Archive for the ‘AFCC’ Category

A Few FAQs on Major Family Court Programs (NYEve 2012 Reflex on the Gender Gap)

(Written the last day of 2012) This post is about 10,000 words and was edited supplemented several times after publishing [INCLUDING IN 2014, when I was formatting a Table of Contents] .

FYI, that’s typical of my blogging… Also thanks for patience with formatting, as I deal with a different input device and fewer “buttons.” It’s cumbersome, only lets me compose in HTML mode..) [extra horizontal lines may appear as forced “paragraph breaks” which otherwise, get erased.

I am, to tell the truth, having an awful day, struggling with computer issues, web access, and, apart from the electronic struggles, with grief.

Also the long-term effects of chronic, for lack of a better term, Family Violence — in its ugly, needless, heartless, dishonest, deceitful and extortionist self. People reach a limit, and because I am NOT of the inclination to behave like those who have a conflict with me — i.e., my faith doesn’t endorse the criminal behavior part — I am finding it just this much family violence, all this just too much.

Normally this article wouldn’t be much of my concern — it’s talking about “Wage Gaps in MBA Programs” — I mean, a woman that has got through an MBA program is not likely facing the same issues I have been.

But from my perspective (year after year, there has been a return to literally begging status around the court fiascos, which is hardly unintentional from a systems, or my ex’s part; I’d been promised before separation that he knew how to get out of paying child support (wonder where learned it from….), but well, I just didn’t know at the outset of the program how many other parties profit from this. In fact I didn’t know til I revisited Liz Richards’ NAFCJ.net site and worked through the basics — almost no one else at the time was talking about the grants incentives…..

So what happens when WAGE GAP is multiplied by REPEATED WAGE DISRUPTIONS AND DECREASES (when an employee has to miss too much work, move for safety, return to court to try to contact one’s kids — often — deals with stalking and has to re-arrange work life for protection from it, has to take into account client/employer safety in future business dealings, and word gets around that the individual has “family problems” which interfere with work problems, and that’s chronic? The main concept behind having a sustainable work life is that it’s sustained. Or moves are strategic, or for exploring different options?

So, look at this from SFGATE.com (San Francisco on-line, it was also in the print edition, page A1):

“MBA Wage Gap between Men, Women Grows” Dec. 29, 2012

[Alison Damast is a Bloomberg Businessweek reporter. E-mail: adamast@bloomberg.net] Ten years ago, the wage gap between men and women graduating from top MBA programs appeared to have been nearly erased. {{that’s astounding, considering the rest of society..}} That suggested that women would launch their careers on an equal footing with men and then experience a gender-blind sprint up the corporate ranks. A decade later [i.e., NOW], a far more sober picture is emerging: The pay gap among graduates of elite business schools is widening, according to new research from Businessweek’s biennial survey of MBA graduates. On average, female grads from top MBA programs now earn 93 cents for every dollar paid their male classmates.

{{that still didn’t grab my attention. At least they are working!!}}

At about a third of the top 30 U.S. business schools, women earn less than men – sometimes considerably less. Female MBA graduates from the class of 2012 at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, for instance, earned 86 percent of male wages, while those at Stanford Graduate School of Business earned 79 percent.

{{Now, that has my attention. (I’m also remembering that Catherine Austin Fitts attended Wharton. Of course she had a lot of other things going for her personally as well, I saw some MIT in the background, time in China — she’s no slouch…)…Two more short sections of this article here:}}

“The gap numbers at the beginning are not very large and can be mostly accounted for by differences in grades, course selection and the fields people are starting in,” says Marianne Bertrand, an economics professor at University of Chicago Booth School of Business, citing results of studies on compensation among female MBA graduates from her school.

“What is much more striking is how much that gap grows over time.” The pay gap is especially wide for women heading to finance jobs.

A study of 2010 census data by Bloomberg found that among the six categories with the largest gender gap in pay were insurance agents, personal advisers and securities sales agents.

Women in those jobs earned 55 to 62 cents for every $1 men pulled in, the census data showed.

In 2010, research from Catalyst, a nonprofit group that focuses on expanding opportunities for women in business, found that female MBAs were being paid, on average, $4,600 less in their first job than men, a disparity that grows to $30,000 by mid-career, says Anna Beninger, a senior associate in Catalyst’s research department.

{{Add to this the fact that the dollar is hardly stable, you can imagine it makes an increasing difference!}}

Even women placed in high-potential leadership development programs often miss out on what are considered hot jobs, or projects most critical to career advancement, Catalyst found. Says Beninger: “Women’s careers lag behind men from day one.” . . . .

[Alison Damast is a Bloomberg Businessweek reporter. E-mail: adamast@bloomberg.net]

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

December 31, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit

Tagged with Feminists, HHS-TAGGS grants database, Parenting Coordination, Public Servants Private Profits Nonprofit Charities, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints

America’s Unified Family Courts (UFCs)– forget! due process, this is about “Treating” the Whole Family

with 3 comments

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation + ABA + HHS/DOJ (+Monsanto, CIGNA + Ford) = Unified Family Courts = Treat the Whole Family

This post is three of (my) comments from the “(Kids for Cash)” topic at Scranton Political Times… Those who teach about “abuse” should be teaching about this — because how these courts were set up DOES rather explain why they have spawned (comparison intentional), literally, protest movements across the country, from their horrid treatment of litigants, particularly ignoring facts, law, and due process in individual cases). They are horrible wastes of time and mind (a mind is a terrible thing to waste, is it not?) — and exist to dominate and intimidate, literally, the human spirit and eliminate the “unalienable rights” that SOME believe are innate (“unalienable”) to every man. . . . .And now that “every man” is to include more men – -and women . . . . those crying out for “Children’s Rights” don’t even endorse what’s right to start with — the REPUBLIC (representative government under rule of law) of the United States (plural) of America — not the Oligarchy, the Aristocracy, or the THEocracy of the USA!! — and turning the entire country, starting with children, adding youth, and expanding upwards into adults — into a treatable-at-will population — is hardly a Republic!

I was checking NAFCJ.net for a link to “the money trail” and happened across an unexplored link on there to grants by this Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to help the ABA create Unified Courts. These grants spanned the period 1996-1999; my attention was hooked, and this is what developed:

It is worth processing if you are concerned about these topics. I believe we need to FULLY understand who’s running the Justice and Legal Systems of the country, particularly if we are in the situation of attempting to squeeze some water out of a stone in those halls. . . . . . .

I AM WRITING as a single woman who could never have anticipated, as a 20, 30, or 40 year old how dangerous this country has become for ethical, moral, working, and competent women who are also mothers, and value that role as they also value pulling their own weight. Such women are horrors to this system — as they don’t need treatment, nor do their kids — but after a few years in it, ALL will!

So this is, literally, HOW the ABA (incl. AFCC) and others USED the family law system to turn “divorce” into a disease and treat every one for it, as collateral in treating for substance abuse and of course mental health problems. That divorce is NOT a disease hardly matters in the face of such a policy backed by such power.

PART I (first comment on the topic from Scranton PT):

Since the idea sucks,
WHOSE IDEA WAS “UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS,”

ANYHOW, and WHY?

Hey, remember “unified family courts” and “drug courts” (I believe there have been some complaint about Lackawanna County’s right?) and so forth? – – – I just found an old article detailing how the ABA and specific funders were pushing “treating the whole family” and “changing the justice systems” to address substance abuse by youth. An unexplored link over at NAFCJ.net, and the timing of 1996 with welfare reform.

The goal, and the whole point, was to change the justice system — from the outside, not the inside. Foundations pushing a concept and working through the ABA & Judges, plus money didn’t hurt either. HHS/ACF happened to agree — so once that door was open (that it’s OK to revise the courts based on somebody in power’s got a bright idea) — it stayed open.

This is a link from the ROBERT WOOD FOUNDATION grants page. They also helped AFCC, I believe:

Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) had linked to it long ago from:

More information on the Money Trail from HHS to the courts to fathers rights

which leads to:
Grants

$$$
How our money is misused to discriminate against women and children
http://www.statejustice.org/grantinfo/chifam.htm [broken link]
http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/029319s.htm [UFC link]

And here we can read:

Unified Family Courts: Treating the Whole Family, Not Just the Young Drug Offender

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is powerful one, focused exclusively on health fields (and the largest philanthropy with this focus; been doing this for 40 years; influences medical education field, etc.)and Unified Family Courts (for substance abuse treatment) were one of their projects

SUMMARY

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family Courts.

UFCs combine the functions of family and juvenile courts to provide a comprehensive approach to treating and educating young drug offenders and their families. This approach recognizes that substance abuse results from a combination of problems related to health, family structure, economics and community support. UFCs offer an effective alternative to a justice system that frequently treats substance abuse solely as a legal problem.

Key Results

See Grant Detail & Contact Information Notice the Baltimore Connection (I have — it’s an AFCC stronghold) — this group helped Chester Harhut & Lackawanna County set up ITS “UFC”, remember?

In Baltimore, Md., a pilot UFC was established in September 1998. The state legislature approved $1 million for the Baltimore pilot UFC project and $4 million to create Family Divisions in four other judicial districts. For each case, judges can order social services, including substance abuse and mental health counseling, and diversion programs. The Baltimore Family Court has also developed an assessment/evaluation procedure that the project director believes provides a replicable model for evaluation at other UFC sites.

I blogged this (with some sarcasm) in March 2012:

Marylands Family Court Expansion, AFCC Model, takes Unifying Symbols to a New Level: Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron . . .”First of all, they are about as unbelievingly condescending and patronizing (move over, let us experts handle your family give us your kid, etc.) as it is possible for any human relationship to be, apart from some truly unhealthy (i.e., violent/abusive) ones. They deal in force, and subterfuge when it comes to proliferating the program, and like any good, truly disaster capitalism enterprise, they deal with distressed populations, exploit them, and call that service.” [My blog connects Barbara Babb of Baltimore to Lackawanna County pilot program in UFC]

After the Grant
The ABA continues to work with the six sites and has provided technical assistance to eight other states. It also is involved in a project funded by the Scripps-Howard Foundation to examine literacy as a way to address substance abuse in four family courts.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) launched a national program, called Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime®. It is building community solutions to substance abuse and delinquency by developing the systems infrastructure necessary to deliver comprehensive care within the juvenile justice system. See the program’s Web site for more information. . . .Funding

RWJF provided a $481,605 grant to the ABA for its work on UCF systems..(they mean “UFC — Unified Family Courts”)

In 1994, ABA adopted a resolution calling for the promotion and implementation of UFC systems to make the courts more responsive to family problems. {{??}} By 1996, six states had established versions of UFCs statewide, and four states had some UFCs operating on the county level.

[That, friends, is how the ABA operates…] [NOW for the FUNDING]:

Other Funding The ABA solicited and obtained additional project funding from the private sector and government, including:

the US Department of Justice ($100,000),
the ABA’s Standing Committee on Substance Abuse ($90,000),
CIGNA Corporation ($30,000),**
Monsanto ($10,000),** and
Ford Motor Company ($5,000). [Ford is into most govermental things, and in the 1970s had helped from MDRC, which runs demonstration programs onw elfare and the courts, etc.]]

Those names should ring a few bells. Look at some of them!

* *”Grrreat” — Monsanto is “only” the food giant that’s trying to put non-GMO and organic farmers out of business and basically co-opt the US Food supply. (Ya gotta read this one) Monsanto, Wikipedia:

… multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world’s leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed in the Roundup brand, and in other brands. Monsanto is also the second largest producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed; it provides the technology in 49% of the genetically engineered seeds used in the US market.”. . .Monsanto’s development and marketing of genetically engineered seed and bovine growth hormone, as well as its aggressive litigation, political lobbying practices, seed commercialization practices and “strong-arming” of the seed industry^[4…

In 2009 Monsanto came under scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department, which began investigating whether the company’s activities in the soybean markets were breaking anti-trust rules.^[4]^[5]

What better corporation to contribute to an ANTI-Drug Abuse program which creates genetically modified seeds, bovine growth hormone, and strong arm tactics + lobbying to maintain it — and financial clout to help create an alternate justice system (treatment versus accountability….)!!

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear (Vanity Fair Article):

Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the seed police and use words such as Gestapo and Mafia to describe their tactics.

[Starting to sound like the Unified Family Court “treatment Gestapo police” now in place? Birds of a feather..]

“in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the worlds food supply . . .Monsanto patents SEEDS; farmers who use theirs sign an agreement to NOT save seeds, they are suing farmers into whose fields Monsanto seeds may, for example, drift (i.e., by wind).

With an agenda like this, it’s understandable why Monsanto may want a role in dismantling the US legal system! !!! (Other Monsanto Gov’t ties) http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm

CIGNA’s quite a player also:

(from 1982 merger of Connecticut General Life — dating to 1865! and INA (Insurance Company of NA) Before selling its international property and casualty business to the Bermuda-based ACE Insurance company in the late 1990s, CIGNA was among the companies with the largest international network in the league of Allianz, AIG and Zurich. . . .CIGNA now operates in 25 countries, has in excess of 42,000 employees and manages around US$110 billion in assets . . .In October 2011, CIGNA has agreed to buy HealthSpring Inc. for $3.8 billion to jump-start its business selling Medicare plans from 46,000 Medicare Advantage members to almost 400,000 Medicare Advantage members. The payment would come from issue new equity to cover about 20 percent of the value, with the rest funded by additional cash and debt.

Gee, I “can’t imagine” why — right around the time of “block grants to the states” welfare reform — CIGNA, being a global “health service” company might want to help the ABA turn large parts of the US Justice system into a treatment-philosophy-based system, including treat the whole family for one member’s substance abuse!

So, here’s the ABA creating all these Unified Family Courts (hint: The ABA membership includes subset no doubt of AFCC membership, who also are into unified courts = more business for the mental health membership..)

“Other in-kind support was provided by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) of the federal Department of HHS, the Administrative Office of the Courts in Maryland (AOC), and ABA volunteers. “

In short — have to watch out for these outfits… (that’s the UBaltimore one — see blog post)

Here’s how the ABA overcame opposition to UFC in Washington DC:

In Washington, D.C., the ABA worked on a strategy to establish a UFC. Judicial opposition to family court reform, based chiefly on economic concerns, blocked significant progress toward the UFC model. The ABA met with the Chief Judge, the primary opponent, and worked with UFC proponents in the District. Family and Child Services, a branch of the District of Columbia’s Child Protection Agency, and an ad hoc group of representatives from the judicial leadership and social service providers, have assumed the lead in efforts to explore the feasibility of a UFC approach in the District.

Does this part of the ABA seem like it’s going to take “No thanks!” as an answer?

Publicizing by ABA:

The ABA developed a network of national organizations to support UFCs. The American Judges Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, {{OBVIOUSLY this group would be in favor of UFC’s – gets its membership more customers!!}} the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, [NCJFCJ] and J oin Together (a national organization created by RWJF that provides technical assistance and information** to communities on issues involving substance abuse and gun violence) distributed information and/or collaborated with the ABA on UFC programs

– – – – -**The phrase “technical assistance and information” ANYwhere should be better read “indoctrination — do it OUR way; but if anyone asks, we’re just “helping” (and not responsible if it backfires).- – – – – – –

Apparently in 2006, “Join Together” was phased out by RWJF to be replaced by a “VULNERABLE POPULATIONS” project:

”

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), which for two decades has been the most generous and visible private funder of addiction treatment and prevention programs in the U.S., has announced that it will no longer have a separate program area for funding addiction-related programs.

“Instead, any new grantmaking related to addiction will take place under the foundation’s Vulnerable Populations portfolio, said foundation president and CEO Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., in a recent letter to RWJF grantees. Often the neediest populations such as the chronically homeless, new immigrants, victims of domestic abuse** are faced with multiple health and social issues, including addiction, that must be addressed in an integrated way for these individuals to succeed. The Vulnerable Populations grantmaking effort focuses mainly on these populations.

**the substance abuse is often related to other kinds of abuse, which is already known (acestudy.org) from other longitudinal studies. Perhaps if someone could focus on stopping the INJUSTiCE (including violence towards family members) instead of constantly TREATING it (both victm and perp as if both were responsible) there’d be less substance abuse! (who knows?)

So now they’re going for “supportive housing” to keep kids out of the foster care system. Guess who’s helping with THAT project?

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has partnered with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and three private foundations to jointly fund a $35 million initiative to further test how supportive housing can help stabilize highly vulnerable families and keep children out of the foster care system. . . .Collaborating foundations include the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Casey Family Programs, and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
This groundbreaking initiative is based on a successful pilot effort in New York City, known as Keeping Families Together (KFT) that took place between October 2007 and July 2009

This is actually an upcoming grant opportunity, $5 million available, per HHS. It’s under CAPTA (child abuse prevention).

What’s Wrong with this Picture? (coming….)

Interesting: AFCC cite to the foundation: see note at bottom of the page: http://afcc.crinfo.org/action/search-profile.jsp?key=14482&type=web

This beta-test, demonstration gateway has been developed to demonstrate the structure of the Conflict Research Consortium’s joint gateway program to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

This test site has not, in any way, been approved by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Co-Directors and Editors
c/o Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado
Campus Box 580, Boulder, CO 80309
Phone: (303) 492-1635; Contac

— Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 11:06:09 PM— on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 11:23:37 PM

PARTS II & III:

The powers that be (like ABA, foundations, HHS, etc.) determined among themselves that treatment is better than justice. That some of them happened be in the treatment business must just be coincidence.

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family CourtsUFCs offer an effective alternative to a justice system that frequently treats substance abuse solely as a legal problem

Notice: justice system — or treatment system. Which would you rather have when walking into a courtroom? Would you like to know which one you’re up for when it says “court” on the outside?

So, here comes that Robt Wood Johnson Foundation:

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) launched a national program, called Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime®.

… USPTO and trademarking social service reform (see that “®”?)

USPTO.gov

pick “Trademark search“

pick “Basic Word Mark Search” and fill it in

Search . .Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime and get:

Sure ‘nuf that’s a robert wood johnson trademark:

	Serial Number	Reg. Number	Word Mark	Check Status	Live/Dead
1	76117473	2592702	RECLAIMING FUTURES	TARR	LIVE
2	75627894	2540943	PROTECTING OUR FUTURE BY RECLAIMING OUR PAST	TARR	LIVE

They trademarked the act of giving grants!

IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: Charitable services, namely, providing grants to programs to combat substance abuse and delinquency. FIRST USE: 2001/01/25. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010125

{interesting, executive order GWBush establishing faith-based office was 2001/01/29…}{Filed for opposition: August 24, 2000}

Owner	(REGISTRANT) Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The NON-PROFIT CORPORATION NEW JERSEY Route One & College Road East P.O. Box 2316 Princeton NEW JERSEY 085432316
Attorney of Record	Richard C. Woodbridge

(the logo is also a hyperlink)

In 2001, with a $21 million investment from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 10 founding communities located throughout the United States began reinventing the way police, courts, detention facilities, treatment providers, and the community work together to meet this urgent need

Amazing what a $21 million investment can do . . ..

“Reclaiming Futures has been evaluated by The Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., in collaboration with the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.” (RWJF helped pay for the evaluation also)
Now there are six partners, including from OJJDP, HHS (SAMSHA), another foundation, Portland State, and a research institute at Portland state.

“Re-engineer the justice system in your state” (how-to manual):
Bring Reclaiming Futures to Your State or Tribal Lands »
Re-engineer the juvenile justice system in your state or region to avoid unnecessary costs and cut recidivism. Here’s how to get started.

RWJF + ABA = UFCs + Drug Courts (cont’d.)

For the Record, American Bar Association is listed at HHS as “Private Profit (large) Business.”

HHS has donated over $20.6 million of grants to the ABA per TAGGS.hhs.gov. So taxpayers are supporting it, too, even if they’re not engaged in litigation.

ABA activism (from site below about Unified Family Courts):

From 1992 to 1996, RWJF funded the ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse’s Community Anti-Drug Coalition Initiative to mobilize lawyers, judges, and justice system leaders to help create new justice systems and structures to solve the substance abuse problem (see Grant Results [] on ID#s 019838 and 023195).

The ABA was also instrumental in persuading legal community leaders to support drug courts for juveniles, which link juvenile justice and community treatment resources to juvenile drug offenders and their legal caretakers.

OK, get JUVENILES into treatment, what next?

The ABA then helped cities nationwide set up drug courts for adultoffenders, which offer defendants who have been charged with a drug offense (typically first-time, non-violent offenders) court supervised substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. Drug courts can motivate drug users to enter rehabilitation programs and reestablish productive lifestyles. These courts have dramatically decreased recidivism rates and drug use among participants. [have they?]

UFC’s complement the work of the drug courts. UFCs combine the functions of family courts (which handle family-related legal issues) and juvenile courts (which handle [criminal or status offence, they should’ve said] cases in which minors are involved) into one entity and provide a comprehensive approach to helping “families in crisis.“ UFCs incorporate treatment for young substance abuse offenders into the wide range of cases heard in civil court involving family matters.

– – – – -OK, what’s that mean?

– – – – Basically, where family court would’ve been perhaps about custody and divorce primarily, UFC’s tempt the judges to order more services, and treat the entire family — although the case may be as simple as a custody/visitation plan or a divorce, NEITHER of which are criminal matters. Also omitted — juvenile courts are not just for people of a certain age — they are for juveniles who’ve caused (or allegedly caused) some problems, committing a legitimate crime (breaking and entering, robbery, rape/sexual assault, etc.) OR “status offence,” i.e. violated some rules that wouldn’t apply to adults, like a curfew, or attendance at school (truancy violations).

Changed the entire climate, definitely affecting people with straightforward business in the FAMILY court who may not be sick or criminal. This was less for the families than for the court’s convenience, and for its liaisons with treatment-providing organizations.

You can look up ABA HHS grants around this time and see:

#90CW1087
Award Title:	CHILD WELFARE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS
OPDIV:	ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Organization:	CHILDREN’S BUREAU (CB)
Award Class:	DISCRETIONARY

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
1998	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	5	0	ACF	09-17-1998	$ 700,000
1998	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	4	1	ACF	09-30-1997	$ 80,000
1998	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	4	2	ACF	04-15-1998	$ 26,004
1998	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	4	3	ACF	06-24-1998	$ 21,276
Fiscal Year 1998 Total:									$ 827,280

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
1997	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	4	0	ACF	09-10-1997	$ 450,000
1997	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	3	1	ACF	12-19-1996	$ 0
1997	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	3	2	ACF	03-29-1997	$ 0
1997	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	3	3	ACF	08-20-1997	$ 3,369
Fiscal Year 1997 Total:									$ 453,369

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
1996	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	03	000	ACF	09-25-1996	$ 400,000
1996	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	03	001	ACF	12-19-1996	$ 0
1996	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	03	002	ACF	03-29-1997	$ 0
Fiscal Year 1996 Total:									$ 400,000

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Yr of Support	Award Code	Agency	ActionIssue Date	Amount This Action
1995	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	02	000	ACF	09-29-1995	$ 400,000
1995	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	02	001	ACF	09-29-1995	$ 38,947
1995	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	02	002	ACF	09-30-1995	$ 3,310
1995	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	02	003	ACF	01-22-1996	$ 0
1995	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	02	004	ACF	07-15-1996	$ 55,125
Fiscal Year 1995 Total:									$ 497,382

Total of all award actions:

$ 2,178,031

AND:

Award Number:	MCU11A301
Award Title:	PARTNERS IN PGRM PLANNING FOR ADOLESCENT HEALTH
OPDIV:	HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA)
Organization:	MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH / SYSTEMS EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (MCHB)
Award Class:	COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
1997	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	CHICAGO	IL	93110	02	000	HRSA	09-02-1997	$ 100,000
Fiscal Year 1997 Total:									$ 100,000

Fiscal Year 1996 Total:

$ 100,000

Total of all award actions:

$ 200,000

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATN

KATHI GRASSO

$ 100,000

So, ABA is a partner in “HEALTH SERVICES.” Principal Investigator “Kathi Grasso”:

Ms. Grasso worked for the ABA Center for Children and the Law, OJJDP atsome point and is a member of NACC based in WDC. She has a degree from Catholic University. .She’s very active around the country and publishing on these matters:

(footnote to an NACC publication) A Judges Guide to Improving Legal Representation of Children, edited by Kathi Grasso, ABA Center on Children and the Law, © ABA May 1998.

Kathi Grasso [From OJJDP “staff” list]
Senior Juvenile Justice Policy and Legal Advisor
202-xxx-xxxx
kathi.grasso@usdoj.gov

First she worked for the (activist) ABA center for children, then she moved over to OJJDP which is a large agency which allocates GRANTS in Judicial Programs; as there she also functioned (I see) as OJJDP Liaison to other ABA commissions on Youth At Risk (etc.) causes.

(presented at some workshop on representing Indigents, in Texas)

Video 2: Keynote: Effectuating Reform in Juvenile Justice
Presenters: Kathi Grasso, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the U.S. Department of Justice
Link to handout and Juvenile Ten Core Principles

_ _ _ _ _

Curious about who was over the “Child Welfare Research and Demo” Grant (above), I looked — it’s a Mark Hardin, who retired in 2009 after 30 years of this type of advocacy:

Award Number	Budg Yr	Action Issue Date	CFDA	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
90CW1087	02	09/29/1995	93608	MARK HARDIN	$ 438,947
90CW1087	02	09/30/1995	93608		$ 3,310
90CW1087	02	01/22/1996	93608		$ 0
90CW1087	02	07/15/1996	93608		$ 55,125
90CW1087	03	09/25/1996	93608		$ 400,000
	03	12/19/1996	93608		$ 0
	03	03/29/1997	93608		$ 0
	3	12/19/1996	93608		$ 0
	3	03/29/1997	93608		$ 0
90CW1087	3	08/20/1997	93608		$ 3,369
90CW1087	4	09/10/1997	93608		$ 450,000
90CW1087	4	09/30/1997	93608	(etc.)	$ 80,000
90CW1087	4	04/15/1998	93608		$ 26,004
90CW1087	4	06/24/1998	93608		$ 21,276
	4	03/24/1999	93608		$ 0
	4	04/26/1999	93608		$ 0
90CW1087	5	09/17/1998	93608	MARK HARDIN	$ 700,000
	5	04/26/1999	93608	MARK HARDIN	$ 0

PROFILE from ABA shows:

Mark Hardin, National Child Welfare Law Authority, Retires

WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct. 13, 2009 — The American Bar Association is announcing the retirement of Mark Hardin, director of child welfare at the ABA Center on Children and the Law and an Oregon attorney. A legal pioneer in the field of foster care and the role of the courts in aiding abused and neglected children and their families, Hardin spent 35 years utilizing his legal skills and knowledge to improve the plight of children removed from their homes due to child maltreatment.

Beginning as a legal aid lawyer in Portland, Ore., Hardin handled family, juvenile and welfare cases, giving him practical insight into the lives of vulnerable children and families. In the late 70’s, during two years at Portland State University, Hardin forged development of the law on “permanency planning” for abused and neglected children and wrote several early publications helping social workers and policy analysts understand the legal aspects of a child’s placement in foster care. He was among the country’s first trainers of lawyers and child welfare agency staff, educating them in their legal responsibilities relative to children removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect.

Hardin joined the Center on Children and the Law in 1980 where, according to ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm, he became “the country’s foremost legal scholar on foster care legal and judicial reforms.”

Hardin’s experience includes having directed the ABA’s National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues, a program of the Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Wait a minute. is this “child welfare resource center on legal and judicial issues” something belonging to the ABA (a large, private, FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS) or the HHS (a dept. of the US Federal government, Executive Branch, of, by and for the people? How can it be an ABA thing AND a program of the Children’s Bureau? Conflict of interest, much?

. . .With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.”

[Was that supposed to be a JOKE? We are having frequent issues with lawyers BREAKING the law!]

AN AWARD NAMED AFTER MARK HARDIN:

First Annual

Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Legal Scholarship and Systems Change

The Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Legal Scholarship and Systems Change, created by the ABA Center on Children and the Law in 2011 with approval from the ABA Board of Governors, honors the work of Mark Hardin. Before his retirement, Mark served for almost 30 years on the staff of the ABA Center on Children and the Law as director of child welfare. Mark has long been recognized by those who work in this area of law as an early innovator in the child welfare legal field. He is recipient of the “Adoption Excellence Award” bestowed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; an award for “extraordinary contributions to children” from the administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the prestigious “Outstanding Legal Advocacy Award” from the National Association of Counsel for Children; and an award for interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social work.

This is understandable, given common interests in these goups

ANYHOW, now there is a MARK HARDIN AWARD, and the FIRST (2012) recipient of it is the Director of CALIFORNIA’s “AOC” “Center for Families & Children in the Courts,” — which is part of the Judicial Council — DIANE NUNN.

May 23, 2012AOC Director Receives ABA award for Work on Behalf of Families and ChildrenRecipient of ABA’s First Mark Hardin Award . .SAN FRANCISCO—Diane Nunn, Division Director of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts,Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), is the recipient of the First Annual Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Scholarship and Systems Change

DIANE NUNN (along with “Depner” along with Isolini Ricci) is AFCC — and the AOC in California — this year, last year, and in recent years — has been split with scandal over fiscal/financial irresponsibility, a bloated bureaucracy, overbilling and fraud in the creation of a new, huge statewide computer system (CCMS) and to my recall, several of its leadership suddenly stepped down: Ron Overholt (administrator), his replacement, and another person — after a whistleblower suit. (see this topic at “courthousenews.com” [back issues]).

This AOC/CFCC also administers and distributes the federal grants to nonprofits around the state for the “treatment programs” parents and kids are ordered into, as well as the Access/Visitation Grants. i can see why a systems change award might go to one of their own!

” In 2000 she became the director of the Judicial Council’s AOC/Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC), the first entity devoted exclusively to family and children’s issues in a statewide administrative office of the courts. As Division Director, Nunn leads a nationally-recognized team that provides an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to serving the state’s family and juvenile courts. ”
… {{“multidisciplinary” is code word referring to AFCC many times. It’s their hallmark. Why just have the rule of law when you could have social workers and psychologists as well?}}

“Describing the Award & Mr. Hardin: He is recipient of the “Adoption Excellence Award” bestowed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; an award for “extraordinary contributions to children” from the administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the prestigious “Outstanding Legal Advocacy Award” from the National Association of Counsel for Children; and an award for interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social work.”

ABA is a private, for-profit business, supported by business(es) in the form of foundation grants, and with a little too close for comfort cooperation with HHS and the Adoption Incentives, plus the theme of we, the elite, know better how to rule society, so let’s change a few laws, and court practices! After all, who’s going to complain — the indigent?

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

The term “HIGH-CONFLICT” — Docketed, Trademarked, Franchised, and Distributed!

with one comment

Post title: The term “HIGH-CONFLICT” — Docketed, Trademarked, Franchised, and Distributed! Published May 10, 2012 (About 5,500 words; case-sensitive short-link ending “-14I” + some re-formatting for easier “cite”)

HIGH CONFLICT is turning out to be a HIGH-CASH-COW in the Family Law business:

High Conflict Case Management

A new program has been instituted in San Diego to deal with certain High Conflict Cases. A number of therapists and a small group of lawyers and judges have participated in training to manage these cases.Attorney Robin A. Devito is one of the few lawyers selected to participate in the initial training program. For more information, contact Robin’s Office.

If you click on the attorney’s name, the assortment of terms is typical AFCC, and she notes she was trained by Joan Kelly of Northern California Mediation, Center. etc. All the phrases are in place: Collaborative Law, etc.

Robin was trained in mediation through the Northern California Mediation Center, by Joan Kelly and Nancy Davis, in 1994. She is a trained Collaborative Practitioner, and a member of both Collaborative Practice groups in San Diego, and the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals [IACP]. She conducts mediation, and handles Collaborative cases.

The emphasis of her practice is Alternate Dispute Resolution and Private Judging, each of which is consistent with her solution-seeking approach to resolving Family Law matters of all types. She is frequently hired by other lawyers as a mediator, settlement conference judge, arbitrator, or private judge, to help them resolve their clients’ cases, spends much of each week active in that capacity.

[Basic description above unchanged May 2012-May 2018. Link: https://www.divorceandmediation.com/high-conflict-case-management.html; In case that changes, a “screen print” (image) to the bottom of this post. // //Blog administrator LGH, 5-14-2018]

This is simply what the family law system is about It wants to order more services– that’s the name of the game: Now there are HIGH-CONFliCT DOCKETS or PROGRAMS showing up in various states and jurisdictions, with some serious repercussions. Always it’s the parents’ problem (usually a communication problem) they can’t co-parent, even if one of them is committing incest. Talking about this, or supporting a child if they are afraid to see the parent can cause serious conflict with the courts, and might get you sent to jail, or being forced to pay supervised visitation for not being more cooperative.

In a NJ County, this is what’s likely to happen if there’s “high conflict”:

Custody Neutral Assessment Program 609-518-2515

The Custody Neutral Assessment Program (CNA) is available for high conflict cases** that are inappropriate for, or are unable to be resolved, through mediation. This program utilizes several mental health practitioners in the community who meet with the parties, discuss contested issues and make clinical recommendations to the court on how to resolve disputed issues.

Expert Evaluation Program 609-518-2515

The Expert Evaluation Program is a clinical service available for high conflict custody cases that are not appropriate for mediation or Custody Neutral Assessment. Cases are referred by court order to mental health evaluators within the community for psychological or psychiatric evaluation. Completed reports are submitted to the court to provide the judge with clinical insight of the case prior to making a final decision.

{{**if you have conflict, you have a mental health problem… this is how abuse and DV cases will be managed from here on out, apparently. There is no such thing as individual responsibility for cruelty, or abuse, or contempt of court, etc. – — BOTH parents will be held responsible and psychologically evaluated. This MAY just explain why court dockets are so full….}}

I thought I’d “Seen it All” in how many ways the words “high conflict” could be used, but it appears I was wrong. So today, here’s another look at how it can be trademarked, franchised, certified, shrinkwrapped, and sold.

Perhaps there’d be less conflict of more professionals were able to handle conflict with their re-branding of common criminal behavior as a psychological personality aberration on the part of the protecting or reporting parents, often female:

I have other blogs (that look better) — see The Family Court Franchise System, particularly the page (and also a post or so) on Connect-i-cut’s High Conflict Docket.

Which also made headlines – or at least a lengthy piece — by journalist Keith Harmon Snow on the nightmares American mothers are going through when it comes to coverup of serious child sexual abuse, to the tune of being extorted by supervised visitation provider, etc.

U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN
Family Courts Behind an Epidemic of Pedophilia & Judicial Abuse

keith harmon snow

First publication: 01 May 2012
Edits & Revision: 03 May 2012

A five month investigation reveals an epidemic of violence and corruption facilitated by Family Courts in the United States. Children all over the United States are being taken from their protective mothers and delivered to abusers. Behind this epidemic of judicial abuse are organized networks involved in racketeering and corruption, channeling and disappearing billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayers money every year. Insurance companies are being defrauded by medical and mental health professionals rewarded handsomely for producing quack studies that criminalize loving mothers and protect abusive fathers. With clear evidence of racketeering and corruption, high court judges and insider lawyers use and abuse the Family Courts system to destroy protective mothers and deliver life sentences of suffering to innocent children.

Rich, poor, middle-class… No child in America is safe.

That happens to be true (we are in short, becoming quite the police state…..) although I still need to contact him (again) about this approach to the problem. He is a reporter, not a litigant or parent snared by the system, and has a mixture of traumatized parents’ reports and the professionals, but very little on the organizational (corporate) structures that set this up. But the case that got his attention — was the one in Connecticut where a HIGH-CONFLICT REGIONAL DOCKET had been set up. THis is become a practice around the country. WATCH OUT! — it’s not good news!!

All I intend to post today is a link to a program (Not necessarily a DOCKET) in San Diego area which shows some of the moulah to be made by franchising into the words “High-Conflict” and teaching parents how to cut it out. Click and read — it’s fairly self-explanatory if you have some exposure to this system (and the AFCC jargon):

http://www.highconflict.net/instructors/become-an-instructor-2/

This one appears to have been slapped together — jump on the bandwagon. I don’t know that the pricing reflects this — it’s HIGH!

