiar with the details of these cases.

Except for the last, “other familiar with the details of these cases” which MIGHT be a reference to those involved, the list of professions reads like a membership list of some of the nonprofits trade associations (AFCC, NCJFCJ, NACC, the DV networks, etc.) NOT mentioned by name or even by type, in the book or featured as any one of its chapters. The phrase “multi-disciplinary” is a key descriptor and emphasis of AFCC and has been consistently over time (as best I’ve seen from its website, conference descriptions and membership writings), and it’s also emphasized international connections early one — particularly in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK.

It appears that though originating IN the USA and featuring many personalities and chapter authors from the USA, this book ALSO seeks international alignment of practices around issues, regardless of differences of national constitutions, governments, practices, presence or absence in some countries of monarchies, royalty (i.e., distinct and acknowledged classes), and/or a national religion — or known socialist tendencies.  YET, this is being promoted heavily in the USA…

These diverse experts approach the issue through the lens of different disciplines and professional experiences.  Although they may not agree on every point, they do agree on at least one thing: that the family court system in this country is broken.

The word “broken” has a meaning, with implications and connotations of something which might possibly be “fixed.”  “Coincidentally,” the general conclusion of the same in-agreement diverse experts consulted here is to pour more effort (and, naturally, money, psychological energy, time and effort) into “fixing it.”  They are aiming for becoming the fixers, and to by getting to this field “first” dominate it.

The word “broken” as I keep saying on this blog implies that there was at some point a NOT-broken status (for example, like a bicycle, a car, or any other vehicle or container).  By simply claiming that “broken” applies and not some other single-word best descriptor MIGHT apply equally as the main characteristic of “family courts” in this country, any “to the contrary” reasoning, evidence, and argument is bypassed up front.

By definition, leading with the term “broken” eliminates the contrary single-word adjective which MIGHT also apply, equally, “corrupt,” which if more carefully defined would certainly include economic analysis — the one thing this group of professionals and this approach seems most averse to.  Numbers, money, cash flow, and with this, operations of the family courts as public institutions, will periodically be referred to as a supporting, peripheral issue — not a central one.  They are not explored well or sufficient terms to comprehend them as applies to the courts are not taught.

By agreeing communally (as it says above) that the word “broken” applies and not “corrupt”** applies an entire point of view is silenced– subliminally. What’s “diverse” about that?

(**i.e., that kickbacks,case-steering, financial fraud, or racketeering, or “fees for friends” as a part of the original design of these courts involved.  Not credible: years earlier and involving a specific professional Barry Goldstein had dealt with in one of these professions (I refer to “Viola Stroud,” as a visitation supervisor in Dutchess? County, New York) — and who was later convicted of grand larceny theft in the conduct of her business — she took advantage of others both through the supervised visitation business and through business dealing with elders’ estates (i.e., as recipient of probate referrals to guardianships or conservatorships from the court). The description of this event provided a model for “how it was done.”)

My commentary (quote continued below it…):

“This country” referring to the USA, then? (Why not say so, after referencing international assortment of experts).

Again, consider those considered to be “in the know” and “familiar with the details of these cases” and is there any NAMED category which even includes parents — mothers, or fathers?

The book’s 25 chapters are written by those in the know:  judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists, domestic violence advocates, and others intimately familiar with the details of these cases

Notice that the “lens of different disciplines and professional experiences” again retains the privileged class most characterized and benefitted (financially, career-wise) from the family courts — mental and behavioral health specialists.  After “judge, lawyers,” from above, here are then next professions listed: “psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists” .  Consciously or unconsciously, priorities are shown.  Next category, “journalists” have ongoing fodder writing about the crisis in the courts, or the sometimes associated “roadkill” (headlines).  “Domestic violence advocates” a less defined term (as to employment) still includes people typically working or employed in the field which implies generally government funded-nonprofits Many are also volunteer, low-wage — sometimes nothing even close to it, as “Future without Violence” (in 2010 rebranding itself to that name) tax returns show. From observation, some of those in the field are also lawyers or simultaneous with “domestic violence advocate.” Upper middle class salaries, long-term, career-building are supported in some of the DV organizations (as also in the parallel and “to the contrary” HHS and DOJ-funded “marriage/fatherhood promotion” fields..)

