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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Is the USA Bipolar, Schizo, ADHD, Or Just Playing Us? |How Federal Gov’t both LOVEs and HATES Women [2,000 words evicted Mar.30, 2022 from Draft Post Feb. 6]

with one comment


THIS POST

Is the USA Bipolar, Schizo, ADHD, Or Just Playing Us? | How Federal Gov’t both LOVEs and HATES Women [2,000 words evicted Mar.30, 2022]** short-link ends “”-e4t”

** began as a major section on my Feb. 6, 2022 and STILL in draft (March 30, 2022) post called:

NSPC — ‘Coalition’ Meaning What? Rebranding the Same Themes with, Generally, the Same Entities While Channeling (vs. Exposing) AFCC Lingo and Ignoring USA’s ‘We Both Love and Hate Women’ Federal Funds? [Post begun Feb. 6, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dxg”)

(Evicted from that post not for its content but for weight limits on any one post.  The part highlit yellow is now this post.


From time to time, I sense the need to mention a few self-contradicting, ongoing legislative realities.

Funding realities go with the legislative and at times are perhaps the drivers (have you visited the US DOJ or the US HHS recently? can YOU track that funding?) but here I’m referencing specific Acts of Congress.

Sections in this post:

  • USA allegedly LOVES and CARES ABOUT women because..
  • USA (more covertly) HATES women because …
  • Meanwhile, in Family Courts… the bottom line…

I’ve bifurcated the “LOVE” and “HATE” evidences (federal funding programs) which, taken together, weigh the balance, I say, in “hate” through absence of honesty and forthrightness within the former about the latter. (Passive/aggressve, much?)  I think the net effect is, Hates more than Loves women — but then again, I am one. Maybe I’m biased in favor of my lack of a Y chromosome… and because having children and being a mother — even with an abuser — was still a fantastic experience I wouldn’t trade in for anything.

The message here: any policy can be heralded as great  so long as it’s known by “stakeholders” (i.e., those who get the laws passed) that the back doors, the exit strategies to actually making any policy matter are retained.

Family courts, a still-recent phenomenon in the USA, happen to be one of the major back doors, the “safety valve” from actually stopping domestic violence, violence and criminal behavior against women because they are women.  Through their existence many people (correctly) perceive, they can and will continue to get away with it, from chronic and debilitating (but legally still low-level up through felony levels leading predictably, or sometimes not so predictably, to murder. The same goes with child abuse.  It’s simply a matter of changing venues (referrals, diversions) and in the new venues, old behaviors get “new words” to describe them.  Felonies are no longer felonies — but new categorizes of felonies can be created to replace.  The basic “transfer” process.

Meanwhile, privatization of government services continues, all conflict is GOOD conflict if you’re in the business of resolving family (or any other kind) of conflict for pay, or in the coaching industry (pay to play trainings, certified facilitators, and divorce coaching of desperate? parents by formerly desperate — until they signed on for the divorce-coaching field and quit fighting it — parents)  and oh so many people are really into that business. Pay for and sit through the trainings, get screened MAYBE by provider, set up the most basic website under some creative name, and link to the trainer’s website for more trainings.  In case you think that’s a reference to “One Mom’s Battle” business model (not that it’s anywhere close to the first of this type), it was.

It’s late in the day, I want a post out (and the other post shorter; it has a heavier payload). For what it’s worth, this post is just basic statement —  something to think about.

Below the next horizontal line is “as-written” (for me, spontaneously) nearly two months ago, except that I quickly added several tags. If clicked they’d lead to more in-depth summaries on the blog of either VAWA, CAPTA, FVPSA or The Greenbook Initiative (its timeline matters), etc.  The tags here don’t mean I’ve handled all those issues in this short post, but those are related issues…//LGH 30 March 2022.


“…USA’s “We Both Love and Hate Women’ Federal Funds” refers to two contradictory policies, both federally funded, starting in different decades.  

Neither side of the equation (love women, but men and fathers are worth more when you get right down to it) cares enough about the public to ensure that people accessing services on the “women” side are properly informed about the funding on the men’s side to defeat or bypass the impact of the funds indicating the country cares about the welfare of even half its own population.

Please note, I’m using quotes, and the phrase is sarcastic:

USA allegedly LOVES and CARES ABOUT women” because..

because it passed VAWA in 1994 and funds  DV organizations since 1984 under a part of CAPTA (protecting women as a “trickle-down effect” of preventing Child Abuse), i.e., the FVPSA, and because it says it doesn’t want women, as a gender, assaulted, murdered, stalked, etc.

But it’s stopped short of declaring violence against women as a Hate Crime alongside other identified hate crimes and it’s not about to pass any Equal Rights Amendment.

CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, from ChildWelfare.gov), which also has links to the text & authorization, re-authorization and amendment dates, i.e., starting in 1974

By my reckoning this was on average only about 5 years after women started being admitted as undergraduates to major Ivy League colleges (East Coast)…

CAPTA provides Federal funding and guidance to States in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities and also provides grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations, including Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, for demonstration programs and projects….