BECOME A HIGH CONFLICT DIVERSION PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR OR COACH

HIGH CONFLICT DIVERSION PROGRAM™

TEACHER CERTIFICATION WORKSHOPS 2012

Kingston New Jersey – June 8-11 2012

Austin Texas – July 27-30

We are very excited that you have expressed interest in High Conflict Diversion Program™. The High Conflict Diversion Program™ was founded by Brook Olsen in 2006 as a resource for assisting parents in high conflict divorce with strategies to help them reduce the conflict in their custody issues and to educate therapists, attorneys and family court professionals in alternative ways to deal with high conflict divorce. The program, currently in San Diego County, is both court-ordered and non-court ordered in which parents in high conflict custody battles attend.

The High Conflict Diversion Program is committed to educating the family courts, family court professionals and parenting educators throughout the country about high conflict divorce through leading edge strategies for changing how parents deal with this difficult situation.

We are offering a four day workshop where we will be teaching cutting edge knowledge to become a certified High Conflict Coach and High Conflict Diversion Program™ Instructor.

. . .

This Program is already recognized in many counties in California, Florida, Colorado and Puerto Rico and continues to grow in recognition through out the US and Canada. The first two days must be taken as a prerequisite.

This workshop is offered to mental health professionals, attorneys, parenting educators and family court professionals and by interview to other professionals wanting to teach this work.

We understand that your time and money are very important and realize the current economic situation makes investing in this education difficult so we have reduced the cost of this training to $1699 for the 4 day training. That is a reduction in the original cost of $300.00.

(continue reading, and most of us, I believe, will recognize the basic marketing program and buy-in (entrance fees) “sell.”)…

Brook D. Olsen

Director: High Conflict Diversion Program LLC

(the “ABOUT DIRECTOR” page is blank, currently)

Here’s the program’s own LinkedIn (where I learn that Brook is a man (?) and thereafter you can click on Brook or Debra Dupree (co-instructors?) and read more about their backgrounds, too.

and (both DUPREE): & Founder, Brook Olsen:

The Relationship with California Secretary of State (that matters) — well apparently it doesn’t matter: She also registered it in 2007 (late in the year), not 2005 as website claims (typical!)

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
200731810061	11/08/2007	CANCELED	RELATIONSHIPS THAT MATTER, LLC	DEBRA DUPREE

(street address in El Cajon, now lists a real estate attorney there….)

Transitions for Life, if the bottom row, just registered a month or so ago; if you click on it (or search again at CA Secretary of State Business Search site) has no street address listed:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2699054	02/11/2005	SUSPENDED	TRANSITIONS FOR LIFE CENTER, INC.	SHARON HEASTON
C3447150	01/23/2012	ACTIVE	TRANSITIONS FOR LIFE INC.	LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.

TFL Mediation | LinkedIn

http://www.linkedin.com/company/tfl-mediation

Transitions For Life Mediation is about providing better solutions for divorcing families. We offer flat-fee Divorce Packages™ and hourly programs to help …

However a website http://www.lifetransitionsinc.net/ shows up a parent education group in Massachusetts called “MOVING FORWARD”

an educational program to diminish the effects of divorce on children and adults

Our 2-session program meets in Littleton and Chelmsford, in Massachusetts, on Fridays 6:00-8:30pmand Saturdays 9:30am-12:00pm.

Workshop fee is $80.

This parent education workshop is approved by the Chief Justice of the Probate & Family Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Under the High Conflict Diversion Program’s site,

I count 15 instructors (read the pricing, do the math) and this website appears to be still in construction. Perhaps Brooks was a little late on this bandwagon….

How to screen for potential clients (i.e., divorces that could be roped into this):

By starting early in the divorce process, we can look out for potential “red flags” surrounding certain behaviors that will identify substance abuse issues and other indicators that suggest that a High Conflict scenario** may be present

By working with attorneys in the early stages of potentially High Conflict divorces, we will increase the probability of obtaining a settlement agreement before the proceedings collapse.

We teach communication skills and help our students to identify, and then responsibly avoid, “triggers” that lead to conflict. These skills are not only helpful during the divorce and parenting, but are also highly useful in maintaining a better relationship with a new partner or spouse. These communication skills also help the attorney-client communication stay clear and on track.

By helping students think “outside the box,” we help empower them to rely on their own inner resources, rather than the court system, to remedy their situation.

We help identify, both directly and indirectly, the belief patterns, triggers, coping mechanisms and survival strategies that prevent parents from accessing their capacity to disengage from a High Conflict divorce and move on with their lives.

We teach centering and relaxation techniques to help students to calm down prior to, during and after contact with a non-cooperative ex-spouse, depositions, meetings with attorneys, court appearances and things of this nature.

** Notice that emotionally triggering terms like “child abuse, spouse abuse, kidnapping, stalking” etc. are not mentioned. In fact, that’s part of the plan, evidently. Domestic violence and child abuse (etc.) can obviously be handled by teaching (BOTH sets of) parents better communication skills, under threat of excommunication or being court-ordered into more classes, or loss of contact with one’s kids, etc.

What IS it about the City of San Diego. So much (baloney) proceeds from this one city and it’s Family Justice Center Alliance, Relationship Training Institute (not current with their charitable filings, I suspect kickbacks at this point, take court-referral business), the attempt to get KidsTurn legislated (SB 577 was it?), not to mention Kids Turn San Diego, and Enron by the Sea. The “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” (Stoica/Leucadia, etc.) is in the area, apparently — and getting multiple millions of HHS (Still — $2.5 million in 2011, jsut like old times) and it just goes on and on. Anyhow, here’s a snippet from Debra Dupree’s “Relationships that Matter” website. It does seem she’s a sucker for ANY training program she can stick up on the credentials page:

Debra moved into the field of Mediation in 1994 with advanced certifications in Workplace and Family/Divorce Mediation in 2005 & 2007 and attained the world-renowned CINERGY Certification in Conflict Coaching in 2009. Debra is also certified as a High Conflict Diversion Program (HCDP) Coach & Workshop Leader,** an authorized New Ways for Families (NWFF) Therapist and Mediator,*** and Parent Educator & Coach for Transitions for Life (TFL).

The San Diego Superior Court and Family Court Services for High Conflict Divorce cases regularly refers cases to Debra to help families and businesses stay out of court.## Debra is an active member of the California Association of Marriage & Family Therapists (CAMFT) and its local San Diego Chapter, the Southern California Mediation Association (SCMA) as well as the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR)

CINERGY(r) (originator from Canada)

**Probably for the price shown on the site, well over $1,000.

***New Ways for Families” is ? a Bill Eddy “thang.” See my post about “Another AFCC wet dream” — and High Conflict Institute.

##Let’s hope that keeping families OUT of court is the only “perk” San Diego Superior Court and Family Court Services derives from referral business, but I’m not holding my breath.

New Ways for Families is a structured parenting skills method with short-term counseling to reduce the impact of conflict on the children in potentially high-conflict cases. It can be used whenever a parent or the court believes one parent needs restricted parenting (supervised, no contact, limited time), at the start of a case or any time a parent requests it–including after the divorce.

This method emphasizes strengthening skills for positive future behavior (new ways), rather than focusing on past negative behavior – while still acknowledging it. It is designed to save courts time, to save parents money, and to protect children as their families re-organize in new ways after a separation or divorce, for married or never-married parents. This method can be used in family court, mediation, collaborative divorce, or even post-divorce with the assistance of a Parenting Coordinator or High Conflict Case Manager.

Goals of New Ways for Families

To immunize families against becoming high-conflict families during the separation and the divorce process.

I have no problem with this — if only the family courts would simply stop dealing with criminal matters, and where the crime has been identified, apply “you abuse you lose,” such that the ONLY cases involving co-parenting are those WITHOUT sexual, child, or spouse abuse. THEN maybe those other things might work. Then again, most parents have better things to do than (after running their kids to and from school, and themselves to and from work) go sit down in another court-ordered class, particularly of the psychoeducational sort.

New Ways for Families™ is a new method being tried in San Diego County for handling high conflict parenting cases in family court. Supervising Family Law Judge Lorna Alksne has authorized the downtown San Diego judges to try this method for three months, then it will be evaluated for further use.

. . .

Step 1: Getting Started

Parents can agree to use New Ways, or a judge can order it while also making temporary parenting orders, support orders, and restraining orders. Then, each parent selects his or her own Individual Parent Counselor from a list of local counselors trained in the New Ways method. Before the counseling begins, each parent prepares a Behavioral Declaration and a Reply Behavioral Declaration, which are the only declarations provided to their counselors.

Hopefully this spells out why the family courts have become a “RACKET,” without me having to add much more. You want referral business? You buy into the system. Did we mention, there are probably still access visitation (federal grants to states, distributed from AOC downward last I heard) which ALSO help set up parent education programs, been going on since 1996…. taking welfare grants to the states, and just “diverting” some of it. For the public’s own good. We can see this co-parenting thing “really helps,” from the Seal Beach, CA incident of (I believe it was last fall), where “only” 8 people were murdered by a man who didn’t feel that 56% parenting time was fair, and who’d already had a prior restraining order on. His wife, and 7 others died. HE DIDN”T (Scott DeKraii).

RE: Judge Laura Allksne, she seems to have both mens’ and women’s (i.e. protective parents) groups angry with her. This ANGIEMEDIA site has it exactly right, although I can’t say I’m entirely on the same page with the blog overall:

POSTED THIS PAST APRIL 21, 2012:

Eileen Lasher of the California Coalition for Families and Children was interviewed twice in 2011 by Walter Davis on his show Progress in San Diego. Dr. Emad Tadros,* an outspoken critic of the San Diego family courts, joined them in the first interview. The second interview was shown in two segments.

(*Dr. Tadros discovered the fake credential of a custody evaluator, Stephen Doyne, and has been heavily punished for publicizing this: “Zoe the Cat” etc.)

In the interview segment below, Lasher discussed her experiences with the misconduct of minor’s counsel attorneys and how taxpayers and parents are paying for what is in her view an organized criminal enterprise. She says children and parents are being abused by the courts and points out the taxpayers and the abused parents are paying the financial costs for this misconduct.

San Diego Family Courts: Organized Crime Ring Targeting Middle and Upper Classes

Lasher contends the San Diego family law courts are operated as a criminal business that siphons the wealth from families and places it in the hands of the attorneys and experts such as custody evaluators. She views judges who appoint custody evaluators and minor’s counsel attorneys and many of those attorneys as particularly culpable. A minor’s counsel attorney is to participate in a custody case by representing the children. However, such attorneys often have conflicts of interest. They also typically run their own family law attorney business and are also in some cases are attorneys who are involved in probate cases and serve as “pro tem” judges in family law court.

Discussion focused on how low income families seldom have minor’s counsel attorneys and psychological evaluators ordered by the courts. These families have little money, so it is not lucrative to put them through the family court extortion process reserved for people who have some money. Middle income or higher income families often suffer from these expensive costs because they have significant assets and income that can be exploited by the divorce industry.

You have a house, so the attorneys and court want your house to be forced into sale so they can keep the proceeds and ensure their own wealth and job security at the expense of you and your children. You have retirement savings, the attorneys want those, too. There are college savings for the kids? Those can be raided, too.

How better to extort all or nearly all of a family’s wealth than to threaten their children? The attorneys and judges know how lucrative this extortion is and are eager to bring it into play when they see income and assets that can be pillaged.

If the parents don’t have substantial assets, the grandparents might. The court and its allies know that threatening their grandchildren is often an equally effective way to “financially gangrape” the family.

OR (molestation case apparently involving this woman):

Saving Damon – Saving Damon from his identified molester

(Petition to have her removed, from the protective mother I believe)

http://www.savingdamon.com/

but Judge Lorna Alksne wanted to try a local psychologist, Dr. Breffni Barrett, first. … by Judge Lorna Alksne–with no supporting facts or evidence whatsoever.

Judge Lorna Alksne – Elkins Task Force

http://www.elkinstaskforce.org/San_Diego.html

Some of the families are having very high conflict with the way the courts do business, particularly when their custody evaluators are sporting fraudulent credentials . . . . . ANYHOW, under “NEW (court-ordered) WAYS FOR FAMILIES, INCLUDING THOSE WITH RESTRAINING ORDERS PENDING OR ON AND AS IT SAYS, BEING TESTED (OR BY NOW, IN PRACTICE) UNDER THIS PARTICULAR JUDGE’S WATCHFUL PRESIDING EYE:

Step 2: Individual Parent Counseling

This includes 6 weekly sessions with a separate, confidential counselor for each

parent using a Parent Workbook. Both parents are ordered into this counseling at

the same time, with no presumptions about who is more difficult. The focus of

these sessions is strengthening and practicing three skills: flexible thinking,

managed emotions, and moderate behaviors.

More on Mr. Brook Olsen from Mediate.com — catch the terminology?

Brook D. Olsen

Brook Olsen founded the High Conflict Diversion Program in 2006 and continues to direct its evolution. Curantly Brook is training new teachers throughout the USA to teach the High Conflict Diversion Progream™ in their local communities. Brook is a Certified Parenting Educator with the International Network For Children and Families, a Certified Divorce Mediator, and Life Coach. Brook helps develop high conflict parenting programs for the San Diego Family Courts, and helps educate therapists and attorneys in high conflict divorce. Brook’s training includes six years of study with Dr. Michael Mamas in the field of transpersonal counseling, trauma counseling and meditation. Brook completed three years of training in trauma resolution through the Foundation for Human Enrichment with Peter Levine and is a certified Somatic Experiencing Practitioner. Brook co-taught the High Conflict Intervention Program for two years for the San Diego County Family Court System. Brook is a licensed Holistic Health Practitioner and Certified Clinical Nutritionist. He is also trained in Interpersonal Communication and High Conflict Resolution.

Here’s a page on Dr. Michael Mamas, a.k.a.

Maharshi Maheshananda (Dr. Michael Mamas)

Maharshi Maheshananda is the visionary and developer of Mount Soma. Maharshi is a Master who brings out ancient Vedic Knowledge, the Knowledge at the base of all religions, in modern terms. He is also the protector of the Knowledge, making sure Knowledge is brought out in its purity.

Maharshi Maheshananda Maharshi was an honors student in physics and mathematics at Ohio State University prior to obtaining a Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine and a Masters in Business Administration. For nearly a decade, Maharshi lived a monastic life, studying with great saints and spiritual teachers from India and around the world. From the wisdom and knowledge he gained, Maharshi derived a profound and practical approach to personal growth and health, one that transcends both traditional and alternative methods.

Maharshi is the only person from the West to ever be awarded the title Adhyatm Vidhya Visharad (mastery of the highest Knowledge of the soul) from Bhagavan Yagnyavalkya Ved Tatavagyan Yogashram, the Sanskrit College at the University of Gujarat, which was given to him in 2007.

An explanation of the title “Maharshi Maheshananda”: A Rishi is a seer – one who sees the truth of life, the foundation of existence, and the mechanics of its manifestation in life. A Maharishi is a great seer – one with the gift of being able to reveal that knowledge to others and help people cultivate a physiology that embodies the Knowledge. Mahesh is a name of Lord Shiva. Ananda means bliss. Maheshananda means bliss of Lord Shiva, or one who is loved by Shiva.

And from an interview:

iving in California has its advantages, there are the obvious benefits like Yosemite, great restaurants and magnificent sunsets, and then there are the not so obvious advantages like . . . schools. In San Diego alone, there are easily a hundred schools, from high schools to hang gliding schools and from computer schools to . . . schools for enlightenment. One need only scan the yellow pages and if you can dream it, someone has created a school for it.

One such school is the School for Enlightenment and Healing. The school was created by Dr. Michael Mamas, a former veterinarian, as a progressive training program for the development of hands-on-healing.

(so long as Mr. Olsen is not running KidsTurn Classes…)

ABOUT THE TRADEMARKING: This can be searched, and gets entertaining AND informative. For example, the short-lived trademarked term (still be advertised on the web for sale) was actually “abandoned” by Mr. Olsen in 2009:=. First used in commerce: Feb. 2007. Trademark Filed, May 2008. Abandoned, February 2009.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
200904410130	02/04/2009	ACTIVE	HIGH CONFLICT DIVERSION PROGRAM, LLC	BROOK DELL OLSEN

Mark Image

Word Mark	HIGH CONFLICT DIVERSION PROGRAM
Goods and Services	(ABANDONED) IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Education services, namely, providing personal coaching, classes, seminars and workshops in the fields of conflict management, dispute resolution and mediation; On-line journals, namely, blogs featuring information on conflict management, dispute resolution and mediation; Publication of journals; Publication of training materials and other publications related to such programs or related to the subjects of divorce, family conflict, conflict management, dispute resolution and mediation. FIRST USE: 20070201. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20070201
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code	(4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number	77466340
Filing Date	May 5, 2008
Current Basis	1A
Original Filing Basis	1A
Owner	(APPLICANT) Brook D. Olsen INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 28481 Gordon Hill Road Valley Center CALIFORNIA 92082
Attorney of Record	Jason Belice
Disclaimer	NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “CONFLICT” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Type of Mark	SERVICE MARK
Register	PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator	DEAD
Abandonment Date	February 20, 2009

NEW WAYS FOR FAMILIES is still “LIVE” trademark:

Word Mark	NEW WAYS FOR FAMILIES
Goods and Services	IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Educational services, namely, live and on-line training and curriculum development of a structured parenting skills method with short-term counseling for families involved in Family Court proceedings and distributing workbooks and guidebooks in connection therewith. FIRST USE: 20090101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20090101
Mark Drawing Code	(5) WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM
Trademark Search Facility Classification Code	SHAPES-COLORS-2 Design listing or lined for two colors SHAPES-MISC Miscellaneous shaped designs
Serial Number	77848927
Filing Date	October 14, 2009
Current Basis	1A
Original Filing Basis	1A
Published for Opposition	August 10, 2010
Registration Number	3866592
Registration Date	October 26, 2010
Owner	(REGISTRANT) High Conflict Institute, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ARIZONA 7701 E. Indian School Road, Suite F Scottsdale ARIZONA 85251
Description of Mark	The color(s) blue and brown is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the words “new”, “ways” and “families” in lower case letters in brown and outlined in blue; the word “FOR” in upper case letters in blue.
Type of Mark	SERVICE MARK
Register	PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator	LIVE

So this ‘New Ways for Families” (trademark) is less than two years old as we speak. It’s important for AFCC personnel to keep in front of the crowd with new programs, as the old ones are getting discovered, and sometimes lawsuits being filed over them. The money appears to be in getting people to buy into becoming a certified trainer of (pick your product) — although who’s to know for sure?

“RELATIONSHIPS THAT MATTER”:

Serial Number	Reg. Number	Check Status	Live/Dead
1	78380846	RELATIONSHIPS THAT MATTER	TARR	DEAD
2	78038409	RELATOMIC.COM::BUILD RELATIONSHIPS THAT MATTER	TARR	DEAD
3	77793107	CREATING RELATIONSHIPS THAT MATTER	TARR	DEAD

(none of these related to the above products or service; just FYI, hardly an original term):

“INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES” — is a Gainesville, FL Corporation of predictable business plan:

Would you like to make a difference in your community?
The Parent Instructor Network Training is a 40 hour intensive, personal training that will certify you to teach the popular Redirecting Children’s Behavior parent education course. INCAF is one of the only organizations that require their instructors to get their certification and maintain their certification through continuing education. Your certification offers you the opportunity of experiencing the joys of teaching a successful course that empowers families.

The International Network for Children and Families trains people throughout the world to establish their own local parenting courses based on “Redirecting Children’s Behavior”. INCAF provides you with all the skills and materials you need to start a successful seminar business, facilitating a world-renowned course.

BROOKS OLSEN bought into this one, and so gets to also advertise off its website as well:

http://www.incaf.com/instructortraining.html#HCDR

igh Conflict Divorce Resolution (HCDR) Instructor Training

High Conflict Diversion Program™
Teacher Training Certification

The High Conflict Diversion Program™ was developed by Brook Olsen to assist parents in high conflict divorce to acquire the tools essential to extracting themselves and their children from the devastation of high conflict divorce. The San Diego Family Courts as well as the Alameda County, California court system refer parents in high conflict custody battles to this program.

We are in the process of building a network across the U.S. in order to make this revolutionary program available in as many court jurisdictions as possible.

The High Conflict Diversion Program™ Teacher Training Certification is an intensive, professional training offered under the INCAF umbrella that qualifies individuals to teach the High Conflict Diversion Program™. This training is offered to parenting educators, therapists, attorneys and Family Court professionals. It is approved by the California Bureau of Behavioral Sciences for 28 CEUs and by the California Bar Association for 14 MCLEs. The course is a proven practice builder as well as an important resource to the community.

Why become a High Conflict Diversion Program™ Instructor?

To help families through one of the toughest life transitions.

To give parents the skills needed to stabilize their own as well as their children’s lives.

To play a key role in changing the way family courts understand and deal with the individuals and the dynamics involved in high conflict divorce.

To gain a cutting-edge tool that has been proven to help build your private practice and fill your RCB classes.

We are currently taking deposits from professionals who are interested in the Teacher Trainings. The current training schedule is as follows:

Oakland, California: September 8 through 11
Orange County, California: October 10 through 13

Is this the Mrs?

http://peggyolsen.com/classes/

About Your Instructor

Peggy Reynolds-Olsen is a certified parent educator with the International Network for Children and Families, a licensed Holistic Health Practitioner and Registered Craniosacral Therapist (RCST). For the past 18 years she has been a healing arts practitioner in the San Diego area. Working with infants, children and adults, she specializes in the treatment of early developmental trauma, attachment and bonding issues. Her passion lies in helping families create a healthy nurturing environment for the exploration of their full potential as they support each other along life’s journey . .

COURSE COST

$395.00 per couple per 5-week course. $100.00 to repeat Includes text and work book

$230.00 per single person

This parenting program is approved by the San Diego Family Court Serivces (sic)

From “divorce-support.about.com“

Did your attorney make mistakes during your divorce?

My children and I have been held hostage in San Diego Family Law Court for 16 years without any issues being resolved. It is a “high conflict” case which means the attorneys deliberately churned the case for high fees using the children as a source of revenue. We are not the only ones.

Were you the victim of an unethical judge?

I have had several unethical judges and numerous commissioners. I have met with at least 50 other litigants who are currently suffering the same form of racketeering.

Here’s a FLORIDA-based “HIGH CONFLICT DOCKET” by none other than 20th Judicial Circuit (lee county), AFCC Board — Judge Hugh Starnes, and co-hort Sheldon Finman, Esq. Searchable on this blog (the names, Association of Family Law Professionals, etc.):

June 17, 2010

“The Development of the Lee County High Conflict Docket”

Filed under: Uncategorized — Christina @ 1:43 pm

Many thanks are in order to Judge Hugh E. Starnes, a retired circuit court judge, who has volunteered his time, along with Dr. Deborah Silver and Sheldon Finman, Esq., to assist families going through “high conflict” family law cases involving children. “High conflict” cases can be defined as divorce and custody cases where the parties have been involved with their cases for a long period of time and have not reached a resolution. Often times, it is the children that suffer the most harm in “high conflict” situations. Judge Starnes and his team have designed a case management program that enables the parties to come to the court and attempt to problem-solve with professional assistance so that the cases can progress in a manner that may be more suited to the children’s needs. Hopefully the program will report success and funding will be in place to continue to support the program in the future.

(ALL 3 individuals mentioned above are Florida Chapter of AFCC and instrumental in getting that chapter opened, and passing a parent coordination statue in the state, over the veto of a Governor (2004) and objections (valid ones, no doubt) from domestic violence advocates, who were outmaneuvered and strategically just not up to the opposition….)

This young? attorney will probably carry on the tradition of problem-solving courts (the parents are the problem) with solutions provided by referring professionals, including judges and their friends.

Christina L. Holly, Esq. has been selected for inclusion in Super Lawyers® – Rising Stars Edition 2010. Only 2.5% of eligible lawyers in the state of Florida were selected!

This image added during 2018 update, from https://www.divorceandmediation.com/high-conflict-case-management.html (Robin A. Devito, Esq. page). In 2012 I didn’t know how to do screen prints. Click images to enlarge and notice “Associations” on left side-bar (do not include AFCC, but do include a common interest in “Collaborative Law” as started up (from my understanding) by AFCC members. It’s a general theme..

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

May 10, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion

CA’s New Improved Child Support Services: Core Mission went “MIA,” as did 800,000 of its Records

leave a comment »

. . . .courtesy a contractor’s subcontractor, both of them reputable companies . . . . .

The solution for invasion or violation of rights in THIS country was to have been, from the start, stated clearly in the U.S. Constitution — written down for all to see, and then it was up to us to practice THAT model. Not every service model that is cooked up somewhere, and flown in as fast-food to state level by individuals IN the state with memberships in nationwide, PRIVATE, “nonprofit” associations which exist for the profit and proliferation of their membership — whether or not they actually deliver the product.

First of all, it’s from Child to Family to Social Restructuring. The word “Child” is handy for almost any program to be promoted. Once it’s sold (Aw, how wonderful — you love children and want to advocate for them? Sure, where do I sign?):

Take for example, “Child Support Enforcement.”

That entire concept is now “old school” apparently, just the core mission in amid a bunch of evolving (self-) definitions.

In fact, it’s starting to look (in hindsight) more and more like the concept of enforcing child support to actually reduce (versus expand) welfare . . . . . was just an excuse to get too many cooks in the kitchen, add “access/visitation” concepts, keep records of New Hires for all business owners (if possible), garnish wages, incarcerate men or women who can’t pay up (however, men can sometimes “buy” their way out by participating in programs oriented towards men, i.e., Kentucky’s “Turning It Around.”)

By the state’s going plastic (via SDU – Statewide Distribution Units), someone, somewhere has a record of where any parent subscribing to electronic child support cards gets to have recorded what they buy, where, and when — when such people may not have done anything to warrant such intrusions. The act of a single parent needing child support does not a criminal make! Nor does the act of at times or for a time needing welfare. However, the poor exist for a reason, and the powers that be might as well make a little business profit off the proposition, right?

This is from California’s Child Support Services home — a nice diagram to explain what “child support enforcement” actually means. Keep in mind that the concept of child support enforcement is socially a pretty new one (just a few decades old). Notice the core mission is rather equipped by the add-ons….

CORE Mission: Locate Parents; Establish Paternity; Establish Orders; Collect Support

Regarding Child Support Services –they are now “family centered.”

Family-Centered Child Support Services

Fathers
Matter

Jobs &
Financial
Tools

R U
Ready
2 B A
Parent?

CSE
Core Mission:

Locate Parents
Establish Paternity
Establish/Modify Orders
Collect Support

Positive
Parenting

Family
Violence
Awareness

Options for
Health Care

The Department is one of twelve departments and one board under the umbrella of the

California Health and Human Services Agency:

CHHS ADP | CSD | DDS | EMSA | DHCS | MRMIB | DMH | DPH | DOR | OSHPD | CDSS

If you click on any of the circles above, it will lead you to some private/public/nonprofit admixture of PR campaign, technical assistance and training, and etc. — all of which generally involves (1) more public funds at some level and (2) tax exemption for whoever “thunk it up.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

April 6, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, Funding Fathers - literally, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), OCSE - Child Support, Parent Education promotion

Tagged with Access-Visitation, custody, Evolving Child Support mission, fatherhood, Ron Haskins

Maryland’s Family Court Expansion, AFCC Model, takes Unifying Symbols to a New Level: Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron…[Publ. Mar. 27, 2012, Reformatted Jan. 19, 2022..]

with 3 comments

Maryland’s Family Court Expansion, AFCC Model, takes Unifying Symbols to a New Level: Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron…[Publ. Mar. 27, 2012, Reformatted Jan. 19, 2022..] (short-link added 2022, ends “/psBXH-13l”)(<~to differentiate “I, 1, and l” characters, as you can see, last three characters are two numbers (one, three) [as in “1,2,3,4,5..”) and a lower-case “L” as in the word “lower” in this sentence).

This post has some tags which I’ll post up here.

2012 text begins below the next two text boxes (Preface/Previews in this color and this color) (basically two sections for me to explain and complain a bit why it’s still necessary to promote and re-publish this information, i.e., why you should still read this and other very early posts, especially one dated Oct. 1, 2012).

Except for adding some structure (boxes, etc.) to the post, or removing large images with now-broken links (i.e., to condense it), the text is as when I first wrote it, cleaned up somewhat and if any added text, I’ve marked it.

This post’s tags (also visible at the bottom of the post) and I see also “categories”:

Written by Let’s Get Honest, March 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm:

Posted in (blog categories): 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, Designer Families, History of Family Court, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, OCSE – Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit

Tagged with AFCC, AFCC’s agenda, Barbara Babb, Biblical Metaphors (Daniel’s Statue), Child Support, Child SUpport Incentive Grants, Dept of Family Admin, domestic violence, Education, Families Matter, family law, Fatherhood in OCSE grant priorities, Gloria Danziger, HHS influence on Judiciary, high-conflict, Jaycee Dugard, Kids’ Turn, Maryanne Godboldo, mediation, Mixed Metaphors, Parenting Coordination, Phil Garrido, social commentary, Supervised Visitation, therapeutic jurisprudence,Trayvon Martin,UBaltimore School of Law CFCC,Unified Family Courts

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CONTEXT / TIMELINE of THIS REFORMATTING UPDATE, JAN. 2022:

If you detect some sarcasm (and very long sentences), that’s an indicator I’ve been recently exposed to some stunning levels of silence on the infrastructure and key players of the court as well as anything approaching tools to look for the funding, or remember what kind of Constitution we have in the United States of America, and what it’s goals are: NOT centralized control by an elite, self-anointed few who plan all in private and where possible seek to undermine rule of law and separation of powers between federal and state governments, and between the various branches of government. I’m also, upset by my own limitations in getting messages out while managing basic life responsibilities (even without young children still in the home), even after having fled “the scene of the crime” that is, the remains of my connections to my own family — and of course career — in California, after summer 2018…

Someone needs to stand up to the mis-information, not just “stand by” while it slides by and continues gathering momentum. Selling false hope ought to be, but isn’t a crime. It’s just unethical — but I believe that where good ethics fail to show up in the moral category, they’re not particularly likely to be present in legal ones either.

Withholding key information that would shed a different light than the one being sold on a situation, and which might lead to more sensible solutions — or at least refusal to waste time on ones with built-in failures and which refuse to look at the foundations of institutions (such as the family courts as parts of governments) is an indicator that the goal isn’t helping the public, it’s something FAR different, and far less altruistic.

This isn’t the place to identify which nonprofits or social media activity has “gotten to me” the past month or so. I will elsewhere, though..

I recently had cause to quote my October 1, 2012, post called:

Family Courts: Crippled, Incompetent and Corrupt — or just “Broken”? [Published Oct. 1, 2012..] (short-link ends “-1a4”]

Looking on my blog dashboard to locate and label (short-link), reformat it, I mis-remembered the month saw this published (and a few more draft) posts from March, 2012 which might also be worth re-posting. After all, anecodotal information tends to repeat and endure. While survivors come and go, somehow those saying the same types of things about the same systems they survived tend to have a longer “tenure” on publicity — for obvious reasons, i.e., their lives weren’t so disrupted ,devastated, and they didn’t, most of them, abruptly lose work, have to relocate in a hurry, and weren’t stranded a decade or a more in “high-conflict” (sic) divorces in a corrupt (not “broken”) family court system, USA, systems set in place by specific, identified tax-exempt organizations: two more high-profile than the third, but the third had the most vested interest in keeping the corruption in place. (The ABA, NCJFCJ and AFCC, in case you were wondering which ones).

Family Court “Reform” has been on a certain trajectory for two decades now (observed from the USA, but I also see the globe-trotting program reproduction and attempts to get similar legislation (can you spell “Coercive Control”?) legislated throughout the USA now that it’s been sold to the UK (2015ff).

I also think I’m going to re-post the Oct. 1, 2012 essay. It’s been over ten years and it’s time, altnough no lack of new developments to report on…

So, the globe-trotting and conferencing (without actual physical travel still possible) is even more intense recently, especially some of us “formerly-battered mothers/”family court guantlet survivors” haven’t forgotten what it’s like to see an entire sector (the domestic violence sector and self-appointed thought-leaders (as they’ve called themselves, on-line, on website, often for years) year after year spewing a combination of erroneous, undocumented on incomplete information to the unsuspecting, carried under advanced-degree and academic institution association status (i.e., as “experts” and all that goes with the common understanding of that word, in addition to legal definitions of it when testifying in court), and commending and giving air-time and in-hindsight sympathy to any mothers (target niche for carrying pre-fabricated messaging forward) so badly traumatized or devastated in the family courts trying to move on, protect themselves, protect their children, function independently from an impossible dynamic, they’ll go on “auto-pilot” without screening for truth, logic, reliability, and completeness of that which they’ve been fed, or screening what those who’ve been feeding it have been routinely, almost ritually, withholding, because it conflicts with the media messaging and the particular policy goals of such groups.

WHY this Update: To make it more readable while I’m in the vicinity of this post as blog administrator (and only contributor). I now include date and year published, borders, width-limits, and post title with visible short-links (in the opening body of each post). Also a blog format update (to two front pages, allowing one stationary front page and another for “Current Posts”) somehow turned all former posts into a sort of sickly-pale-green background — not pleasant to look at!).

Even though I doubt my older posts are re-read much; they are a record of what I was saying when — and a witness to FOR HOW LONG so much of tis information has been covered-up by people simply with SO much to say, SO many people willing to say it for them, mostly (so it seems) for free, and for a little attention and sense of purpose.

The cover up is just as effective by social “excommunication” from close-knit and in-synched messaging by certain people who’ve been driving the “family court reform” sector as if it were an owned turf — when it’s not. Others live in this country too, and what we have to say matters, whether it’s popular or not. Unfortunately, some us have had to also say — often — that dishonesty and withholding IS the character of cults, abusers, sociopaths, and people with an ulterior motive than truth-telling, or fixing government (for the better, that is). I didn’t ask for that role. Finding enough truth and having a conscience basically has obligated me to speaking it.

Preface to Formatting a VERY OLD (nearly ten years ago) but what I was saying then might as well still be news, given the typical “Family Court Reform” rhetoric, including of known survivor mothers who channel certain nonprofits intent on NOT saying what I’ve been saying — unlike most of these — since the time I first heard of it.

There’s a need to keep at least ONE voice continuing to say this alive. I’m still alive, so I’m intent to keep this voice out there, although it takes longer to put together and document with links (and/or uploaded images) post using reason and proof, than it does to repeat the mantras, incantations, catechisms so people go into trance mode and, like any good cult members, groomed personalities (or, are possibly being paid in more than just moral support and retweets, “honorable mentions” on-line for their collective silence on key elements and more probable causes of the family court custody crises), continue speaking the same ‘details-devoid, proof-absent, omitting the elephant organizations in the room rhetoric.

Meanwhile, periodically and privately, I’ll get messages (either on this blog or Twitter) saying how the information I post (i.e.. here and/or on-Twitter) or shared (privately as I have publically when it came up) has validated what they sensed, and were feeling really isolated about for not going along with the crowds who don’t like to talk specifics or keep “survivors” honest (keeping certain other organizations honest isn’t about to happen, I found out the hard way)…//LGH Jan. 19, 2022.

ORIGINAL (2012) TEXT BEGINS HERE:

This post is PR on something I just discovered recently and, to be honest, am distressed enough about to follow up by phone with the leadership of some of the groups involved, asking they why these things should be happening statewide.

The dialogue illustrates what’s going on, but is a little complex, and unless you have an interest in monitoring the expansion and methods of expansion of the family law bureaucracy WITHIN or as an ADJUNCT to our court system, you may not want to go through it all.

I think there is some legitimacy — however widespread, commonplace, and entrenched this system currently is, and however expensive and status quo it has become — to a theory that the “Family Court Services” if not the “Family Courts” themselves (as it pertains to divorce and custody) — are illegitimate. They are private enterprises posing as public ones, and servicing their funders, who as it happens, tend to occupy high places in (1) the Executive Branch of the United States Government (I’m talking HHS, DOJ in particular) and (2) the corporate /tax-exempt foundation stratosphere — almost none of which is truly accessible to individuals who are coming through these courts, unless they already have prior involvement.