The ONLY place where noncustodial mothers and fathers who have the most at stake and (as though we never talked with or shared with each other our own case paperwork!) is “others familiar with the details of these cases.”  Though many of these parents would by definition also be professionals in different fields, their category, familiar with details of cases, and capable of analyzing the larger situation — here, their expertise or understanding as a named type doesn’t merit when it comes to publishing if not employed in professions being named (MINIMIZATION through OMISSION) which are typically associated with the three overlapping “fields”:

• DV, Abuse (Child abuse generally seems to be meant) and Custody.

The role parents (specifically “protective mothers” or “battered mothers”) play here is to stick to their assigned roles — be more specialized class in crisis which the more “properly learned experts” with more direct professional experiences in the court will discuss, debate, and figure out.

The “parents” here are the class which justifies the career-building, publishing, and expert-status promotion of the other categories, and their “spokesperson” (coaching other experts) status.  In this setup, the people really being coached the most are the parents.

{Quote continued from page 2, top, of http://www.domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com promoting the 2010 book…

For more than two decades, protective mothers from every state in the country (as well as overseas) have been ordered to turn their children over into the care, and even the custody, of the children’s abusive fathers.  This occurs even when there is adequate evidence of child abuse, domestic violence, and other harmful behaviors on the part of the father.  Courts claim to be doing this to ensure that both parents remain involved in their children’s lives after divorce or separation, but in fact, in most of these cases, precisely the opposite happens:  mothers are denied any meaningful relationship, or even contact, with their children.  In the meantime, male supremacist groups claim unfair treatment in the family courts, seeking shared or total custody in order to avoid paying child support and to maintain men’s traditional control over their partner and their children.

Such as….? Which male supremacist groups?

(Typically, and having since 2009 been studying both types of nonprofits and others on this blog, I have a sense of larger, smaller, and “positioning” on the private tax-exempt foundation or federal grants funding streams, this collection of professionals will name less influential and smaller ones, rather than provide anything approaching to a roadmap of locating or tracking such groups activities and resources…)  Even here, not named. How about CFFPP (started in the 1990s in Illinois, exploration of which would show backing of the Ford Foundation(!!) and possibly blow the whole scheme here in the process)?  How about “Children’s Rights Council” (formed in mid-1980s).

Framed again as a gender / patriarchal issue, it also imputes intent to avoid paying child support as a motive for suing for custody.  While that was my specific experience as a battered wife and mother whose husband talked “God, Jesus, head of household” etc. while so doing, and definitely “gender roles” (although my working was fine if I turned over the money… “or else” … and if NOT for long up to capacity (including part-time capacity) in the field I was degreed in, committed to, and known to have supported myself in adequately before we met.  Not for long anywhere which might lead to social or emotional support as a person or employee/professional outside the household and/or whichever church we were attending at the time). the statement imputes motive to “male supremacist groups” (naming none in this context), but the book had no chapter on child support!

The years was 2010!! Battered Mothers Custody Conference (“BMCC”) had been going for eight years  in New York State by then.

Again, Canadian or other non-US expert authoring chapters in this book, if they concurred should have addressed also the economic systems pertaining to child support as involved in the family courts of their respective countries — or at least for this book, that of the USA.  That system I know here is the social services system, administered now under “HHS/OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) which involves funding — grants streams (let alone any contracts also) — TO other major nonprofit organizations, OR government jurisdictions.

BUT if anyone — especially any “protective mothers” even got close to looking into these HHS/OCSE grants, through its database TAGGS.HHS.gov (or, USASpending.gov which provides more detail and often doesn’t match what’s on TAGGS!) ) and stayed on it to the point of comprehension, those same individuals would quickly see it’s not just “male supremacist groups” (private sector) or batterers they are facing — but federal policy since at least the 1990s, and more likely, the 1960s, 70s and 80s as exploration of many of the grantees would show.

At a certain point, then, these individuals would be faced (presumably) with an inner conflict and decide which way to go:

(A) Further down the road with a group which had historically covered up critical information which didn’t fit with the “broken courts theme”  — basically, “judges, lawyers, custody evaluators (etc.) all  just need more correct trainings;and obviously we experts are qualified to provide this and bandage them up — let’s get a federal law passed to mandate it and fund this” approach.

(B) without a visible, similar movement “to the contrary,” essentially strike out on their own — often while mid-custody litigation and already struggling badly — out on their own, which might entail calling out broken courts approach.

(and I made this decision not long after this book came out, although not primarily because of it alone)

Continuing on path (A) once exposed to the “to-the-contrary” information would be to encourage consumption of false hope (which is being sold here), and going into “denial mode” and advocating from there, hoping that repetition and replication would somehow erase that that other approaches exist and might be viable. One must put the blinders back on and keep them there..

I’ve seen women do this and at the time knew them as friends and fellow-bloggers.  The general rationale initially was “we are so few and the problem is so big — we need all the publicity we can get.” I came to learn — as I kept digging and doing drill-downs on involved organizations and their integration into governmental systems — we had no idea HOW big the problem was (it’s far larger than “broken courts approach indicates).  BUT, the quality of training isn’t the problem — the training is a money-making machine with costs shared by the public — and diverting public resources, time and energy (and employment) into the public/private sector, indefinitely.

We can argue about when we should have known, but today we know the custody court system is destroying the lives of thousands of children.

Use of imprecise terms (sloppy writing from expert professionals?) there is no division of the courts in states, that I’ve seen, called “custody court system.”  There are family court divisions, or dockets, and other kinds of dockets (specialized, problem-solving, etc.).  Again, the emphasis here is on the children destroyed — which is proper — but it’s NOT just the children; it’s also their parent, and it’s also destructive to due process under the law, and individual standing of U.S.citizens (in many case) based on gender.

Again, proper handling of this would have looked at the federal social services policy going back to the 1960s up to the present.  I did — and these people could also have.  I looked also at the history of the development of some of the fields mentioned among the diverse experts contributing to the book, most specifically, of psychology.  There is a continuous strand available to read (“My New Page” post — 3/28/2018 page — has a footnote again chronicling much of this).

It will continue to do so until it adopts the reforms advocated in this well documented book.  As Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, writes in her Afterward, now that this book has been published, those who continue to use the flawed approaches and practices addressed in this book can only be construed as engaging in professional malpractice.

RE: “It will continue to do so until it adopts the reforms advocated in this well documented book.”

“BvIIsh!t !“(substitute a few letters to get the intended meaning)…

This implies but stops short of saying “the reforms advocated in this well documented [which, actually, it isn’t — it’s vastly incomplete in subject matter and types of evidence considered] book” will fix the courts. The statement is potentially true because with or without the reforms advocated in the book, the system (as I’ve come to understand it) will still involve court-appointed experts, referrals to community resources, and the state governments of which the [family] courts are part will continue receiving the HHS grants, while the social services segment of state governments will undoubtedly continue receiving funds appropriated by Congress under the Social Security Act (that is, under “PRWORA” (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) and its subsequent re-authorizations under various names) will continue getting their “HMRF” substantial funding, in order to (allegedly –and this is alleged in the rationale for it) reduce the federal debt burden of single mothers by inducing noncustodial (or non-resident) fathers to “man-up” responsibly and pay child support…).

This book offers nothing to counter that scenario or even talk about it…. but that’s still no guarantee the reforms IF enacted, would stop the trauma, damages, or case-churning. Yet it’s stated as if fact. Sure, a book promotion page is a sales-pitch page BUT these are also life-and-death matters involving a fairly widespread public institution (“the courts”).  Where’s the ethical presentation of the facts?

RE: Rita Smith, of NCADV “Afterward” quote.

Again, NCADV is a sliding-scale membership association, not that large, whose membership consists of some of the groups receiving statewide HHS grants (not large ones..) over time, which have been over time dwarfed by funds to marriage/fatherhood groups, and which in some times and places have often collaborated also with fatherhood groups (Search “Ohio IPV Collaborative” or “NCADV” herein. For the NCADV to “out” that situation OR to better document the role played by at a minimum, ‘AFCC‘ and its membership –and their many nonprofits which said membership tends to form — would effectively be to “bite the hand that feeds it.” Which is just not going to happen!

For an example of one related and even nearby (Denver-based, historically) nonprofit NCADV might have noticed and spoken out about, “Center for Policy Research” (Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes, Jane Venohr, Lanae Davis, and a few others) formed about 1980 with close ties also to AFCC via Dr. Pearson, and now with Pennsylvania’s Temple University in re: Fatherhood Research and Practice Network.  {Both links in this paragraph are actually search phrases on this blog — because I’ve posted on this.  A more recent result has a footnote “AFCC by the Decades”  — look for these images, however, using a scrolling or page-down function you’ll find plenty above it.  Among other fine-print details, however (in the second image) it turns out a direct connection from FRPN which has on its steering committee presently two CPR individuals (as I recall, Drs. Pearson and Thoennes) and “Fatherhood.gov”‘s reported “NFLG.”

I originally posted this (I see from the pdf “url”) December 2012 — shown in the second image below also from a 2017 page on this blog (which will be in the search results for NCADV).  It shows the incorporation image (4/27/1981) from Center for Policy Research, with incorporators Jessica Pearson, Jennifer Pearson and Nancy Thoennes, but the only “Director, (Mrs., presumably, except not the term of address where a PhD exists) Jessica P.  Was NCADV all these years simply unaware of their neighboring nonprofit dealing extensively with major overlapping subject matters’ existence, connections and influence?

FamilyCourtMatters phrase search FRPN.org ~>LEFT: top: Link to pdf of original CPR incorporation (obtained by me in Dec. 2012 from State of Colorado business entities search) and some descriptive text. RIGHT: my annotated detail from Fatherhood.gov (see original site for better view: this is an “image of an image” and harder to read) showing FRPN connections. Image is #2 of 2 from my 3/28/2018 page, in its Footnote AFCC (and the USA) by the Decades| search conducted 4/23/2018

As that incorporation of CPR image was labeled (will show when you click on link I provided above — then click on the blank page icon to access the 1981 image obtained from the State of Colorado business entities search website). Halfway there, the Titles (image doesn’t show “page icon” which would be right below it) will display like this:

NOTICE THE YEAR/MONTH & TITLE of my POST THIS IMAGE CAME FROM (“A Few FAQs on…”): https://familycourtmatters.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/jessica-s-pearson-jeffrey-g-pearson-nancy-a-theonnes-incorporate-cpr-1981-april27th-1720-emerson-denver.pdf<==image title specific to this blog only. Rhetorical Question: IF I as a distressed, “children-missing-in-action” noncustodial mother with in recent background, a restraining order (against DV intervention) preceding the family court matters,  (contact cut off overnight via court-ordered visitation when I had sole physical and joint legal custody and was in compliance with all court orders) could figure out the relevance of CPR ownership this quickly after 2009 (my first significant clues) while still reeling from the aftermath, did the Broken Courts crowd and friends REALLY not know this much, although many of them still had jobs working in or around the courts, were or had been (Goldstein) lawyers, at least one psychology professor (Mo Hannah), expert witnesses (Joy Silberg and others), previously published authors (Lundy Bancroft) AND a significant leader in the DV Advocacy networks (Rita Smith from NCADV) were involved several years earlier (BMCC started in 2003)? IF these knew, then WHY did these not report, or discount the identified connections year after year?

Here’s that CPR 4-27-1981 Incorporation link again

Surely this MIGHT have been relevant in considering why protective mothers are losing custody to fathers, including abusive fathers, and at times paying them child support instead (or, being assigned “supervised visitation” themselves, basically a form of court-ordered extortion in my opinion, regardless of WHICH parent is assigned it…).

When the court system, like other entities, began to respond to domestic violence as a public health concern back in the mid-to-late 1970s, there was little if any research on the effects of, or the proper societal response to domestic violence.  At the time, many believed domestic violence was caused by mental illness or substance abuse or was provoked by the victim’s actions.  Domestic violence was equated with physical abuse, and it was believed that children were unaffected by it unless they, themselves, were directly assaulted.  In recent years, these and other assumptions that the courts have long relied on have been exposed as the myths they are.  Nevertheless, to this very day, the courts are operating according to these same outmoded ideas.  It’s business as usual, with the courts continuing to churn out another generation of damaged children and traumatized mothers.  This is the inevitable outcome of using outdated and discredited approaches to making custody decisions when domestic violence and similar factors affect the case.**

**Last sentence in blue.  If there were a primary characteristic other than the overall censorship of this type of rhetoric (ongoing, in general, from these sources), and particularly when Mr. Goldstein gets going, it’d be the habit of “storytelling” instead of actual argumentation based on proof.  

When you do not start with coherent, consistent, and concrete, objectively identifiable points of reference in a summary, discussion, “conversation” etc — it almost doesn’t matter what follows. It may have a ring of truth, or relate to something within a reader’s personal experience (if it didn’t, who’d take the bait?) but the sentence in purple, above, is so overbroad and generalized, it can’t be really proved or disproved.  The reader is asked to just keep going, “taking it on faith” at every step.

The paragraph then concludes that “the courts churn out”.. and claims — doesn’t prove, document, or cite to how the book is going to prove, its originating agenda which the “broken courts” theme sets up, again, by eliminating conflicting possible explanations up front.  It assumes cause-and-effect relationship, with “CAUSE” “… using outdated and discredited approaches to making custody decisions when domestic violence and similar factors affect the case.”

From the book description above (first few paragraphs), one can see many limiting phrases which sideline any direct consideration of federal government involvement, trade association involvement, and references to specific family violence prevention organizations (whether in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Texas, or California (San Francisco), where major “special issue resource centers” did exist), in addition to statewide coalitions which NCADV as sitting above (and working with memberships involving) them must have known about, any reference to a 1984 federal act FVPSA to prevent “family violence” as as an amendment  under 1970s “CAPTA” (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), any reference to the 1996 Welfare Reform (PRWORA) and its (subsequent to 2006 at a minimum — and here, we’re talking four years later!) $150M/year healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grants to nonprofits (and/or government), or the $10M/year (since 1996) access and visitation grants directly — in every state or territory — to by definition a SINGLE state agency to increase noncustodial parenting contact (“access”) through “alternate means” — any discussion of which should naturally, as it promoted specific professions and practices (which quickly became systematized diversionary ‘rackets’) through sub-grantees (mediation, supervised visitation, parent education, sometimes batterers’ intervention services) — naturally, as awareness of this undermines the argument that more specialized trainings are needed and the real problem was judicial, custody evaluator, and family lawyer lack of understandings of the dynamics of abuse, or batterers (etc.).  Emphases added in this next quote (again, about eight years old):

Discusses with this topic, which also connects to references from the 2010 section on new book edited by Barry Goldstein & Mo Hannah, introduced at conferences on East (BMCC) and West (San Diego’s?) joint NCADV/NOMAS conference with a special “Custody” track: 2014,13,12,11,10 “MOLC-Mother’sDayMarches” in WDC Programming (<==6-pg pdf I printed from website; page 1 image shown here. To view this pdf, do a second click on the blank page icon which will show itself after first click on the link in this paragraph)

Printed to pdf (apparently in 2014 — see header) from a “mothers of lost children” website. Notice the emphasis on the drama, comparison to Liberian mothers, and of course request to wear matching T-shirts.

Major promotion of the “Saunders study” of 2011 continues throughout related organizations and individuals to this day, apparently.  Predictably, it concluded that TRAINING IS NEEDED, THAT ADVOCATES WOULD BE BETTER TRAINERS, AND THAT (“WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THIS BEFORE??”) A “MULTI-DISICIPLINARY APPROACH IS NEEDED.  “SAUNDERS STUDY” Also searchable on this blog, I DID A DRILL-DOWN and even posted a thumbnail photo..

Guess who’s willing and ready to provide this training (guaranteed NOT to reference HMRF grants as a factor in the judicial, etc. attitudes towards protective mothers, or battered mothers…

END, “MOLC” quote section.

…See above image welcoming another new Kids’ Turn board member  (this County is in SF Bay Area). I had the “privilege” of standing before this commissioner in a child support (not custody, which was in another county) after my kids were stolen, who retroactively reduced child support arrears by one-third, thereafter removed a child support intercept (based on the substantial arrears at the time) without informing me, and did this just days before the CS agency assured me to my face that wouldn’t happen, in this case, post-poned any current payments for several months, and cut them by two-thirds.

By this time it was clear contact would continue to be eradicated (and it was, including even phone contact) regardless of the current condition of any court order. I was just about beside myself with the situation — as well as about to lose housing if something weren’t changed in the mix. I remember asking Commissioner Berkow to make a “judicial note” that this case involved domestic violence (which got me a glare, but she had to comply — however, the main DV case being in another county, it wasn’t identified at the time). I also asked her to order that at least 10% of the arrears be paid now (to preserve housing — it was less than half the bill but would’ve helped, as I’d lost so much work while going repeatedly to court to regain custody with or at least a visit with, the children I’d been sole caretaker of and raised, up to a single day of violating a family court order (and state penal code against child-stealing) the previous year.

• http://www.cccba.org/attorney/judicial-profiles/berkow-josanna.php In the County’s Judicial Department 1992 – present (Dept. 52) and it says, 1995-2003 chaired the local Domestic Violence Advisory Council (!), current position focusing on child support and paternity hearings, teaching family law at a local school of law, and other activist indicators. No reference to AFCC, or Kids’ Turn (although I showed 2006 involvement, above).
• Pre-bench Legal Experience:  California Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, 1985-92: Criminal Appeals; Statewide Coordinator: Child Support and Child Abduction; || Federal Labor Relations Authority, San Francisco, Staff Attorney and Hearing Officer, 1978-85; pStaff Counsel to U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (Maryland), 1977-78.
• Nov. 7, 2012 “GoodByes: An interview with Commissioner Josanna Berkow” which I just found now (in 2012 I was busy with other crises, some of which involved collateral effects of one of her decisions, involving the father of our children  and my being forced back onto welfare for a period(!))  NB: No reference to Kids’ Turn (or AFCC) but some of the language and policies is, such as complaints about “high-conflict” families and a desire to “slow-track” them for filing so frequently to preserve resources. I may post this, annotated, later, separately or here.

Interesting, the hearing I was in was adjusting child support post-abduction, but it had been diverted (by law enforcement, knowing they could do this) into family law handling, effectively “de-criminalizing it.” Berkow knew that this case involved a post-abduction custody-switch; it was her area. …

Here’s (some of) the “GoodByes” article annotated (3 images, click to enlarge). notice the part about intent to “slow-track” frequent filers….and the collaborative Bench/Bar situation she so appreciated.

| | |