The complete official text of the law can be found on the website of the U.S. Government Printing Office at 42 U.S.C. chapter 67, sections 5101–5116i. (“Family Violence is mentioned once; domestic violence 37 times). The text of CAPTA, including the Adoption Opportunities program, as amended, is available on the Children’s Bureau website.

The FVPSA (summarized here by CRSreports.Congress) shows it was enacted (only) in 1984 and (only) under Child Abuse Amendments, Title III. This summary is a short “In Focus” Bulletin, IF11170, only three pages long (two-column).  CRS prepares reports FOR Congress and are usually good summaries, although they may not “say it all.”

In 1984, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a report that examined the scope and impact of domestic violence in the United States, and recommended improvements in law enforcement and community responses to offenses that were previously considered “family matters.” As a result of efforts by advocates and DOJ, Congress held a series of hearings on domestic violence. In response, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act was enacted as Title III of the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-457).

FVPSA has twice been amended by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), first enacted in 1994. FVPSA and VAWA are the primary vehicles for federal support to prevent and respond to domestic violence. FVPSA is focused on prevention and services for survivors, while VAWA’s focus is on both services for victims and the criminal justice response to domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence.

Please notice, it says “CRIMINAL justice response…”as to VAWA’s focus.  It doesn’t mention that VAWA funding is under the US DOJ (primarily) not HHS.  I’m not quite sure how “VAWA” as an Act amended FVPSA as part of another act.

Page 1, right column gives an overview clearly showing the HHS funding source(s) for FVPSA and what these funds are for:

Overview of FVPSA
FVPSA supports temporary shelter and services for survivors, as well as children exposed to domestic and teen dating violence. The law currently authorizes three major activities: the National Domestic Violence Hotline; domestic violence shelters, victim services, and program support; and the Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) program. The U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices’ (HHS’) Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) administers funding for the hotline and domestic violence shelters and services. The CDC, also within HHS, administers DELTA. The statute authorized funding for these activities through FY2015. Table 1 shows final funding for FY2017 to FY2020 and enacted funding for FY2021. Funding increased over this period.

Does this mention anything about legal help for custody battles after separation for people who are NOT in the shelters? Or about the family courts, or family law system? (no…).
This link to a (smudged, but legible image) of Federal Register (at Congress.gov) of the Oct. 1, 1984 P.L. 98-457 does indeed show Chapter III regarding the FVPSA purposes, which people should read.

None of this specifically addresses or even mentions family courts or divorce and custody hearings.  Protection for women got in under the umbrella of being related to child abuse — not because it was wrong in its own right.  I copied from the 1984 version (linked above), “98. Stat. 1757” (about eight pages in; the section begins 98 Stat. 1749):

“Family Violence Prevention and Services Act”.

DECLARATION OF PURPOSE

SEC. 302. It is the purpose of this title to—
(1) demonstrate the effectiveness of assisting States in efforts to prevent family violence and to provide immediate shelter and related assistance for victims of family violence and their dependents; and

(2) provide for technical assistance and training relating to family violence programs to States, local public agencies (in- cluding law enforcement agencies), nonprofit private organizations, and other persons seeking such assistance.

STATE DEMONSTRATION GRANTS AUTHORIZED

SEC. 303. (a)(1) In order to assist in supporting the establishment, maintenance, and expansion of programs and projects to prevent incidents of family violence and to provide immediate shelter and related assistance for victims of family violence and their dependents, the Secretary is authorized, in accordance with the provisions of this title, to make demonstration grants to States.

(2) No demonstration grant may be made under this subsection unless the chief executive officer of the State seeking such grant submits an application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may reasonably require. Each such application shall—

(A) provide that funds provided under this subsection will be distributed in demonstration grants to local public agencies and nonprofit private organizations (including religious and charitable organizations, and voluntary associations) for programs and projects within such State to prevent incidents of family violence and to provide immediate shelter and related assistance for victims of family violence and their dependents in order to prevent future violent incidents;


This also reminds us (and non-U.S. citizens with seemingly parallel institutions — they aren’t really parallel) that the federal government does NOT hold jurisdiction on prosecution of crimes against the person (unless, I suppose, it goes inter-state).  These grants are to the STATES and to entities in the states so the state can handle the problems.  The commonality of “local public agencies and nonprofit private organizations) is that both are tax-exempt.  Citizens, generally, are not unless they’re just broke.  The assistance was to be temporary help, and not for prosecuting the crime of family violence, but mitigating it and preventing more of the same (for the individuals helped too, presumably).

USA (more covertly) HATES women (and has antidotes to us getting ideas about real independence, or even far away (with children) from any violent man, especially if his children are or were involved) because, FVPSA (1984 afterthought on CAPTA) and VAWA  (1994) aside, it’s still funding fatherhood-promotion across the board via Welfare Reform 1996 (and since), through Clinton-era legislation, resolutions, and  subsequent White House administration Executive Orders, establishing that men (“fathers”) are preferred over women, at least when it comes to anything related to families or children — which is to say, most of the population.