First of all, they are about as unbelievingly condescending and patronizing (‘move over, let us experts handle your family — give us your kid, etc.’) as it is possible for any human relationship to be, apart from some truly unhealthy (i.e., violent/abusive) ones. They deal in force, and subterfuge when it comes to proliferating the program, and like any good, truly “disaster capitalism” enterprise, they deal with distressed populations, exploit them, and call that service. I come from California, and preliminary expose on this was done courtesy one of the oldest and (not exactly being updated) sites around — but it still is up and still serves a purpose — Johnnypumphandle.com. [[FYI, that website is still up I’ve linked to it in the title.//LGH 2022]]

Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral Practices in The Courts

… Particularly the Family Law System which includes the Courts, Attorneys, Family Services, Psychologists and Therapists,Visitation Monitors, Ad-Litems, Social Workers, Child Protection Agencies and all of the agencies that support these so-called professionals.

Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. Corrupt practices abound. [EndQuote]

For example, why does the “Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges Association” change its name to simply “Los Angeles County Superior Court” in its IRS filings? and what are they actually doing at their special events, including sporting events, and how do they manage to have (year 2010) a net loss of $10,000, being such smart judges (only revenue — membership dues, totaling $50K that year)?

[UPDATE: Amazingly, tax returns (at the IRS) as late as FY2019 (YE Dec) are still around. It’s filing a Form 990EZ (deprives people of significant details, such as naming its “affiliate”) and is claiming negative revenues (after raising $62K with “direct expenses” of $118K. “Go figure…” It also must be a business association, as its 990EZ filings are also labeled “990EO” where the “E” represents the EZ (abbreviated) part and the “O,” that it’s not filing as a public charity (501©3) but likely 501©6. For comparison, the American Bar Association files as a 501©6 also.//LGH 2022]

….. (This is a table from the Foundation Center; its format looks different, but I’ve posted tax returns from this source throughout the blog for years. //LGH 2022)…….>> Look under “Candid.org/research-and-verify-nonprofits/990-finder” to re-run this search (use the EIN# below, “95-4663773” NOT entity name!), or go to the IRS (apps.irs.gov/app/eos/ for, these days, probably a more current return. Or check the Secretary of State (businessSearch.sos.ca.gov) if this entity is still registered, which it probably is. The adress in 2019 still read 111 Hill Street (#204)…

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Los Angeles Superior Court	CA	2010	$120,654	990EO	10	95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court	CA	2009	$95,314	990EO	12	95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court	CA	2008	$102,801	990EO	11	95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association	CA	2007	$87,134	990EO	9	95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association	CA	2006	$90,509	990EO	9	95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association	CA	2005	$70,106	990EO	8	95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association	CA	2004	$55,818	990EO	5	95-4663773

per “Johnny” (at ‘JohnnyPumphandle.com’)

The Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a good example of one of the latter Non-Profit organizations whose stated purpose is “promotion of judicial profession pursuant to section 501(c)(6)”. (see form 3500 – Exemption application). The Association boasts a budget of over $100,000 – none of which will be received from members dues {?} – and most of which will be funded by “Professional Education programs for the legal community”. Unlike most professional organizations, this organization was granted(?) the use of County premises, complete with facilities for it’s [sic] office space and management of it’s business within the County Court facilities at 111 North Hill Street.”

They call it collaboration, or cooperation, or “interdisciplinary.” This person calls it, more correctly, “collusion” and states the purpose as accurately as anyone else . .. to extract assets from troubled parents. Like I said, disaster capitalism. Ambulance chasers. Sometimes they (family law professionals) get impatient and take control of the wheel, cause accidents, and then show up to help solve the resulting “Family conflict,” at public and/or parent expense. How philanthropic.

REGARDING THE TITLE OF THIS POST:

I called up Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net (who I think I’ve made it clear, has provided the skeleton which started my years of investigative reporting here on this blog and off it — not the motivation, but enough clues to grab onto, validate, and develop as now my own material).

She declared (I would like to see) that any family law judge in the state of Maryland must be an AFCC member to take office. That’s an INexact quote, but I was very shocked to hear that possibly membership is a pre-requisite to the practice statewide. Whether or not that’s so, it’s absolutely clear that this state is pretty well sewn up by those interests.

I have blogged before (herein) on UBaltimore’s School of Law “CFCC” in context of therapeutic jurisprudence.

This time, let’s talk about whose idea was it to create a system of family courts in the state? Perhaps you should forward questions to this person about what analogies of Paper, Cotton, Leather, FRUIT, etc. say about the Department of Family Administration’s disturbing (in)ability to sort, label, categorize and prioritize information.

Barbara A. Babb
Director and Associate Professor of Law
B.S., Pennsylvania State University (interesting — does she keep up with the Penn State, Luzerne County or Lackawanna County scandals?)
M.S., Cornell University
J.D., Cornell Law School

UB faculty member since 1989. Member, New York and Maryland bars. National leader in family justice system reform, focusing on creation of unified family courts. Spearheaded Maryland’s efforts to create a family court in 1998. Advisory Board Member, ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse. Member, ABA Unified Family Court Coordinating Council and the AFCC Family Court Review Editorial Board. Past chair, Family/Juvenile Law Section, Association of American Law Schools.

Telephone: 410-837-5661
E-mail Barbara Babb

This professional is clearly AFCC-friendly (so is the ABA, it seems), and heads up this Center at a Law School. Notice the bolded part. This is what AFCC professionals, who can do this — do. They Unify Family Courts (then preside over them, and appoint cronies). I’ve seen it in state after state. The Hon. Chester Harhut did this in Lackawanna County (as I recall) and the parents are already picketing outside the courthouse. Or, were, until some of the protesters got manhandled (so to speak) by a local judge’s sheriff’s, resulting in a federal lawsuit on the civil rights violation, and a second one on the inappropriate pushing of the GAL system on the county without running it by the public!

I’m only including the next individual to show that she hails from London! (see “three cities that rule the world”) in a country from which, allegedly, the United States fought a war of independence, in part to establish a DIFFERENT form of government …

Gloria Danziger
Senior Fellow
B.A., London University
M.Phil., Oxford University
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center

Former staff director, ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse, focusing on how substance abuse/truancy are addressed in the justice system. Former director, Communities, Families and the Justice System, an ABA unified family court initiative. Former public policy consultant, reporter and editor.

As we can see, this emphasis is on substance abuse and truancy (juvenile matters). Applying this same model to divorce courts on the basis that divorce, too needs “treatment” is seriously questionable!

For example, a symposium makes it clear who is leading the charge to change, and how they view themselves at UBaltimore. I need to note that Ms. Babb has some prior experience and ties to Southern California. California also has a “CFCC” but under the Administrative Office of the Courts. Maryland has its one at this school of law, but that’s Ok — the courts are being transformed anyhow:

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Families Matter Symposium: Working Toward a More Therapeutic Family Justice System

(URL: http://ub-cfcc.blogspot.com/2010/12/families-matter-reforming-family-law.html)

The invitation-only “Families Matter” Symposium was held last Thursday and Friday, June 24 and 25, at the University of Baltimore. Co-sponsored by CFCC** and the American Bar Association Section of Family Law, the symposium promises to be a powerful catalyst for change. It was exhiliarating to participate in the exchange of groundbreaking ideas that emerge when you put together some of the leading professionals from a range disciplines to discuss how to improve the experience of children and families in the family justice system. More exciting, however, is the fact that this group of high-powered experts is committed to move from theory to action by implementing many of their recommendations for changing the family law system.

[[IN HINDSIGHT: Jan. 19, 2022, update: re-formatting and re-reading this post nine-plus years later,]] I notice that “CFCC” is not an entity and so cannot co-sponsor anything. This is part of a sales pitch (I’m currently struggling to get out — again — several posts detailing and showing how awareness of exact ENTITY names involved is key to following any funding. When it comes to the “CFCC” at the University of Baltimore School of Law, know that this School of Law along with the University of Baltimore is part of the Maryland University system — it’s a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY. Hence this symposing was in effect a public/private “invitation-only” symposium held at public expense. Also (I’m blogging this as I speak), the ABA Section of Family Law isn’t a separate entity. So the real sponsors here (at least as labeled) were too huge established institutions pursuing what seems like a private agenda for “Families.” How does that fit with the established ways to represent the will of the people and get laws passed? This group of “HIGH-POWERED EXPERTS” intended to CHANGE THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM.

The irony of it, the ABA and AFCC (obvious primary connection Babb, and likely also Danziger at the CFCC) were, along with (per a 1997 Ohio Supreme Court document which I blogged, probably under the post titled “Blueprints” or a nearby one) the NCJFCJ, the ones who spearheaded establishments of family courts around the country — and by the turn of this century, hadn’t even got them in all fifty states. So, apparently if you established a thing, you’re also in charge of reforming the thing. No matter what the public does or doesn’t know about its origins, its financing and the private cult-like behaviors and allegiances of those administering it — and no matter that the public pays for it collectively AND, as parents going through it, individually. //LGH 2022.

Most definitely, if laws, and law systems are to be seriously changed, it should be through closed-door conferences of high-powered experts excited about their collective clout, at law schools –and absolutely not through the legislative process involving the general public voting on bills they had some say in, or (God forbid) perhaps even initiated.

A Dec. follow-up specifically acknowledges AFCC leadership in this, and gives a detailed plan, which I gather has been followed, and we might as well read about for a retrospective!

Thursday, December 2, 2010 Families Matter: Reforming the Family Law Process

It is hard to believe it already has been almost six months since CFCC and the ABA Section of Family Law co-sponsored the Families Matter Symposium. We at CFCC are excited about the work that has been done since the symposium to expand the Families Matter initiative. Because of the partnerships that this initiative created – among CFCC, the ABA, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), to name a few – we are able to tackle the issue of family law reform from every angle, something that has been a struggle in the past.In the coming months and years, we will work together with our partners to ensure that therapeutic reform touches legal and court structures, relevant service providers from across disciplines, and the lawyers and other legal actors who work so closely with families.

“and other legal actors”???

The 2008 newsletter I quoted is titled” Families Matter.” Now that we know where that came from, let’s go back to this 2008 piece of ?? listing marketable commodities to connect with court reform years….

“. . .Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron…”

SERIOUSLY?

Yes, apparently. Look for yourself:

Newsletter of the Department of Family Administration

…and this is now nearly four years ago! Shame!!! on those who did NOT blog the AFCC when they blogged against “PAS,” subconsciously? taking cues from leadership who, while knowing quite well about this, chose not to mention it in their press releases, news letters, or triumphantly mainstream on-lines, leaving the job up to volunteer bloggers, commenters (on those on-lines) and other “lone wolf investigators” who were honest enough to recognize something was missing in the protective mothers AND in the domestic violence rhetoric.

These people — and they still exist, generation after generation — should expect something a little better than to have the same groups simply sell out the mothers for profit, for professional respectability, for the ability to publish, for public platforms in setting agenda, and for nice websites.

To better understand this, also see the site “MDJustice.com” (I have a draft post explaining the presence of Parenting Coordination right next to Domestic Violence in a Family Law Task Force. This is relevant because the training and resources are intended for PRO BONO service providers. However, it would make this post too long….

I was very upset (and tweeted this) to discover HOW inbred the Women’s Law Center, and a spiffy website resource (MDJustice.com) focusing on pro bono legal services — not only are they sharing language of “parenting coordination” right next to “domestic violence” talks in the family law task force, (a clear indication of AFCC’s fathers’ rights agenda. You can talk about domestic violence, or even child abuse, so long as you don’t seriously believe this should affect how much contact the offender has with the victim, and act on that belief to protect the child or (often as not) his/her mother.

Newsletter of the Department of Family Administration

Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”)

Vol. 8, No. 1 summer 2008

What’s going on when a system of progressive reform and expansion of the family law system (with a token nod towards protecting people) chooses to name each year of reform after a COMMODITY? Subliminal message, much?

PAPER
COTTON
LEATHER
FRUIT
WOOD
IRON
WOOL
BRONZE

(See newsletter). These are collective labels to conveniently (and privately to those who get the newsletter) describe an 8-year agenda for family court reform. The use of these unifying symbols is specific to this court (from what I can tell) and is just — to tell the truth — weird. I am remembering about this time how Hitler was adept at using symbols, flags, mottos, gestures, and of course music & staged events to get his point across. So are the Boy Scouts. So were are certain religious cults. Is this what we’re heading for, again?

What do these commodities (which they are) have to do with the situations they are hooked to, except to, in the minds of the readers, signify some collective progress achieved in a collective goal?

Even little kids are often taught as youngsters, sorting shapes, and being tested on their ability to categorize various common objects. But look at this order — is it by durability? Is it by function? Is it by value? No – it’s a hodgepodge:

PAPER COTTON LEATHER FRUIT WOOD IRON WOOL BRONZE

By the most obvious (to me, at least) functions of the material, it would go:

Writing, clothing & linens, clothing & bookbinding, FOOD, building & fuel, Building & tools, Clothing, Statuary-sculptures.

By perhaps flexibility? That makes no sense — as “fruit” is in the middle.

By FLAMMABILITY? – – –

very, very less, Huh?, yes, with some tinder, no – must be smelted, yes, no unless you have a serious furnace.

But the people who put this together are not little kids learning to sort, prioritize and categorize — they are adults seeking to expand an expensive bureaucracy with authority to decide whether Mom & Dad get to raise their kids, (or which Mom which Dad) — or have them institutionalized and raised by foster parents, or adopted out. These are major responsibilities. It would be a little more reassuring if the people facilitating them had a little basic common sense!

The book of Daniel (Daniel 2), (Old Testament) Nebuchadnezzar’s dream , at least stuck to one material, and stuck them in some sort of order, from precious, to common, showing the ability to (1) sort and (2) prioritize.

The passage:

¹And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. ²Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. ³And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream.

In some ways, reminds me of our current Republican (?) system, complete with task forces, commissions, institutes, and initiatives.

⁴Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.

⁵The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.⁶But if ye shew the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore shew me the dream, and the interpretation thereof.

As it goes, they couldn’t, and so the order was dispatched to dispatch all the wise men, etc., including at this time Daniel. Daniel got his moment in the sun, and said (after introductions):

³¹Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.

³²This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, ³³His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

Perhaps our current leaders should take a lesson from history — and learn to sort and select: The statue was described in general — and then in particular, from the HEAD to the FEET. Each part, in order, was described as to what it was made of. Then, stage set, the action was described:

³⁴Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.³⁵Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

³⁶This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king

Right or Wrong, Real or Imagined, the image has persisted such that even infidels.org can discuss its meaning, centuries later, according to its organizing principle(s). . . .

To begin with, the four empires with their metals and beasts [different part of “Daniel”] fall into a simple pattern: they are listed in order of decreasing splendor and increasing strength and cruelty to symbolize their moral degeneration from one to the next (cf. Daniel 2:39).

In the vision of the statue in Daniel 2, the four empires are symbolized by four metals: viz., the golden head of Babylonia, the silver chest of Media, the bronze loins of Persia, the iron legs of Greece, and the iron-and-clay feet of the successor states of Greece. The metals decrease in monetary value yet increase in strength from the top to the bottom of the statue.

Our author probably got the idea of the four ages from Hesiod, an eighth-century BC Greek poet. Hesiod taught that the world has gone through four ages, each one morally inferior to its predecessor: viz., the ages of gold, silver, bronze, and iron (Works and Days 106-201).[8] Our author need not have read Hesiod; he and his fellow Jews probably picked up the idea from Greeks living in that part of the world.

SO, What, exactly, is the organizing and ordering principle behind this Department of Family Administration Newsletters’ selection of:

PAPER COTTON LEATHER FRUIT WOOD IRON WOOL BRONZE

IS THE TRUE MESSAGE BEHIND THE METAPHOR ITS INHERENT MEANINGLESSNESS?

BASED ON THE CONTEXTS, POSSIBLY THE CONTENTS AND WORDS ARE, INDEED MEANINGLESS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN WHICH IS NEXT TO WHAT….

Here’s the cute description provided in newsletter, after which on to more serious matters, for example, what is the DFA doing, anyhow? Why are there DFAs? WHY are courts adding divisions to their regular courts, and doing so in particular “flavor”??

Scroll past my indented summary in this color font, to get to that discussion. The choice of metaphors is basically frivolous and meaningless — the real agenda has already been identified years earlier and is in operation nationwide, anyhow. The newsletter simply makes it sound more legitimate….

PAPER – Year 1 — “we have produced a lot of paper in ten years!” ~ COTTON – Year 2 — “Courts have found creative and powerful ways to make connections with their communities. In 2006, Carroll County Circuit Court participated with a network of community providers to create a guide that provides survivors of violence with a roadmap to recovery.” (Cotton refers to a “Clothesline Project” The word “Cotton” is as arbitrary as Paper in usage). LEATHER – Year 3 — “Over the past decade, the public “purse” that supports the family justice system has been strength-ened thanks to the advocacy of Chief Judge Robert M. Bell and State Court Administrator Frank Broccolina and the support of the Maryland General Assembly. Family divisions and family services programs are supported by jurisdictional grants given annually to each Circuit Court. In Fiscal Year 2008, courts received $11.2 million to support case management innovations and services to families involved indomestic and juvenile case types.” (LEATHER — the Purse Strings. The State Legislature, obviously, opens and closes that purse, and for its own reasons, opened it towards the establishment of more programs and services). FRUIT – YEAR 4 — “We profoundly hope that the efforts of the last ten years have borne “fruit” in the experiences of Maryland families and children. {{for that level of grants, it had better be more than just “hope”}} One measure maybe the level of involvement parents have in their children’s lives post-litigation. {{translation: access/visitation grant systems, plus some.}} WOOD – Year 5 — “The Maryland “bench” has been innovative in the last ten years,{{and produced a lot of paperwork}} and courts have shown a willingness to try new approaches. Administrative judges have adopted case management strategies to ensure family and juvenile cases are handled effectively”

(Currently in Pennsylvania, those administrative orders, for example, to hire a certain guardian ad litem, are coming under FBI fire (Lackawanna County, Stefanov case, Pilchesky case, see my other blog http://lackawannafamilycourtfederal.blogspot.com and recent local news coverage)

WOOD is for “The Bench.” Cute. etc. For example, WOOL – Year 7 — “Families entering the justice system are wrapped in the “mantle” of services that enable courts to make more effective decisions and that aid and guide families in transition. All Maryland courts offer co-parenting education, Family Law Self-Help Centers, child access mediation, and custody evaluations. Some courts offer psychoeducational programs for children and specialized parenting courses; others are experimenting with parenting coordination, employment programs for child support payors, and special dispute resolution services for high-conflict families.”*(*IN OTHER WORDS, BUSINESS AS AFCC/CRC/WELFARE REFORM USUAL). BRONZE – YEAR 8 — “The Judiciary’s family court reform efforts have brought attention to bear on the special needs of victims of domestic violence.” (It seems very appropriate that the concern for domestic violence should be limited to their “special needs” not their protection — and come last.)

The Administrative Offices of the Courts (nationwide) are enough of an issue themselves (and the various “CFCC’s underneath some of them, like in California). Yet under this Maryland one is a Department of Family Administration. I guess we all one big happy family, then? Or if not — and there are some unhappy upstarts, this can be administered? (reminds me of the Texas Office of Attorney General’s “Office of Family Initiatives” associated with, at least recently, Michael Hayes).

NOTICE THE DETAILS:

Family Administration – Maryland state court system (http://mdcourts.gov/family/index.html)

(image removed/broken link, but it had been labeled: “Department of Family Administration-Administrative Office of the Courts 410-260-1580”

Notice of Funding for Family Division/Family Services Grants: Grant Documents

http://mdcourts.gov/family/grantadmin.html

Yes, please do click on the “notice of Funding” link above. You’ll see about 9 different categories of funding. I looked at “Child Support Incentives.” These are programs that bring money to the courts, if these services are utilized (the $2/1 ratio, I believe) and while it’s labeled sometimes Welfare, there is a way to get non-welfare cases involved as well. For example (and this is a CURRENT, 2013, OPEN (well, just closed 2/2012) grant solicitation):

“NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY — CHILD SUPPORT INCENTIVE FUNDS GRANTS — ISSUED 1/3/2012, APPLICATIONS DUE 2/15/2012″

(Hover cursor over link or click on it to read description of the grant’s purpose — this is important, because it shows the HHS/Maryland Judiciary financial connection, in a Cooperative Reimbursement Agreement (CRA) according to performance incentives — i.e., how many child support orders did you establish, etc.

(update note: The link is broken, but the text showing if you “hover over link” is housed on this blog and can still be read (a magnifying glass might help.. or “zoom” function).

Given that, Funding Priorities, Category “A” actually seem to relate to — child support enforcement. Such as: “Privatizing and outsourcing of child support enforcement services;  Improving automation capabilities;  Creating public awareness projects;  Developing programs and special projects;

But Category “B” may sound familiar to some parents with the toughest custody cases around, that are behaving very oddly, given the circumstances of the case: And this includes (notice order of Priorities here).

Other categories of programs that are considered “non-Title IV-D” that may still be eligible for funding upon the receipt of a written exception by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement are set forth in OCSE-AT-01-04** and include, but are not limited to:

 Fatherhood programs;  Education and job programs for non-custodial parents;  Programs targeting incarcerated or putative fathers;  Teen pregnancy programs;  Parenting programs; (in CALIF, this would be a “KIDS TURN” or KY or PA, a “KIDS FIRST” get it?) Mediation or couples counseling (including as provided by faith-based grantees, no doubt), and  Visitation issue resolution when linked to non-payment of support.**

**WTH does that mean? When a noncustodial parent actually says, “I’d be more willing to pay my child support ORDER if I were given more ACCESS to my KID(s)??” In practice, this may possibly include supervised visitation, it may also include abatement of child support arrears in exchange for more time with the other parent.

These programs must also demonstrate a clear connection and collaboration with the Maryland Child Support Enforcement program.

**”OCSE-AT-01-04” refers to an “Action Transmittal.” Overall, this shows us that (no matter what a parent may have been told while filing for custody, or its modification up front) the judiciary is deeply hooked into the HHS financing and its incentives to do this, or that, regarding something as essential to life (in many cases) as child support. . . . . . And I believe this particular grant notice demonstrates that the OCSE/Child support Incentives ARE indeed in good deal about fatherhood programs” and parenting education (etc.).

Supporting Children Through the Judiciary Conference

(Broken link/Image removed/ description read simply “Photo of children and families.” The url reads: http://mdcourts.gov/family/conferences.html)

The Department of Family Administration is responsible for assisting Maryland’s courts in developing a comprehensive family law system. Family Administration has overseen the creation of family divisions in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County and Prince George’s County, and family services programs in the remaining 19 counties. We work with judges, masters, court administrators and family support services coordinators to develop family law policy and to identify and promote best practices in the handling of domestic and juvenile cases.(1*)

“The mission of family divisions is to provide a fair and efficient forum to resolve family legal matters in a problem-solving manner, with the goal of improving the lives of families and children who appear before the court. To that end, the court shall make appropriate services available for families who need them. The court also shall provide an environment that supports judges, court staff and attorneys so that they can respond effectively to the many legal and nonlegal issues of families in the justice system.”

Connie Kratovil-Lavelle, Esq.

(*1) The sentence “we work with judges, (etc.) . . . to develop family law policy to . .. identify and promote best practices…..” indicates a different identity, a distinction between (1) “WE” (meaning the Dept. of Family Administration/”DFA”) and (2) said judges, masters, etc. . . . . . .

As I can see below, the Executive Director of this DFA is promoting AFCC policy, hook, line and “sink-it.”

There’s a long, colorful newsletter above, which mixes talk of in order, page 1, Civil Protective Orders (DV issues) & Parent Coordination Promotion.

(An AFCC created profession, hostile to mothers in practice, which does an end run around legal protections and due process (as it was intended to) and to date already has brought up serious objections from parents and issues of billing, in PA at least (I blogged this over at http://thefamilycourtmoneymachine.blogspot.com, including the underlying case Yates v. Yates, where a father protested the parenting coordinator, and the family law div. of PA Bar Case Notes (newsletter 2009), exulting in how they shot down all his arguments. Some of the casework I read showed a custody evaluator appointed in 2002 or 2003, who I looked up. It turns out that in 2004-2005 (per 2006 Winter Psychology Board newsletter), this same man was cited for discipline and subjected to supervision of his practice!

NEWSLETTER, PAGE 1, TOPIC 1 — “SEE, WE ARE HELPING STOP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!”

Statewide Civil Domestic Violence Database to be Launched this Summer

By Clifton Files, Esq., Domestic Violence Specialist, Administrative Office of the Courts, Department of Family Administration

The Maryland Judiciary will be one of the first states with a comprehensive database of civil orders of protection when it launches the Domestic Violence Central Repository this summer. In September 2006, the Department of Family Administration was awarded a grant by the Office of Violence Against Women from the Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies Program (GTEAP). The focus of the grant was to develop a Statewide Civil Domestic Violence Database. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV) coordinated with an advisory committee and held six regional focus groups to discuss and consider recommendations on policies, procedures, and uses for the database.

The end result of these efforts is a central database for District and Circuit Court judges and staff that will store all domestic violence orders, produce statistics, and enhance enforcement (cont’d on page 23….)

The Statewide Domestic Violence Coalition here is (was) working with the “Department of Family Administration.” Who the “Department of Family Administration” is, matters. How did the AOC (Admin. Office of the Courts) get a DFA? (Dept. of Fam. Admin.) anyhow — expanding bureaucracy?

That can be discussed in a moment, but let’s look at the focus of the “Executive Director” of this DFA in our next article, which I believe is clear enough…

PAGE 1, TOPIC 2 — “BUT DON’T WORRY, DADS & AFCC PROFESSIONALS — WE REMEMBERED YOUR AGENDA TOO”*

(*Maintaining a mechanism to apply “PAS” theory, retaining privileged quasi-judicial status without accountability, and more of us in every custody case)

Refining Emerging Practices Proposed Parenting Coordination Rule Completed

By Pamela Cardullo Ortiz, Esq., Executive Director, Department of Family Administration

Innovation always happens on the ground.*** In their efforts to better serve families, courts have experimented with emerging practice models, especially those with promise for assisting high conflict families who often require a great deal of court intervention. Over the last several years, a number of Maryland Circuit Courts have begun to refer high conflict families with child access issues to “parent coordinators.”

As practiced in other states, and defined by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC): Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal. . .(Cont’d on page 24)

..professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract. (Guidelines for Parenting Coordination, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.)

A Maryland Version of Parenting Coordination

To ensure that Maryland courts have the requisite authority to order parties to work with a parenting coordinator, and to guide courts and define the practice in light of Maryland law, the Custody Subcommittee of the Judicial Conference Committee on Family Law has developed a proposed parenting coordination rule. The subcommittee, chaired by Judge Deborah S. Eyler of the Court of Special Appeals, worked for two years with judges, court professionals, parenting coordinators, attorneys, and others to devise a draft rule and proposed application for parenting coordinators. Those documents were reviewed and approved by the Committee on Family Law at their meeting this April. The proposed documents have been approved by the Conference of Circuit Judges and will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for consideration.

The proposed rule defines the practice for Maryland courts and addresses issues relating to the appointment of a parenting coordinator, qualifica- tions, selection, term of service, removal and withdrawal of a parenting coordinator, fees, and the powers and scope of appointment.

Paragraph 1, above, starts with a lie — it’s dissembling. This is CLASSIC AFCC — referring to its own members as if they were actually independent of each other, in the overall strategic plan! Here it is, again:

Innovation always happens on the ground.*** In their efforts to better serve families, courts have experimented with emerging practice models, especially those with promise for assisting high conflict families who often require a great deal of court intervention. Over the last several years, a number of Maryland Circuit Courts have begun to refer high conflict families with child access issues to “parent coordinators.”

LIE#1: Innovation IN THE COURTS doesn’t happen on the ground, it’s mostly a top-down strategy, possible because those in control of the families in the courts are the judges — and AFCC overall is not at all lacking in judges. Calling lower levels of courts “on the ground” is dissembling. A pretense, in some senses it’s fair enough to call it simpy a lie. AFCC’s own history page prides itself in spearheading innovations in family law practices. That’s hardly “on the ground” except in a world of ranking professionals which excludes the very much “on the ground” litigants:

(AFCC) “History”

AFCC’s self-definition on their main website, at the top (it is the “motto”)is:

An interdisciplinary and international association of professionals

dedicated to improving the lives of children and families

through the resolution of family conﬂict.

It’s hard to know where to start, outlining the problems with this, given who the AFCC membership is. DOES resolving family conflict (IF AFCC did this – it doesn’t, it exacerbates it, incites it, and then calls in its “experts” to allegedly resolve family conflict) improve the lives of children and families?

Who — besides this crowd — says that “family conflict” is the major problem facing families these days? Go tell that to Jaycee Dugard; go tell that to the parents of Trayvon Martin. Go tell that to MaryAnne Godboldo, who stood off a home invasion (unwarranted) to protect her 13 year old daughter from being forcibly put on Risperdal by CPS after a medical doctor had warned her to take her off it:

August 12, 2011, Voice of Detroit Article:

by Diane Bukowski (photo from http://justice4maryanne.com/) August 12, 2011

DETROIT – Despite testimony that Mia Wenk, a “social services specialist” with a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, authorized the psychiatric hospitalization of Ariana Godboldo-Hakim, 13, and the administration of four dangerous psychotropic drugs, without reviewing the child’s medical records, a jury found Aug. 9 that it was Ariana’s mother Maryanne Godboldo who had neglected her.

Godboldo, who obtained alternative holistic treatment for her daughter from a medical doctor, testified earlier that she was suffering from a reaction to immunizations administered in Sept. 2009. She said Ariana had been diagnosed with encephalitis, not a psychiatric disorder. Neither she nor Ariana’s father Mubarak Hakim authorized their daughter’s treatment at Hawthorn Children’s Psychiatric facility after an army of police seized her from her home on Blaine near Linwood in Detroit March 24, 2011.

This mother above, and the community that rallied to defend her (she got her daughters back and felony charges dropped) have a “high conflict” with treating their children as state hostages when they resist forcible drugging and unwarranted home invasions of their kids. This was a single mother, and the nonresident father had no conflict with the mother’s resisting the situation. 44

AFCC believes that the primary social ill is conflict — not crime. It believes that its professionals can, and should “improve the lives of children and families” according to their definition, and given the membership, they have the collective clout to do this pretty much over the objection of any individual family in any given case.

They are collectively dedicated to playing “God,” Declaration of Independence aside…. (all men created equal ~ which would mean that AFCC profesionals are not more “equal” than non-AFCC professionals, such as “flawed parents” (a term actually seen in one of their brochures) and endowed with their Creator (not AFCC) with “certain unalienable rights.”

AFCC most especially is concerned — in their policy agenda of playing God to “children and families” (note the order of nouns) — with getting rid of any God-given or due-process rights of individuals which might “conflict” with their determination to help people against their own will, in order to establish family peace, under conditions of extortion (virtually).

RE:

Innovation always happens on the ground.*** In their efforts to better serve families, courts have experimented with emerging practice models, especially those with promise for assisting high conflict families who often require a great deal of court intervention. Over the last several years, a number of Maryland Circuit Courts have begun to refer high conflict families with child access issues to “parent coordinators.”

LIE#2: The courts are not trying to “better serve families” — they are serving themselves TO the families forced into their courtrooms, for profit, and for their overall agenda stated above.

This agenda includes transforming the justice system (complete with concepts of individual rights, due process, basic standing as an individual in the courtroom, right to confront one’s accusers, in fact just about anything traditionally considered a “right” including a little right to privacy, right to be free from undue search and seizure, and not be deprived of things unlawfully.) into a therapeutic turnstile attached to an ATM.

Part of which includes the power to traffick children, for profit, into the juvenile justice system (see Luzerne County kids for Cash RICO case!!) or, for drugging/drug-testing and Lord knows what else, into the foster care and from then on, adoption system. A handy aspect of the permanent threat to all standing parents to having their children improperly removed is keeping adult parents in line, too, and/or extorting them financially. It’s a FANTASTIC wealth transfer system. Saying this somehow “serves families,” in context of reality, is pure bullshit, and is keeping the blogsphere and, at times, the FBI, busy.

LIE/Truth#3: Courts have experimented with emerging-practice models.

Courts (meaning AFCC professionals, or courts run by them – if you want proof, or some samples, hit me with a comment below, I’ll post some) are, rather, experimenting with how asleep the American public is. It’s not a true experiment about whether or not, for example, “parenting coordination” actually works. The agenda is to ram it through over the objections of parents, and sometimes over a state Governor (Florida 2004, Gov. Jeb Bush), which AFCC has done and knows how to do.

The word “emerging” from this group is never an honest assessment. Read their conference brochures. they don’t talk about emerging practices — they talk about THEIR practices, and discuss results, and how to expand the collective model (refine it slightly, or re-shrinkwrap the concept).

For example, parent coordination is expensive to train for (check Parent Coordination Central, Boyan/Termini website), and has a host of products associated for sale (even though they are incorporated WHERE ? ????). It’s also not free to the parents. Yet, I saw an AFCC conference brochure, I believe it was, discussing how to utilize this for the poor indigent parents on Title IV. Surely they needed parent coordination more than food, housing, clothing, medical care or transportation in the form of child support or TANF benefits, right? After all, wasn’t the reason they are poor, their “family conflict”???

PHRASE/Stray Concept #4: with promise for assisting high conflict families . . . .

If AFCC has an agenda as a NONPROFIT alone and wants to pursue it — more power to them. Take their funding from wherever (membership fees, people who wish to contribute to the cause, gaining a little tax-deduction charitable contribution perk also, for mutual benefit: donor/Donee. I have no problem with that. It’s elective.

BUT AFCC is comprised in large part of JUDGES — who are public employees, MEDIATORS who are many times court-appointed and county-supported (plus some A/V funding to go along with it), and they are in positions which require them to (??) take oaths of office to uphold the constitution. I hear that some jurisdictions do not– but their function in society is as public servants. As such, they have no right to be pushing a PRIVATE, FOR_PROFIT AGENDA utilizing the authority of their office which was designed to rule in matters dealing with JUSTICE.

AFCC has rejected the concept of individual rights and placed it with the language of collectivism.

As such, it might as well be a religion, or an instrument of socialism, as far as I am concerned.

The best assistance any judge can offer is to READ the case file (which many don’t), OBEY his/her own laws of procedure and Judicial Canons promoting ethical behavior, RECUSE him/herself when there is a conflict of interest (which no AFCC judge can deny exists when there are related professionals to steer business towards in the same jurisdiction), and honestly attempt to ascertain if one party or the other’s evidence does not support the claim. To refrain from extensive ex parte and in-chambers deliberation, and to act in concert with the criminal law — not attempt to ignore the criminal law, create new “psychological crimes” (PAS theory) and so forth.

None of these judges are likely to do this, or they’d quit the organization. The law as stated did not suit them so, acting more as priests than judges, they simply collaborated (“innovation and collaboration” is accurate, above) to alter it to suit their private purposes, which (see the cases I highlit above) conflicts many times with individual rights of U.S. citizens, and parental rights to avoid having their homes invaded, and their children kidnapped and institutionalized simply because Mom or Dad protested improper and physically/mentally dangerous drugging!

COMMENTARY, EXPRESSING INDIGNATION ABOUT THIS:

(These paragraphs may not be in the best order. Please take them individually. I tried yesterday, but PTSD was an issue in contacting the organization to talk about this, or emailing them. I suspect a phone call would work better).

By the time some file for a domestic violence restraining order (sometimes called Protection From Abuse, etc.) with kickout — a person has sometimes tried long and hard to handle the situation without legal action, and may have simply tried to stop the abuse, or get help to stop the abuse, before making the tough situation to throw someone out legally in order to stay alive or physically intact.

In my case (now about a decade old or just more), as an educated, fairly liberal (I like to think) woman, I told people in my social sphere about the abuse. The range of people who knew, witnessed dramatic incidents and longstanding patterns that clearly speak of domestic violence and “intimate terrorism”** was very wide. Men and women of all ages, married and single, employed and stay-at-home, sometimes facilitated temporary survival post-incident, or to temporarily avoid one, but collectively it was a wash — no interference, no confrontation, no referral to outside resources, and no personal hard talks (man to man) with the father saying “stop!” Collectively, I have to say, society still values marriage over sanity, i.e., when marriage seriously endangers & compromises basic life, then it’s not worth preserving, and THAT marriage is NOT part of the “social unit of society.”

(**such as my fleeing my home to theirs for safety overnight; property destruction symbolically targeted towards what was of value to me, work sabotage by refusing to reliably watch our children, or be home in time for me to get to work, serious attempts to prevent me from access to transportation, or basics like holding an open bank account (there was never any joint one), or participate in inspiring or encouraging community activities, interception of mail, weapons collection used to terrorize me out of certain activities, and seeing me in complete trauma over a period of years and immediately after various incidents; seeing a mother and children without necessaries, yet a father with multiple pairs of shoes, electronics, and etc.; indications that the house was not being maintained in a functional manner (utilities, etc.) . . . .

Sometime the silence is religious, but not always.

So, when these mothers then figure out there are more activist, feminist women’s groups who really do say NO! !!! to sexual assault (including in relationships) and violence — and seek some help or leadership in navigating their legal and civil rights in the matter, and/or the police force, reporting, district attorney’s office, or as it may be, nonprofit domestic violence support groups which might help them file a pleading to protect their lives (and/or their kids), when they couldn’t safely flee or separate on their own — we should expect to be treated as equals and intelligent adults in knowing who has a seat at the roundtable deciding our future, and the future of others in our shoes.

In Maryland, it’s crystal clear — the women’s law groups and pro bono service providers — do not see fit to check back with these mothers after years after in the court, and to perhaps courageously revamp whether the Parenting Coordination Pushers deserve a seat at the round table.

FIRST, mothers, being women, tend to look for women’s groups for leadership when it comes to defense against severe violence in the home, or in attempting to terminate a relationship. I know that’s all who helped me out — no patriarchal institution around did squat to stop, report, intervene with, or refer me to anyone who could intervene with, my ex’s nasty habit of assault & battery when offended, or when simply ornery, plus all the other things that I later learned compromised domestic violence (but knew at the time were simply terrorism).

Such mothers in these situations KNOW we could be killed, and after separation, are sometimes being stalked, threatened, have suffered serious injuries, major setbacks to maintaining stable employment and social involvements outside the home — or only such social involvements as will NOT intervene with the family situation and tell the batterer to stop!!! or suffer at least social consequences.

We also know (by now) that while the domestic violence groups have developed a language to describe and “unify” such situations, the domestic violence groups have lumped women WITHOUT children together with women WITH children (i.e., mothers), and focused their efforts on tactics and issues that assist the former — while failing to report in a timely and transparent manner about their dealings with the “fatherhood” (men’s supremacy) groups. They do not even report that these groups exist, what their names are, and how their influence affects custody hearings.

They do not even name the groups, do not name the primary groups running the family law system; they do not warn mothers about what lies ahead in enough time to protect themselves, or to build some sort of “ark” to keep from being financially and psychologically drowned in the legal system after the DV group got its warm body, a protective order, a ## to put on a report, and enough to justify next year’s funding.

In short, they do not report what they know because it’s simply not a transparent situation.

Mothers are not told that they are fighting a contest which is funded on the opposing side by the welfare institution that perhaps may be providing them with housing, food initially. That this institution literally has been diverting millions of dollars to assist “noncustodial fathers” in regaining contact with their kids, based on the theory that these same mothers are the serious risk to their own kids’ futures by the fact of not having a man in the home who is that kids’ Dad even when that kids’ Dad was assaulting her and/or them (or molesting them) is as such not a fit parent.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

March 27, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, Designer Families, History of Family Court, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit

Tagged with AFCC, AFCC's agenda, Barbara Babb, Biblical Metaphors (Daniel's Statue), Child Support, Child SUpport Incentive Grants, Dept of Family Admin, domestic violence, Education, Families Matter, family law, Fatherhood in OCSE grant priorities, Gloria Danziger, HHS influence on Judiciary, high-conflict, Jaycee Dugard, Kids' Turn, Maryanne Godboldo, mediation, Mixed Metaphors, Parenting Coordination, Phil Garrido, social commentary, Supervised Visitation, therapeutic jurisprudence, Trayvon Martin, UBaltimore School of Law CFCC, Unified Family Courts

“Strong Field Project” caters to DV industry’s networks, enabled by ?? “Three Cities that Rule the World”

leave a comment »

This post to be read alongside a page added to the other blog, which explains the “Strong Field Project” reference.

“Strengthening leaders, organizations, and networks to build a stronger domestic violence field“*

*What does doing THAT have to do with ending domestic violence, pray tell?

“Three Cities that Rule the World,” Including the Ever-expanding but Centralized DV Field“

(How interesting that a visitor today from “City of London” showed on Feedjit….)

That article was posted at http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=106799.0 by user May 21, 2009.

chrsswtzr

Member

OfflinePosts: 1,704

We think in terms of within our state (or perhaps as far as the federal level) when seeking justice from the bottom up. However, the top down doesn’t think that way at all — and from what I can see these days, it doesn’t think in terms of the US Constitution either. Consider nonprofit associations that help run our justice system, including particularly the one I blog on….

The AFCC is definitely international (Australia, Canada, UK, . . . . . .), as is the associated CRC (Children’s Rights Council). Well custody disputes sometimes are international; sh*t happens.
International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution > Home

http://www.cpradr.org/ The CPR Institute is an independent, nonprofit think tank that promotes innovation in commercial dispute prevention and resolution. By harnessing the collective …

this nonprofit (founded 1979) is also listed on the New York State

Center for Court Innovation [“Research. Development. Justice. Reform.”] — “Mediation.”

International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution

Founded in 1979, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution—an alliance of global corporations, law firms, legal academics and selected public institutions—serves as a multinational resource for avoidance, management and resolution of business-related and other disputes. Its site offers, among other things, project descriptions, publications, videotapes and training materials, and also discusses alternative dispute resolution in a variety of industry and practice areas.

I don’t have a problem with this, except when it comes to the family law courts handling criminal behavior involving physical assault and battery, or child molestation. That’s where the line should’ve been drawn, yet intentionally wasn’t. This crowd continues to promote dispute resolution for almost everyone, and the profession, including those that go on (as retired judges, as psychologists, or as attorneys, presumably). I am working on a separate post (other blog), and have, yes, found it sponsoring work with AFCC, among plenty of other places; it has plenty of funding to go around for these grants, too. The board members of this represent a host of major (multinational) corporations, and its chair (a Judge, or retired judge) formerly worked for the FBI and the CIA, which I think at least should catch someone’s attention.

Then Thomas J. Stipanovich stepped down from this nonprofit to run the Straus Institute of Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine, in Malibu, California. In looking at this, and the related school of law, I couldn’t help but notice the close connection to London, and after this, conferences involving THE top justice of England and Wales in concert with a justice at the Supreme level in Belgium as well.

How in the world could we expect such globetrotters to see the safety element when it comes to dispute resolution in the family law arena? Is that an unreasonable mountain to scale, or train to (somehow) hop — catching up with this global elite and saying STOP IT, DAMNIT!

. . .

The “Strong Field Project” is just another sapling off the DV as industry Tree, and not the main point here (see first link, above). My point is, were it not for centralized wealth — and alongside that wealth, centralized decision-making (taxation without representation) these things would not exist. And so long as our medium of exchange is “fiat money” owned by private bankers, who lend to the U.S. Treasury at interest dumped upon the entire US Population, while talks about “stimulating the economy” “balancing the budget” etc. continue to roil the electorate — they rule that world, and it’s true — they do.

Maybe Jesus was right, in the wilderness -it takes one to know one and maybe whoever wrote the gospels of Matthew and Luke, describing his temptation, were absolutely correct (Mark, probably earlier than either, skims over the time in the wilderness). As it goes in Matthew 4 (KJV), three temptations, which I’ll summarize as: Do Magic Tricks (Stones into bread) to satisfy his empty stomach; Suicide (jump off the temple to test God’s safety net), and finally, Sellout (bow down, and be receive the kingdoms (plural) of the world, with their glory).

1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Luke 4 has it in a different order (suicide last, after getting Jesus’ worship fails), and adds detail on how the devil got the power over the entire world:

5And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. 8And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

“Power and Glory are mine,” boasts the devil. “I have the kingdoms of this world.” Well, were kingdoms around when this was written? “And I say who gets them, and who does not get them; I am the boss.”

It seems to hold true today, doesn’t it? Only different terminology is used. For example, the word “GRANT.” A grant is a gift, but with the gift goes a little piece of the recipient’s independence in the form of strings attached — does it serve a particular agenda set by the grantOR? Absolutely! This is basically the buying and selling of kingdoms, power, and etc. Whatever happens within them, that’s the umbrella over them.

Characterizing this as coming from “the devil” (invisible spiritual influence), i.e. bad — well, is this type of influence bad, and is it often exercised in hidden (invisible) ways? I’d say, yes…..

Looking at these “kingdoms of the world” (as opposed to looking at, for example, “Nature” and things that grow, against the zoology, biology, anatomy, astromony,etc. that show more and more amazing details) I have to agree, that the greater the power, the greater the damage. And that the lifeblood/energy is being sucked out of the some sectors of the world, along with money, and being centralized into who says who lives and dies; and who says who gets to keep their earnings and who doesn’t, however paltry they may be – and for what social good? For doing good?

No, not really — only good within limits of “I get to control what’s done with the world,” the song of the tax-exempt foundation run (or funded) by some great philanthropists, whose names are usally put on it too (good for PR), and in accompaniment with the corporations (businesses) that helped make that wealth. The tax-exempt foundation, by being tax-exempt, serves as a drainage ditch to reduce the taxes that would otherwise be paid on the FOR-profit.

Why else do we think so many of them are running around all over (look at the civic works, PBS shows, “Models for Change” programs calculating how to mobilize swift transformation of chosen areas of reform, such as “Juvenile Justice” or other areas. Go review MDRC again (I’ve blogged it) for an example of how inbred US Gov’t and Corporate wealth/tax-exempt foundations really are. Even AFCC is getting some help these days.

RATHER THAN WORK TO ELIMINATE THE VERY TAXATION SYSTEM WHICH PRODUCE THIS LEVEL OF WEALTH TO START WITH (ALONG WITH THE WISDOM TO KNOW HOW TO UTILIZE THAT LEVERAGE), INSTEAD, THE OWNERS OF THIS WEALTH FLY AROUND AND COLLABORATE ON A BETTER JUSTICE SYSTEM THAN THEIR LOWER COUNTERPARTS – WHO HAPPEN TO BE IN POSITIONS LIKE GOVERNORS, OF STATES, JUDGESHIPS, ATTORNEY GENERALS, ETC. — THE TRULY ALTRUISTIC BENEFICIAL COLLABORATION WOULD BE TO UNDO THIS INCOME TAX, SWITCH OFF THE “FIAT CURRENCY” AND DEFANG THE FEDERAL RESERVE. BUT HOW LIKELY IS THAT TO HAPPEN?

We’ve been hooked on it for 100 years next year (1913 – 2013) think about it. What an addiction.

The greatest goods would be protecting unalienable rights is LIFE, and LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, and having enough self-respect and self-restraint to allow others to do the same — how many golden yachts does one really need? You can’t take it with you, even if you have a golden voice (like Whitney Houston, recently: global success, gone age 48, leaving one motherless child. Well, young adult. A wealthy one for sure, but one absent her mother).

So, here’s the Biblical worldview, at least in the book of Revelation. Followers are encouraged to keep it in mind that this kingdom is temporal and is going to be judged (by fire) — so choose your allegiances well. Without my interpreting whether that’s smart or not to endorse, here’s the description of that buying and selling of kingdoms, Revelations 18. As before, spiritual agents (angels, this time) are involved and judgment is swift, expressing indignation and vindication:

The kingdom that rules the world is characterized as “Babylon,” which was a kingdom, earlier. And, naturally, as a woman:

REVELATION 18:

9And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

11And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: 12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, 13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

That is indeed what the traffic is in. It pretty much describes most areas of commerce, including transport of goods:

(Addressed to the CITY): 14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 16And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

So many enterprises were hooked into the sales that took place in “the city;” but (she) was hell on the apostles and prophets, who were typically exiled, or killed in various gruesome ways, etc. ….there message wasn’t good for business. (Quite a contrast from some of today’s “apostles and prophets” –see recent post on the bankruptcy of the Crystal Cathedral (Garden Grove, CA) and its founding family’s squabbles with the board, i.e., Robert Schuller et al. I blogged it over at thefamilycourtmoneymachine.blogspot.com

. . .

for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

It takes a caste of slaves to produce certain levels of wealth, and even the best of major constructions (The Hoover Dam, the Brooklyn Bridge, Grand Central Station in NY) have been associated with human deaths of workers. What about the pyramids? What about the former practice of burying concubines and wives with the death of a ruler?

The lines have to be drawn and crowds have to be kept within their kind, and within their places. “The great men of the earth” are actually merchants, and there’s no question — is there? — that with slavery and slavehood comes untimely death, too often. So, look around — where are the deaths happening, where is the blood flowing, and then track the trail of money. Religion WILL be associated, and it’s not too hard to locate –except perhaps at the very top levels.

Whoever gave what to whom, and how (Adam, Eve, Israel in the Promised Land, whoever ….) there is no question that there is desire still circulating to rule the world, and that there are layers of collaborators — and the closer to the grants, and wealth (to fly, conference, buy and sell real estate under nonprofit umbrella, even “front groups” to launder the money at times) — the closer to the power, and the deafer the ears become to the cries of those they took the power to (allegedly) help, save, or whatever.

Anyone who’s lived with a certain level of abuse (and knew, by contrast, freedom) knows about this. Many times, supposedly there is some purpose to all the tyranny — but there never is. It’s just enforced because they can get away with doing this, and get off on it. Anything else is pretty much a lie.

WELL, let’s get down to the main show here:

I have been talking, briefly, about the analogy of “The Matrix’ (picked up from someone else who wrote about this) as an artificially created reality which, once you become aware of it, you have to either deal with (mentally, emotionally, psychologically) and determine where to stand regarding it — or take another sedative and go back to sleep.

The Internet is a great, addicting perhaps, but effective way to spread that net; it fishes and sets out bait both. But, it’s here, and must be dealt with, as a whole lotta money is traveling along that net (being tracked as it goes), and this technology, this tool — like many technological advances — is often used for warfare, to kill. The question is just, who.

To be read alongside a page added to the other blog:

“Three Cities that Rule the World,” Including the Ever-expanding but Centralized DV Field“

I’m usually up for concise summaries that make some sense with the reality I’ve been observing.

Regular visitors (there are a few here) know how I feel about the profit/nonprofit caste system — which is a statement on, The Income Tax.

My feelings came in part from watching the nonprofits HHS is funding, from having actually sought help from some of the local ones, and then (later) seen their multi-million funding (their doctrines were a spit in the wind when applied to a single family law judge. If true, they held no sway in that forum, which is where all souls go (for the most part) who have had both DV AND sons or daughters with the same person.

I’m putting this in to remind us about the medium of exchange we call “money” and how fiat money and “bona fide” money cannot exist alongside each other, really — because the owners of the fiat money (private bankers) depend on an addicted population for their business. Free, choice-driven populations and those informed on the situation, would never choose the one that kept their country free over the one that enslaved it, would they?

So lies (deceit, as in ‘Deceived the nations” of Rev. 18) also has to be involved in the “sale” of this solution. I do look forward to the day when this type of deceit, as well as (while we’re here) I hope the extreme deceit of the people I share DNA with, who have for years been selling abusive “solutions” to the problem of my intent to remain free of them, by working, legally, as I CHOOSE to – also comes out in the wash. If the Bible is the word of God, it will. Other than this resurrection and day of judgment thing, I figure it’s a toss-up, but am intending to balance the odds in the favor of the basic truth, while I can.

The book of James also (chapter 5) talks about the behavior of the rich (it’s pretty much throughout the scriptures) and warns the readers about “respect of persons.” In this worldview, a future Judge is definitely coming; be patient and endure, is the mentality: Remember Job: God is just in the long-run.

<< James 5 >>
King James Version

1Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. 2Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. 3Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. 4Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. 5Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. 6Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.7Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. 8Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. 9Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door. 10Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. 11Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

I realize i’ve quoted from two books (James, Revelation) not among the earlier ones; apparently James wasn’t quoted til around 225.A.D.

More references for the curious, here (I haven’t reviewed, just put up one or two):http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-disputed-books.htm and (better narration here) http://freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html

At the close of the second century ((ca. 300 A.D. in other words)) the Christian world was divided into a hundred different sects. Irenaeus and others conceived the plan of uniting these sects, or the more orthodox of them, into one great Catholic church, with Rome at the head; for Rome was at this time the largest and most intluential of all the Christian churches. “It is a matter of necessity,” says Irenaeus, “that every church should agree with this church on account of its preeminent authority.” (Heresies, Book 3).

Don’t forget my recent favorite book “A.D. 381

I should pick on Protestants too — at least the link “freethought” brings up the topics. Atheists know this, but perhaps don’t think about it too much. They are surrounded by attending Christians who, if they thought too deeply about the canon of the scriptures, would stop attending, I imagine…. And they vote too, so might as well all of us get some concept of it in operation: The mainstream religions as we see them nowadays are basically spinoffs of empires and workign alongside them. Before a certain piont in time, they were only “sects” and followers, many of who were persecuted. Now adays when we see this type of centralization then called “empire” — we could as easily call it empire, or simply, fascism.

Martin Luther

The greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin Luther. He is generally recognized as its founder; he is considered one of the highest authorities on the Bible; he devoted a large portion of his life to its study; he made a translation of it for his people, a work which is accepted as one of the classics of German literature. With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine authority.

And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than six of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible. Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says: “I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist.” In his “Bondage of the Will,” he severely criticises the book.He rejected the book of Jonah. He says: “The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be absolutely incredible.” (Colloquia, Chap. LX., Sec. 10).He rejected Hebrews: “The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any apostle.” (Standing Preface to Luther’s New Testament).He rejected the Epistle of James: “St. James’ Epistle is truly an epistle of straw.” (Preface to Edition of 1524). He rejected Jude. “The Epistle of Jude,” he says, “allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture.” (Standing Preface). He rejected Revelation. He says: “I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit.” (Preface to Edition of 1622).

In the gospels, the books Jesus quoted the most were Deuteronomy (the law), Psalms, and Isaiah. On the day of Pentecost, per Acts, Peter quoted two only psalms and one prophet (?), and then got right onto explaining what they’d just seen and witnessed in that context, and exhorting people to “repent.” No “theology’ was apparently involved at the time. It was also prophesied (according to John) that the disciples/apostles would be hauled in front of the authorities to give their answer, and to not pre-meditate what they’d be saying, it would be given to them in their hour.

What then, we might legitimately ask, is going on every Sunday morning (and/or evening, or Wednesday evenings) when people congregate to hear someone’s homily or sermon, or inspired display, of what the scriptures mean, that they couldn’t themselves read, deduce, and act on, assuming they were walking in the same spirit? At least Catholics seem to keep it mass these days short, and give one time to think during the liturgy!!! One’s eardrums aren’t assaulted…

Or, for a more secular viewpoint yet, how about from Infidels.org on the canon, making reference to Thomas Jefferson (who didn’t believe in the miracles of Jesus and produced a skinny version, “The Jefferson Bible”, I gather):

Who says “a mature Christian must ask the question that skeptics ask…” (not a short read, but several good questions and points, for example, about “magic books” and who gets to decide which ones they are:

We’d like to hear directly from God about which books constitute his message. As Paul wrote, “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” (Rom. 3:4) But God has not spoken in this way. Instead, is there some special list, authorized by Jesus, or the original apostles, of books that are specially approved? “God says that these books are the Bible,” we’d like to hear. There is no such list.[4] Who, then, decided what books would be in our Bible?

Back in the fourth century, some bishops took a vote on it. Rather, several church councils voted for conflicting lists, the contradictions of which took centuries more to resolve. These votes came after a long period of sorting and choosing by the churches at large, so that the choice was not haphazard; it was, however, arbitrary in many respects. Because of differences over the Apocrypha, there remains no agreement about which books are in the Christian Old Testament.

It’s kind of a moot point, anyhow, when one can simply dial a preacher or (til the Crystal Cathedral had to change its stripes) pull up to a drive in and watch the show. The more I think about these things, and connect them to lived experience(s), the more I do see the influence of the remains of the Roman empire, working through highly visible buildings and structures in this world. It’s obviously (though more obviously than actual scripture, Old or New, seems to justify) a male-dominated, heirarchical religion — that’s hardly debatable now, is it? (or, are ordained priests marrying with the blessing of the Pope since I last tuned in?)

Here are three photos from an article on “The Three Cities” found on the same forum — what do you think they typify? The female reality, or the male?

Think about it:

Another thing these three city-states have in common are their own obelisks. Obelisks are tall, four-sided shafts of stone which taper at the top in a pyramidal fashion. The obelisk is phallic in its appearance and represents the male penis. It is symbolic of the Egyptian sun god, Ra, and is an ancient symbol of male energy and generation (G) in Freemasonry.

Vatican obelisk: Located in St. Peter’s Square, the Vatican obelisk was moved from Egypt to its current location in 1586. The circle at the base on the obelisk represents the female vagina and thus male/female duality. Also notice the lines extending from the circle, forming a Union Jack as seen on the British flag.

London obelisk (aka Cleopatra’s Needle): Located on the banks of the River Thames, this obelisk was transported to London and erected in 1878 under the reign of Queen Victoria. The obelisk originally stood in the Egyptian city of On, or Heliopolis (the City of the Sun). The Knights Templars’ land extended to this area of the Thames, where the Templars had their own docks. Either side of the obelisk is surrounded by a sphinx, also symbolism dating back to the ancient world.

Washington Obelisk (aka Washington Monument): Standing at 555 feet, the Washington Monument is the tallest obelisk in the world and also the tallest standing structure in Washington DC. The monument’s cornerstone, a 12-ton slab of marble, was donated by the Grand Lodge of Freemasons. Like the Vatican obelisk, the Washington monument too is surrounded by a circle denoting the female. The reflecting pool in front of the monument signifies the ancient Masonic/Kabbalistic dictum, as above/so below.

~ ~ ~ back to that prophecy (statement, anyhow) in the Bible:

for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

LONDON — financial empire

VATICAN — religious empire

D.C. — military empire.

(see “pentagon-vatican connection” also).

Revelation 18, above, cursed and looked forward to the fall of the city of Babylon, because of its deception, and its bloodshed involved in the merchandising of all kinds of delicacies, including slaves. I don’t know when this book was written, but it scarcely seems to be coming from the point of view of a triumphant Christian empire, with real estate, monuments, a well-clothed priesthood, etc., nor does James. So modern readers (i.e., agnostics, atheists) are hardly neutral, or fair, to place on its author the same hypocrisy we see everywhere today.

Now, we call this “human trafficking” or “child trafficking,” and my country, this country, the USA, is governmentally involved in two kinds: Over the counter (that’s CPS and pharmaceutical friends whether Texan or Wolverine (Michigan, both pushing Risperdal) and under the radar, possibly deliberately, for which you can go read about the Jaycee Dugard situation; in fact, she has begun to speak out on television now; the settlement she was paid for California law enforcement screwup was, as I remember, around $29 million. WHOSE funds paid that? Because it was “only” around $14 million that Los Angeles was withholding (collected child support, Silva v. Garcetti) from actually reaching intended customers back in the late 1990s.

Texan:

Bush Wants Pharma Trojan Horse Unleashed

The New Freedom Commission was established by executive order on April 29, 2002. At a speech in New Mexico that day, Bush said mental health centers and hospitals, homeless shelters, the justice and school systems have contact with individuals suffering from mental disorders but that too many Americans fall through the cracks of the current system and so he created the Commission to ensure “that the cracks are closed.”

On July 22, 2003 the NFC recommended redesigning the mental health system in all fifty states and said in a press release, “Achieving this goal will require … a greater focus on mental health care in institutions such as schools, child welfare programs, and the criminal and juvenile justice systems. The goal is integrated care that can screen, identify, and respond to problems early.”

Despite a nearly 500% increase in mental health drugs being prescribed to children in the previous six years, the NFC recommended a plan of mandatory mental health screening for all public school students and follow-up treatment with drugs when needed.

Wolverine/Michigan-ian:

Those who fight back — confronting illegal home invasions fraudulently ordered (NOT even legitimately court-ordered) for purposes of kidnapping, for purpose of institutionalizing, for the purpose of then administering dangerous drugs to minor children — can, and will, be treated as felons and stripped of their kids, and months/years of their lives in the fight. That’s the Michigan reference, above. Testimony (at the rally) of those on Risperdal:

Posted on 04/08/2011 by Diane Bukowski

Godboldo faces eight felony charges for standing off police armored vehicles, helicopters, and SWAT team members brandishing assault weapons on March 24. She and her supporters say she was only trying to keep Child Protective Services from forcing a dangerous drug, Risperdal, on her child.

Charges have been dropped, she has her daughter back, but they are considering re-instating. This story deserves follow-up: Voice of Detroit did good investigative reporting. The same CPS worker that did this in 2011 was, in 2010, facing a civil lawsuit for pulling a similar stunt to a related (married) couple, only five (5) children were nabbed and put into three different foster homes for 4o months; the amount of deceit involved is simply stunning. (Brent family, look it up at “justice4maryanne” site).

>“I want my daughter back TODAY,” Godboldo said from the church’s pulpit. “I’m terrified; I don’t know what is happening to her. If we don’t stand up for our children, we have no future. I am so filled with joy and thankful for your support, Detroit. The only reason I came out of my home was not all those guns out there, not the threats they brought against me, but because of YOU!”

Godboldo’s daughter is currently incarcerated at the Hawthorn Family Center at Northville, despite efforts by other family members to have her released to their custody. Attorneys Allison Folmar and Wanda Evans earlier obtained a temporary restraining order preventing doctors there from putting Arianna back on Risperdal.

Despite a large turn-out of supporters at a Wayne County Juvenile Court custody hearing April 6, and evidence that Arianna may have contracted a sexually-transmitted disease while at Hawthorn, Referee Leslie Graves ruled that the child would remain in state custody

The community rallied, and it seems the family was targeted from a number of angles: single mother, intelligent and insisting on choice (not “the program”), she homeschooled, she was also African-American and in (I remember seeing, can’t find link) the community was poor. How dare this community not fork over their kids to the Title IV-driven systems for Rx profits?

One woman [that this mother met in jail for defending her kid] told me what Risperdal did to her. She was kidnapped at 17 and forced into prostitution in Chicago. When she got free and came back home, they put her on that drug. She said she felt dizzy, was hallucinating, and couldn’t function on a day-to-day basis.”

Barbara Ann Polizzi, a critical care nurse from New York, drove 13 hours to the rally with her 17-year-old son Michael to tell a story almost identical to that of Arianna’s. Michael too was forced to take Risperdal. …

“I felt scared and fearful,” he said. “The medicine gave me shortness of breath and made my heart race. I had to get an inhaler and started on heart medication on top of it. I was not Michael anymore.”

He said he was she never never gave up on me.” (It took 6.5 years, she said):

Godboldo’s niece Ambyr Brooks said that the family has been contacted by people from Australia to Canada, many of whom have been similarly subjected to state abductions of their children and forced medications.

Mother (left), Father (middle), Michael and mother (far right)

While people like these have to fight — with whatever they got — to keep their kids, another one DID fall between the cracks, in N. California (I also have a page on this — to right), and at least one post; an alert UC Berkeley campus security guard (mother) was alert, and followed up, leading to the YOUNG mother below’s release, along with the two kids. After 18 years in captivity!

Jaycee Dugard Files Lawsuit Against U.S. Government

PHOTO: After being held captive for 18 years, Jaycee Dugard talks to ABC's Diane Sawyer in her first interview since being discovered and freed.

After being held captive for 18 years, Jaycee Dugard talks to ABC’s Diane Sawyer in her first interview since being discovered and freed. (ABC News)

By JESSICA HOPPER Sept. 22, 2011

Jaycee Dugard is suing the federal government because it twice rejected her requests for private mediation over its alleged failure to properly monitor Phillip Garrido, the man who kidnapped her and held her captive for 18 years.

. . .In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyerearlier this year, Dugard recounted how she overcame the horror of her kidnapping in 1991, her nearly two decade imprisonment in which she gave birth to two children fathered by Garrido, and her healing process since being rescued in 2009.

“There’s a switch that I had to shut off,”

. . . .I said, the US Gov’t was trafficking in children under the radar. Here’s one:

Garrido was already a convicted kidnapper when he and his wife, Nancy, abducted 11-year-old Dugard as she walked to school from her family’s Tahoe, Calif., home. He had been sentenced to 50 years in federal prison for kidnapping a woman in 1977. He was released in 1988 and placed on federal parole. In 1999, eight years into his kidnapping and torture of Dugard, he was released from federal parole and thanked by an agent for his “cooperation.”

From 1999 to 2009, the state of California was charged with supervising him. At least 60 times, officials from the California Department of Corrections visited the Garrido home and never noticed anything amiss. On at least one visit, an official actually talked to Dugard.

Dugard and her children have already received a settlement from the state of California. Dugard’s attorneys attempted to reach a settlement with the U.S. government through private mediation twice but were denied.

She said:

Of telling her story, Dugard told Sawyer, “Why not look at it? You know, stare it down until it can’t scare you anymore…I didn’t want there to be any more secrets?I hadn’t done anything wrong. It wasn’t something I did that caused this to happen. And I feel that by putting it all out there, it’s very freeing.”

(I’m sorry to see that this foundation has taken up with a PAS specialist, in “Transitioning Families”

Rebecca Bailey, PhD – Psy 18732

Transitioning families encompasses the family and individual counseling practice of Rebecca Bailey, Ph.D. as well as her reunification programs, parenting classes and supervised visitation services. Dr. Bailey incorporated her clinical experience with her long-standing interest in animal therapy and the equine-assisted growth and learning programs

Dr. Bailey received her doctoral degree from The Wright Institute in Berkeley, CA. Since 1995 she has focused on high conflict familial situations and parent coordination from a developmental perspective. She is former director of the Sonoma Police Departments Youth and family services program and was a therapist educator for programs such as Marin County’s DUI Program. She continues to work with a variety of state and national organizations such as The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

She has served as a Special master and expert witness in cases were parental alienation or estrangement is an issue.

I’m sure that Jaycee Dugard and her mother do not know what this represents, links found on the TF site, and that (as a victim of stranger kidnapping and rape), she wouldn’t approve of the use this theory has been put to, to keep children who have been, at times, raped by their relatives/Dads, back in their custody, and how it FAILS to account for abductions of children by such men, from their mothers, or provide any sort of reunification services for them, either. I know too many of these situations. I do not believe that Jaycee and her mother would approve of funding such situations. I speak as a mother to whom this happened, illegally, permanently (to date) and without real remedy (to date). My kids’ still don’t know all the truths of their situation, and they most especially don’t know that the stage was set by the works of groups like AFCC and Warshak (and the federal funding, etc.) to make sure this can and does happen.

Men & Dads that need bribes (carrots and sticks) to do the right thing, won’t do the right thing with the bribes anyhow. They’ll take the bribe (whether it be elimination or reduction of child support arrears, or other rewards, including a sense of control regained over their “ex” // “revenge”) and dump the kids afterwards anyhow — either off with the next wife/woman, or somewhere else. I know woman who grew up, that experienced this. Child is sold or farmed out to foster care anyhow, too many times.

“USEFUL LINKS” (useful for WHAT?)

AFCC AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.

Dave Ziegler, Ph.D.Beyond Healing, The path to personal contentment after trauma

Dr. Richard A. WarshakDr. Warshak is a psychologist and author of Divorce Poison: How To Protect Your Family From Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing, now in its 24th printing, and co-author of the critically acclaimed DVD for children and parents…

Parental Alienation Awareness OrganizationBecause most people do not know about PA & HAP until they experience it, the idea of Parental Alienation Awareness Organization was put forth to help raise awareness and provide education about this growing problem of mental and emotional child abuse.

If this person Dr. Bailey wanted to be logical, HONEST & consistent, with her “Transitioning Families” team — she’d treat Mr. Garrido and Nancy Garrido and Jaycee’s daughters (after all, biologically, they were Phil Garrido’s offspring) as the family and get a court order (being a recommending evaluator or parent coordinator and force reunification services on the Garrido/Jaycee’s two daughters — and put Jaycee, the biological and falsely imprisoned, severely abused & sexually assaulted mother on supervised visitation, at her expense until she could learn that “families are forever” meaning, “fathers are forever,” even if they’re temporarily in jail (again) for kidnapping and rape of minors. This especially seems to apply if one’s family was poor, or one’s skin is a little darker, i.e., Title IV.

But that’s not the way the cookie crumbles while there’s still money in the system — any system — to be extracted. Meanwhile, honest people, who helped me during certain years — are paying taxes on the US Debt which is to allegedly provide social services. I wonder where the millions came from to settle this case — there must have been millions sitting around somewhere. Interesting.

I wish someone had been around for me to do “reunification services” after the father abandoned OUR kids, failing to tell me when he did so (after having made sure it was a no-contact situation for a long time), and I attempted to regain contact properly and legally. Instead, I was treated abominably by a local D.A. (though I had written evidence of the abandonment which, like child-stealing, is also a crime) who used sarcasm, ridicule and an attempt to extort more services out of the system — for me. The man was middle-aged, white, and obviously male, and not on tape. I left there (another back-burner project) realizing that NO female should ever walk into a room with an investigator, police officer, or district attorney — at least in this area — without the tape recorder on, to keep him or as it may be, them, in check. I was foolish to walk in with “only” evidence, and without an advocate — but after xxyy years in the system, there sometimes are no advocates!

Dr. Bailey’s site has rules for Supervised Visitations posted — you should read it. RULE #1: “No inappropriate physical contact. Hugging and kissing are okay upon greeting and parting only. This must be acceptable to all parties. No lap sitting.” RULE #2: No discussion of molestation allegations, custody or legal situation with the child. If the child brings it us, the parent may acknowledge the topic, but may not respond to the allegation unless the parent wishes to make amends for said action.

ASIDE on seeing the form for Supervised Visitation in association with the JAYC Foundation!

Reminds me of why Jack Stratton, Ph.D. wrote (1992/1993) is supervised visitation FAIR for children of abusive men? What does it teach the kids? (Click on my gravatar logo to read it). Consider Rule 1 — if the supervised visitation was being applied for the purposes it was sold us under — to prevent molestation ONLY — then that would be one thing. But, if a child HAS been molested, allegedly, to fail to be allowed to (if young and this would otherwise be appropriate) simply see and hug his or her Mama — if SHE is the one on supervision due to having allowed the child to report, or see a mandatory reporter, or even if the child simply bumped into a mandatory reporter at school or elsewhere — (all situations that have indeed led to mothers being supervised at times, in state after state) — then that’s simply wrong. I can understand Rule 2, part 1 — but look at the second part of the topic. This literally means that contact with the non-molesting parent will be closely monitored to make sure a child does NOT report further abuse if it happened. Both the nonmolesting parent AND the child(ren) must be trained — by this “reunification specialist and via supervised visitation) that any further mention of current abuse, or distress from it (i.e., comfort-seeking with a familiar parent) — will be punished. The most logical form of punishment would be (for that nonmolesting parent / mother) to have NO visitation whatsoever.

And, here, the fee is $150 per hour. Remind me to make sure this is no access/visitation subgrantee also …..

They are hurting around this issue over in Scranton, PA. “Kids for Cash” in neighboring Luzerne is already history . . . Remember Viola Stroud case! (Dutchess County, NY) Remember Helen O. Page case (Amador County, California). Now there’s another high-profile case in Connecticut, too; the mother’s parents have put up so far $1 MILLION to help in the case — and are living with THEIR parents, I heard, having mortgaged their own property to help protect their grandson. It does seem to be a pattern.

ANYHOW . . . The Three Cities and Fiat Currency . . . .

And one of the most important things in life is to know when someone else is, habitually, lying, and cease doing any kind of business with them until they stop, and permanently, if they cannot stop broadcasting their own lifes based on own perceptions and intent to dominate another person against his or her will, illegally and by fraud.

This person also posted the article I put on the other post, at link http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=106799.msg648631#msg648631, thread “Empire of the Cities – The Three Cities that Rule The World.” this is the entire post, dated 5/21/2009….

It has some details about “tallies” and “stocks” you may not know. Italics (or other font changes) are mine. I haven’t fact-checked (you can). But does it start to make some sense, yet? I’m talking, income tax, federal reserve, for-profit not-for profit distinction (which only the income tax makes possible, really).

The Moneylenders Take Over England

In the 19th century, the Rothchild banking family’s Nathan Rothchild said it well:

“I care not what puppet (sits on) the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British empire, and I (when he ran the Bank of England) control the British money supply.”

{{2012 is an election year. Americans (USA) would do well to keep this in mind also.}}

Centuries early, moneylender power was absent. But after the 1666 Coinage Act, money-issuing authority, once the sole right of kings, was transferred into private hands. “Bankers now had the power to cause inflations and depressions at will by issuing or withholding their gold coins.”

King William III (1672 – 1702), a Dutch aristocrat, financed his war against France by borrowing 1.2 million pounds in gold in a secret transaction with moneylenders, the arrangement being a permanent loan on which debt would be serviced and its principle [“principal”] never repaid. It came with other strings as well:

— lenders got a charter to establish the Bank of England (in 1694) with monopoly power to issue banknotes as national paper currency;

— it created them out of nothing, with only a fraction of them as reserves;

— loans to the government were to be backed by government IOUs to serve as reserves for creating additional loans to private borrowers; and

— lenders could consolidate the national debt on their government loan to secure payment through people-extracted taxes.

{{sound familiar yet?}}

It was a prescription for huge profits and “substantial political leverage. The Bank’s charter gave the force of law to the ‘fractional reserve’ banking scheme that put control of the country’s money” in private hands. It let the Bank of England create money out of nothing and charge interest for loans to the government and others – the same practice central banks now employ.

{{{“TALLIES”}}

For the next century, banknotes and tallies circulated interchangeably even though they weren’t a compatible means of exchange. Banker money expanded when “credit expanded and contracted when loans were canceled or ‘called,’ producing cycles of ‘tight’ money and depression alternating with ‘easy’ money and inflation.” In contrast, tallies were permanent, stable, fixed money, making banknotes look bad so they had to go.

For another reason as well – because of King William’s disputed throne and fear if he were deposed, moneylenders again might be banned. They used their influence to legalize banknotes as the money of the realm called “funded” debt with tallies referred to as “unfunded,” what historians see as the beginning of a “Financial Revolution.” In the end, “tallies met the same fate as witches – death by fire.”

{{ACTUALLY– SOUNDS LIKE THE REVERSE WAS TRUE. TALLIES WERE FUNDED, AND THE BANKNOTES, WERE NOT}}

They were money of the people competing with moneylending bankers. After 1834 monetary reform, “tally sticks went up in flames in a huge bonfire started in a House of Lords stove.” Ironically, it got out of control and burned down Westminster Palace and both Houses of Parliament, symbolically ending “an equitable era of trade (by transferring power) from the government to the” central bank.

{{simple explanation:on the terms, and this burning: terms “tally” “stocks” “broker” (Stockade) and “Exchequer”, Charles Dickens quoted}}

(MY INSERT — more on TALLY STICKS:

Original Wooden Tally Sticks (2)
[England, Westminster, c. 1250-1275]

hickory wood, the larger end cut diagonally, edges roughly squared off leaving traces of bark, each inscribed along one side with the name of the payer and the upper and lower edges cut with notches (“v”-shaped for pounds, broad grooves for shillings, sharp cuts for pence), each piece then split with a knife by cutting diagonally across the thicker end of the reverse side and pulling away a length which would be retained separately by the payer as proof of payment, written in thirteenth-century charter hands. c. 175-200 mm. long (each).

Rare survival of a medieval form of financial record-keeping, the tally stick provides the origin of many words used in modern money markets: stock, foil, stockholder, bank stock, and check. The vast majority were destroyed in the nineteenth century in the fire of the Palace of Westminster and the Houses of Parliament.

INTERESTING:

Tallies provide the earliest form of bookkeeping. They were used in England by the Royal Exchequer from about the twelfth century onward. Since the notches for the sums were cut right through both pieces and since no stick splits in an even manner, the method was virtually foolproof against forgery. They were used by the sheriff to collect taxes and to remit them to the king. They were also used by private individuals and institutions, to register debts, record fines, collect rents, enter payments for services rendered, and so forth. By the thirteenth century, the financial market for tallies was sufficiently sophisticated that they could be bought, sold, or discounted.

“Tallies were … a sophisticated and practical record of numbers. They were more convenient to keep and store than parchments, less complex to make, and no easier to forge…. Of the millions of medieval tallies made, only a few hundred survive.” (Clanchy, p. 96; see also p. 95, n. 28, pl. VIII). In 1724, treasury officials commanded that tallies no longer be used, but it was not until 1834, with the reform acts and the abolition of the office of the Receipt of the Exchequer, that a huge bonfire of the then-obsolete medieval tally sticks was held. Started in a stove stuffed full of sticks in the House of Lords, the fire quickly got out of control, spreading to the paneling, and burning down both the Palace of Westminster and the Houses of Parliament.

In 1911, Sir Hilary Jenkinson knew of only three Exchequer tally sticks in private hands (pp. 292-3, 330, and 350).

The evolution of money technologies originates with the tally stick. From tally stick comes the modern word “stock,” meaning a financial certificate and deriving from the use of the Middle English for the stick. The piece retained by the bank was called the “foil.” The holder of the stock was said to be the “stockholder” and owned “bank stock.” A written certificate presented for remittance and checked against its security later became a “check.”

According to legend, Wall Street was founded in its present location because of the presence there of an enormous chestnut tree, said to be plentiful enough to supply enough tally sticks for the emerging American stock market.

LITERATURE
Clanchy, M. T. From Memory to Written Record, England 1066-1307, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.

Jenkinson, Hilary C. “Exchequer Tallies,” Archaeologia, second series, 12 (1911), pp. 292 ff.

ONLINE RESOURCES
Tallies and Technologies, by Dave Birch, Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce
http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/9811-11.htm

The Origins of Mathematics
http://www.math.tamu.edu~don.allen/history/origins/origins.html

[[The other source cited is the link, above to definitions]]

forum.prisonplanet. . . cont’d….

Henceforth {{1834ff?}}, private bankers kept government in debt, never demanding the return of principle [“principal”], and profiting by extracting interest, a very lucrative system always paying off “like a slot machine” rigged to benefit its operators. It became the basis for modern central banking, lending its “own notes (printed paper money), which the government swaps for bonds (its promises to pay) and circulates as a national currency.”

Government debt is never repaid. It’s continually rolled over and serviced, today with no gold in reserve to back it. Though gone, tallies left their mark. The word “stock” comes from the tally stick. Much of the original Bank of England stock was bought with these sticks. In addition, stock issuance began during the Middle Ages as a way to finance businesses when no interest-bearing loans were allowed.

This is not “archaic” information and irrelevant — it’s VERY current. I am still digesting — but it makes sense. Here’s a Brit (I gather) relating the Monarchy’s relationship to the Corporation of London (which holds the crown — the one you’ve seen on TV perhaps, loaned out for state occasions) and correlating to a May, 2011 meeting with the British Prime Minister Cameron with Eurozone personnel, re: ESM (Hey, it’s new term to me….). I just saw Cameron sitting next to President Obama watching a basketball game, on TV….

He is thinking in terms of the Corporation that holds the (moulah) versus the “State” which is subject to it. It’s a BIG deal!

That meeting, the ESM and the Crown – why Cameron said NO

( Dec. 2011)

I know that many of you who visit this site have looked deeply into our constitution, and are already aware that our State, the Crown, is not the Monarchy, but the Corporation of London.

The ‘Crown’ is in trust to the Corporation of London, it owns it and has done since Cromwell hocked it in return for unrepayable loans from Dutch Bankers, loans that are still being repaid today, to finance a bankrupt England after the Civil War.
In order that the Crown never left these shores and the transaction remained unknown to a largely starving and extremely volatile population it was to be held in trust in perpetuity by a new body, which eventually became The Corporation of London .

It is this Crown that all State employees swear allegiance to, with the exception of the Royal Navy who give their allegiance to the Queen directly. It is why the Crown is housed in the Tower of London, within the bounds of the City, and only loaned to the Monarch for State occasions.

What these charlies across the Channel are trying to do is the same thing, and largely for the same reasons. The new revised ESM that was suggested on Friday would become thenew State of Europa.

In the same way that the State sits above the British Government, this planned ESM Treaty would be a level of State above the EU and its institutions.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

March 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Posted in Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parenting Coordination promotion, PhDs in Psychology-Psychiatry etc (& AFCC), Vocabulary Lessons, warfare: strategic

Tagged with "Bush 2002 Exec Order -New Freedom Commission", "Strong Field Project", 3 Cities That Rule the World, Brave Young Adults, Child Molestation, CPRADR, CPS Child-stealing, DV, DV industry, England, Evolving Canon of Bible, fatherhood, fighting back, Godboldo case, Handwriting On the Wall from Bible-Read it Now, Humantrafficking, incest, Intimate partner violence, JAYC, Jaycee Dugard, London, mediation, men's rights, Motherhood, obelisk, Parenting Coordination, Pharma, Phil Garrido, Rebecca Bailey PhD, retaliation for reporting, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, State vs Corporation, Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Supervised Visitation, the Secular Web, Thomas J Stipanovich, TMAP/PennMAP, Transitioning Families, trauma, Vatican, VOD, WDC, Who Owns America?

For Further Info — and Reflection

with 3 comments

The Family Court Franchise System

Blog author in need of redecoration, has set up shop elsewhere. This doesn’t mean NO more posts over here, but perhaps better organization over there. I tangled one too many times with the gigantic “quotes” function & disappearing paragraphs here; I like the more flexible fonts available on the other platform. You probably will too.

Besides which, anyone who hasn’t figured out yet that the family court system IS a franchise system, I feel sincerely sorry for them. Last attempt to convince you of this? (just a sample)

PENNSYLVANIA-GEORGIA CONNECTIONS

For sale, on the site:

DIVORCE RESOURCES

For more information click on product page

The Psychotherapist As Parent Coordinator in High- Conflict Divorce: Strategies and Techniques

Develop a parenting coordination program and minimize high stress for children of divorce! With this guide, you will be able to effectively help co-parents develop a collaborative relationship and child-focused parenting plans during or after their divorce through parenting coordination.

Parenting Coordination:

Creating a Window of Hope

Marketing Power Point

This power point presentation has been created in 30 and 60 minute versions as a way to educate the legal and mental health professionals regarding the process of parenting coordination. This is an ideal way to educate and market parenting coordination to your community.

To learn more and order click here $34.95

To learn more and order click here $75

Parenting Coordination Assessment Forms

Each assessment includes eighteen pages that include the following:

Intake Form
Self Assessment
Co-Parent Assessment
Conflict Assessment
Relationship Assessment
Child Assessment.

Forms are sold in sets of twenty.

Parenting Coordination Forms: DISK A

Sample Order Appointing a Parent Coordinator
Agreement Expectation Contract
Standards of Care
Step by step checklist for parenting coordinators.
Electronic files (in Word or WordPerfect) of the parenting coordination basic parenting coordination forms. These forms may be duplicated and modified for individual use. Disk A includes:

To learn more and order

click here. $75

To learn more and order

click here $50

Parenting Coordination Supplimental Forms: DISK B

Disk B includes electronic files in word and word perfect formats include supplemental forms for the parent coordinator. These forms include

step-parent assessment
abuse assessment
child forms
marketing forms
standards vs licensing code
agreement forms
feedback forms
communication agreement
impasse assessment
court contracts, and much more.
For more detailed information click here.

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: A Parent Guide to Effective Co-Parenting

An easy-to-read parent workbook that provides vital information and gives real-life examples and worksheets so parent may practice new skills that shield their child from parental conflict.

Available also in Spainish text see below

To view the table of contents click here

To learn more and order

click here. $75 To learn more and order

click here. $19.95

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce Group Kit

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce is a 8-week, 16 – 20 hour program that is part video and part group discussion recommended for groups of 10-16 parents. The group kit consists of video/DVD, leader’s guide, parent guide and marketing disk. It is designed for use by therapists, parent educators, churches and schools.

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce GroupCertificates $6.00 per 15

ooperative Parenting and Divorce LeaderTransparencies

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce Group Quizzes $29.95

Leader’s Guide replacement $49.99

DVD replacement $99.00

To learn more and order

click here. $349.00To learn more and order click here

Collaborative Law Assessments

These comprehensive assessments help the professionals determine the appropriateness of each family for the collaborative process and which members of the team will be neces-sary for success. They are also invaluable for use with divorce coaches and child specialists.

Self Assessment
Co-Parent Assessment
Conflict Assessment
Communication Assessment
Child Assessment

Sold in sets of 20

Show and Tell Cards for Play Therapists

This simple flip book provides 29 pages of activity sheets that may be reproduced by play therapists working with young children ages 3-10 years. In addition each section provides information regarding different ways in which each sheet may be used with young children

Temporarily Out of Stock

To learn more and to order click here. $75 To learn more and to order click here. $15

Crossroads of Parenting & Divorce 5 Steps to Prevent Divorce Abuse

Handbook

Crossroads of Parenting & Divorce 5 Steps to Prevent Divorce Abuse

Divorce Seminar Kit

Sold as part of a four hour video based divorce seminar or sold as a stand alone. Parents are often surprised to learn that some of the actions they take inadvertently harm their children. This parent guide provides parents with five steps to prevent unnecessary damage to their child.

“It is not the divorce that will harm your child but rather the decisions and the actions you take.”

64 page text

$9.95 (Bulk rates available)

To learn more or to purchase click here.

This four hour divorce seminar is intended for use as part of the mandated divorce seminar requirements. It may also be provided separately or done as a six hour seminar for divorcing or divorced parents.

Kit includes Leader’s Guide, One Parent’s Guide, 25 minute DVD, Marketing Materials, handouts and more.

To learn more or to purchase click here

NEW SPANISH EDITION

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce Group Kit

NEW SPANISH EDITION

Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: A Parent Guide to Effective Co-Parenting

An easy-to-read parent workbook that provides vital information and gives real-life examples and worksheets so parent may practice new skills that shield their child from parental

$349 To order click here$19.95 To order click here

Here’s a brief trying to push the hybrid model, more:

In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass- roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute, 5 Journal of Child Custody 88 (2008)

Ms. Termini (of Pennsylvania) coordinates the GAL program at Lackawanna County, and Mr. Joe Pilchesky, as part of his public service, this WAS a public service; more people should do it!) posted her receipts to the Scranton Political Times on or about Oct. 3, 2011 as follows (a few months before he was himself thrown off the site by Joanne, who apparently got tired of certain behaviors, including cheating on him, dissing her (with a few threats implied) on the forum, and continuing to operate out of a home she owned, literally. No child victims for the local courts in that situation, but they are going to duke it out anyhow). BUT — here it is, Ms. Termini’s SS# redacted….

Attachments

View image View image View image View image View image View image View image

The hotel stay image, here, 8/22/09 — coincides with a presentation Termini, Harhut & Ross were doing at the National Association of Counsel for Children (“NACC”), only $215.43 for one night. It’s Danielle Ross (not Termini) who is the NACC member (per their lists, at least).

And some more:

Attachments

View image View image View image View image

__________________

and some more, for 2011:

For the year 2011

Attachments

View image View image View image View image View image View image

__________________

(I sure hope those links continue to function….)

And he summarizes what he did, which doesn’t sound to me like rocket science. Posted 10/3/2011. Maybe it was rocket science, but somehow, I don’t think so:

All these were, and as of today (2/24/2012) are at Scranton Political Times under the co-parenting thread, which is under the topic “Doherty Deceit”

I sent a right-to-know letter to Lackawanna County asking for documents regarding Family Court’s Co-Parenting Coordinator, Ann Marie Termini. I received a response a few days ago, so I’m able to share some information with you. The RTK letter and the response thereto are posted below.

* I asked for copies of contracts between Termini and the County. Response: None exist. That’s question 6 in the RTK letter.

* I asked for documents to support what the scope of her duties are as a contractor. Response: None exist. That’s question 2.

* I asked for documents to support that a lease agreement exists relating to the space she occupies on county property. Response: None exist. That’s question 3

* I asked for agreements relating to Termini using utilities, office equipment and furnishings. Response: None exist. That’s question 5

* I asked for copies of any complaints about Termini. Response: None exist. That’s question 8.

* I asked for copies of any court orders directing that Termini is appointed as the Co-Parenting Coordinator. Response: None exist. That’s question 9

* I asked for any documents to support the creation of the Co-Parenting Program. Response: None exist. That’s question 10.

* I asked for a copy of any advertising relating to seeking persons to fill the position of Co-Parenting Coordinator. Response: None exist. That’s question 12

NACC seems like another networking opp for the same sorts of AFCC personnel, only focused around child support and abuse:

32nd National Juvenile and Family Law Conference – Marriott at the Brooklyn Bridge, NY

8/19/2009

When: August 19-22, 2009

Where: Marriott at the Brooklyn Bridge
333 Adams Street
Brooklyn, New York 11201
United States

Contact: Daniel Trujillo (trujillo.daniel@tchden.org)

>>>Title of Conference is typically modest of these professionals, modeled after the parent organization, AFCC:

STANDING AT THE FOREFRONT: EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY IN TODAY’S WORLD

This was the “32nd National Juvenile and Family Law Conference of the National Association of Counsel for Children”

These organizations (at least one who is an affiliate of NACC) sponsored:

Co-SpoNSorS

Barry University School of Law
Ciccolella Family Law, P.C.
Colorado Office of the Child’s Representative
Georgia Association of Counsel for Children (NONprofit group started 8/26/2003, admin. dissolved involuntarily 5/2008 for ‘failure to file,” paid up and reinstated about a year later (4/2009) and now is back and running, though a little late on their 2011 filing also, it says)….would be nice to find an EIN# but the search site re-routes users to a licensure site instead. Hmm.
Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Practice
Legal Aid Society, New York City
NACC Megan Louise Furth Youth Empowerment Fund
Northern California Association of Counsel for Children

(this Co-sponsor of NACC conference 2009, and NACC affiliate, is actually run out of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), i.e., from the California Judicial Counsel. Site shows:

CALIFORNIA *Northern California Association of Counsel for Children (NCACC)

Christopher Wu Phone: 415/865-7721 AOC/ Center for Children, Families and the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

Christopher.Wu@jud.ca.gov (this links shows you the OTHER members on that blue-ribbon commission)

Mr. Christopher Wu

Executive Director
California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care

Mr. Wu is ALSO “Supervising Attorney” for the CFCC (which to my understanding helps distribute the access/visitation funding that comes to the Judicial Council). Is this a conflict of interest?

(This CFCC itself is part of a larger partnership — see bottom of page**)

One member (notice affiliations) incl.

CA
Staff Counsel, California Dept. of Social Services, 1975-1977
Deputy Attorney General, State of California, Health, Education, and Welfare Div. 1977-1988

Training Director, Advokids, 2005-present

These “cooperated”:

ABA Center on Children and the Law
ABA Section of Litigation, Children’s Rights Litigation Committee
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
Connecticut Commission on Child Protection
First Star
National Center for State Courts

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association
National Institute for Trial Advocacy
Judicial Council of California Center for Families, Children, and the Courts

California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership (Mr. Wu of CFCC and of the Northern California Association of Counsel for Children, which is an affiliate of NACC, and of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care (and who knows what else, probably ALL run out of the same address) also is linked to here:

(SPEAKING OF ‘INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES” — WHICH MY “FOR FURTHER INFO” BLOG ALSO DOES — ):

The California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership . .

is a collaborative group of state agencies, foundations and other nonprofit organizations whose purpose is improving the lives of children and families who are in or are at risk of entering the state’s child welfare system. Founded in 2006. . . .

“Our public-private
partnership includes
eight partners that
collectively invest
more than $2 billion
in the state’s child
welfare system.”

SOUNDS LIKE IT’S A PAY-TO-PLAY OPERATION…..

Partner organizations and representatives include:

Administrative Office of the Courts
Chris Wu, Supervising Attorney, Center for Families, Children and the Courts

California Department of Social Services
Gregory E. Rose, Deputy Director, Children and Family Services Division

County Welfare Directors Association of California
Frank Mecca, Executive Director

Philanthropy:

Annie E. Casey Foundation
Elisha Gilliam, Site Leader, Pacific Region

Casey Family Programs
Miryam Choca, Director of California State Strategies

Stuart Foundation
Teri Kook, Director of Child Welfare

Walter S. Johnson Foundation
Amy Freeman, Interim Program Officer

Zellerbach Family Foundation
Ellen Walker, Program Executive

[top]

Advisory CommitteeThe Partnership’s Advisory Committee is made up of nearly 40 diverse organizations that inform and advise the Partnership about its work and priorities.

sometimes I wonder where they are getting all these abused children FROM — and if the money were put into supporting the parents, PERIOD, there wouldn’t be such a need for CPS, welfare, and foster care to start with. in other words, MOST parents, just ordinary people, are paying these organizations to craft policies that drive their lives, and MOST ordinary wage-earners are NOT forming nonprofits to avoid paying excess taxes — because they can’t, or don’t know how to.

This is how wealth is centralized, and this is who is driving our government. I suppose I should give the run-of-the-mill crooks a break, after all, they are just following the examples of the wealthy philanthropic elites of the country, which they hope to (obviously) join the ranks of — or possibly have, by now. (by comparison AFCC is starting to look like Kid Stuff, not that I forgive them their agenda (I’m female….) . . . .

All they want to do get their piece of the coming utopia, which will likely eliminate the “useless eaters” once their purposes have been served.

Do NOT kid yourself this agenda has changed, whether or not the rank-and-file have picked up on it yet. Another use of the term occurs HERE: The question is, what are you going to do about it?

The Drug Story By Morris A. Bealle

“To teach the Rockefeller drug ideology, it is necessary to teach that Nature didn’t know what she was doing when she made the human body. But statistics issued by the Children’s Bureau of the Federal Security Agency show that since the all-out drive of the Drug Trust for drugging, vaccinating and serumizing the human system, the health of the American nation has sharply declined, especially among children. Children are now given ‘shots’ for this and ‘shots’ for that, when the only safeguard known to science is a pure bloodstream, which can be obtained only with clean air and wholesome food. Meaning by natural and inexpensive means. Just what the Drug Trust most objects to.“

This book was written in the late 1940s and is valuable reading in these perilous times. Read about this important book at http://educate-yourself.org/drugstory.html.

I take the drugging issue up a little more in the blog mentioned at the top. When a woman protecting her child from home invasion is handled with swat team and HELIcopters, over the issue of adverse responses to vaccinations + refusal to continue “Risperdal” after its dangers to her child became obvious (and an M.D. apparently verified), then we are simply in the situation of sitting ducks.

“UNFREEZE – CHANGE — REFREEZE” has already happened. now, we need to apply the same theory and change things — not back — but to a different setup than this ‘partners in change” that see abused children deserving of foster care where they do NOT exist, and fail to see them where they DO exist. Perhaps if they weren’t spending half their time preparing for conferences, presenting at them, poring over each other’s research (and billing hotel costs to their local counties), this information might have surfaced earlier. Who knows….

ANYHOW, apparently Ms. Termini DID show up (per brochure) in 2009, Brooklyn — with cohorts a judge and a GAL — and you can search the name in the brochure.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 24, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Lackawanna County, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with Parenting Coordination

Does It Matter Who Baked the Pie, so Long as It’s Eaten? Well, That Depends on the Cook(s).

leave a comment »

What About that 66/34 effect?

Several times on this blog (and another forum or so), I have promoted the “AbuseFreedomLive” blogtalk Tuesday Night radio show, (and been on it once, called in sometimes) because there are simply so few people around actually that actually seem to understand the role played by the welfare/child support system’s incentives in the domestic relations / family law system.

And to understand this to get a pretty good measurement of where this country is overall. It’s a HUGE issue. It is also part of how the well-to-do and corporations exert control over the poor (and make sure there are plenty of poor around) to help regulate the middle class and employ (for now) a large sector of said middle class, including white AND blue-collar professionals, in regulating and administratively studying, tabulating (etc.) the huddled masses that either started in the US, were imported in the bottom of ships for free labor (see “corporations”), or fled bloodshed, famine incited by theocracy and religious prejudice, in other countries. And their descendants.

As the rich tend to understand money (and more forms of it, and more ways of accumulating it, and more ways to not pay income taxes, and more ways to write off taxes, and more tax shelters) than people raised, drilled, and limited to ONE form of (above-the-radar) income production called JOBS, which the rich are supposedly always creating more of, which is why Congressmen should continually give them more tax breaks. And let them pass adjustments to welfare requiring the poor to get and/or stay married (etc.).

MSM agrees with this on me. I didn’t hear it on Dr. Phil (because I don’t watch Dr. Phil), however, for once I agreed with Michael Moore (on Tavis Smiley, recently) a show with about a dozen guests that I caught a fragment of. Mr. Moore pointed out that, f the wealthy wished to get rid of poverty, they could — however it’s handy to have the poor around to keep the middle class in line (and vice versa — my opinion). So no, this is not too esoteric a subject. It cuts to the heart of “whose kids ARE they?” and for that matter, “Whose am I? Do I belong to myself?” Most people would say yes — or wish to say it, which then puts them in conflict with others who have.

So when I am talking about federal incentives, meaning what the IRS distributes, to something as basic as the States and what they do with it to handle the poor (which allegedly is what welfare and child support are THERE for), I am cutting to the heart of the American experience, and to any matter dealing with child custody, visitation — including visiting by parents when the state has the child, or visiting with parents when parents don’t cohabit, and so forth.

This 66/34 matter has so many influences on our culture, it qualifies as PRIMAL .

And we know which sectors of society baked up: once married always married, joint custody recommendations, and the pro-marriage/anti-feminazi movement– and how. Well, at least I do and if not totally, at least the picture is fairly clear, and these are father-friendly organizations, so-called. The “few prominent thinkers” and “Close to Washington D.C.” and Think Tankers. The Heritage Foundationers, Family Research Council-ers, Focus on the Families-ers, and so forth, plus the parallel on the progressive side (there IS a parallel to the fatherhood movement in the non-faith-based sector). AFCC/CRC etc.

These are the “Expensive Remedy In Search of a Legitimate Problem” that certain mothers (primarily) groups have been protesting for years, and protested again in front of the ways and means/ appropriations subcommittee in June 2010 (Liz Richards article, re-blogged recently here).

Typically fathers protest VAWA and Some mothers protest Fatherhood Funding/Access-Visitation/Marriage (etc. promotion). You do not have, typically, fathers groups PROtesting the fatherhood funding — which sometimes comes with pro bono help to increase noncustodial (father) parenting time. More typically, while vigorously protesting bias against men in the family courts –and doing something about it — these are standing in line to form groups to get more grants to preach this gospel. Or just evangelize in general, when it comes to “faith-based” only through marriage counseling and relationship classes. etc.
Activist Fathers’ groups also lobby alongside conservative groups (married women and second wives as well) against anything removing children from their home, or forcing them to, in their eyes, pay exorbitantly to support the mothers of their departed (or in some cases abandoned) exes. That’s the general breakdown.
Although some of us (I’m never quite sure where my “us” begins and ends, but I have a flexible concept of the juicy center of it) wish to inform some of the fathers’ groups who’ve been extorted (for real, not for “if I can’t see my kids I sure as heck am not going to support them” group) that there is a middle ground here, and we have more in common in wishing to eject program fraud from ALL sectors, and in fact to reduce, curtail if not STOP TANF diversions to Designer Family Building programs.
In other words, not every father is a Jeffrey Leving, a Glenn Sacks, or a Warren Farrell (or, for that matter, a Richard Warshak, although I don’t know if he’s a Dad). Some Dads are simply living their lives, or trying to, and are not out for blood & guts fame in reforming government.

I’ve blogged plenty on the welfare/child support system’s incentives in the domestic relations / family law system, and on the Federal/State % incentives built into it. I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed’s ex), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups.*

(*I’ll repeat the italicized part several paragraphs later to connect this point below to my concerns, below):

This post addresses a concern — or question — I have about the direction of the 66/34 Effect show, and particularly one section of it seen in today’s news alert. I think it’s relevant, because it’s showing up as new light on a difficult situation; high-profile speakers from various industries (not only court-related, although that’s the focus) are producing a lot of information and food for thought. And in an information age — no information is neutral, it all has values attached. And above all, it should be honest. No one is 100% accurate (and I try to correct my factual mis-speaks when I see them or it’s brought to my attention. Not typos, but where I got my facts wrong, due to error in recall, or error in attribution — but never is it intentional.

I don’t state the issue until near the bottom of the post; scroll if need be, or read the post for context, reasoning, explanation. Then again the troublesome part is at the very, very bottom of the email alert, and probably most people missed it. But it seems to be a clue.

And while here, I’ll drive home this two-thirds/one-third (66/34) matter, which I think bears teaching, re-teaching, and explaining the import of, weekly (at least) until people get it: Stop Federal Incentive Welfare-related Diversionary Programs (in order to stop widespread waste & fraud) and Face It — this is Fascism in the Making, if not just about ready to come out of the oven!

(“Fascism” meaning, the combining and centralization of government by degrees — hey, Obama wants to merge agencies, but ALL agencies are already to encourage fatherhood promotion (Clinton, 1995), pay for more noncustodial FATHER involvement in the families (Welfare reform 1996, see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative for how to jumpstart a statewide program) and Faith-based Inclusionary Activities (see Bush, 2001 January). Don’t ever forget, Hitler considered himself a Christian, too. So did pastors on BOTH sides of the Rwandan massacre (see “Left to Tell” or the book on which “Hotel Rwanda” was based). Christian groups from United States –including some on the marriage movement take — had to quick, dissociate themselves with a “kill-the-gays” law in Uganda, but I assure us (and it’s seen) that some of these US evangelical groups love to test their material on sub-Saharan Africa, or other places too distressed to properly resist. . . .I distinguish “fathers” from “fatherhood” the way I distinguish “religion” from spirituality, which is a lot closer to ethics and what’s in the center of a person.)

This phrase (and its position, likely not to be noticed, on the very bottom of the email alert) really concerns me:

The 66/34 Effect Show with Athena Phoenix was sponsored this week by a responsible father who wishes to assist us in carrying out or mission to improve the way the family courts do business.

He asks that you please consider signing this petition to tell Congress and the President to stop wasting money on HHS programs that lack oversight and harm families and children caught in the family courts:

Which then shows the link to a “Change.org” petition posted by a noncustodial MOTHER who is now paying her ex child support; this petition (I also have the link on blogroll, or did for quite a while) was originally assembled by Athena Phoenix (prior to that username which is associated with the blogtalk radio show) anyhow — who is also female, not male and not a father.

http://www.change.org/petitions/cut-tanf-title-iv-d-programs-which-represent-4billion-of-waste

This is an excellent petition, and speaks in detail of some of the areas of consistent program mismangement and waste. I feel it is very well written. However, it’s not whichever responsible father hosted the show’s petition — it was written by a very smart woman who’s become famliar with this material through research.

It goes, in part, like this (no link to the budget is provided, but people can look the data up) (in pink font):

Why This Is Important

This letter is to request that you take action to cut spending on pork barrel spending on certain TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4 billion untraceable dollars that no one keeps track of. These funds meant for needy children were diverted and wasted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to non needs based programs available to all fathers engaged in the family court litigation industry—no matter how wealthy they are. These parents now ask Congress to take a stand to hold ACF’s defective leadership and the programs destroying families accountable by demanding the following budget cuts:

1. TANF Contingency Fund authorized under 403(b) Social Security Act for payment to States and other non-federal entities under Titles I, IV-D, X, XI, and XIV “to remain available until expended.” (p. 474)

2. ID Code 75-1552-0-1-609, lines 0005 and 0009 [$990 million] (p. 473)

3. ID Code 75-1501-0-1-609 lines 0002, 0003 [Access and Visitation] [$1.7 billion] (p. 474)

4. Discretionary “Child Support Incentives” to States [$305 million] (p. 475)

5. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Healthy Families” [$1.7 billion] (p.476)

6. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Abstinence Education” [$1.7 billion] (p. 477)

7. Line 0129 “Faith Based Initiatives” [$1 million] (p.479)

Struggling parents want things like jobs, housing, education, childcare, and access to medical care to help them weather the current economic crisis. Instead, these hard working families are forced to invest $4 Billion in irresponsible, extortion based, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) programs that promote widespread Medicaid and child support fraud, protracted high conflict litigation, and bogus therapy programs.

Child support agencies deliberately withhold and mismanage billions of paid collected support, which starves children onto TANF and causes parents to be falsely prosecuted for nonpayment.

Good parents are being exploited, bankrupted, and emotionally destroyed while their kids are needlessly placed on the welfare, Medicaid, and foster care system rolls. Billions of dollars of child support remains unaccounted for nationwide.

This petition was posted by Liora Farkowitz on Change.org, who also presented at the last BMCC conference (July 2012):

See “Cut TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4Billion of waste.” While Ms. Farkowitz may be very responsible, it’s evident she’s not a father. Was this just a mistaken link?

The wording indicates that a responsible father asks people to sign “this” (not “his”) petition. Yet no mention is made of the responsible mother who posted it or its actual author, who also is female. The programs they re protesting specifically are stated to target and help noncustodial fathers increase custody share (whether or not this actually takes place); is it more true and more credible in the eyes of men if a man points to it? Well, probably — but is that the important message?

Is anyone on the program tonight (which includes a number of nonprofits in the juvenile corrections and preventing human trafficking practices, with an emphasis on Georgia) receiving possible program funding from HHS?

Possibly: And in fact two posts (from the last two days of blogging) I’ve been drafting in regards to the organization ALEC, showed me how that even in this matter of very legitimate problems related to racist lockup policies (harsher sentencing for males of color) and the attendant (multiple) nonprofit juvenile justice foundations focusing on DIVERSIONARY programs — has some overlap, but a lot of conflict — when the same principles affect custody courts — which they do. And they affect custody courts the MOST when it comes to matters of attempted separation from abusive parents, including some parents in lockup rightfully, from violence.

For example (see program flyer for tonight, if you’ve received on, or if my last link was accurate):

LOCKING UP KIDS WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIME COULD COST GEORGIA MILLIONS IN FEDERAL FUNDS, By Jim Walls, JJIE Journal, 1/12/2012

Original content found here.

Every week, Georgia locks up juveniles who’ve committed no crime. A new study contends Georgia risks losing millions of dollars in federal funding if it continues doing so at the current rate.

They are runaways, truants, curfew violators, underage smokers and drinkers. They’re called status offenders because their actions are only an issue due to their status as juveniles; if an adult did the same thing, it wouldn’t be a crime.

Now, a report commissioned by the Governor’s Office for Children and Families warns that the practice could cost the state about $2 million a year in federal funding, particularly if Congress follows through with plans to tighten guidelines for placing status offenders in secure detention.

Let’s look at the HHS grants to this office: I see two streams, one which has no DUNS#. Although I suspect that the funding they are referring to is more likely to be DOJ funding, let’s see what the same office is getting, here:

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	DECATUR	GA	30032	DE KALB	000000000	$ 4,045,342
GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	DECATUR	GA	30032	DE KALB	828115951	$ 3,946,786

If you click on both those, you’ll see grants that (I’ll wager — and see if I can check quickly here) sound like “AE” Abstinence Education and FR (Fathers Rights), one from a FYSB (Youth bureau) and the other from CB (Children’s Bureau):

Program Office	Grantee Name	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0802GAFRPG	2008 FRP	1	05/21/2009	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 862,805
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0902GAFRPG	2009 FRSS	1	09/17/2009	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,091,492
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1002GAFRPG	2010 CBCAP	1	09/09/2010	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,073,087
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1102GAFRPG	2011 CBCAP	1	09/02/2011	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,017,958
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0902GAAEGP	2009 AEGP	1	05/21/2009	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,100,934
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0902GAAEGP	2009 AEGP	1	07/30/2010	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$- 824,398
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1002GAAEGP	2010 AEGP	1	09/27/2010	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,810,331
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1102GAAEGP	2011 AEGP	1	09/01/2011	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,859,919

Results 1 to 8 of 8 matches.

Going to USASpending.gov with the one DUNS# we have here, it seems that this DUNS# could refer to either the above office, the office of “Children and Youth” (see “Abstinence Education”) or simply the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget. The DOJ/OJJP projects show up there (some, close to $2 million) under delinquency prevention. ALSO clear is that this DUNS dates to 2009 and no earlier (on this database anyhow). For example (that’s just one award):

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States

$1,897,000

Or, a slice of these grants (26 in all, total receipts $23 million, with largest sector in 2009 — which tells me, “ARRA” or “recovery.gov”

Transaction Number # 24

Federal Award ID: 2010JFFX0026: 00 (Grants)

Recipient:	GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGET 270 Washington St. S.W. Room 8095 Room 8095, Altanta, GEORGIA
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:	15-0405:Juvenile Justice Programs
Agency:	Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program :	16.540 : Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States
Description:	FY 2010 Formula Grant Porject-GA

Date Signed:
July 13 , 2010

Obligation Amount:
$1,897,000

While the AbuseFreedomLive 66/34 Effect host show claims (clearly) it may not share all the viewpoints of the guests, the host also selects the guests. I take it with a grain of salt — the HHS also disclaims some of the viewpoints of groups it links to on its site, but it still links to them!

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Home Page

Notice the paragraph at the bottom, following all the various ways readers can get to fatherhood promotion pages: This is just for reference, if you don’t like it, caveat emptor – don’t blame us!


Responsible Fatherhood Grants The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 provides funding of $150 million in each of five years for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood. Each year, $75 million may be used for activities promoting fatherhood, such as counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting, and activities to foster economic stability.		Healthy Marriage Healthy marriage services help couples, who have chosen marriage for themselves, gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage.

Effective Parenting Involved fathers provide practical support in raising children and serve as models for their development. Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior compared to children who have uninvolved fathers. Committed and responsible fathering during infancy and early childhood contributes emotional security, curiosity, and math and verbal skills.		Economic Stability Resources for helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities, such as Work First services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, and job enhancement; and encouraging education, including career-advancing education.

Access, Visitation, Paternity, & Child Support About half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father. The laws that cover these relationships are the responsibility of the state (Family Law), but the Federal Government does provide states with funding to assist in the development of programs that help establish paternity, collect child support, and provide non-residential parents with access to their children.		Incarceration The Department of Justice has estimated that over 7.3 million children under age 18 have a parent who is in prison, jail, on probation, or on parole. Given these numbers, it is important to understand how children and their caregivers are affected by the criminal activity of a parent and their subsequent arrest, incarceration, and release. Additionally, it is important to know which services and assistance might be available to those under criminal justice supervision to help them be better parents and to return successfully to the community.

Research, Evaluation, & Data Good research and program evaluations assess program performance, measure outcomes for families and communities, and document successes. Information on previous and current research and evaluation efforts can help programs and researchers to direct limited resources to where they are most needed, and most effective, in assessing results.		Program Development The principal implication for fathering programs is that these programs should involve a wide range of interventions, reflecting the multiple domains of responsible fathering, the varied residential and marital circumstances of fathers, and the array of personal, relational, and environmental factors that influence men as fathers.

Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation ASPE is the principal advisor to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on policy development, and is responsible for major activities in policy coordination, legislation development, strategic planning, policy research, evaluation, and economic analysis. Pertinent Fatherhood topics found there include: Child Welfare, Employment, Family and Marriage Issues, andViolence.		Other Research Resources Federal information relating to fatherhood research is spread throughout multiple departments and agencies. This area includes other websites that have federal sponsored research related to responsible fatherhood.

Disclaimer: This website contains links to fatherhood and related websites created and maintained by other public and private entities. This information is provided for the reader’s convenience. The Department of Health and Human Services does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. Further, these links do not intend or imply endorsement of any views expressed or products or services offered.

Nevertheless, this is a US Government Agency page, and its sustenance paid for by the public. The same standards also go for MONITORING the program funds and effectiveness after it’s distributed. The GAO, or the HHS/OAS/OIG gets in their sporadically, but basically once started, they’ll sample audit, they’ll report back, but there’s so little teeth — that this black hole of (for example — only one example) program fraud and “undistributable child support collections” is –unknown in extent. Don’t blame us — we’re only overseeing.

This “we’re only overseeing” rebuttal has also (call and ask) been used repeatedly to people investigating grant usage as individual citizens, i.e., particularly members of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice. I’ve seen some of the letters discussing how to deflect inquiry on the funds usage; they may show on a discussion group (yahoo) or you can contact the website owner for more info. The point is – NO ONE is really responsible, which is bad news for John and Jane Doe.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The “66/34” reference refers to the Federal/State relationship towards programs. This excerpt comes from a brief written (years ago) by an attorney (I think it’s the same one, at least) found receiving a diversionary child support award in California. The brief explains:

PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION SURVIVES SUPREME COURT’S BLESSING V. FREESTONE DECISION by Leora Gershenzon

The United States Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in Blessing v. Freestone1 that custodial parents may not sue in federal court to force a state to comply substantially with the general requirements of federal child support law found in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.2 Significantly, however, the Court refused to limit in any way the right of individuals to sue government officials who deprive them of statutory or constitutional rights while acting “under color of state law.” The right to bring such lawsuits, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is commonly referred to as a “private right of action.”

The plaintiffs in Blessing v. Freestone had filed a class action lawsuit against Arizona’s Department of Economic Security, the state’s child support agency, contending that it operated the child support program in violation of federal law

Statutory Framework

Under federal law, any state that receives federal funds to operate a Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program3 also must operate a child support enforcement program. To be in compliance with statutory requirements, states must locate noncustodial parents and their assets; establish paternity; and establish, modify, and enforce child support orders. These services must be provided to families receiving TANF benefits and, for a nominal fee, to all other families who choose to participate in the program.
The detailed statutory and regulatory scheme contained in Title IV-D sets strict time limits for performance of the specific duties imposed on the state child support agency. For example, states must open a case within 20 days of an application or a referral from the welfare office, use appropriate locate sources to search for a noncustodial parent within 75 days and repeat every three months, if necessary, and, within 90 days of locating a noncustodial parent, establish paternity and obtain a support order or attempt to or complete service of process on that parent.

The federal government pays over two-thirds of the costs of the program in every state, and up to 90% in some states. Due to welfare savings resulting from child support collection as well as to other factors, more than half the states experience a net gain from their child support collection programs

[{OTHERWISE EXPRESSED: THIS WORKS IN BARELY OVER HALF THE CASES, DESPITE FEDERAL SUPPORT APPROACHING 2/3 OF THE COST. TRY AND RUN A PRIVATE BUSINESS LIKE THIS, AND YOU’D BETTER HAVE PLENTY OF CAPITAL FOR START-UP. WHICH OF COURSE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT, IT JUST EXERCISES ITS PRIVILEGES TO INCREASE FEDERAL DEBT LOAD, HENCE WE ARE NOW TALKING IN TRILLIONS, WHEREAS THE CHILD FAMILY SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM COSTS “ONLY” IN TERMS OF BILLIONS, AT LEAST THE PART THAT WE’RE COUNTING…}]
.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services is responsible for reviewing and evaluating state child support programs to ensure compliance with federal law and regulations. In general, a state will be found to be in substantial compliance if it provides necessary and timely services to 75% of the families (90% in some instances) who seek child support assistance. If a state is found to be out of compliance, the Secretary can impose a penalty of up to 5% of the state’s TANF block grant. However, a state can avoid the penalty by submitting a Corrective Action Plan, and only a couple of states have ever been penalized.

The Arizona Litigation

By any objective standard, Arizona’s child support program has been failing children and parents. Between 1985 and 1991, the state failed every federal child support audit. With each failure, the agency submitted a Corrective Action Plan and the Secretary waived any penalties

Child Support itself if a highly contentious issue, with some damaging afterglow when pursued, or modified:

Sometimes they kill, sometimes they just abduct, sometimes they engage in prolonged custody litigation, and sometimes (far too much and far too often), the money is collected, held (collecting interest for the agency — not the household the child support is for) and for each and every scenario, there is an option which profits court-connected professionals, including judges, and increasingly impoverishes families. Having thus collected sufficient funding (and being salaried, without judges causing THEM to lose their jobs with unfair or frivolously ridiculous rulings), these court-connected professionals have a system enabling them to fly around the country to various vacation locales to communicate with each other about how to do it better next time.

Some of these tax-write-off, public-funded (i.e., dues for the professional membership AND travel/hotel can be written off under one from or another of education, including continuing CLE education (providers and or participants, probably). For example, I read (and yes, it’s on the blog here) about a Task Force or commission in Indianapolis which was considering flying their membership out to an AFCC conference. The decided instead to simply approach AFCC about holding a nice conference IN Indianpolis next time, saving the air fare, and putting it into hosting. I believe this has already happened.

One of the most demonstrative states around in pushing parent education, fatherhood promotion, all kinds of diversionary programs around openly on the website, and I’ve repeatedly referenced it here, is the Kentucky Courts. On examination of SOME of their 11 divorce education programs (which is only part of the offerings), we can find one company based in Scranton, PA area (where the FBI is examining case-steering, overbilling, or whatever evidence they hauled off for Lackawanna County) marketing through Kentucky books written (many of them) in California, and some in Massachusetts, or recommended by a nice AFCC Massachusetts Judge.

California, where much of this baloney originated, IS truly the “Golden State” if you’re in control and in the right profession (or three) within government. Ask Mr. Gwinn, the Lockyers, the Thorns (Kids’ Turn), Dr. Carolyn Curtis (Sacramento Healthy Marriage, or whatever its current title), the Past, Present, and Future Boards of Director Judges of some of these Access Visitation Subgrantees (Kids Turn San Diego being one), ask almost anyone in the Los Angeles Court System, and ask those cycling between positions in the legislature, and CEO of domestic violence organizations. Ask the heads of Futures Without Violence, etc.

The system is FAIRLY straightforward in operation, though diverse in execution. Form a nonprofit. It’s not necessary to completely stay incorporated, file tax returns with the IRS OR the State annually, as required by law. To fire up the ignition a little further, call yourself Faith-Based, and connect up with the NARME or other chameleon organization to study how to Take the Money and Run. For an example, see Ohio Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Initiatives, which is still around, and see how the original staff did it, and got some CYA report from Baylor University Texas, from a person who just also happens to be a member of the nationwide “CJJDP.”

For an example of how to double-bill and wipe your mouth saying, “I see NOthing,” even after you’re caught at it, this has been going on so long, we can now reference old-school and new-school versions of this, most of which involves switching a child from a known decent parent to the other one, often abusive, thereby causing the decent one to fight for custody, rather than simply abandon the child. I’m naturally thinking of situations of over-billing and program fraud such as is reported in:

Visitation Fraud Reported in Amador County(Complaint filed 9/7/99)

The following is a copy of a complaint filed to the Judicial Council of California regarding federal funding fraud by Amador County Superior Court. It exemplifies how federal “family” programs are mis-used to protect incest offenders/batterers in the family law courts. Liz Richards, of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice has contacted you regarding these abuses in the courts. These family programs, and those who abuse them, need to be fully investigated by competent persons who have no vested interest in protecting any involved in the abuses. . . .

(the Karen Anderson case) . . .

Through an initial contact with Senator Jackie Speier’s office, I was directed to Lee Mohar (sp?). During my conversation with Mr. Mohar, I explained to the best of my ability my concerns about how the public funds of the state Family Law Facilitator Program (hereinafter “Facilitator”) and the Federal Access to Visitation Program (hereinafter “A/V”) were directly involved in my private family law matter before Amador County Superior Court (“Court”). At Mr. Mohar’s request, you contacted me about this issue to more fully understand my concerns.

During my conversation with you, I explained the following: The Program Director for the federal Access to Visitation grant, Helen O. Page, represents my ex-husband in my private family law matter 98 FL 0084, and continued to do so through all of the dates inclusive, in which the Court was accessing A/V funds through this program. I have obtained records from the county auditor, as well as from the Court, in the form of payment vouchers, the grant application, and the grant contract. These documents declare that that the intent of the A/V program is to “encourage contact between children and both parents,” to “facilitate contact between non-custodial supervised parents and children” with a criteria for a “step-down” in supervised visitation.

{She then goes on to relate how custody was reversed to her, and she was put on Supervised Visitation based on “PAS”, the collusion of a minors’ counsel with a supervised visitation business owner, and how she was forced to pay cash for it! To see her kids!}}:

During the term of the A/V contract, the program director, Helen O. Page, under the authority of the Court, violated the entire intent of the program and specific terms of said contract for the gain of her private client, who is my ex-husband. Payment vouchers to herself and to other participants who are/have been involved in the private litigation of case 94 FL 0084, namely Larry Leatham, Marsha Nohl, and Nohl’s supervised visitation program A.F.T.E.R., prove that while mandated to comply with the terms of the A/V contract, all the forenamed have collectively engaged in accessing these public funds under a conflict of interest, thus violating the terms of the contract.

Here’s a few more of the players and the interrelationships – notice, some were made grant sub-contractors. All of this comes under “Access/Visitation” grant programs — which are only a fraction of the other diversionary programs coursing through the system, and diverting parents from their primary purposes in life, which is to raise children, provide an inheritance of possible for them, and to be able to focus their lives on their kids — not on self-defense from abusive systems and program fraud by people working (some, as public employees aka “civil servants”) IN those system. Remembering this is from 1999 — 12+ years ago!

The court orders which have obstructed my liberty interest in parenting my children and left my children at risk of continued molestation, along with the continual harassing litigation perpetrated by Page for her private client, cause the case to be categorized as “highly contested” for which Page/Court is able to access the A/V funds according to the grant application. While Page fights through private litigation for her client, my ex-husband, to keep me on supervised visitation, this also causes the case to fall into the category that provides the necessity for the A/V funds according to the grant application, which in turn personally benefits her financially through payments she receives from the grant. In order to maintain the case in the category that provided access to the A/V grant money, Page used Marsha Nohl (who Page made into a grant sub-contractor) and Larry Dixon (state funded minor’s counsel), as allies in support of the original grossly negligent evaluation and testimony of Leatham (who Page also has made a grant sub-contractor). I have been maintained on supervised visitation and the case itself is maintained as highly litigated, through acts of perjury, misconduct, intentional misrepresentation, willful obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, by Page, Nohl and Dixon

It’s known — and has been known for years, but not blogged enough for “the common women” (fathers’ groups tend to be told this) that the funding can come from BOTH the parent (in cash, as per Karen Anderson, and now parents in Lackawanna County, PA have been protesting the same issue, as I recall, with both supervised visitation, and/or parenting coordinator). They had to pay cash for services. To a decent parent, not seeing one’s offspring after removal from the home is NOT an option, so they paid AND the federal government funding stream, which is OCSE diversion.

And I showed readers recently that for FY2012, the HHS requested that — in light of how important continuing to promote “fatherhood” (whatever this is), they want mandatory access visitation orders for EVERY child support order, which then moves custody and visitation matters further out from a judge’s decision based on facts (allegedly, or at least potentially) to an administrative boilerplate (generally speaking) managed by a court-connected program manger or designated professional.

This is called Double-Billing. “Don’t Ask. Just Do it for your Kids.”

In years since, others have continued to research the same topic upwards and downwards, namely, taking it to the source: The funds come from the HHS (grantees recorded in TAGGS database, and some other places), and child support TANF diversions. At around the same time (post-1996, late 1990s, early 2000s) California along with other states was under a federal “centralize into a Statewide Distribution Unit (“SDU”) system for child support distribution — or give up your welfare assistance. Of course, if you don’t need food stamps, cash aid, (Medicaid?) and other help from Big Brother, then don’t. YOU put up 34$, we’ll put up 66% (not mentioned: this 66% comes from funds previously collected through taxes etc. from the public, or interst/investment gains on it).

So yes, it does matter who baked THAT cake, because it’s got a little “leavening” in it which makes it a high-rise profit system for those in the system, and a debt production machine for stressed-out parents who eat from it. How many people know going IN to the courts that any child support order, and EVERy child support order, and I’ll hazard a guess, in EVERY State and US territory, has as 66/34 effect called INCENTIVE. In fact one of the hard lessons I learned (obviously) was to find out WHO is speaking to you whenever help or relief from injustice or danger is offered, in response to one’s cries for help, or without even those cries.

Who Bakes the Domestic Violence Group Cakes? The same supplier — it may not be the 66/34 effect as to DV programs, but we’ve seen they are heavy into HHS funding (not just DOJ) and collaborating with fatherhood-oriented groups when protective mothers aren’t watching, while teaching them distracting information lest they DO watch. See Loretta Frederick, who I’ll bet did NOT highlight her connection with AFCC (or teach women who AFCC was) at the last BMCC (“Battered Mother’s Custody Conference”). In 2011, access visitation was mentioned from the podium by someone WITHOUT some product to market (after the conference was — like it appears to have been this year, too — well over an hour behind schedule on the last segment of the conference) but as soon as the speaker went to the podium, a lunch break was called. Un believably, I saw the same thing happen again this year — a break was called, and a woman’s voice at the mike (Ricky Fowler, search my blog) was surrounded by noise of coming and going, but when someone protesting what she said spoke up, another grabbed the mike and told everyone to quiet down and listen, because “this is important.” (like the previous comment wasn’t?) and tried to counter it.

So, your Domestic Violence Advocacy and Protective Mothers Advocacy groups have, as it were, pre-baked cake mixes from pretty much the same source. They have — amazingly coincidental — the same blind spots; which a little experience has shown is not blindness – it’s a “no-fly-zone.”

My Para. from above:

I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed, ex-wife of D.C. Sniper, “Scared Silent” ca. 2002/John Muhammad, a Devoted Dad?
Connecting the Sniper case to family court corruption and federal fatherhood program fraud. (Part 1)
by Cindy Ross © October 28, 2002), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups, plus trials that follow).

It is VITALLY important, in other words, that more people understand and protest the continued funding of a system of “evolving purposes” all labeled’ family” which are resulting in habitually increasing scenarios involving roadkill. This scenario claims that the family is the basic unit of society, anything that threatens “family” is itself (by definition) a threat to society, and women’s right to live alone versus live with constant domestic terrorism based on the fact that they’re female, or vulnerable and happen to get paid less per $$ then men overall — and are not represented even halfway proportionately in our primarily white male Congress & Senate. Sorry to put it that way, but one hellish marriage, and an equally long hell in the court system simply leads me rationally to acts of Congress designed to promote fatherhood. I didn’t promote or pass these at the time, and am simply reporting their existence, and in part, their costs. Plural.

This is the rationale which (if it’s bought & believed, or tolerated) which priorities “family” over Bill of Rights in EVERY case where there is a custody dispute. That philosophy then enables passage of programs in which we find fraud, and incentives — which have zero (NO) place in promoting justice. If courtrooms are not neutral — meaning, they are bribe-free — and they are “OUT-COME based” versus PROCESS-based” — they are kangaroo courtrooms. So we need to report honestly — Let’s get Honest — about this facet in particular. At the annual price tag of approximately $4 billions, and for the Jessica Gonzales’ the Dawn Axsoms, the Catalina Torres’, and the Officers shot in the line of duty during domestic dispute hostage situations, let’s defuse the need for the Federally Sponsored (with corporate help) “Special Interest Resource Centers” Publish, Design a Logo, Link to GroupThink, or We Perish industry.

It’s important. Look at the site (probably not most current, for general idea only):

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

[HHS/ACF — and ACF is one of the largest OpDivs [Operational Divisions] of HHS)

PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY 2012

BUDGET PAGE APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 269

AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION …………………………………………………………………………………………. 270

APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY TABLE ………………………………………………………………………………… 271

AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION ………………………………………………………………………… 273

OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 274

SUMMARY OF CHANGES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 275

JUSTIFICATION:

GENERAL STATEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 276

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ……………………………………………………… 276

BUDGET REQUEST……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 278

OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES TABLE ……………………………………………………………………………… 280

RESOURCE AND PROGRAM DATA ………………………………………………………………………………… 282

STATE TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 287

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here are selected states (fairly whimsical, but I tried to honor Republican Primary Candidates, and Kansas gets a mention because it so recently re-organized the SRS department (which gets the OCSE funding) and is recommending women marry their way out of poverty, too bad for domestic violence (see Topkea) and as advised behind closed doors by some ultra-conservative experts, i.e., Wade Horn, etc. Marriage & Fatherhood promotion are diversionary programs enabled under welfare law, and typically recruiting or program enrollment often happens at the child support level). Look at some of the program titles and which branch of government gets the funding (or most of it), which varies by state:

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS	KS	11IAKS4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 535,121
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES	KS	0904KS4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 698,875
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES	KS	1104KS4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 27,012,837
Kansas Dept of Social and Rehabilitation Services	KS	90FD0145	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MONICA REMILLARD	$ 15,469
PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI INDIANS	KS	11IBKS4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 250,000

IOWA, TEXAS, UTAH

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	0904IA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,535,162
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	1104IA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 18,224,176
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	90FD0183	MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS	1	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JOE FINNEGAN	$ 95,214
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services	IA	90FD0144	LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	HAROLD B COLEMAN	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	0904TX4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 1,735,514
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	1104TX4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 193,122,346
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	UT	0904UT4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 446,019
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	UT	1104UT4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 22,067,247

Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA:

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	0904IA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,535,162
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	1104IA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 18,224,176
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	90FD0183	MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS	1	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JOE FINNEGAN	$ 95,214
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services	IA	90FD0144	LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	HAROLD B COLEMAN	$ 50,000
LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	11ICMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 143,405
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	07IDMN4004	2007 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 14,098
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	11IDMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 217,386
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	0904MN4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 490,616
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	1104MN4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 101,786,892
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0127	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	PATRICK W KRAUTH	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0127	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	PATRICK W KRAUTH	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0140	OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JILL C ROBERTS	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0140	OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JILL C ROBERTS	$ 69,684
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0147	OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	KAREN L SCHIRLE	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0147	OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	KAREN L SCHIRLE	$ 50,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR **	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED		$ 198,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	0904OH4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,961,680
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	1104OH4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 111,207,241
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	90FD0142	OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	ATHENA RILEY	$ 50,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	90FD0174	OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, COMMISSION ON FATHERHOOD, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL EDU	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	ATHENA RILEY	$ 75,000
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE	PA	0904PA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 4,560,291
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE	PA	1104PA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 150,800,949
RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS	MN	11IAMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 403,801
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL	MN	11BIMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 307,298
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL	MN	11IBMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 230,371

Results 1 to 25 of 25 matches.

**This “demonstrates” that at least browsing where money from the Dept. of HHS/OCSE is going from time to time, can be illuminating. When one sees an unexplained acronym, it may be worth a closer look. I figured “HMHR” had something to do with “Healthy Marriage” and was right. Here’s the rest of the Ohio “HMHR” grants (spent for What? Ohioans should look up) and found $198K per year for several years. I also figured this is going on in more than one state, i.e., it’s some federal policy — and was right:

OHIO only (see grant award number has “OH” in it)

Fiscal Year	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2011	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2009	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2008	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2007	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2006	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$ 198,000

Results 1 to 5 of 5 matches.

$1.194 million so for — hope it’s a good program!

From the web:

Chapter 2: Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids …

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/eval…/grand_ch2.html

The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement … TheHMHR project proposes to reach at least 2500 people over 5 years with direct …*
More Specifically (and predictably):

Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids (HMHR) is a community-based initiative that delivers relationship skills-building services intended to encourage healthy relationships between parents, and between parents and their children, and to increase the financial well-being of children in a low-income urban area of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement Demonstration Section 1115 waiver in October 2003. The Federal funding required a non-Federal match, and HMHR received a private grant from the Grand Rapids Community Foundation in November 2003. Community needs assessment, recruitment, and relationship building with partners and service delivery planning led to the delivery of relationship skills-building services starting in June 2004.

(Grand Rapids is something of a faith-based community to start with, Dutch Reformed, I seem to recall. But this could be done anywhere).

2.1 Project Goals

The HMHR project proposes to reach at least 2,500 people over 5 years with direct family-strengthening activities such as training in parenting and relationship skills. The initiative has established goals that are broad-based and comprehensive—they encompass improving couple relationships and the parenting skills of low-income parents in the community. Ultimately, HMHR aims to “enhance the financial and emotional well-being of children” (Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004a; Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004b). The specific goals of the initiative are to

increase the number of prepared healthy marriages among low-income couples in Kent county.
decrease the divorce rate among low-income couples in Kent county.
increase the active, healthy participation of noncustodial fathers in the lives of their children.
increase the responsible and effective coparenting skills of married and unmarried parentsto include improvement of the relationship between low-income adults parenting children.{{I.e., Marital Counseling = Child Support Enforcement (diversionary waiver…) philosophy — typical!!
facilitate, in Kent county, the measurable increase in agreement with the perspective that healthy marriages, healthy relationships between parents, and responsible parenting are criticalto the financial well-being of children.***SERIOUSly?? ????? Governor Gray Davis (abou 2002 or so) vetoed an attempt to endorse ~~Kids Turn~~ programs to help children navigate the rocky terrain of divorce on the basis that he (as Governor of California) didn’t feel — although the legislature (which probably had a better idea of how this system works) that it was the place of the California Judicial Council to measure mental health matters. Obviously persistent program promotion works.{{I.e., ~~brainwashing,~~ excuse me, attitude adjustment, typical favorable to religious views of independent mothers as dangerous more as wombs than full-status humans. “HERE: Take my classes, and afterwards sign this agreement (survey) saying you believe this stuff, so we can get our grant next year, too! Hungry? well, go to the childs upport office and seek a modification, or to get it enforcement; that’s not a service we offer (directly) here”}}

Taken together, achieving the above objectives are intended to support** the following Title IV-D child support enforcement goals:

Improve compliance with support obligations by noncustodial parents, when needed.

Increase paternity establishment for low-income children born to unwed mothers (HMGR, 2004a; HMGR, 2004b)

**the road to hell has always been paved with “good intentions.” It’s only in recent times? that merely expressing intent to “facilitate” attitude adjustment in order to reduce poverty (i.e., by increasing sales of relationship skills programs has been so well (federally) rewarded with so little justification. See “Smartmarriages.com” and acknowledge how very smart that corporation’s founder indeed was! (place of incorporation, Washington, D.C., which is where conferences are also held yearly, or were? from 2000-2010, as I recall).

About these SIP programs (from HHS) — This is another place for marriage/fatherhood programs to come in. For the novice, a marriage promotion program (as we’ve seen the HHS organizations doing this, not one of which is truly feminist) IS a FATHERHOOD program. the same is practically true of programs called “CHILD” any more.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/funding/child_support_past_projects.html
ACF-FUNDED HMI DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND GRANT ACTIVITIES:
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)

2003 SIP Grants (see above link for active links to these).
2005 SIP Grants
2006 SIP Grants

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) facilitates State and Tribal development of programs that locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity when necessary, and obtain and enforce child support orders..

Special Improvement Projects (SIPs)

{{isn’t that “special”?}}
SIP grants fund faith- and community-based organizations, as well as state, local, and tribal agencies, to improve child support outcomes such as paternity establishment and child support collections and improve the well-being of children.

These grants are authorized through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. During 2003-2006, the following projects received funding to provide child support and marriage education services to improve outcomes for children.

While it reads “to provide child support services” we can see the “roundabout” reasoning, meaning, Tour de Marriage Enhancement, and possibly — well, we hope — this will result in more child support payments.

Several States (award goes directly to states) got these awards, all are marked “budget year 1” all are “Demonstration” and none have a “principal investigator” listed. MOST of the funding is as “Administrative Supplement” and this has been going on since 2003 or 2004. Here’s a list omitting grantee institution so it’s alpha by state, “NEW” only, which is 27 awards out of 68 (a little less than half of them):

All of these are under straightforward CFDA 93563, “Child Support Enforcement” (although a separate category even exists for “research and demo). These relationship mongering skills are Special Project Waivers.

State	County	Award Number	Action Issue Date	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Sum of Actions
CO	DENVER	0604COHMHR	01/06/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 276,726
FL	LEON	0504FLHMHR	07/15/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
FL	LEON	0604FLHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
GA	FULTON	0504GAHMHR	05/27/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 192,000
GA	FULTON	0604GAHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 192,000
ID	ADA	0404IDHMHR	10/03/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 110,880
ID	ADA	0404IDHMHR	12/01/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 110,880
IL	SANGAMON	0504ILHMHR	11/29/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 273,003
IN	MARION	0804INHMHR	07/16/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
KY	FRANKLIN	0504KYHMHR	07/15/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
KY	FRANKLIN	0604KYHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0404LAHMHR	09/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0504LAHMHR	08/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0604LAHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
MA	MIDDLESEX	0504MAHMHR	11/29/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 324,939
MI	INGHAM	0404MIHMHR	10/03/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MI	INGHAM	0404MIHMHR	12/01/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0404MNHMHR	09/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0504MNHMHR	08/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0604MNHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0704MNHMHR	08/07/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
OH	FRANKLIN	0604OHHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
TX	TRAVIS	0604TXHMHR	10/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 499,092
WA	THURSTON	0604WAHMHR	03/15/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 200,000
WA	THURSTON	0605WAHMHR	04/20/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
WA	THURSTON	0704WAHMHR	08/08/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 200,000
WA	THURSTON	0705WAHMHR	08/07/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000

Results 1 to 27 of 27 matches

For comparison — in ONE year (nationwide) 772 OCSE grants (including, but not limited to these), totalling:

Total of 772 Award Actions for 171 Awards

Total Amount for all Award Actions:

$ 3,176,826,043

This doesn’t include important federal programs like abstinence education, either. . . . . .

Anyhow, click around TaGGS some, look at CFDA 93564 and find out just how much experimentation is really going on — plus get at least a few principal investigator’s names together to figure out what’s up. Here’s a segment (no years selected) showing just how active TENNESSEE & TEXAS are, not to mention showing that sometimes people write “TEXAS” or “TX” or “State of” when it comes to state name format and sometimes, unbelievably, the word “Mr.” is entered under the name category, as I found out as to California, “Principal Investigator” for a $29,000 grant to help connect Title IV-A (TANF) and Title IV-D (Child Support). I hope the person making all these clerical errors (?) isn’t earning much more than $29,000 of my money to do so. Who’s training the database submission personnel at HHS, anyhow? Howsabout some basic filing protocol, eh? For reference, see phone book.

http://www.certain.com/event/accounts/register123/judicialcouncil/cfcc/events/20080006/Descriptions_8.25.pdf

What this tells me is that these states are fairly busy in “Child Support Research and Demonstration” These are all CFDA 93564 (not 93563, and not 93597, which is Access/Visitation — which also promotes some of the same things.

California:

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	90FD0003	PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYST	3	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	PEGGY JENSEN	$- 73,983
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0083	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PRIORITY AREA 4	1	09/15/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LEORA GERSHENZON	$ 60,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	1	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DANIEL LOUIS	$ 150,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	2	09/19/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DANIEL LOUIS	$ 75,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	2	08/29/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	LESLIE CARMONA	$ 0
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	3	09/09/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	LESLIE CARMONA	$ 75,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	3	10/22/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHY HREPICH	$ 0
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0158	SERVE OUR IV-A/IV-D PROGRAM COLLABORATION	1	09/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR BILL OTTERBECK	$ 29,000

STATE OF TENNESSEE	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	1	06/23/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 82,853
State of Louisiana, Department of Social Services	90FD0125	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-2)	1	08/23/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ROBBIE ENDRIS	$ 59,983
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	1	07/20/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,112
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0077	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 60,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0102	TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	1	09/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LINDA CHAPPELL	$ 62,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	2	07/31/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 101,427
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	07/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 100,688
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	03/06/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	02/24/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	1	09/20/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 54,612
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 52,034
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	07/12/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	05/13/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	09/01/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 50,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	05/18/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 100,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	09/01/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 71,240
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	03/14/2011	OTHER	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	3	08/08/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 47,500
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	09/01/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	03/14/2011	OTHER	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	08/14/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	1	09/25/2010	OTHER	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 85,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	2	08/14/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 75,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0177	INTEGRATING WORKFORCE STRATEGIES WITH CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES IN TENNESSEE	1	09/24/2011	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 55,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0052	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III)	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	WILLIAM H ROGERS	$- 8,058
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0073	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-P.A. 2	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	MICHAEL HAYES	$- 6,976
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0078	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #5	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 80,040
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0085	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	1	08/29/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	WILL ROGERS	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	2	09/27/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PATRICIA CAFFERATA	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	2	01/08/2005	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KAREN HENSON	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	3	08/16/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KAREN HENSON	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0092	TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	1	09/09/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL D HAYES	$ 125,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	07/27/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,400
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	03/19/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	07/31/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,400
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	06/27/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	1	08/29/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	HAILEY KEMP	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	2	08/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TED WHITE	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	3	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TED WHITE	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	3	03/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	TED WHITE	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0134	OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER	1	09/29/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 703,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	1	08/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAMMI SIEMENS	$ 100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	09/07/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	01/13/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	3	09/25/2011	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	1	09/25/2010	OTHER	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 85,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	2	08/29/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	90FD0141	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MARILYN R SMITH	$ 99,348
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	90FD0141	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	09/19/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MARILYN R SMITH	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	1	09/01/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOHN BERNHART	$ 150,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	09/26/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOHN BERNHART	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	08/10/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	06/15/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	3	08/31/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOHN BERNHART	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	3	06/22/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
UT ST DIV

RE:

The 66/34 Effect Show with Athena Phoenix was sponsored this week by a responsible father who wishes to assist us in carrying out o[u]r mission to improve the way the family courts do business. He asks that you please consider signing this petition to tell Congress and the President to stop wasting money on HHS programs that lack oversight and harm families and children caught in the family courts:

The shows bring up consistently valuable speakers, and it’s true some segments have featured the effect of the TANF budget, and the 66/34 effect. The press-releases prior to show are jam-packed with links and information and shows in themselves.

My perspective and purpose differs somewhat, and I believe that given the urgency of the times, it is vERY necessary to locate people (particularly mothers) who are willing to blow the cover on the DV industry sellout AS MOTHERS in custody challenges, and FATHERS who are willing to blow the cover on how these program diversions are actually conceived with intent to divert profits to already profiting individuals in various institutions, and expand welfare until it blankets the United States with relationship education, whether or not this entails poor and needy families on the “take our program” side. I have a general idea of what kind of people are drawn to the “give me a grant, I’ll push your product” side — whether at the professional level (the two professors from UDenver who have PREP, Inc. thing going), and other contracting organizations (MDRC, Maximus, etc.) who defraud (allegedly, judging by how often they get sued) and the judges etc. with their retirement plan & income supplementation at public expense plans (the Kids’ Turns and Family Justice Centers of the world) and the “let’s do a NICE conference business.

In recent days/weeks, I’ve had an absolutely wonderful looking, articulate, attractive intelligent mother (a widow) and grandmother in her sixties come up to me, at a loss regarding finding work. She was downsized after twenty-nine (29) years in what sounds like very responsible, executive responsibility support staff in an engineering firm for a huge company. What is she to do? I looked at her with my court-custody-DV-strewn work life scenario and was thankful that at least this disaster prepared me for handling more of the same; my disadvantage working to my survival advantage in a rapidly changing world.

And I prefer to bake my own cakes at many points. Years of having social / community relationships compromised by court filings and sudden disappearance of my kids (I don’t think a mother EVER gets over that, no matter what else she does in life), not because they served in Iraq, but because they were born in this country and in that decade of Jim Crow times regarding civil rights for women, too.

(and here’s the end of my 11,000 — so far — word post. That includes the tables, of course): A person working to stop child slavery in California is on: here is the nonprofit description of HOW children girls are kept in line:

Director of this Chino, California organization, The Faces of Slavery, is “Juana Zapata.” It’s site has tremendous graphics, and “FACES” is an acronym: Fight Against Child Exploitation And Sexual Slavery of AMERICAN CHILDREN. “Amber’s Story” deals with a runaway (my mind immediately thinks of reasons a child might run away, one of which is violence or abuse in the home, including molestation. So why not do better at stopping that to start with?)

Please read this site. The problem is real! (see “Franklin Coverup” also)

The Problem of Child Sex Slavery, http://www.facess.org/problem.html

Today there are at least 20,000 slaves under the age of 18 in the United States. According to the Department of Justice, the average of these children is 13 years old. 80% of these children are girls and 80% of those girls are sexual slaves like “Amber”. The life expectancy of girls like “Amber” is 7 – 10 years from the time of their abduction and the start of their enslavement.

Amber and countless other girls experience on a daily basis:

Rape
Assault
Neglect
Starvation
Torture
False imprisonment
Exploitation
Drugging
Emotional, physical
And mental abuse

Slaveholders will send “testers” in to the girls to pretend to rescue the girl. If she engages with the tester she will be beaten. At some point the girl gives up and becomes resigned to her new life – her hell on earth. Survival mode will kick in and she will quickly become hardened, disconnected, hopeless, angry, and isolated – trusting no one, which is the slaveholder’s goal.

Why Don’t These Girls Try to Escape?

There are many different methods these slaveholders use to manipulate and control their slaves. These impressionable and dependent children want to be accepted by someone. The slaveholder is the only one they really know in their new reality. Between the abuses and in an effort to keep the children the slaveholder will also tell the girls he loves them, buy them gifts, and take them to exciting places in order to keep them submissive, producing a Stockholm Syndrome where the victim actually thinks they are being loved – thus skewing their concept of love.

What Is Our Government Doing About Slavery?

The answer to that question is, “Not much.” F.B.I. recovery numbers are 900 children per year. Typically, the recovery rate is less than 1% of the actual trafficked population. And what happens to a child like “Amber” when she is rescued? The Department of Justice has confirmed that care facilities specifically designed to support these trafficked children can give shelter to less than 100 of them. F.B.I. policy is to place these rescued victims into juvenile hall which sends the message to these children that they are criminals. The cost of a child in juvenile hall is $250 per day. Government agencies cannot give these children what they need most – love.

See the bullets above? Sometimes many of those features happen WITHIN nuclear families — sometimes even within families that have biologically related Mom, Pop and Kids. And yet still the building block of society has to be families?

for the healing process — imagine this:

How We Can Make a Difference

What does a child like “Amber” need to heal from the deep mental, emotional, and physical scars that have been inflicted upon her? She needs a warm, safe, peaceful, place. She needs to be surrounded by people who will gently guide her, support her, encourage her, and show her what real love is. We can provide these very things.

Our property in California is tucked away in a beautiful, quiet and safe place. We are surrounded by trees and ponds and mountains. We have the ability to provide fun and “normal” activities such as hiking, swimming, other water sports, museums, dining out, movies, playing games so she can regain her childhood.

Similarly, after severe violence IN the home — although surely this must be worse — children who grew up “Exposed to Violence” including watching one parent beat the other (adjust to accommodate step-parent, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc.) — they too need a healing and detox period.

But they are not getting it for long — and primarily they are not getting this because the custody courts, with their AFCC, their Access Visitation (CRC theory), their incentives to prolong war (while claiming they stop it) and their assets-stripping, bone-chilling, never ending encouragement of the worse parent when “worse” is obvious — will not allow for, our society is just not ready to accommodate and SAY NO TO custody — ANY type of custody and particularly not joint, and not shared — when one parent has already demonstrated assault and battery, threats, economic oppression & “pimping” (this happened to me. I worked, he got the checks, I got threatened and slapped, kicked, choked, etc., sleep-deprived anyhow. I provided the job reference for the credit application — he got the credit! etc. Once you start one of these relationships, if you are not committed to IMMEDIATELY terminate it, it’s very hard to get out.

And in this climate, once you get out, here comes “conciliation code” and a bunch of people who are not “rich enough” yet to defraud people of their rights to exist, legally and simply live, as INDIVIDUALS in this country. See “Ohio Fatherhood Commission” (targeting counties with single mothers) for a nice example. It is ONLY going to get worse until this is stopped, and I know that I alone cannot stop this.

Here is a facebook page which states Government Agencies are looking to F.A.C.E.S.S. but we also need your donations

REGISTRATION, Secretary of State? I don’t know: I see these (after FACESS and “Fight Against” searches didn’t turn up a registration) or “FACESS” with or without the periods:

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx

Results of search for ” F.A.C.E.S. ” returned no entity records.

Record not found.

As to those initials for Charities (i.e., nonprofits) in California, the only ones I see (both delinquent) relate to Autism, i.e., that’s what the “A” in the acronym stands for. Our F.A.C.E.S.S. doesn’t show in California as a nonprofit:

Organization Name	Registration Number	Record Type	Registration Status	City	State	Registration Type	Record Type
F.A.C.E.S. FOR KIDS, INC.	099503	Charity	Dissolution Pending	REDWOOD CITY	CA	Charity Registration	Charity
F.A.C.E.S. OF THE EAST BAY	116862	Charity	Delinquent	OAKLAND	CA	Charity Registration	Charity
1

(facebook logo’ FB shows 392 followers on the page)

These would be the corporate registrations. Only one (formed about a year ago) is left standing here in California:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2439255	03/01/2004	SUSPENDED	CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION	DAVID REPLOGLE
C1229360	10/12/1983	DISSOLVED	FAMILY AWARENESS OF CHILD EXPLOITATION – IN-TRUDERS	CHARMAINE DENNIS
C3367022	03/17/2011	ACTIVE	FOUNDATION AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION & HUMAN TRAFFICKING	ERIC BUSH
C1195950	03/06/1987	SUSPENDED	PEOPLE AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION	JAMES D DAVIES

So far, I see a facebook page. The website direcst people to the Facebook page, and the law enforcement link (on the website) is by password only, understandably.

Just that if someone is seeking donations, we seek an EIN# and registration. It’s that simple. So perhaps I will call in and simply ask — is there an umbrella organization?:

There are “10 people” names Juana Zapata in California, and 1 (with 1 connection only) on LinkedIn. There’s the mother of a young man whose car crahsed into and killed a police officer in Freson, listed as his 47 year old mother (the young man not living at home at the time, and being the youngest of 5 at age 19)

http://www.kristieslaw.org/fresno.htm This is a hard story to hear, and probably a different woman involved, as apparently this mother needed a translator. It’s undated.

Featured here, protesting (it seems) an “adult” page in a paper, or on-line, from “The Majestic Dreams Foundation”

http://www.themajestic.org/blog/2011/10/07/Press-Release-The-Daily-Titan.aspx

”The advocates of anti-slavery held signs that read, “Hey Ortega! Real men don’t buy girls” and “I am the key to free,” while protesting Ortega and the conglomerate which owns BackPage.com.Lizeth Sebastian, 21, pioneer of the anti-human trafficking club at Chapman University called Set Captives Free, said many people are unaware that sex trafficking is happening in local areas.Juana Zapata, from Faces of Slavery, said for the past three years her organization has been rescuing and protecting girls who have been victims of human trafficking and who were advertised on BackPage.com, averaging one girl every six weeks.“We are a permanent residential place for them (the victims),” said Zapata, who was invited to the protest by Cenedella. “For us it’s very important that the public knows that this is actually happening right here; it’s not international. Students have to be fully aware what’s happening with their generation and they are the voice.

This is a GRIPPING story of Aimee, and what happened after she reported abuse from the ages of 8 to 12 by a priest, a friend of her aunt. She reported it at age 17 to a minister, then to law enforcement, and was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, a 51-50 psychiatric hold (without her mother’s knowledge) with resulting lasting damage, and in general was treated as the criminal .

Her report went from minister to law enforcement to hold, to hospital in short order. Her family which refused to believe the story are estranged — BUT she was able to make a film.

The Majestic Dreams Foundation is a nonprofit organization located in Southern California. It was formed and created byAimee Galicia Torres on January 8, 2010.

The Majestic Dreams Foundation aims to provide aide to sexually abused survivors as well as promote awareness for all forms of abuse. The Majestic Dreams Foundation teams up with film production company, Trinity Alliance Films to provide films that reflect this growing epidemic so that we as a society can bring about a change.

This day forever changed the rest of her life. That very day, Aimee underwent hours of questioning by the local police department as the suspect, Honesto Bismonte, was placed immediately in jail. After a long interview, receiving scrutiny from the police department, Aimee was sent to undergo a psychological evaluation by a county psychologist. However, to her surprise, when she was being escorted by two police officers, they admitted her into the hospital without her knowledge. She was placed on a 51-50, hold, which means she legally must remain admitted for psychological evaluation for up to 72 hours. . .

When Aimee was 16,** she fell into an abusive relationship with her boyfriend of 3 1/2 years. He would physically abuse her and attempted to kill her on various occasions. Through the numerous years of psychological, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse Aimee has received, she decided to turn everything into a positive learning experience. She wanted to show abused victims and survivors, that despite any obstacle, you can succeed. Aimee is proud to say, that throughout it all, she has never smoked or taken any drug of any kind. “Just because horrible things happen in our lives, we must be strong to not let it get the best of us.”

Relationship, much? from sexual abuse ages 8-12 by a priest, and from 12-1/2 through 16, sought “refuge” in another relationship with at least a non-priest, but another abuser?

Aimee has been a strong advocate for victim’s rights. She is an avid supporter of RAINN (Rape, Abuse National Network), Rescue & Restore Victims of Human Trafficking, ACF Trafficking, SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), Perverted Justice and more.

This young woman is a graduate of the NY Film Academy, apparently her mother also was a producer? Here’s a company she founded in “2004” (January 2005). I did not find the foundations, yet, but I see the high energy that sometimes people who get OUT of abuse have afterwards; they/we are simply so excited to be free, and creativity is at an all-time high, plus speaking to the cause.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
200501110252	01/10/2005	ACTIVE	AIMESTER PRODUCTIONS LLC	AIMEE GALICIA TORRES

?? Aimee is the registered agent; the “jurisdiction” (which street address I looked up — I always try to look up street addresses ) is for “New America Foundation” — the California Office. this is supposedly where the LLC business is, and Ms. Torres’ address (or, Studio City, CA) is the “registered agent” address:

Main Office

New America Foundation
1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Map & Directions
Phone: 202-986-2700
Fax: 202-986-3696

California Office

New America Foundation
921 11th Street, Suite 901
Sacramento, CA 95814
Map & Directions
Phone: 916-448-5189
Fax: 916-448-3724

This is a very interesting corporation (and not the subject of today’s post); ties to the council on Foreign Relations, and a board of 21 people, about 5 women, and some extremely high-achieving ones, too. I am not sure how this ties into “Aimester Productions, LLC” of — as of yet — where “FACESS” actually resides as a corporation, other than on facebook and a website. Such are the times we live in; we’d best deal with it!

one-half hour to the radio show, if you are planning to call in it’s 1-646-595-2134. Again, I feel the focus is far broader than the pressing need in the family courts and child support (etc.) business entails at this point. But it will be informative.

There is going to be a Judge from Georgia, we should ask what he thinks about (1) the Nancy Schaefer alleged murder/suicide while investigating CPS; (2) how nice to have a Georgia Judge on a Nationwide CCJJDP commission (“CC” standing for “Coordinating Council”:

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

These being the (appointed) “Practitioner Members” in addition to heads of various agencies:

Laurie Garduque
Adele L. Grubbs
Byron Johnson
Steven H. Jonesen
Gordon A. Martin, Jr.
Pamela Rodriguez
Deborah Schumacher
Trina Thompson
Richard Vincent

The Hon. Adele L. Grubbs, as I recall, made an in absentia appearance on a previous show, when one of the callers related being incarcerated for 18 months around something regarding the sale of her home AFTER she’d been forced into bankruptcy (through custody matters, what else?) and it had already been foreclosed. I can’t recall ALL the details. I also know a woman in Georgia in terror in that her ex-kidnapper had done his time, and was stalking again. And people in Pennsylvania have been made aware of the dynamic duo Parent Coordinators (Susan Boyan & Ann Marie Termini, the latter working out of Lackawanna County), with the expired associations their names are associated with, and the invisible (to me, at least) anywhere “Cooperative Parenting Institute” advertised at parentcoordinationcentral.com or whatever that site’s name is.

Georgia must be a beautiful (landscape Geography) state, I have a feeling. It is also known in some circles for the (in)famous Georgia Fatherhood Initiative, a statewide deal organized out of the DHS, OCSE I guess:

The Georgia Fatherhood Program, created by the Division of Child Support Services (DCSS) in 1997, works with non-custodial parents who owe child support through DCSS but are unable to pay. Georgia’s Fatherhood Program is the largest state-operated fatherhood program in the country. Several thousands of non-custodial parents received services through the program during the past year. Gainful, stable employment enables these parents to provide regular financial support for their children. Fatherhood Program participants paid $18.7 million in child support during FY 2005.

Georgia recognized early on that many non-custodial parents wanted to pay their court-ordered child support, but lacked the economic capacity to do so. DCSS has partnered with other government and community agencies to develop a comprehensive network of services for this group.

The Fatherhood Program:
• Generally takes three to six months to complete.
• Serves both fathers and mothers who are non-custodial parents. . .

The Georgia Fatherhood Program is implemented by the Fatherhood Services Network, sponsored by the Department of Human Services’ Division of Child Support Services. The Network includes:
• Georgia Department of Human Services
• Child Access and Visitation Program
• Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgement Program
• Georgia Family Connections Partnership** (a nice nonprofit including a Juvenile Court judge on its board…)
• DCSS, which contracts with:
• Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education
• Georgia Department of Labor
• DeKalb County Fatherhood Initiative Network

Anyhow, it sure should be interesting.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

January 17, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Child Support, CRC Childrens Rights Council, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion

For Scrantonians — To Assert is Fine, but To Prove is Best. Study How Kentucky Got Its 70 Judicial Center Projects, 9 Court Programs (including 11 Divorce Ed. courses so far). You’re Next!

with 8 comments

This post sounds more state-specific than it is. When pilot programs and model courts are being coordinated with help from outside the state to within any state, there’s little state-specific about the courts taking place these days. Remember also the influence of federal funding, and the speed of change facilitated by our lovely internet technology (think, approximately 1980s becoming more popularly accessible — but governments (especially military, who of course need great communications and data processing), academia, and lawyers will generally be further ahead than most of the public).

Original Post Published 12/21/2011. I had occasion to refer to it, and began updating 9/8/2015, in part because the Kentucky State Court had re-arranged its website, creating broken-link-syndrome. On noticing they, too, unified the court system, and by “Judicial Article” in 1976 created an “AOC” with a Chief Justice (i.e., centralized operations), I immediately remembered the NYS Unified Court System and its “Public/private partnership” with the under-reported “Fund for the City of New York,” (first funded 1968) which was labeled at some point, possibly post-1993, the Center for Court Innovation.

The Center for Court Innovation being often mischaracterized in print, I decided it was time to talk about how the system is set for privatization, and of course, global alignment internationally. This would be hard to achieve directly and get past most voters — but it’s already been arranged to do it INdirectly, under the lable just improving systems, and helping families, communities, and in the public interest.

Tax-exempt, tax (and privately) funded, and WHERE did your famous legal rights go?? Perhaps a better question to ask is where did the money go, which might help answer the former questions.

I added a substantial section (light-green background) to my 2011 commentary and word-battles (at a few points) with a now-defunct forum in Scranton, PA. It will become a separate post soon, I hope. If so, this one will be shortened, with a referral link. Maybe. (Catch it while you can…)

🙂

Righteous Indignation, Determination to do something, and a Healthy Sarcasm — admirable, I love it.

Also one has to love anyone who can file enough Right To Knows, get information sufficient to file a CIVIL suit against a FAMILY court racket(eering set of individuals), have (I believe as a result of that and related) suit, the FBI come charging in to haul off evidence (for what purpose, remains to be seen) and post it for all to see. And keep posting. Again, I came here from Kentucky — after I found some dude from this area (Dunmore, PA) getting his product marketed through the Kentucky Family Court System, which has a ridiculous number dof “Divorce Education” programs and one that clearly uses extortion to get Dads in arrears into fatherhood program probably aimed at about 6th grade (maybe tops, 8th) level of intellect. And that is called a “Court of Justice”!

Judicial Center Projects **

Since 1998 the Kentucky Court of Justice has completed, authorized or begun construction on 70 new judicial centers.

These new facilities have given Kentucky citizens safe, efficient, cost-effective buildings in which to exercise their legal and constitutional rights

[**Original Post was 12/21/2011; Updates, Link Correction (different background color) @ 9/8/2015]:

The Courts.ky.gov web pages have changed since this post, and no longer so clearly display the 11 divorce education programs below. More info at. Notice the AOC was put in place in 1976 by “the Judicial Article.” Their summary provides no link to that article, or description of who issued it, was there a referendum, did the judges come together in decide, or what.

Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts

The Administrative Office of the Courts is the operational arm of the Judicial Branch. The AOC supports court facilities and programs in all 120 counties, with its main campus in Frankfort.

The AOC was established in 1976 as a result of the Judicial Article. The Judicial Article created Kentucky’s unified court system and made the chief justice head of the state court system, also known as the Kentucky Court of Justice.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

December 21, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..(Publ. Dec. 14, 2011, updated (format) Oct. 30, 2017)

with 5 comments

POST TITLE IS:

Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..(Publ. Dec. 14, 2011, updated (format) Oct. 30, 2017) (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-WN”

My practice of adding borders and listing the post title with shortlink is more recent.

Currently this post is NOT listed on any Table of Contents (my lists only go as far back as Sept. 2012)…I see that many of the logos will not display, and that this post as written was about 10,000 words long. This update made only because a basic search on the blog for an organization I’m writing about again brought it up. (Update this time is only minimal format changes for easier reading; is not in detail and doesn’t include fixing broken links/missing logos, or more recent information on the organizations referenced).//LGH Oct. 30, 2017.

INTRO:

Overall, I seriously doubt that it’s possible to clean up or straighten up the family law system — at all, and I am utterly serious in saying this. There is too much incentive for fraud, and too much need to “pay the mortgages” in the courthouses by ordering more services, and too little oversight and tracking of the funding. There are too many public employees forming nonprofit corporations to franchise for-profit curricula (marriage, parent education, etc.) — in the old NonProfit/ForProfit combo.

There are too few tools in many states to track WHO is repeatedly forming corporations that go belly-up, only to have a partner or other person formerly on one board just go forth and from another one — in another state. Many of these groups, as my last post showed, are membership organizations — membership is charged, conferences run, and we have some evidence from county payrolls or vouchers from court-connected professionals, that the public is billed to fund attendance at nonprofits whose ONE purpose is to expand their services. Child support is one of the worst of these, but they come in all flavors.

Despite the bleak outlook — I still report and I am going to finish reporting on this field of Parent Coordination until it is CLEAR what the AFCC professionals’ intent is in establishing this field and, if possible, having it legitimized at the state level by establishing standards, or by mandate.

The Association for Family and Conciliation Courts runs many task forces at a time, as part of its strategic plan to expand (itself) and transform the “old” language of criminal law into more friendly-to-its-practitioners concepts. One of them which they are taking VERY seriously in promoting — and I take VERY seriously in protesting — is Parenting Coordination.

Parents didn’t ask for this — it’s no grassroots movement, and from what I can tell how it’s been (1) advertised (2) pushed and (3) practiced — there’s no genuine NEED for it either. For that matter, I see no historical record that parents as a sector (both male and female) asked for the family law system, either.

Why I’m addressing it — again:

(1) AFCC PROMOTED IT – NOT PARENTS. NO REAL NEED EXISTED, and SERIOUS ISSUES & OBJECTIONS AS THEY DID.

The LizLibrary lists a page of them, and towards the bottom, some legal opinions, too: Parenting Coordination: A Bad Idea

Here’s less than half the list — and so far I agree with ALL of them. Thank you, Liz (Kates, the FL Family Law attorney, not Richards, of NAFCJ.net)
© 1996-2011 argate.net frcp:

Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function

Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access

Parenting coordination is a denial of due process

Parenting coordination violates privacy

The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests

Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law

Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups

No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions

No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families’ lives or child wellbeing.

Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people

Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document

Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire

Nothing qualifies any third party to “fill in the gaps” in someone else’s contract

There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination

Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion

It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them

Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes

Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford

Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other’s funds

Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious

Parenting coordination is not confidential

Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment

Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other

Parenting coordination can never be “voluntary” because it implements unwanted court orders

Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign “consents” that give up constitutional rights

Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers

They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody

They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed

Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being

Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted

Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state’s police power

Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships

They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of “focus on the children”

They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making

They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being

Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent

Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them

Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and

They alone decide if a parent is “cooperating” with them

From the same page, a case “Parenting Coordinator Out of Control” — and I have to note that it’s an appeal from an order at the FL (presumably 20th) Circuit Court Level bearing Judge Hugh Starnes‘ name!

Out of control parenting coordinator (Hastings case, FL 2nd DCA, 2002) Caveat custody modification standard

The Hon. Hugh Starnes showed up in yesterday’s post, where I was simply blogging an AFCC judge, and also his nonprofit in FL with the initials AFLP (logo on the post). I also happen to know he was quite active in FL-AFCC Chapter establishment, which seemed to have the primary agenda of getting parenting coordination passed in Florida. They have since succeeded, I believe, too.

Like I keep saying — sometime others will acknowledge — parenting coordinators are themselves pushy, and AFCC pushed Parenting Coordination, in fact they are one set of bullies when it comes to getting THEIR priorities into practice, then law – citing it’s already in practice anyhow.

This is primarily what AFCC does. From the organization’s point of view, this is phrased as “innovative” and “helping” and “problem-solving.” The problem (sic) is always the recalcitrant parents, and the UNFORTUNATE vestiges of separation of powers (legal/judicial/executive branch) and little details like confidentiality in a lawsuit, and legal restraints.

Here’s a link to Parentcoordination.com’s complaint about the legal limits part – and their plan of PC as an end-run around those limits! {{It looks like I didn’t post that link, or it wasn’t saved to final… unless it’s shown in the DVLeap 2010 brief.}}

DVLeap brief in 2010 case (Washington, DC) arguing some of the constitutional issues More from DVLeap

“The Court’s parenting coordinator orders unconsitutionally delegate judicial power and violate due process… The Special Master Order’s requirement that Appellant pay for the parenting coordinators to whom she objects violates law and public policy… The Special Master Order requiring Appellant to waive her medical privilege violates her statutory and constitutional rights to privacy…”

AFCC could care less. They DEMANDED it and are still finishing up trying to get this mandated in every single United State.

Even the brother of the Marriage Promotion President, the “Family” family, George Bush — as Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, FL (2004) had the sense to object based on sound principles. A newly formed (probably for this purpose) chapter of AFCC strategized, lobbied, publicized, practiced, and finally managed to ram it through, over his veto. It only slowed them down slightly.

June 18, 2004

Ms. Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State Florida Department of State

By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections, Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, enacted during the 36th session of the Legislature, convened under the Constitution of 1968, during the Regular Session of 2004, and entitled:

An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640 authorizes courts to appoint a parenting coordinator when the court finds the parties have not implemented the court-ordered parenting plan, mediation has not been successful, and the court finds the appointment is in the best interest of the children involved.

He lists 5 objections, two of which clearly recognize that it in effect allows a parent coordinator to function as both judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights, and one of which is that it fails to protect victims of domestic violence. I also note from the language that it looks like a Committee (not the general legislature) attempted to have this substitute for an existing Senate Bill. . . . .

(2) The “Termini/Boyan Factor” —

The People fixed on training parent coordinators have a terrible track record when it comes to staying incorporated(I found another one today — Seminars for Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals, or “SAIF.” Formed in 2006, it’s already behind in its filings, in the state of Indiana. And it appears that, again, a nonprofit/for-profit combo, originating not with litigants, but with the professionals, was set up to give (again) some family law attorneys the right to crow about their own parent coordination training seminars they helped run themselves. By and large, that seems to be the situation in Indiana — which it seems New Hampshire liked a lot, too. Termini/Boyan are Georgia/Pennsylvania — but same general idea.

(3) The language of “parent coordination” is impoverished and repetitive.

Here’s an example, from a family law attorney, a bona-fide certified one (although the nonprofit membership she cites all over is anything but “bona-fide” when it comes to filing charitable returns in the home state!)

It’s even from an Amicus Brief (I THINK it got filed, although this isn’t the stamped version). Actually, this is where the title to my post came from:

CASE NO. C064475

SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-3009-80000359

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

__________________

RANDY RAND, ED.D. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, Defendant and Respondent. __________________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS __________________

Face sheet as posted at CaliforniaParentingCoordinator.com (using link from this 12/14/2011 post).

[Three images, inside blue borders, added in 2017 update. See also their list Table of Authorities].

In the statute of authorities for this brief, bearing the name “Leslie Ellen Shear” and “Stephen Temko” (although the certificate of interested parties form bears the name Shear, and is dated 1/27/2011), after the legal and rules of court list, comes:

Table of Contents from Amicus Brief (source url shown on gray window-frame at top of image).

“Treatises, Law Reviews and Other Authorities” – and on reading it, I see it quotes, among others:

The nonprofit ACFLS (which she’s head of Amicus Brief Committee on, or was)

AFCC itself (at least twice)

A host of people, known to be AFCC professionals anyhow, for those who pay attention — such as Ahrons, Coates, Deutch, Greenberg, Kelly, and who knows about some of the others. These quotations include those from the AFCC publication, Family Court Review (joint with “Hofstra Univ. School of Law”) and AFCC newsletters, etc.

Herself, like 3 times, in:

Shear (2008) In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass-roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute 5 Journal of Child Custody 88…………………………………………..5, 18, 25 (cited on page 5, 18 & 25).

(I’m also adding this quote in 2017 update, from the Amicus Brief):

ACFLS’s purposes in appearing as amicus are to protect and perfect the parenting coordination service model in California family courts, discuss the implications of the issues raised in this case for the future of parent coordination in California, and address the implications of those issues for other family court appointed neutrals including but not limited to child custody evaluators4, minors’ counsel appointed per Fam. Code §3150 et seq., mediators, therapists, members of collaborative family law teams, and other court appointed or connected quasi-judicial dispute resolution professionals.

In other words, to protect her own kind….

Note title — trying to legislate parenting coordination.

Another set of professionals tried to write “Kids Turn” into law around 2002, right? (see my “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch post.”) then-Governor Gray Davis (properly!) vetoed even the version of it put out which didn’t overtly say “Kids’ Turn” on its face.

So here’s a sample section of this Amicus:

On page 4, quoting AFCC person Greenberg (whose writing I also ran across) cites who came up with the idea, vaguely characterized as:

In 1994, the concept of parenting coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who realized that some high conflict families remained chronically mired in conflict and required something different. . . For these families, the traditional tried and true approaches to containing familial conflict such as litigation, mediation, forensics, and therapy had not worked. Thus, the concept of parenting coordination was conceived as a different and needed dispute resolution intervention.

(Tried and True? [is that really an appropriate phrase for use in an amicus brief?]

Try “Tried and found seriously wanting.” Don’t believe me? Look here. I’ve already mentioned the Seal Beach (CA) massacre enough times, so here’s one fresh off the press — like YESTERDAY, in Florida. Actually, it seems there’s an acquiescent mother in this one: even after Dad murdered the son, the surviving children (including one witness to that murder) miss their Daddy. And they shouldn’t even be supervised, but be able to go to events like church, sports, etc.

Sounds like perhaps this is a stepfather (or second family) situation here, judging by age of the children. And the shooter was a retired police officer!

Dad accused of killing son wants custody rights to surviving kids; judge lets him have unsupervised contact (Orlando, Florida)

POSTED: 5:56 pm EST December 13, 2011
UPDATED: 6:45 pm EST December 13, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. — A former Orlando police officer accused of killing his son was back in court, arguing for custody rights to his other children.

Timothy Davis Sr. won a victory of sorts Tuesday when a judge granted him the ability to pick up his younger children from school, including his 9-year-old daughter who authorities said witnessed the killing.

The retired police officer is accused of shooting his son, 22-year-old Timothy Davis Jr., to death at their Apopka home in what he said was self-defense after his son attacked him, injuring his knee in October.

Here’s another involving 3 children, and a custody hearing, plus prior assaults on the child and wife.

Dad managed to get himself shot (to death) after apparently attacking a state trooper. I do not call this ‘tried and true.” This was an American military, married in Germany, but the divorce action appears to be HERE. He also was Marine Corps.

Here’s one from Texas; 40 year old father, who apparently had custody? (or certainly unsupervised visitation), emails nude pictures of his 12 year old daughter. This man was living with his mother who, thankfully, was honest enough to do something about her pervert son, although somehow the courts weren’t alert to this in custody decisions:

by KHOU.com staff

khou.com
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM

KATY, Texas – A 40-year-old father is facing charges for allegedly distributing nude photos of his 12-year-old daughter online.

According to court documents, the suspect was living with his daughter at his mother’s house in Katy when the offenses occurred.

Investigators said that in August of 2011, the suspect’s mother found emails sent from the suspect’s gmail account that contained nude images of children. Some of those images were of the suspect’s daughter, the grandmother said.

Sorry to bring up this very unpleasant reality-check, but when in Amicus Brief a parent-coordinator pusher talks about previously tried methods that work — the definition of “works” or “tried and true” apparently / generally just means “tried, sometimes resulting in death, physical or sexual abuse of minors post-separation, or having minor children showing up in child pornography in father’s possession.” All of these were from December 2011 news articles, only.

Keep these incidents for a point of reference while I quote from p.12, a whole chapter on how parent coordinators have such difficult parents to deal with, “poor them”:

III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage.** These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.

Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Families 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252

**Difficult-to manage parents are the bread and butter of the family court. They are the income producers. Assigning them to parent coordination is yet one more source of income for the professionals, taken from either the parents, or (looks like there’s some effort to make even broke parents participate in this too — AFCC-CA has a workshop or presentation, on the 2012 hearing on this).

Perhaps the professionals in question should re-think the business of “managing parents” to start with.

So, the opening quote to this chapter is from two long-time AFCC professionals (Coates/Deutsch) in an AFCC publication?, although it’s only 2004, using an AFCC-originated concept and term, “high-conflict families” (although I hear Bill Eddy now says they are high-conflict individuals — see my post on “yet another AFCC wet dream.” and his High-conflict Institute….)

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to re- turn to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs,* and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

* perhaps this speaks to the quality of the co-parenting educational programs, more than the parents.

* or perhaps they are pissed at being forced to take co-parenting classes to start with, not mentioning affected if they also have to pay.

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents.

A casual dismissal of whether it’s just one — or both — parents here. We KNOW that many of these cases — not just some — are in fact cases involving danger, abuse, and etc. These cases do NOT belong in family court at all — but they are there because of greed of professionals, and because of the fatherhood movement (backlash to feminism) that incentivizes and insists that single motherhood is bad for kids. For that matter, even if Mom remarries happily, it’s still supposedly bad for the world if biological father isn’t in his kids’ life.

In short — Ms. Shear and Mr. Temko (whoever drafted this) — are, with their colleagues — unable to literally distinguish between one parent and another when discussing “parents” in front of others who have some privilege (like a statutory justification) or grant to give them.

BUT — their own handbooks, and some appellate cases already involving parenting coordination, show clearly that they are QUITE able to distinguish one parent from another, and not only do, but literally plan how to, target mothers, specifically, for badmouthing and possible intervention in the form of getting the kids away from her. (I have two links to parent coordination handbooks on this post, you can check them out.).

The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997).

You can’t see it here, but on the pdf it shows: in this quote, we have a triple-layer AFCC site. I believe Johnston is probably Janet Johnston (AFCC Board, or was). Kelly, (below) who’s being quoted in the section, if it’s Joan B. Kelly, has been called the “grande dame” of AFCC and mediation promotion in the family law courts. She runs a Northern California Mediation Center, and obviously publishes too. And Shear is AFCC. So — if so — that represents:

AFCC Shear quotes AFCC Kelly quoting AFCC Johnston, as to parent coordination, which is an AFCC idea. (this is FAR more common than most people — who are less obsessive about looking things up than me — realize. I have labored through some pretty detailed writings (NYState) where when they ran out of ideas, they simply restated them, and I literally read ALL the footnotes too, most of which were “ibid.”

Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

Kelly (2008) Preparing for the Parenting Coordination Role: Training Needs for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 5 Journal of Child Custody 140,149-150

I don’t know how to state this clearly enough. The difficulty any professional has — who by definition holds an option to quit the profession (which they chose) in dealing with a ‘difficult client” is no comparison with the difficulty of dealing — year after year thanks to policies — with an “ex” who has threatened to kidnap or kill, who has beaten one before, or who may be and/or has molested children, possibly one’s own (dep. on the case) before. Suppose the shoe was on the other foot? Again, if professionals don’t like the difficulty they have an option — find another line of work.

But thanks to their insistence on THIS line of work, i.e., at public AND private expense, and explicit danger to the communities — almost no parent — and I’m going to say mother, specifically– can actually get free from real criminals they’ve had children with, even when he’s already in jail.

I know of one case where the person has already done time in an unbelievably severe situation, and this mother/daughter who already went through hell — is being stalked again. Until she’s safe, I’m not naming names, but once she is/they are, I will – because this case was high-profile and has been in the news.

One point of view is dealing with comfort, and potential burnout, in the performance of one’s duties that have internationally networked, federally-funded, county-judicial-level endorsed, and more — support groups. The other is of staying alive, housed, and after that, functional and employed at all.

If one continues to read the Amicus, it continues to complain and blame. The next quote by Shear is of Shear. Here’s a little further on in the Amicus:

Parenting coordination is a very intrusive model, inserting state authority into the daily family lives of parents and children. With those intrusive powers comes a duty to exercise restraint, discretion and wisdom.

This work often creates the perfect storm. Parenting coordinators struggle to avoid being triangulated into the family’s conflicts.

Well, they triangulated themselves in there to start with, intentionally! Which shows a lack of: “restraint, discretion, and wisdom” per se.

From page 18 (“just one more”!) – This chapter complains that California hasn’t legislated parenting coordination by stipulation (i.e., authorizing it by force) yet:

The only thing that is clear about appointment of parenting coordinators in California is that family courts are without jurisdiction to make them without a stipulation. Moreover, no published case has upheld orders resulting from a stipulated appointment of a parenting coordinator.

The quote from Greenberg in this Amicus acknowledges that professionals in California & Colorado (two hotspots of family law leadership; Center for Policy Research/Jessica Pearson et al. are in Denver) “spawned” the concept. Or rather, it “was spawned” — we can’t name an individual father, so perhaps it was a sort of psychological gang-rape that produced the idea (just kidding). Unlike “collaborative law” which actually names a father, “Stu Webb” out of MN. . .. And that this began in the 1990s.

We are now in 2011. Perhaps it’s time to admit that it’s a bad idea to start with; if even in California — where AFCC originated — they can’t get it into law!

The text continues — and understanding that I don’t know the underlying case, have not read the entire brief and am not an attorney, I’m to add a comment to the next section:

Of course, courts have no power to modify statutes. Statutes prescribe and proscribe what courts may do.

Damn right they do! On the other hand, has that really slowed down AFCC initiatives, has it? I think there’s been a track record of resounding success, if getting around constitutional and statutory limits pending changing the statutes to accommodate more income streams to court-connected (or formerly court-connected, like retired judges) professionals… is what’s intended.

The California Constitution (art. VI, § 22) prohibits the delegation of judicial power except for the performance of subordinate judicial duties. A trial court lacks either statutory or inherent power to require the parties to bear the cost of a special master’s services, even where it may have the authority to make the appointment. (People v. Superior Court (Laff) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703)

The Court of Appeal reversed trial court orders delegating authority over the visitation schedule to a child custody evaluator, requiring one of the parents to participate in psychotherapy and requiring that all future custody mat- ters be heard before the same bench officer in In re Marriage of Matthews (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 811, 816–817 because there was no statutory authority supporting such a delegation.

Just GUESSING here, but perhaps if over a 21-year period (in one state), it’s still being stated that there are Constitutional limits on delegating Judicial power, and three years later the Governor of Florida (Jeb Bush) brings it up in a reason for vetoing a parent coordination stipulation — there just MIGHT be a good reason! Parent Coordination is hardly an Occupy San Francisco (or anywhere else in California) grassroots protest or demand, is it, either?

We’re third generation fatherhood programs out here, we are also probably at least second-generation post-TANF (1996), post fatherhood (i.e., about 15-16 years since they passed), and perhaps– just perhaps — the last thing this state needs is more ideas originating from this nonprofit and all its collaborators in therapeutic jurisprudence great ideas.

Perhaps — just perhaps — it’s a good thing if constitutional and statutory limits on out-sourcing the judicial function mean something around here, for a change! Be content with what you got so far, as authorized by access/visitation (three categories of potential program fraud enabled) and all the marriage promotion money too, plus lots of the nonprofits — like ACFLS — not even bothering to report into the state Registry of Charitable Trusts (OAG) anyhow!

(REASON 4)

(4)

Moreover — like most AFCC promotions — the language promoting parent coordination continues to refuse to think or talk in terms of legal rights to INDIVIDUALS as the Declaration of Independence asserted, which helped kickstart the USA, claims they are. The language of parent coordination is continually pluralized, or group-talk. It does not, really, acknowledge that a person could be a member of a family (like “parent” “father” or “mother”) and yet really have — and deserve — equal standing as an individual in any matter, before the law.

Here’s an example from ParentCoordinationCentral.com (Termini/Boyan site). These are the supposed GOALS OF PARENT COORDINATION:

Educate parents regarding the impact of their behaviors on their child(ren)’s development.

[supports my thesis that AFCC members are often frustrated teachers. They want to teach EVERYONE, and if people don’t agree, they are clever about figuring out ways to force this, and be paid for it, too.]
Reduce parental conflict through anger management, communication and conflict resolutions skills.

[increasing the expense of divorce, treating parents like kids, undermining judicial authority, & due process, and invading one’s privacy sure will “reduce parental conflict”!! . .. And I haven’t even got (this post anyhow) to the training manual which has an openly hostile attitude towards mothers, it’s unbelievable).
Decrease inappropriate parental behaviors to reduce stress for the child.

[goes with AFCC goal of switching from a legally defined set of prohibited behaviors to an arbitrary, subjective, and personalized version of what is appropriate or inappropriate parental behavior. Instead, how about just accept the basic definitions in the law, and as to court orders, compliance with them?]
Work with parents in developing a detailed plan for issues such as discipline, decision-making, communication, etc.

[Good Grief! — Go have your own children, and raise them — well. Let’s see what fine examples they are, then parents can judge FREELY whether Mr. , Ms. & Mrs. Parent Coordinators are competent to make these plans. I mean — the concept is ridiculous! What about various cultures and family values, so long as they are not child abuse, domestic violence, or otherwise illegal?] [Even then it probably wouldn’t be a comparable situation, because the psychologists involved with the court, and AFCC professionals can usually drum up plenty of high-paying business, whereas a lot of the parents they are dealing with probably, by the time they are on the scene, absolutely cannot.]
Create a more relaxed home atmosphere allowing the child to adjust more effectively with the new family structure.

[You want to have a more relaxed home atmosphere with children/ Again, go have your own and show it to us. Then we can, awestruck by your competence – – and if we want to — copy it!]
Collaborate with professionals involved with the family in order to offer coordinated service.

[that’s closer to the real reason for it — more business referrals to colleagues]
Monitor parental behaviors to ensure that parents are fulfilling their obligations to their child while complying with the recommendations of the Court.

[Children need due process, and they need an active, and respected Bill of Rights, for when they grow up. One purpose of the Bill of Rights was to keep snoops out of one’s private business, so long as that business didn’t ramble over into the criminal arena. It’s called LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How can one pursue anything with the thought police on one’s heels?. . . . .

Anyone who’s trying to function as a parent coordinator, and talking about children’s needs constantly (to justify it) apparently doesn’t comprehend what long-term dedication to one’s family AND country entails. It entails respecting its laws. I have before blogged an SF-area parent coordinator and family law attorney, who posted on his own site that the Constitution needs to be scrapped and rewritten, why revere it like Christians revere their Bible (guess he’s not one, and doesn’t understand how few Christians actually practice what’s in their Bible — or Constitution — to start with…)]

The NH “Parent Coordinators” Association of 2009 “FAQs” suggest a benefit is:
Q. What are the benefits of Parenting Coordination?

Parenting Coordination offers a much better way of resolving parenting plan issues than returning to court. And the resolution comes much faster than waiting for a court date and then the court decision. The Parenting Coordinator educates the parents about the harm to the children of hostility between parents, mediates issues as they arise, and if the parents are unable to resolve minor issues, makes the decision.

As ever, when selling their services, AFCC professionals see themselves as the mature adults on the scene, and the parents as a “plural,” and refuse to assign responsibility where it’s perhaps due. They seem to utterly lack curiosity in fact-finding as to that matter. This is understandable, because they deal in “psychology” more than law– which is the culture of the association. While two individual parents are often involved, in the marketing prose, it’s always “the parents” v. “the helping professionals”

However, once in the door, and in practice — then they are quick to blame ONE parent, often the mother, and recommend severe intervention, often removing of contact with the children to counter supposed “alienation.” In other words, they are hypocrites — professing neutrality and to be helping, but planning in advance (in this case) to do harm to one gender — the female, should she as a parent (mother) counter them.

I blogged this earlier, but again (from the same site) — here is their “sample” report from the handbook:

Handbook

A handbook for the purpose and practice of parenting coordination prepared by PCANH.

Parts of this were credited (fn1 inside) to “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” in Indiana. This is a nonprofit formed in 2005, EIN# 432074631 with principal listed c/o “Gloria K. Mitchell.”

So of course I looked this person up — she is a Rising Star Super Attorney, member of National Association of Counsel for Children, and works in a four-woman firm. The nonprofit, however, is categorized as “exempt — earning under $25,000). website’s “Divorce and Parenting Research Links” is typical, plus a direct link to the Children’s Rights Council” (hover URL). CRC is pretty big in Indiana… Six years after passing the bar, Ms. Mitchell was on the Executive Committee of Family Law Section of Indiana Bar Assoc., and chaired it in 2005. The articles of incorporation show it’s a 501(c)4 (not “3”) and by address its place of business is another law firm in Noblesville, Indiana: Holt, Fleck & Romini. If the image (showing org.’s purpose) doesn’t show, it’s viewable for free on the site below.

Entity Name	Type	Entity Type	City / State
FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC.	Legal	Non-Profit Domestic Corporation	INDIANAPOLIS, IN

Gloria K. Mitchell, and the four attorneys in the law firm,

Though only incorporated in winter (February) 2005, by summer (July) 2005, Indiana, “Families Moving Forward”** already had a “Parent Coordination Committee” and presented the following report in this context:

Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum

3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute

and Family ICO Training Session July 28-29, 2005*

*Note: the Nonprofit to present this was incorporated 2/14/2005, in time for this, 3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute agenda (see link) doesn’t show anything about parent coordination, although certainly it could’ve happened. Law firm page for Ms. Mitchell notes that she was “Executive Committee of the “Family Law Section” 1994-2005 and its chair in 2004-2005. So it would make sense that her nonprofit would have a good shot at presenting at that summer institute.

I note that at Ms. Mitchell’s office, one of her associates began as Parent Coordinator in 2006.

Another very smart attorney with stellar credits is Amy Stewart (valedictorian of her law class) is president of this nonprofit (FMF): notice also collaborative law emphasis, plus an AFCC affiliation. In 1999 she had an article published on “Covenant Marriage: Legislating Family Values” Good summary of the issues of religiosity in marriage by a UK author, here Actually, it’s a good summary and a timely read of marriage/divorce, and role of rising religiosity (UK/America) in the mix.

But it was a search for “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” that brought her name up.

Here’s Ms. Stewart’s bio (notice “Collaborative Law”); she works at Bingham McHale, LLP, a large firm with locations in 3 Indiana counties. She is a partner.

Amy concentrates her practice in matrimonial and family law matters. She was one of the first Indiana attorneys trained in collaborative law, and she has been instrumental in introducing the approach in Indiana. She has practiced collaborative law since 2007, has attended several conferences of the International Association of Collaborative Professionals,* and has been trained by collaborative law founder Stuart Webb. In addition, Amy also practices traditional litigation.

*Readers probably may not remember, so I’ll remind us. the “IACP” is another incarnation, membership association — out of many — formed by AFCC-type professionals, as you can see by the description:

iacp,collaborative law,collaborative practice,collaborative divorce,international academy of collaborative professionals

ACP is the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, an international community of legal, mental health and financial professionals working in concert to create client-centered processes for resolving conflict.

I probably blogged it, too. I remember looking up the various websites, corporate registrations, etc. Here’s their About Us/History narrative. I notice a good chunk of it (after inspiration by “Stu Webb” in MN) took form in the Northern California family court association nonprofit factor, aka the SF Bay Area, including Oakland (East Bay) and other well-known cities:

In May of 1999, the first annual AICP [=American Institute of Collaborative Professionals] networking forum was held in Oakland, California. The following year, a meeting was held in Chicago to discuss the state of Collaborative legal practice across the country. The nearly 50 practitioners who attended this meeting agreed that AICP should serve as the umbrella organization for our rapidly-growing movement. At the same time, they recognized that since Collaborative Practice was also developing exponentially across Canada, the organization needed a broader, more inclusive name and mission. Thus the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals was born in late 2000, officially changing its name in 2001.

The Collaborative Review has been published continuously since May, 1999. The work begun by initial editors Jennifer Jackson and Pauline Tesler. . .

Jennifer Jackson (FYI, I’ve never met, spoken to, or dealt with her in court) is kind of branded in my mind as having helped start up Kids’ Turn (SF):

FYI — here is another Super Lawyer, high-profile, longstanding success. Her “about” page lists many accomplishments. Notice which comes first; notice also the variety of terms which are basic to the field: I’ll bold them:

About Jennifer Jackson

Before becoming a family lawyer in 1985, Jennifer Jackson was an illustrator and photographer, raising three children.

A LITTLE LOCAL COMMENTARY relating to this Super-Productive/Super Attorney and her many Nonprofits:

I know artists, including photographers and illustrators. It’s not that easy to make a living at; this speaks of either a good prior divorce settlement, (or not marrying) or some substantial education somewhere along the line, undergrad plus law school. That’s quite a set of accomplishments, but I don’t think represents an indigence. See Resume:

BA with Honors in 1966, became family lawyer (passed bar?)
1985, with Professor’s Assistanceships (in law school) on child-related and mediation topics. Maybe I can assume that almost 20 year gap is called “Mom” and “Wife” time.
In 1987, she helped found Kids’ Turn and was simultaneously involved in PTA Board at “Campolindo High School” where her kids probably attended. Campolindo is — well, its site describes it well:

“Located in the hills east of the University of California, Berkeley, Campolindo serves the professionally-oriented and well-educated suburban communities of Moraga and Lafayette. Students, teachers and parents work together to provide a positive climate for learning where mutual respect, trust and esteem are valued. ” . . .”In statewide API (Academic Performance Index) ratings, for the fifth year in a row, both the Acalanes District and Campolindo are ranked in the very top percentiles of all public high schools in California with an API score of 919. Nationally, Campolindo is recognized regularly in Newsweek magazine as one of the “Best High Schools in America”. The Association of Californa School Administrators honored Campolindo’s Principal, Carol Kitchens, as the Secondary Principal of the Year in 2009

This is my way — as is this demographics piechart** of saying, as fantastic as these achievements are for Ms. Jackson — something had her living (presumably) in Moraga around the time she passed the bar — and that’s a privileged community. A neighboring one, Orinda, shows has a 2009 median household of $156K, and more than half the town earning that much, and the largest sector earning over $200K.

To get a general feel for housing in the area — this is my tactful way of saying that until the 1960s, some of these communities did not allow African-American housing loans, or greatly restricted them — read this thoughtful summary of Berkeley, including a lot on demographics and migration.

Essentially, people that might work as professors, or other high-paying jobs in SF or Berkeley (or even Oakland) would then leave those urban areas and commute straight past (on highways like as not) the dangerous and darker-skinned areas, right on back to the suburbs. Just keep this in mind when someone from this area (however s/he got there) is all excited about helping poor kids, single mother or no single mother. And I don’t know specifically that Jennifer Jackson was; although no mention of a husband is made, or the children’s father.

(**scroll down to see race (total African Americans: 166, Hispanic, invisible — they are living elsewhere and working on the lawns and in the retail & domestic sectors no doubt (wikipedia, though, says 7% in 2010) — how few single parent households, and almost NO violent crime). As of 2010, Moraga had a total population of 16,016 people. As of the 2000 census, Moraga was the 79th wealthiest place in the US with a population above 10,000. The median income for a household in the town is $98,080, and the median income for a family is $116,113. Males have a median income of $92,815 versus $51,296 for females.[almost 2:1!!] )

Blending this background of creativity, caring and flexibility with her legal training enhances her practice of family law and expands the options for her clients.

Jennifer believes that a lawyer must be actively involved in her professional community, and that life is about making a difference. Jennifer is one of the founders of Kids’ Turn, a program for separating families begun in San Francisco which has expanded exponentially in size and in quality of service to children and families.

(If you know my blog, you know EXACTLY why and how Kids’ Turn “expanded exponentially in size” — see family law attorneys, evaluators & judges on the board, see access/visitation funds “facilitating” parent education programs. . . . .As to the quality of service? That’s debatable, but as I haven’t sat through any of the classes — except to note they use the word “parental alienation” a lot in stating benefits, i.e., “reduces parental alienation” type claims. I’ll withhold judgment on this, as should others who haven’t !!)

She is one of the founders of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and served for eight years as co-editor of its journal, The Collaborative Review. She has had leadership roles in her professional organizations at local, state national and international levels, and is a past president of the Northern California chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Within five years of passing the bar, she is serving as a judge pro tem– how common is that? Or this?

Standing Committee on Custody, North: Chair 1988-1990

San Francisco Bar Association

Executive Committee, Family Law Section: Chair, 1992; Member: 1987-present
Fee Arbitration Panel: 1988-1990
Barristers Club, Co-Chair, Family Law Committee: 1988-1990
BASF Delegate to the State Bar Convention: 1989, 1990
Volunteer Legal Services Program Volunteer Attorney: 1986-2000

[[This is almost another topic — I’ve footnoted it [VLSP* at bottom of post, a section in itself….]

Expert: Temporary Restraining Order Clinic

Jennifer has been given an “AV” rating by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named one of the top 50 female lawyers (“Super Lawyers”) in Northern California in all areas of practice by Law and Politics Publications for the past five years in a row. Jennifer practices alternative dispute resolution exclusively; she has trained extensively in mediation and collaboration, and is committed to keeping clients out of court and at the negotiating table.

The IACP has created Standards for practitioners, trainers and collaborative practice trainings. It has promulgated Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners, and continues to support excellence in collaborative practice through resources, training curriculum, practice tools, mentoring and a comprehensive website, allowing collaborative practitioners to continue our tradition of sharing and learning from one another.

Where we are going…

Today, the IACP has over 4,000 members from twenty four countries around the world. We are dedicated to educating the public about the Collaborative alternative. We are committed to fostering professional excellence in conflict resolution through Collaborative Practice. We invite you to peruse this site to learn more about IACP, our services and initiatives.

Amy is the past-chair of the Family Law Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association (2003) and is president of Families Moving Forward, Inc., a multi-disciplinary non-profit organization devoted to developing healthy approaches to family transitions.. . .[Law Degree summa cum laude Indiana Univ. School of Law, 1999; admitted to IN bar same year, graduate “with high distinction” in 1986. ]

5 years of work and/or law school, and within 4 more years she’s charing the Family Law Section of Indianapolis (that’s one city, not the whole state’s) Bar Assocation. What a nice nonprofit and what accomplished professionals, and how successful they are. As such, we should believe what they say, especially as the nonprofit “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” is DEVOTED to a HEALTHY APPROACH to “Family transitions.” (typically called divorces or custody matters).

** a name in other states used for purposes such as helping with homelessness, or infants with fetal alcohol syndrome, other issues, here it’s referring to divorce:

FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC., is an interdisciplinary organization of attorneys, mental health providers, accountants, and other professionals committed to improving the process of family transition in Indiana, by reducing conflict and cost, creating healthier outcomes for children, and enhancing the satisfaction of professionals serving families.

(However, notice the articles of incorporation say it’s there to serve the families as well as the professionals serving the families)

This report is on-line at “SAIF” where it probably was presented:

Seminars For Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals

They have a form for the (many) professionals listed to say which district they want to be parent coordinator in — PC has its own tab. (Strategic planning)

This For-Profit group incorporated as below in Indiana, with the address “9000 KEYSTONE CROSSING, STE 600, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 (which is “HuirasLaw,” Wm. E. Huiras, although the Registered Agent is another attorney, Robin Brown Neihaus (LinkedIn)

Date	Name (Type)
7/27/2006	SEMINARS FOR ADVANCED INTERDISCIPLINARY FAMILY PROFESSIONALS, INC. D/B/A SAIF (Assumed))

(the entity filed one report in 2008, file notes, it owes 2010/2011 – perhaps IN is only every 2 years).

Segments from the Indiana 2005 Sample PC report (handbook):

The sample report begins with a situation between father and stepfather which was hostile. Both wanted to coach on Little (10) Joey’s baseball team.

Therapy for both TOGETHER is recommended:

5. Mr. Smith and Mr. Doe should attend counseling sessions together to attempt to resolve their(For example, the mother did not want the father to volunteer on Fridays at school any longer. She maintained that the children were emotional and upset on those mornings and did not want to go to school. The teachers were contacted and reported that the children looked forward to and enjoyed their father’s presence.

AFCC CLAIMS CREDIT FOR HAVING DEVELOPING PARENT COORDINATION:

From their 5-year prospectus:

AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

In 2003, AFCC President George Czutrin appointed a Task Force to develop Model Standards of Practice for Parenting Coordination, following the first Task Force on Parenting

Coordination that conducted research and published the 2003 Report on Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues. The Task Force determined that the Parenting Coordination process was too new to use the term “Model Standards” and, in May 2005, proposed to the Board of Directors the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. The Guidelines passed unanimously and are available on the AFCC Web site at http://www.afccnet.org/resources/standards_practice.asp.

AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force: Christie Coates, J.D., M.Ed. (Chair), Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., (Secretary), Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D. , Philip Epstein, Q.C., Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William Jones (ret.), Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D

. . . .

The following new publications have been developed since 2002 while dated products were been eliminated:

• Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues

There are scholarly articles galore about this. One by matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. (and a parent coordinator) uses the phrase repeatedly in the abstract — but to access the article one-time costs $34 and permanently $155. Needless to say, not many people who have parent coordinators in their lives can afford to read up on it….

“In 1994 the concept of parent coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who

WHILE PROMOTION EFFORTS TEND TO PHRASE PARENT COORDINATION PASSIVELY (as if a natural development), IN PRIVATE PUBLICATIONS, IT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE FIELD:

AFCC STAYS FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING AND PROMOTING PARENT COORDINATION:

And I am going to show you what apparent frauds some of the prime “trainers” are in this field too. But first, let’s look at the upcoming 2012 conference called:

The New Frontier

Exploring the Challenges and Possibilities of the Changed Landscape for Children and the Courts:

This is an upcoming (Feb. 2012) meeting of the California Chapter of the AFCC. An entire day is dedicated to a workshop on Parenting Coordination, and a secondary one talks about how to get it in there — even if parents are indigent.

Here are the presenters’ bios (please scroll through). Some are more than a page, others short. Notice the types of professionals involved (typical), Judges, Attorneys and Psychologists, Mediators, etc. Some have been around forever (Joan B. Kelly, Dianna Gould-Saltzmann) others seem newer:

Abbas Hadjian, JD, CFLS

Graduate of Tehran University School of Law and Harvard…

Abbas Hadjian, Esquire devotes a substantial part of his family law practice to educating the Farsi‐speaking community on the comparisons between the American and Iranian legal system and recently published “Divorce in California,” which is written in Farsi. He is an expert on Iranian culture and laws.

(from his website, partial description of an amazing background):

Mr. Hadjian was born, educated and lived in Iran until 1980. Between 1959 and 1968 Mr. Hadjian was a professional journalist in Iran, with positions including editor, writer, reporter, translator and commentator in major Iranian publications and news agencies. His profession a journalist required and helped Mr. Hadjian’s foundational understanding of the Iranian legal, social, economical and political structure. Between 1962 and 1966, Mr. Hadjian attended the School of Law, Political Science and Economics in Tehran University. Among others, he received courses in Iranian Constitution, Civil, Family and Probate law, furthering his understanding of the legal, social, economic and political infrastructure of his native country.

Upon graduation. Mr. Hadjian became a political appointee in the Office of the Governor General, Iranian Southern Ports and Islands (Persian Gulf), where he acted as a ranking civil officer in the region until 1978, the year of the Iranian Revolution. As deputy to the Governor General in social and economic affairs, Mr. Hadjian relied heavily on his legal studies and implemented them in real life situations. In 1975, Harvard University accepted him to the renowned Edward S. Mason Program for Public Development on full scholarship, acknowledging five years of Mr. Hadjian’s services in developing the Persian Gulf region as one year of post-graduate studies. He was awarded a Masters Degree in Public Administration

A related site from “Culture Counts.net” (site has three diverse professionals) has a page about fatherhood, the new normal, which “surprisingly” reminds readers about:

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Children

Children display increased self-confidence.

Better able to deal with frustration and other feelings.

Higher grade point averages.

More likely to mature into compassionate adults.

Paternal emotional responses to sons were associated with a 50% decrease in sons’ expressions of sadness and anxiety from preschool to early school age

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Men

Helps men reevaluate their priorities and become more caring human beings who are concerned about future generations.
May reduce health-risk behaviors.
Decreases psychological distress as emotional involvement with children acts as a buffer against work-related stress.
Happiness and increased physical activity.
Sense of accomplishment, well-being, and contentment.
Men tend to be more involved with extended family and others in the community.
Over time, fatherhood increases marital stability.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Here is the rather short blurb of a long-time attorney in California, who in this conference is presenting an all-day workshop on Parenting Coordination:

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

Ms. Shear is a graduate of UCLA School of Law and admitted to the California Bar in 1976 and maintains her practice in Encino, California. A frequent lecturer in custody matters, she has been involved in a number of high-profile custody cases over the years – most recently, Marriage of LaMusga and Marriage of Seagondollar.

I note she was admitted to the bar fully 20 years before welfare reform and almost as much before VAWA.

These three are going to present on Parenting Coordination — an all-day institute. It must be important:

9:00am – 5:15pm

All Day Institute (2)

(I2) Inside Parenting Coordination Practice in California: Managing Roles, Responsibilities, and Risks

Lyn Greenberg, Ph D

Alexandra Leichtner, JD

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

Apparently even indigent people need parent coordination — there’s a workshop on how to get it to them:

W1 Establishing a Local Parenting Coordination Program Including Pro Bono PC Services to Indigent FamiliesHonorable Lorna Alksne// Charlene S. Baron, JD, MA // Shirley Ann Higuchi, JD // Lori Love, Ph D

http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/submit-sentence-4.html

III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage. These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.
Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Fami- lies 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to return to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs, and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents. The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997). Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

Kelly (2008) Preparing for the Parenting Coordination Role: Training Needs for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 5 Journal of Child Custody 140,149-150

+ + + + = = = + + + = = =

[VSLP*]. This footnote comes from a fragment of attorney Jennifer Jackson’s resume, which itself came from a bio of another nonprofit, Families Moving Forward, Inc. in Indiana. I was following up in another nonprofit, “International Association Collaborative Professionals” and I guess you can see about how curious I am about the inter-relationships of various nonprofits.

I looked at the staff. This one caught my attention — because of the specialties, not him personally:

Chris Emley (in 2011, or at least now on the website.)

Chris is a certified family law specialist and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, with 41 years of experience focusing on child custody litigation. He has been included in Best Lawyers in America since 1991. He has helped to govern VLSP since its inception in 1979. He received the State Bar President’s Pro Bono Service Award in 1983, the Legal Assistance Association of California’s Award of Merit in 1989, and two Awards of Merit from The Bar Association of San Francisco (1977 and 2004). He was a BASF board member from 1979 through 1981, and chaired the Lawyer Referral Service Committee. Chris was Vice President of the San Francisco Child Abuse Council, Chairman of the Board of Legal Assistance to the Elderly, and Chairman of the Board of Legal Services for Children, Inc.

There happens to be one pro bono group in the SF Bay area which used to help women leaving violence and eventually in the news (and had I known at the time to check all these 990s, I’d have seen the notation that it specialized in helping NONCustodial, low-income fathers, I’d have realized why this group refused to help so many mothers stuck in the family law system.). The presence of a Certified Family Law Practitioner on the board of VSLP, with his emphasis being on children’s rights, and without question, children in ANY institutional system these days need help and representation, does make me wonder who is helping with women’s rights when it comes to actual mothers who aren’t in jail for killing their batterers (which have some groups advocating) — but actually dealing with the horrors of year after year in a custody battle with a violent or abusive ex, and doing so without even a grasp of how it works, or who pays its bills.

General Comments:

I don’t see anything in VSLP which remotely deals with the situation, and was able to get no actual help (legal representation of any sort, pro bono) in my case either, not past the initial restraining order, and a perfunctory (and NOT in court) attempt to renew it, which I was told would be a non-issue, it’s often granted automatically! No one came to court where I, like many, many other “custodial” mothers after leaving abuse, was blindsided by a prior ex parte movement consolidating renewal with a divorce and custody matter, thus shifting the case into the family law system, where it remained, and where the actual topic of ongoing DV was drowned by the type of talk we see in these realms — psychological states, not literal deeds!

The moral is, every program and every nonprofit has its target clientele. As the target clientele (for keeping in their proper place) in so many federal grants to the states are fathers (when it comes to custody matters), it would make no “sense” for the government to also pay the opposing side, the protective mothers!

[[Interesting program, project of SF Bar: its family law person Chris Emley also on Board of “Legal Services for Children” which (as of 2001) got funding from City & County of SF, SF Dept. of Public Health, and SF Dept. of Children, Youth & Their Families.

Its address seems to be a few doors down from Kids Turn: 1254 Market vs. 1242 Market Street. “Legal Services for Children” (2010) shows no Chris Emley on the Board, but its main purposes are: 1. Guardianship for children wanting it; 2. Helping kids dealing with expulsion and school-related issues; 3. Immigration. . ..It also represents children in foster care and helps support LGBT youth. 200 Volunteer attorneys gave over $1mil worth of their help. The group received over $1 mill. of contrib& grants, and gave $65,000 to a DC nonprofit, National Juvenile Defender Center (EIN# 02060456. On “Foundation Finder” this EIN doesn’t pull up a tax return…..for any year. Nor does a name search! However from NCCSdataweb, I see that it was incorporated in 2002 (legal services for children, in 1975). This “National Juvenile Defender Center” interests me: 2002 income, 0. A 2007 letter from Andrea Weisman, signed DC Dept of Youth Rehab. Services (“DYRS”) (shares address with a Board member of NJDC, Mark Soler, 2002) expresses the serious problems of Youth in Adult Facilities. Weisman and Soler (again, board member of the group which got $65K grant from the West-Coast “Legal Services for Children,” which takes funding from various depts. of SF and its city & county) worked together (1999?) on “No Minor Matter: Children in Maryland’s Jails.” Weisman notes she got a $1.6mil grant from OJJDP. ]]

National Juvenile Defender Center:

2002– income is zero. By 2009 — they are into Technical Training and Assistance. And ExDir. Patricia Puritz as only paid director, gets $134K salary) — and have landed over $5 million of grants, and earning $10K from investment income and have some serious program income in 2010 ($119K= almost (but not quite) enough to pay their own Exec. Director:. Check it out. So why, in the following year (revenues down to $405K — but probably some leftovers, wanna bet?) did a group in SF just grant them $65,000? Or was that a sort of tax equalization between them both. I live in the same state as “Legal Service for Children, Inc.” and we know that our K-12 schools are taking a serious hit? Why should enough money to feed, clothe and house three families in this area for a year, be given to a nonprofit out of DC that just got $5 million the year before?

http://njdc.info/about_us.php

The National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) was created in 1999 to respond to the critical need to build the capacity of the juvenile defense bar and to improve access to counsel and quality of representation for children in the justice system. In 2005, the National Juvenile Defender Center separated from the American Bar Association to become an independent organization. NJDC gives juvenile defense attorneys a more permanent capacity to address practice issues, improve advocacy skills, build partnerships, exchange information, and participate in the national debate over juvenile crime.

They operate 9 US Regional Centers; the California one is in SF and among its projects is:

MacArthur Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN)

In 2008, California was selected by the the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as one of four sites in the nation to participate in the foundation’s Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN). The four JIDAN sites, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey and California, join the four MacArthur Models for Change “core” states of Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington to form an eight-state network.

The California team is led by the Youth Law Center, and includes members from the Center for Families, Children and the Courts of the California Administrative Office of the Courts; the Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law & Policy; the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office; theSan Francisco Public Defender’s Office; the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office; andHuman Rights Watch.

The eight-state network is coordinated through the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC), and engages juvenile defenders, policymakers, judges and other key stakeholders in designing strategies to improve juvenile indigent defense policy and practice. California was chosen as a result of its demonstrated ability to achieve measurable reform on juvenile indigent defense issues. California’s JIDAN work will be centered in the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

The Exec. Director of this “NJDC.INFO” nonprofit (inc. 2002) was in 2003 appointed by the Governor of Virginia to a Board of Juvenile Justice:

This bio/blurb places Ms. Puritz Professionally, prior to here, she was ABA Juvenile Justice Center, etc.

Much of this relates to the “OJJDP” and the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. This is an entirely different category than “Parenting Coordination” through the family law center; it is dealing with things such as the US being the world largest per-capita jailor, that those in jail are disproprotionately minority, that horrible things are happening to youth while in confinement, etc. By comparison, the “Parent Coordinator” issue seems like kids’ play unless one begins to wonder how many of the youth in detention had parents stuck in the family law system, which definitely cuts down on actual parenting time and focus!

p://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/policy/juvenile_justice.html

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

December 14, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, Lethality Indicators - in News, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit, When Police Shoot / Shoot Back, Where's Mom?, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with "Parenting Coordination is a Bad Idea"-TheLizLibrary, Access-Visitation, AFCC, AFCC Judges-Hugh Starnes (FL), AFCC quoting AFCC quoting AFCC, Attorneys-Abbas Hadjian (CA), Attorneys-Amy Stewart (IN), Attorneys-Chris Emley (VSLP&LSC-CA), Attorneys-Gloria K. Mitchell (IN), Attorneys-Jennifer Jackson (SF:background), Attorneys-Patricia Purditz (VA-NJDC Exec Dir), Bogus ACFLS (not filing Charitable returns in CA) group LOVES to file Amicus Briefs and help Reform the Courts, Due process, Families Moving Forward Inc. (IN), family annihilation, family law, fatherhood, Human Rights Watch on Incarcerated Youth, IACP (Internat'l Assoc of Collaborative Professionals), Jeb Bush Parenting Coord. 2004 Veto, Joan S Meier DVLEAP, Kids' Turn, Legal Services for Children Inc (CA), Leslie Ellen Shear-ACFLS AFCC, Motherhood, murder-suicides, NJDC-National Juvenile Defender Center (WDC Inc.2002), obfuscation, Parenting Coordination, SAIF-Seminars for Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals (IN-works with Families Moving Forward), Termini-Boyan, Trials and woes of dealing with flawed parents in court, VLSP-Volunteer Legal Services Program (SF Bar assoc)

	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	sandwich near Detroi… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Historic Day Today, and Week,…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on ‘Table Talk’ Helps…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on So, You Want Us To Speak Out A…

Archive for the ‘AFCC’ Category

“MBA Wage Gap between Men, Women Grows” Dec. 29, 2012

SHARE THIS POST on...

PART I (first comment on the topic from Scranton PT):

SUMMARY

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family Courts.

Other Funding The ABA solicited and obtained additional project funding from the private sector and government, including:

PARTS II & III:

RWJF + ABA = UFCs + Drug Courts (cont’d.)

First Annual

SHARE THIS POST on...

High Conflict Case Management

Rich, poor, middle-class… No child in America is safe.

BECOME A HIGH CONFLICT DIVERSION PROGRAM INSTRUCTOR OR COACH

Kingston New Jersey – June 8-11 2012

Austin Texas – July 27-30

Goals of New Ways for Families

San Diego Family Courts: Organized Crime Ring Targeting Middle and Upper Classes

Brook D. Olsen

Maharshi Maheshananda (Dr. Michael Mamas)

igh Conflict Divorce Resolution (HCDR) Instructor Training

About Your Instructor

COURSE COST

From “divorce-support.about.com“

Did your attorney make mistakes during your divorce?

Were you the victim of an unethical judge?

SHARE THIS POST on...

Take for example, “Child Support Enforcement.”

That entire concept is now “old school” apparently, just the core mission in amid a bunch of evolving (self-) definitions.

SHARE THIS POST on...

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Families Matter Symposium: Working Toward a More Therapeutic Family Justice System

The 2008 newsletter I quoted is titled” Families Matter.” Now that we know where that came from, let’s go back to this 2008 piece of ?? listing marketable commodities to connect with court reform years….

“. . .Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron…”

SERIOUSLY?

Yes, apparently. Look for yourself:

Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”)

PAPER

COTTON

LEATHER

FRUIT

WOOD

IRON

WOOL

BRONZE

PAPER COTTON LEATHER FRUIT WOOD IRON WOOL BRONZE

By the most obvious (to me, at least) functions of the material, it would go:

SO, What, exactly, is the organizing and ordering principle behind this Department of Family Administration Newsletters’ selection of:

IS THE TRUE MESSAGE BEHIND THE METAPHOR ITS INHERENT MEANINGLESSNESS?

BASED ON THE CONTEXTS, POSSIBLY THE CONTENTS AND WORDS ARE, INDEED MEANINGLESS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN WHICH IS NEXT TO WHAT….

Family Administration – Maryland state court system (http://mdcourts.gov/family/index.html)

There’s a long, colorful newsletter above, which mixes talk of in order, page 1, Civil Protective Orders (DV issues) & Parent Coordination Promotion.

NEWSLETTER, PAGE 1, TOPIC 1 — “SEE, WE ARE HELPING STOP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!”

Statewide Civil Domestic Violence Database to be Launched this Summer

PAGE 1, TOPIC 2 — “BUT DON’T WORRY, DADS & AFCC PROFESSIONALS — WE REMEMBERED YOUR AGENDA TOO”*

Refining Emerging Practices Proposed Parenting Coordination Rule Completed

(AFCC) “History”

SHARE THIS POST on...

“Three Cities that Rule the World,” Including the Ever-expanding but Centralized DV Field“

http://www.cpradr.org/ The CPR Institute is an independent, nonprofit think tank that promotes innovation in commercial dispute prevention and resolution. By harnessing the collective …

International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution

. . .

“Three Cities that Rule the World,” Including the Ever-expanding but Centralized DV Field“

“USEFUL LINKS” (useful for WHAT?)

ANYHOW . . . The Three Cities and Fiat Currency . . . .

— lenders got a charter to establish the Bank of England (in 1694) with monopoly power to issue banknotes as national paper currency;

— it created them out of nothing, with only a fraction of them as reserves;

— loans to the government were to be backed by government IOUs to serve as reserves for creating additional loans to private borrowers; and

— lenders could consolidate the national debt on their government loan to secure payment through people-extracted taxes.

He is thinking in terms of the Corporation that holds the (moulah) versus the “State” which is subject to it. It’s a BIG deal!

That meeting, the ESM and the Crown – why Cameron said NO

SHARE THIS POST on...

See also (next-gen blog, at least for me)