So much of my blog lays this out; I’m not quoting here. Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports across the years have.  These are found in several places, as well as directly on websites.  Responsible fatherhood is a field; it has practitioners, academics, and university centers to evaluate “what works” and trainers to train father-engagement everywhere possible. It also supports fatherhood curricula, sometimes even run through domestic violence organizations…

Here’s a CRS summary from May 1, 2018, Report RL31025, “Fatherhood Initiatives: Connecting Fathers to their Children” The report summarizes sources of funding and legislation by White House Administrations, and is by Jessica Tollestrup, with acknowledgement to Carmen Solomon-Fears for prior versions of the report.  Other places to look (besides “Fatherhood.org, Fatherhood.gov, FRPN.org or other university centers dedicated to fatherhood) are fatherhood Commissions (at the state level), or Initiatives (at the state level), each with its own history, and most of them relating to the excess funds and/or added flexibility provided by Welfare Reform of 1996 for TANF funding.

US federal funds under specific programs and “inter-agency” continue messaging that a woman without a man (‘engaged, healthy, responsible father’) is an offense to society and dangerous to children.  That he might be in prison already for violent crime — no matter.  There are re-entry programs and special help with “access and visitation” (modification of visitation schedule), ways to have child support arrears compromised (especially with participation in fatherhood programs).  there also seems to be extra bonus points for fathers who complete batterers intervention services after caught committing some crime (felony or misdemeanor) against their ex’s or the mothers of their children.  It’s fairly big business…

Under this (social science, health and poverty) theory, “father-engagement” should be (and is) to saturate ALL social service provisions, and especially the “Child Welfare” (Child Abuse Prevention) sectors.

The message overall: divorce and separation is nominally possible for dangerous cases — but because IF enough perp-outreach, supervision, intervention, and behavioral modification is added, true separation from violence just isn’t feasible, or even just plain RIGHT. If a Mom flees with the children, haul her @ass back and arrest her.  If he abducts the children (above a certain very young age moreso), well, at least he’s an involved Dad….


Nor has the United States (federal) government (neither Congress nor the White House) yet handled or even apologized to women for its obsession with the (late) Senator Daniel Moynihan characterizing “matriarchy” (Single-parent households in our patriarchal culture) as pathological.  He was, in 1965, referring to “The Negro Family” but I’ve noticed that policies practiced on an already oppressed class can later be expanded to a much wider one, which has happened. (“The Moynihan Report”).  This mentality is bred into welfare and has been for decades.

Meanwhile, in Family Courts:

Meanwhile, the Family Courts have been wonderful vehicles for this self-defeating logic to play out beautifully such that a continuous stream of expert consultants is necessary at all times.  Obviously this isn’t going to work and will continue to have “roadkill” and problems.  Someone needs to come up with a (fake) explanation and “head ’em off at the pass” before the idea gets out that the family courts are in fact a public/private and illegitimate form of racketeering undermining the social fabric far more than, say, leaving dangerous relationships (or failing to stay married) is.

So, since the VERY early 2000s and starting just a few years after welfare reform passed, we have groups, advocates, and thought-leaders saying they have evidence those family courts CAN (like dangerous men) be REFORMED if only they, too, get another injection — a sort of booster shot, vaccination — against failing to understand:

domestic violence, coercive control, and how parental alienation is junk science.

Apparently all the existing DV, FR, CA, Healthy Marriage (etc.) training, collaborations (including with AFCC), Greenbook Initiative (1999-2008), Family Court Enhancement Project (2008ff) and academic debates on these issues, weren’t enough to get the job done right the first time…

The “protective parents” branding, while still around, was being hounded (as well as organizations flying that flag, not by me alone, but I did my part) — and with the recent success (I protested on this blog, and said why at the time) of “House Congressional Resolution 72 (“H.Con.Res.72”) emphasizing the phrase “safe” (as applied to the family courts) — now the wording is less “protective parents” or “mothers” but “SAFE Parents…”

If I’ve missed something basic in the above summary, let me know in a comment (here, or on Twitter, but link to this post).

To go back to the top of this page, click the title:

Is the USA Bipolar, Schizo, ADHD, Or Just Playing Us? |How Federal Gov’t both LOVEs and HATES Women [2,000 words evicted Mar.30, 2022]** short-link ends “”-e4t”

…And know that this post still in the pipline, coming as soon as I can get it out:

NSPC — ‘Coalition’ Meaning What? Rebranding the Same Themes with, Generally, the Same Entities While Channeling (vs. Exposing) AFCC Lingo? and Ignoring USA’s ‘We Both Love and Hate Women’ Federal Funds? [Post begun Feb. 6, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dxg”) Link only active once published.

Yes they are the same themes, same basic message in new containers (websites), built-in assumptions and back-door exist strategies designed into the campaigns.  For example:  Where’s any FUNCTIONAL US DOJ database for tracking the grants, and allowing viewers (public-access) to create and run their own reports from the existing data?  US DOJ should do no less than HHS in providing such data bases; and TAGGS.HHS.gov still leaves a lot to be desired…//LGH.

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.


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: