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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for the ‘Parent Education promotion’ Category

Michigan Matters (In Maddening Detail, formerly underneath “A Word to the Wise for Mothers…”)

with 4 comments

I don’t have time to reformat this. However, the first link I believe is valuable — it shows travel expenses for DHS employees. A survey of where they are being flown is a clue to MULTI-state national conferences of public servants. Post is in rough shape, but full of revelations (details) relevant to us all.

The pattern of nationalization and regionalization (again, as financially supported by taxpayers — whether from Michigan, or Federal, or Both), is definitely maddening. At what point does this trail get so complex, that it’s clear no one is going to navigate it?

Nevertheless, there are still clues. First of all, when a Governor declares it’s National Fatherhood month, that is talking about getting grants, and redistributing. …. Another issue (not dealt with here, but to be aware of), is that fatherhood funding (and that could either be for marketing curriculum, or outreach to provide free legal advice in custody matters; both show up) is often directed to or through Children’s Trust Funds (in various states).

As often happens when I go look for an example for such a statement, I end up finding something even more extensive and disturbing. It’s like a bottomless chasm. This time was no exception, but I had the sense to know it belongs in a separate post…. Arrrgh!!!

To understand some of this is to wish never to go back to “numb and dumb” again. And I know people who have been put homeless by these programs, which wouldn’t have been, without them. That’s six feet higher than some people who have been killed because of the insane insistence that gender matters more than character when it comes to kids. It doesn’t! …. However, that alone is more about marketing than anything else, I believe.



Below here is a previous post, just moved to a new location.
At the bottom many dramatic logos showing Christian Counseling associations (in the field), plus some grants look-ups, are shown. So be it. We are talking, a lot of “Faith-Based (sexual offender, etc.) Re-entry programming.” and more.

These organizations know very well that there are federal (and through federal, state, county, etc.) funding streams arranged around certain themes.   These are the irrigation system (outflow) from the centralized collection system we now know as the United States of America (Federal Government).  So they set themselves up to get the grants.

If you finish reading about some of the personnel involved in the Michigan example below, and also hooked up with the Supervised Visitation/Batterers Intervention Program industry (which has  Coalition based in Michigan as well, logo below), in looking at its board — I saw several high-ups in the Michigan DHS department (hardly surprising).  Duane M. Wilson, Ismael Ahmed/Stanley M. Stewart (top DHS leadership), Debi Cain, and others show up in this 2009 report on “out of state travel” expenses.  Please browse with care — you can see what memberships and conferences some state personnel are being flown to.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-Legislative-Sec217-3-PA248-2008-Travel_263086_7.pdf  People in each state ought to get hold of their respective reports, to see what their leadership (gov’t HHS dept) has been up to in:  fatherhood promotion, child support enforcement, marriage promotion, DV promotion, and a WHOLE lot more.  For example, you can see some of the big ones:
Read the rest of this entry »

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

June 6, 2013 at 7:41 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 Transitions for Life Mediation (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.
  1. TFL Mediation | LinkedIn

    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”

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):

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)
CINERGY (tm) - Peacebuilding... one person at a time
 **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

  1. 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):

  1. Saving Damon – Saving Damon from his identified molester

    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.

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 D. OlsenBrook 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 MaheshanandaMaharshi 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.

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:
Mark Image
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 Word Mark 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:

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

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.”

Fathers
Matter
Jobs &
Financial
Tools
R U
Ready
2 B A
Parent?
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 »

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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]]


assn.gif (5213 bytes)  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.”

Copyright © Design Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Last update 01/10/2010)

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.

University of BaltimoreSchool of Law

Contact CFCC

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

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:

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.

For Further Info — and Reflection

with 3 comments

See also (next-gen blog, at least for me)

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.   $75To 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

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.

 

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

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

__________________

and some more, for 2011:

For the year 2011

Attachments

__________________

(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:
[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.

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.

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):

1.
$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)

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 COURTS 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.
Excel Icon

$1.194 million so for — hope it’s a good program!

From the web:

  1. 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 …*   



  2. More Specifically (and predictably):

  1. 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.

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

F.A.C.E.S.S. (Fight Against Child Exploitation & Sexual Slavery) (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:
Office of Child Support Services Logo

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.

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 »

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!

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.}}

“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:

  1. 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.]
  2. 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).
  3. 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?]
  4. 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.]
  5. 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!]
  6. 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]
  7. 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


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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Certifiably Irregular Behavior among Certified Specialist Associations, and other Dispensers of Training…

leave a comment »

Warning:

Warning: This article contains language that some will find offensive, but that others will find refreshingly honest.*

(*cite, and this quote again, below)

INSPIRATION FOR THIS POST:

WAS THE “ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW PROFESSIONALS.”

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1955108 12/04/1995 ACTIVE ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW   SPECIALISTS, INC. LYNN MARIE PFEIFER

NOT JUST THE CONCEPT OF CERTIFYING A FAMILY LAW PROFESSIONAL TO START WITH, BUT THE CONCEPT OF A CERTIFIED SET OF ASSOCIATES THAT SEEM BELIEVE PSYCHOLOGY IS SCIENCE, AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, ISN’T, WHICH INCLUDES A CRIMINAL DEGREE OF PROFIT FROM PROMOTING SPREADING THIS “COGNITIVE DISSONANCE” AMONG OTHERS, WHILE QUITE CONSCIOUS OF THE PROFIT IN SO DOING.

First, the public face — clearly this is a hot shot, and professionally alert group:

See?

Welcome, from the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists in California, an independent association of California attorneys who specialize in family law.

ACFLS was formed in 1980 following certification of the first group of Family Law Specialists under the “pilot” program, now a permanent program of the State Bar. ACFLS monitors administration by the State Bar of the specialization program, legislation and court rules, develops and promotes Family Law practice skills, and provides advanced educational programs for the bar, judiciary and public.

In the 28 years of ACFLS’ existence, membership has grown to 490 of the approximately 982 California Certified Family Law Specialists, 50% of those certified by the California State Bar Association. . . .

This means one’s chances of hiring an ACFLS member in California is approximately 1 out of 2; 50%. I wonder who certifies the other 50% of family law specialists?

Membership in ACFLS requires Certification by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California, and payment of the annual dues. Members receive all ACFLS Newsletters, notices of meetings, are eligible to participate in ACFLS activities (including seminars at reduced cost), and are listed in the ACFLS Referral and Membership Directory published each year and on our web site: www.acfls.org.

It is the Mission of ACFLS to promote and preserve the Family Law Specialty. * * * To that end, the Association seeks to:

  1. Advance the knowledge of Family Law Specialists;
  2. Monitor legislation and proposals affecting the field of family law;
  3. Promote and encourage ethical practice among members of the bar and their clients; and
  4. Promote the specialty to the public and the family law bar.

**notice nothing is mentioned about the best interests of the children.   

They have monthly meetings and occasional regional conferences.  Attorneys know how to through nice conferences, and I’m sure these do too.  For qualifications (of membership) notice:

Because couples who split up also must deal with custody of their children, family law practitioners must also understand child development and other topics touching on emotional and psychological concerns of families.  Part of the certification requirement involves psychological and counseling education.

(which can get written off where? and is provided by whom?)

There is a link for attorneys on Domestic Violence issues — the website intro claims to have “culled the best.”  After the disclaimer, the site says:

Domestic Violence Sites on the Worldwide Web

By Leslie Ellen Shear

Any search engine will turn up thousands of Domestic Violence sites on the internet. I spent many hours culling some of the best. These web sites represent many different perspectives and resources on domestic violence. **(Please note that sites appear, disappear, change or move to new locations regularly. If the link doesn’t work, try searching for a key word or phrase from the description.

** OK, let me review this.  ON a page by an association of lawyers addressing lawyers whose work likely influences where children will live after domestic violence has been reported, Leslie Ellen Shear’ believes that a few hours on the web will sufficiently inform her to post a resource for — lawyers? (Some of who are abusers, or have been victims of this too, no doubt).  This was put up when?  A clear look at the link shows that she’s basically posted parts of references beginning with the letter “A” (with one or two exceptions).   Many links, yes, are inactive, or domain name has been sold.

Every web page needs a list of benefits to readers from plowing through it, right?  So the one on Domestic Violence for Attorneys from this great group, has 20 bulleted points (unprioritized and some of them ridiculous) — of which point# 17 reads “keep your client alive,” thankfully at least one or two higher priorities than “write a great appellate brief,”  and — naturally — right next to an ALMOST acknowledgement that some serious risk is involved, “prepare a competent defense to false or inflated allegations”  See?

  • Keep a client alive.
  • Prepare a competent defense to false or inflated allegations.
  • Write a great appellate brief.

fourth DV link is:

Access to Visitation Grant  (which redirects to the AOC courtsite, and a persistent person might be able to locate the information on this program).

It’s important, yes, to know about this grant program,which has profited some attorneys of fathers saying “false allegations,” and which, on the other hand, has made it possible for some children to be murdered through its premises, and financial incentives to ensure noncustodial parent contact, even if that noncustodial FATHER is in jail, and also supervised visitation (a tool useful in silencing mothers who report abuse, by forcing them to pay to see their kids).  Yes, I believe that any family law specialist, being psychologically trained in child development, should know about this grant system — but it belongs under “endorsing” domestic violence.

Other than that, what’s with this one?

A.P.A.R.T.  The website reads “parentalabductions.org”  the Banner reads “Wives’ Tales’ and it’s simply about single-parenting tips.

A big deal is made about the ACFLS role in the (if you’re from a custody case in California, this should ring a bell) Elkins Family Law Task Force.  I was a standby witness to how little value on actual parental feedback was desired during this task force; read who was on it, and concluded that a task for is a task force is a task force.  Parents are not considered “stakeholders” and a mothers’ group was contacted after the fathers’ group had already been heard.  One could show up and speak for maybe a minute in public, or submit comments on-line (which is not anonymous) while engaged in an active case.   However, their nicely laid-out newsletter goes into great detail on the AFCLS response to the Task Force Recommendations.  Predictably, which includes this:

(paragraph 1, to set the tone — and the time here, 2009):

ACFLS’s Board of Directors unanimously adopted the group’s Family Law Reform Committee’s Comments on the Elkins Family Law Task Force Draft Recommen­dations. The action came on December 5, 2009 at the last meeting of the 2009 Board of Directors, chaired by 2009 President Joseph J. Bell.

(many ACFLS members were on this task force, as it says):

Since the formation of the Elkins Family Law Task Force, ACFLS has been proactive in contributing to the develop- ment of recommendations for reform of California’s family courts. Diane Wasznicky (2010 ACFLS President-Elect) chairs the Family Law Reform committee. Members are David Borges (Ex-Officio Director, Central Coast), Sharon Bryan (former Past President), Vivian Holley (Director at Large, North), Frieda Gordon (Director at Large, South), Michelene Insalaco (Director-Elect, North), Lynette Berg Robe (Legislative Coordinator) and Leslie Ellen Shear  {{WHOSE suggested Domestic Violence links on the ACFLS site I just reviewed; unbelievable that an adult would take the intro — or the set of links — seriously.  It shouldn’t pass a 12th grade essay standard, or even 10th!}}

On page 16, they get down to recommending co-parenting education (can’t miss that, can we?):

Parties to contested custody disputes should receive education about parenting plans and co-parenting. Every county should offer the following FCS services in contested custody- visitation cases:

1. Confidential mediation of custody disputes–including cases in which there is no family law action pending.**

**not to get boringly monotonous, but there’s potential for double-billing around access/vistation grants, county-appointed & paid mediators, and possibly even charging non-indigent parents for this.  Of course it should be offered in every county.  That’s standard AFCC (who are a mediator-promoting group if anyone is….). . … And it’s also been shown repeatedly that domestic violence advocates — earlier, when the word “grassroots” meant something — FOUGHT AGAINST forcing mediation on DV victims.  See Barbara J. Hart writings from the 1990s on this.  Having been through that gauntlet — I have to agree.  There aren’t enough options once a crooked mediator (or a lying one) (or one breaking rules of court) gets that recommendation in.

The next paragraph is utterly ridiculous, as applied in real situations:

2. Same-day emergency screenings for high risk cases.

3. Prompt,brief assessments with recommendations for cases or issues that are not resolved in mediation.

MAYBE this would be tenable IF FIRST — all cases involving abuse and violence were completely removed from the family law jurisdiction, and either handled in criminal court — where they belong, and should be PROSECUTED, after which assuming the abuse really did take place, there should be NO joint legal custody, no overnight visitations, and there should be prompt prosecution of any and ALL violations of court orders by the offending parent, in the criminal venue, not the civil and not the “family.”

This is not going to happen — because this family law exists primarily to defuse and derail people seeking to protect children, or themselves, from physical molestation, violence, threats, and severe destruction that by a stranger would likely lead to jail time.

I had my children stolen and held truant during an UNsupervised visitation — after I’d requested this and been turned down (being female) because “there’s no money” for it (meaning, in our parents).  years later, absent my kids, I learn about the A/V grants stream (and that one of my judges was on the Kids Turn board, too).  Now that it was clear to their father that he was above the law, but could attempt to throw it at me, I had to go again to the same mediator — or not get in front of a judge to get the kids back, knowing that police wouldn’t either.  Basically, nobody gives a damn if a potential program fund could be called into play somehow.

In the subsequent YEAR, after first permanently eliminating child support for our kids (My income was trashed, and his current obligations ceased — within 30 days, and no action on arrears for over a year, and the arrears was significant to the family), the court managed to recommend counseling for the children (both of who said they weren’t interested), which was a friend of a friend of one of the parties who stole them.  Then a court-appointed attorney was called in after yet more noncompliance by the father and complete cessation of visitation, holiday times together, and even phone calls — add a little stalking in there — and we’ve got some serious situations at hand.  This attorney’s apparent role (other than getting paid) was to finish putting the nail in the coffin of my ability to get legal protection in any form, or retain a relationship with my children, having asked the court to state its reasons for switching custody and having that question first mocked, then derailed (never answered).

In other words, zero legal or factual basis was ever stated for switching custody, and I was not given an opportunity in court to cross-examine the father on his allegations, to counter them in writing, and being in a state of shock a few months later, unable to speak (in pro per — what else?) in the matter, my kids lost their mother and all I had to offer them, and had been.  Shortly after, they lost their father too (it happens) in the household, meaning not one legal safeguard to their lives (or mine) existed.

In situations like this — and believe me, they are common — no one needs a damn co-parenting education class.  Co-parenting and joint custody have often been tried.  People who separate from abuse are trying before separation to co-parent with criminal behavior.  So why let them out, then force them back in just to please the court and someone who couldn’t get business in a free, competitive market otherwise?

(I’m sure you feel my heat in the matter . . . . ) ACFLS newsletter continues:

In other words, after co-parenting education, the parties in each contested custody-visitation case should go on to confidential parenting plan mediation. Where the parties fail to resolve all or some issues, they should move on to a brief assessment and recommendations by a different FCS staff member before the matter is adjudicated. Same-day screen- ing should be available for emergencies – such as safety or abduction risk issues.

Waiting times for appointments for mediation and brief assessments need to be very short – the long delays at this stage of custody cases are damaging to children and destabilizing to families.

(hypocrites!  The long delays free up more grants, and justify not disbursing collected child support, too.  Long delays are what the courts feed off!)

Mediators are not engaged in a systematic process of gathering and assessing data for the purposes of making recommendations. Either they compromise mediation or their recommendations are an afterthought. Mediating parents behave differently when they think their bargaining will influence a recommendation.. . .

and of course, market expansion into downloadable modules assembled by existing family court nonprofits is desirable:

It may be helpful for the Center for Families, Children and the Courts to develop a uniform curriculum for the co- parenting education programs, and to make on line classes available. Many parents cannot afford childcare or time off work for these programs. Others are out of state or out of the country. It would be helpful to offer these programs in many languages. The programs could also have various modules addressing children of different ages, long-distance parenting and relocation issues, domestic violence and child abuse, and special needs children. * * *

If domestic violence and child abuse issues impact on “Parenting!” can be handled in downloadable curricula, then why is California paying ONE nonprofit contracting out of Sacramento over $6 million a year for all kinds of counseling and interventions for victims of child abuse, trauma, and for sex addicts, drunks, and victims of crimes?  See Terra Nova Counseling (meaning — see their tax returns and charitable registry page, which shows this).

I wonder what Marcia Fay might have to say about that one.

(* * *In case you didn’t get it, that was the ACFLS’ plug for more Kids Turn stuff, since Gov. Gray Davis vetoed legislating this a few years earlier, which I blogged in “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch” post.  It’s interesting how many visitors to this site are following “Let’s Get Honest about Kids’ Turn and Judges’ Profits” yet still miss the follow up post there…

OK — so I added this intro on 12/8/2011 before posting what I wrote probably last week:

Here’s where the proof hits the proselytizing:

Statement:  ACFLS was formed in 1980

Actuality:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1955108 12/04/1995 ACTIVE ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW   SPECIALISTS, INC. LYNN MARIE PFEIFER

It’s the same group.  Here’s a nice letterhead, with board members all along the left side, of ACFLS wish to get involved (i guess) with a certain marriage case:   http://www.acfls.org/uploads/files/ACFLS_ltr_to_JaffeClemens-4.pdf, “In re marriage of Valli” (August, 2011).  They are writing to rally to (addressees) who had some objections to writing by (see above) Leslie Ellen Shear who is head of the Amicus Brief Committee of this wonderful group).

OK, so now I’m really curious how anyone with a legal mind could’ve in their right minds put up that webpage suggesting that a few hours on-line (apparently going alphabetically on “Abuse” and not getting past the letter “A”) would qualify someone to write a great appellate brief, protect innocents against false allegations of domestic violence, (above that,) draft a supervised visitation plan, educate one’s experts — and “oh, yeah, I better include this for appearance’ sake”) “Save your client’s life.”

This is a section of what turns out to be a Super Attorney’s Bio, the same person, from the site with url “custodymatters.com

Selected as One of Los Angeles Magazine L.A.’s SuperLawyers (2004-2011)

PRACTICE EMPHASIS

Family Law Trial Court Proceedings

Representation and consultation in complex child custody, complex parentage and assisted reproduction, interstate and international jurisdiction (including Hague Abduction Convention and UCCJEA) cases.

Representation of children in family court by court appointment.

Consensual Dispute Resolution

Trained in mediation, parenting plan coordination (child custody special master), collaborative family law.

 Why doesn’t this next part surprise me — at all?
  • Association of Certified Family Law Specialists (ACFLS). Current Past President; President 2010; various board positions including Newsletter Editor, Technology Coordinator and Secretary from 1997). Author of many ACFLS amicus curiae briefs, current co-chair of Amicus Committee.
  • Editorial Board and contributor, Journal of Child Custody, published by Taylor and Francis.
  • Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC),** Past Board Member, California Chapter, director at large, co-chair 2001 Statewide Conference, steering committee 2003 Statewide Conference, frequent speaker at state and international conferences. Contributor to Family Court Review.
** File under “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, certain things (like evidence of DV) roll right off its back, probably is a duck”
  • Fellow, International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
  • Faculty member, 1981 Vallambrosa Retreat: Mediation of Child Custody and Visitation Disputes (trained statewide court staff mediators for California Courts following enactment of mandatory custody mediation legislation)
Which probably explains (i live in California) why my mediator, under such auspicious culture of mandated mediation and calling serious issues “disputes” — consistently ignored court-order-breaking and otherwise felony behavior by the father of my children, and countless others.  He was employed over the span of my entire case, and when I requested a less biased one (post-abduction) none was available, so it was either forget seeing your kids again (while they were MIA) or go to this dude, again.
ANYHOW — I just showed you — this group incorporated in 1995.  That means that unless they had some other corporate identity, their own website has falsified the record by FIFTEEN YEARS, aka, lied.    And the head of the Amicus Brief Committee of ACFLS, Ms. Shear — is considered by her colleagues a Super Attorney (does this mean, excellent and articulate liar? Wouldn’t be the first one I know (which comment I put in for said attorney), and by me, a person who doesn’t know squat about domestic violence, but considers such knowledge good enough to advise attorneys on it on-line.  Another Super Attorney (Jennifer Jackson) out of SF area came up, apparently, with the concept for kids turn and helped a family law judge set it up, too, in the late 1980s)

Is this personal (except the one I said I know?) — NO.  But I see what product they are putting out regarding situations I’ve lived and know others who have also lived.  Obviously, it’s a matter of viewpoint!   This is why (a long time ago) i contrasted the court’s opinion of a judge I didn’t even know (The Hon. Slabach) with the “Silenced Mamas” (see poormagazine.com) feedback on the same judge.  (That’s how I habitually get in trouble on this blog, but that’s what blogs are for, i.e., airing differing points of view).

How about we go take a look at their registration as a nonprofit — after all this is a membership organization set up by people already working in, and sometimes FOR the courts, and messing with other people’s custody matters through Amicus Briefs (remind me to read  in re:  Valli and what the ACFLS objected to, in said letter I linked to above).

(AFCC & proud of it on Ms. Shear’s website):  work includes:

Ohmer v. Superior Court (1983, 2nd District) 148 Cal.App.3d 661 Child custody evaluations, due process. Validity of former Los Angeles Superior Court policy barring custody litigants from cross-examining child custody investigators, and prohibiting custody litigants from obtaining and presenting evidence of investigator’s lack of mental health education and training. Affirmed. (Appellant)

That sounds like an interesting one…  Here (2008) is more evidence of pushing Parenting Coordination.  Like my post says, these people are pretty pushy:

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)

A few years into a custody dispute, and most mothers couldn’t afford to keep current with this journal, if they even know enough to do so, in their own best interests of knowing what they’re up against…  This is recent, cited all over, and I recommend MOMS read it!  Obviously it’s not displayed in proper format below — see that link.  Randy Rand v. Board of Psychology and the other attorney involved in the brief is Stephen Temko from San Diego.

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 __________________

LESLIE ELLEN SHEAR, CFLS,* CALS* SBN 72623 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Floor 7 Encino, CA 91436-2403

Telephone: 818-501-3691 Facsimile: 818-501-3692 lescfls@earthlink.net

STEPHEN TEMKO, CFLS,* CALS* SBN 67785 1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-2792 Telephone: 858-274-3538 Facsimile: 619-238-0851

Attorneys for Amicus *State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization

Curiae ACFLS

Paragraph from the amicus brief shows that FIRST parenting coordinators are appointed, then a clamor to legitimize it occurs.  Sounds (at first look) like the amicus wants only professionals already licensed somewhere else in on the show — but in classic “we want to have our cake and eat it too behavior), they don’t want those professional boards to have disciplinary power (What, are there some NON-AFCC or CRC powerhouses on any of those associations?) because ‘parenting coordination’ is quasi judicial and the best entity to discipline them would be — like, the family court that appointed them (sure, THAT”S a bias-free basis for some real ethical accountability! )  SO we’d best read this one all of it — and I do mean “we.”

“California has failed to adopt legislation and court rules governing parenting coordination despite the growing use of these service models in our family courts.** This leaves parents, parenting coordinators, courts, and licensing boards without clear directives about what practices are required or prohibited.”

**perhaps even California, in heart, agrees with Gov Jeb Bush of Florida’s (2004) objections to the practice of parenting coordination.  I know I sure do!  I read that PCANH handbook, apparentl lifted from Indiana practice?  (nice touch throwing the word “parents” in that sentence about “lacking clear directives!” as if that was the concern!

(the site I chose to post the link from was Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D.’s site called (appropriately) “californiaparentingcoordinator.com”  (got the message yet?) and says of him:

Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist (California Lic. # PSY10214) in private practice in Palo Alto, California, who specializes in forensic** child and family psychology. He has been in private practice in Palo Alto for 20 years, specializing in Forensic Family psychology.

He is a pioneer in the field of Parenting Coordination, which he helped develop in Santa Clara County more than 15 years ago,*** and has led the development of Parenting Coordination across the U.S. He is one of the most experienced Parent Coordinators (called Special Master in California) in the country. Some of the other roles he serves for families going through divorce include:

 **Child psychologists are frustrated child psychiatrists, some of who are probably frustrated MD’s.  They love to throw around the word “forensic” to lend credibility.
***Since he helped develop the field, he might want to rethink posting Ms. Shear’s amicus which states the field basically emerged.
{{Like most AFCC material does when describing some program AFCC has devised and wants legislated & mandated for VERY potentially high-conflict case (i.e., cases where someone — possibly a mediator trained b the sam people — made a really bad custody recommendation, which was enacted, and is having consequences, such as the other parent protesting it.  Voila! !  We have high-conflict, so we get to do parent coordinators, and maybe even some federal grant streams, too!)}}

OK, now that the very active ACFLS cannot ? show its origination, as claimed, in 1980 as a legitimate California corporation, but rather it was incorporated in 1995 (at least the one with “, Inc.” after its name is the only one I could find on SOS site) here’s the Charitable Registration:

From the California Office of Attorney General (Charitable Registry Search Site) — YES !  ACFLS DOES exist and at first glance, it’s charitable status is labeled “Current”:
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS, INC. EX548531 Charity Exempt – Active SAN RAFAEL CA Charity Registration Charity
1
which is odd – because if one the looks inside — no EIN# has been assigned yet, it has never filed any IRS or RRF reports (annual requirement for CA nonprofits and for corporations too, for that matter).  Allegedly, per this record, their charitable status was issued in 1990 (10 years after they claim they started, and 5 years before the Secretary of State admitted that they did). (or perhaps this is just the boilerplate charitable registry BLANK format?).
They have NO EIN# and apparently ever bothered to register — NO founding documents are viewable – and obviously if the association is charging its (ATTORNEY) members any dues, they aren’t producing (all 490 members, all those nice monthly meetings and annual regional conferences involving hotels, golf, etc.) any income worht reporting? And though they are actually selling stuff from their blog — they aren’t producing program service revenue enough to require reporting to the IRS?
Yes — and I have some land under the Brooklyn Bridge I wish to sell, also.
Full Name: ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS, INC. FEIN:
Type: Mutual Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1955108
Registration Number: EX548531
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/1991
Registration Status: Exempt – Active Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal:
Address Information
Address Line 1: 15 CORRILLO DRIVE Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: SAN RAFAEL CA 94903
Annual Renewal Information
Related Documents
No Related Documents
Prerequisite Information
No Prerequisite Information

Look it up yourself — here’s the link for the search fields.  Just type in the organization name, or whatever part of it fits:

CHECKING with  my trusty 990-finder, I find out that there IS an EIN# and income — but apparently not one of the Attorney General’s Office seems to have noticed, even though we can hardly say that the Attorney General’s Office is unfamiliar with the family law field.  After all, former Attorney General Bill Lockyer had a wife (about half his age?) from the L.A. area working as Exec. Dir. of the Alameda County Family Justice Law Center, annointed by a republican gov. in 2006, and this leadership was ceded to another family law professional.  San Francisco just went through a crisis and multiple courtroom shutdowns.  I feel it safe to say that PROBABLY the head of the criminal justice system in California — which is supposed to protect taxpayers from financial scam artists — knows about this organization, and that it ain’t reporting to them.   (or, they aren’t posting what it did).

What is a reasonably logical person to assume but that the OAG’s office is getting a cut on the undocumented funds, at the expense of Californians Right To KNow, Fair Political Practices (it would seem) transparency — and our state’s budget!

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2009 $107,507 990 17 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2008 $122,073 990 20 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2007 $158,102 990 19 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2006 $142,503 990 20 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2005 $93,608 990 16 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2004 $127,804 990 15 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2003 $76,425 990 16 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2002 $65,302 990 17 94-3238376

2009 IRS reads (probably like the rest) program purpose — why it’s tax exempt and for “PUBLIC” benefit:

“To Promote and Preserve the Family Law Speciality”

There are 20 people on the board of directors, NONE takes any money for this.  How charitable!

Educational Seminars revenue $138K; Membership dues:  $130K.

They are going to HAVE to lie, steal, and cheat to keep promoting this BS — especially with Ms. Shear in charge of education professionals on how to ignore signs of imminent lethality with a few hours of on-line research.  (too busy writing Amicus for other people’s custody disputes, I guess).  California just this past fall had an 8-person massacre after a father given 56% custody was angry he didn’t get 100% fast enough.  An AFCC professional was on his case at the time of his 2007 divorce.  4 years later, Mom dead and 7 other people also.  “Typical Divorce Case” says the family law professional, when interviewed on this.  This followed hard on the heels of an Attorney General employee having her own child (gave birth around age 44, it seemed) abducted and murdered in a murder-suicide by the father.  We also have families going homeless around custody cases (i know some) and in general, it’s one _ _ _ _ ing disgrace.

SO is this organization retaining any credibility and quite frankly, even during the economic crisis (like this arm of teh courts didn’t contribute to it?) it also reflects on the credibility of the Attorney General’s Office as well — at least as to Charitable Trusts.  I am thankful they seem to be getting on some organizations, but I sure can’t figure out how they determine who to let slide — and who to nail.  Unless, that is, there is some money greasing the decsisions — which I think is not an unfair speculation, although of course (at this point) it IS speculation, I admit.

Readers have any other speculations — or hard data — on why the ACFLS is held to ZERO standard within its state of origin, while pompously throwing its weight around, and citing itself as if this is a reputable organization serving the public by promoting and preserving the practice of family law — and pushing parenting coordinators on us — even as the FBI rushes into jurisdiction in Pennsylvania to investigate a racketeering type of setup (possibly) involving one of the parent coordinator trainers!   

Now that I have that off my chest, what’s below is related setups that I’d planned to accompany this one, in particular.

I don’t know how much more evidence – at this point — anyone would need that just because an organization has been around, and has good PR, doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.  Or that the AFCC in particular, has a membership PRONE to forming nonprofits (membership associations especially) and engaging in tax-evasion and tax-reporting-evasion within their local states.

Cf.  Ann Marie Termini lists “Cooperative Parenting Institute” on her linkedin Profile and wherever else possible; so presumably does Susan Boyan, still (out of Georgia).   So what state does it exist in, again?  The parents in Scranton, PA deserve an answer, pending the FBI decision whether to finish their investigation — or shelve it — regarding some of the practices in Lackawanna County (which, FYI, is geographically right next to the infamous Luzerne County and in the state of the Penn State Sandusky scandal, with potential involvement of the charity “The Second Mile.”

I want to let these Preserve and Promote the Family Law Profession People in on a secret — apparently to them, it’s obvious to others:

  • MOST parents are not abusive, and care about their kids more than you do.
  • And if you were’t heating up the conflict (while insisting that your presence is actually intended to help dissipate conflict), probably more of those ids would be alive today — and those abusive parents could’ve been prosecuted as criminals BEFORE the offed their kids, their exes, bystanders, and occasionally a responding police officer.
  • And most mothers reporting abuse by the Dads, or kids reporting — are not lying.  They do not need “responsible motherhood” programs to behave as responsible mothers, even under the extreme conditions put upon them by institutions, advocacy groups (who don’t reveal their own funding comes from welfare diversionary programs, when dealing with mothers forced onto welfare somehow), etc.
  • There is an innate biological bond, particularly when mothers get to also nurse their kids and give birth to them, even in some pretty hostile environments.
  • And the profession that out of two parents, one who complies with court orders, and the other who doesn’t, or one with a criminal record — or criminal behaviors in evidence — and the other NOT — you are actually more concerned about the kids because you talk about “family” while she talks about SAFETY — is offensive.

+ + + + + + +

I have a question.  In fact, several questions:

Have you, has a family member or friend, been operated on recently?  Was your doctor officially vetted by the hospital, and is his or her degree valid?

Is the institution from which your doctor graduated, or was, it a real institution?

When they are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, UCBerkeley, Stanford, etc. — there aren’t that many questions whether or not the schools actually exist, and are “accredited,” for what it’s worth (and it is worth something, as to colleges!).  The only question becomes, did your particular professional actually go there, and has the school not, to date, disowned or otherwise dishonorably discharged them.

Generally, we expect more of Medical Doctors, although this is sometimes not delivered.  See “California prison doctors get millions while not working“, Associated Press article posted 11/29/2011.  Who wants to actually think about a government paying anyone over $226K per year to sort mail while figuring out whether this person was mal-practicing or not?  Not a thought good for the average digestive system, or blood pressure, probably….

At least 30 physicians and mental health professionals collected an estimated $8.7 million since 2006 as they went through a lengthy appeals process to determine whether they should be fired or reinstated, the Los Angeles Times (http://lat.ms/vOJLlY ) reported Monday. The newspaper cited records from a court-ordered receiver now in charge of the state prison system.

Doctors who were alleged by colleagues to have committed negligence or misconduct — in some cases involving patient deaths — received their full six-figure salaries, even though they were not allowed to treat prisoners. Some did menial work [like, sorting mail…]

Sounds like a lose-lose proposition to me, either the original system, or attempting to “clean up” the systems.

But what is it about the fields of family law and psychologists that attracts people who LOVE to form nonprofit, trade-promoting, dues-paying (membership) associations which:

  • don’t even file tax returns, especially with the state they are registered in, after getting tax-exempt status?  or, alternately
  • don’t file period, and/or
  • cite each others names proudly on websites and on biographies in long strings of apparent officialdom before ording one parent into a situation doomed to bankruptcy, another child to go live with a molester he or she has already reported on, extort fathers into starting a custody battle they didn’t want — or, if they are in arrears somehow — into participating in some ridiculous (psychoeducational) program, typically in 6 to 10 sessions that someone pays for,  no one would otherwise take if there were an alternate choice besides going back to jail?[FN1]  Before adjusting upward or compromising downward child support for a noncustodial parent without notifying the custodial one of the discussion (or programssssssszzsss, plural) that led to this backroom deal?  and/or
  • hold conferences to figure out how to expand their profession, which profession exists at all over public distress and at public expense, i.e,. those who practice are already on state (judges) or county (county commissioners, family law commissioners, child support commissioners — and ANYONE among the support structure of the entire local child support agency, including attorneys, directors, specialists, clerks, data entry people (presumably) and office staff for derailing parents who want a direct answer about their own case.  This also includes court transcriptionists, court clerks, etc.
  •  Bill attendance at these conference, and travel to/from them (wherever possible) to their current employer, usually a county or county-level court  [FN2])
How is it that people who graduated from an institute that gave a degree to an imaginary cat can actually be practing and making custody recommendations for young children?  This literally is true, and a lot more than one thinks.  Surely Dr. Doyne must be a qualified professional (WHAT profession was it, again?) because he got a degree from this place.  However at least one man (see Request to file Amicus Brief in Tadros v. Doyne) decided to challenge (see Tadros v. Doyne; in fact this link summarizes and actually shows the “Specialty Diplomate” and how both the person who issued it, and the court, are retaliating against this M.D. for reporting it!  Many mothers and fathers know already about the “Zoe the Cat” fiasco, but still the custody mill (and other association-certification-mills) continue, one of which I found recently, hence today’s post.)  How can one be silent in the face of material like this?
(1). . .
for $350 dollars, Robert O’Block, who honored a Specialty Diplomate to a house  cat named Zoe (which states on the certificate Zoe has a PhD), and who also granted a Specialty Diplomate to Custody Evaluator Stephen Doyne, is threatening to sue the co-founders of California Coalition for Families and Children (CCFC) with a defamation lawsuit seeking penalties of 1,000,000 Dollars. Robert O’Block is seeking to shutdown The Public Court for exposing the truth about the “cat credentialed?”

If Dr. Tadros and CCFC do not keep quiet or “shut down” public exposure about Zoe the Cat getting a PhD and Diploma, they will be sued for this huge sum of money?

To the solid fact that Zoe the Cat is Dr. Tadros’s best witness, he is left with no other choice than to pursue the timely filing against Robert O’Block’s owner of the ACFE, who according to Professor carol Henderson issued a house Cat with “Diplomate (and Phd)” certificate, (read below) with the filing of Tadros MD vs. American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI), dated January 10, 2011…

(2) . . .Well, here, from, the News Article on Doctor Doyne, but “thepubliccourt.com” is informative*

Custody Evaluator’s Credentials Questioned In Lawsuit

Dr. Stephen Doyne Has Been Involved In 3,000 To 4,000 San Diego Custody Cases

Lauren Reynolds
10News I-Team Reporter
POSTED: 7:10 pm PDT July 7, 2009
SAN DIEGO — Dr. Stephen Doyne, PhD, is widely used in the San Diego Family Court as a custody evaluator. His job is to advise the court on where children of divorce should live, which parent is more fit. The evaluations can be costly, both in emotion and dollars. Clients told the 10 News I-Team they paid Doyne between $5,000 and $30,000.  (That’s per evaluation — do the math)
“A child custody evaluator has tremendous power and influence,” said Marc Angelucci. He’s an attorney representing Dr. Emad Tadros in a civil lawsuit against Dr. Doyne alleging fraud and negligence. . . .
Dr. Doyne is one of a dozen custody evaluators repeatedly used by San Diego Family Court. The court had no response to the allegations against Dr. Doyne. The court also clarified that it does not verify the professional licenses or the resumes of the custody evaluators.

Apparently, per this article, he also falsely claimed to be an adjunct professor at UCSD (University of California, San Diego).  Reminds me of this Sandra Brown, M.A. (Liberty University) I was looking up recently, and her “IRHPE” (Institute for Relational Harm and Pathology Education”), not to mention the “Relationship Training Institute,” also (coincidentally) at San Diego where she was listed as a Guest Lecturer (to my recall), this RTI being a business which takes business from the courts, also.  Speaking of which, …

The “Relationship Training Institute” (EIN# 470942805), which you can (and should) look up on the California Attorney General’s site (http://ag.ca.gov/charities/, and select “Registry” on left side) where charitable organizations are required to register and then file ANNUALLY, and where one can look up their EIN#s) — registered here in 2006 (File issued date) and from the IRS, evidently it’s clear it showed assets of $1.5K and Revenue of $90K in 2005, and by 2010, assets of $13,569 & revenue of $271K.  In 2011, their assets went down by over $4K, but their revenue went up to $291K — and finally, in August 2011, the OAG decided to slap them on the wrist (who knows why), with a letter saying, you didn’t file your fee.

However, in the section where EVERY charity required to register under state law is to file 3 things (that I know of) (two of which the public should be able to look at, right here):  (1) a State return (RRF), (2) a copy of their IRS 990 return which the OAG can upload, and (3) a ‘Schedule B”* which lists their contributors’ names and addresses.  This is also to come with (4) an annual fee, which varies by size of the group.

(*which public doesn’t see, but the OAG, whose purpose here is to prevent Californians from being scammed by tax-exempt organizations and false fundraisers, i.e., professionally organized thieves, public financial predators, and money launderers, etc.  SPeaking of which, did I mention that a previous attorney general (Bill Lockyer) had his (3rd) wife installed, on pay from the DAs office, as the CEO of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” — an idea from San Diego City Attorney’s Office  Casey Gwinn plus the DV Council, Gael Strack, J.D. (as I recall) — which, somehow in the process of hiring the first CEO, got the slated salary moved from $65K to $90K, and the appointment process of which looks a little slimy (thank you, investigator Steve White, aka boatbrain or similar quirky username).  Nevertheless, we hope and expect the OAG to keep a lid on these things for our (public’s) sake.   They even went after the San Diego based Kid’s Turn for its charitable status, right? 

Organizations larger than the RTI have been noticed by the same OAG for failing to file fees and schedule B of contributors. The far larger Futures Without Violence (formerly, like until 2010, Family Violence Prevention Fund, EIN# 943110973) received one notice in 2010:

1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

and another, August 2011, under separate cover, in stern terms, this time writing reflecting the corporation’s name change:

RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors

We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/10. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.

The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of

Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service

Futures Without Violence, now ensconced at the San Francisco Praesidio (a high-profile address to locals and international visitors), does big business:  In 2010, per information the California OAG apparently gets from the IRS (as opposed to the organization), it reads:

Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-10
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-10
Total Assets: $36,603,585.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $17,118,149.00
RRF Received: 14-JUN-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Rejected

I would ask too.  2010 is an increase in ASSETS of roughly $5.5 (million) and in INCOME of $10.5 million.  As Dolly Parton quipped once (possibly in a movie), “it takes a lot of money to look like this!”    Yet FVPF has been fairly regular in filing — up til 2008, anyhow.   Its primary program purpose, as of the last available 990, reads:

Significant activities: TO PIONEER NEW STRATEGIES TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AT HOME AND ABROAD.

“FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE” SETS ITS EYES “Abroad”

And well it might — having continued to ignore a steady stream of violence against women, and children (including some that results in deaths, a relentless litany, the background to their wonderful conferences and PR campaigns, and training institutes about “Fatherhood” as  tool practitioners can wield against family violence.  Sure, OK.  So, MOTHERS lveaing abusive relationships safely (and this group helped get VAWA enacted in 1994), still can’t — because of family court in USA is trending towards sharia law, at least in its “logic” and priorities.

Speaking of “Going Abroad”. . . .literally and allegorically

(I warned you at the top of this post…we are going to talk about defecation, and allegorically, why some nonprofits constantly need to shift localities, names and WHERE they are p*ssing on people’s due process rights, and covering up evidence of this in the family law system, lest they step on the wrong local toes, or bite the han)

The phrase “going abroad” in previous times meant going to take a whizz outside the camp, or home, where one eats and sleeps, so as not to pollute it.  When encased in a wood shelter over a large pit, with or without a porcelain chair, this progressed to the “Outhouses,” topic of many comedies and eventually we progressed to indoor plumbing, which can then get backed up and require a plumber to fix.   The practice of sitting UP to do this, I gather another Western creation, has helped create health problems too, per some.

I’m late reporting this – as it seems November 19th was “World Toilet Day” according to an article, “What would you Do without a Loo?” and another historical discussion points out that civilization and the development of sanitation go together; Rome, for example, could not ignore the problem.

The Medieval Ages (plus emergence of Fundamentalist RC theories related to original sin, and the nobility of suffering, including if necessary in filth, had their impact).  I hope you scan that — it’s a quick read.   “The massive deaths by reason of the plagues had some people rethinking hygiene” (year 1210) . . .”Since the 1820s there have been no fundamental changes.” (parallel — when was the last time any change in what to do about death-causing domestic violence actually surfaced, i.e., that wasn’t “treatment, intervention, publication, and training”?)

Meanwhile, it’s just as healthy not to use “the throne.”  In Fact, Bill Gates is working on re-inventing the toilet (how did my thinking go here?  It’s easy — the phrase “going abroad” — and I believe it’s necessary to use symbols and one systems of meaning to understand another, although if one gets STUCK in a symbol system (i.e., DV as a sickness, conflict as bad, professionals as actually helpful, etc.) the society and its process of observation, labeling, and logic (reasoning) can get, well, “constipated.”  So, I have a little fun connecting the absurdly different (a highly respected organization with an annual revenue of around $36 million and lofty claims to basic human functions that MUST be needed, and if not heeded with sanitation (and sense) can wipe out a civilization, i.e., plague.   Or, for example, we are told that the early settlers in the US didn’t wash in the ocean, and didn’t dig for clams or catch much fish — yet certainly that would’ve fed them and cleansed them.

Bill Gates Seeks to Reinvent the Toilet

Analysis by Nic Halverson
Tue Aug 16, 2011 09:11 AM ET

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently launched a “Reinvent the Toilet” competition and have already awarded $3 million to researchers at eight universities to redesign the porcelain throne. The challenge? Develop an economical toilet that is doesn’t need to be connected to a sewer system, or to any water or electricity grid.

Healthcare Districts, Associations of Healthcare Districts and their Watchdogs:

This blog is not about water, healthcare, or for that matter school boards.  However it IS about use of taxes.  I got derailed into matters of “Water” simply by comparing one Domestic Violence Funds proposition that we (taxpayers) collectively support its $36million plans to create Futures Without Violence Abroad to the practice of pissing outside one’s home area, which of course (how my mind works sometimes) got me on just how complex it becomes when people are crowded together so closely that there IS no backyard to go piss in, at least not for years on end, and thus the community pools its funds to elect people to take care of their shit (literally).  I believe that assaults and violence could (generically speaking) be lumped in that category, as the (stuff) of overcrowding and too many people codependent on others to protect them, feed them, educate their young (handle their money), regulate their parenting practices (?) and in general, nurse them from womb to tomb.   Perhaps that model is a little over-rated, as this example I hope proves.

SUPPOSE BILL GATES DEVELOPS SUCH A TOILET THAT COULD BE USED IN URBAN AREAS TOO?  HOW MANY OF THE PEOPLE AND GROUPS BELOW WOULD BE OUT OF A JOB?

AND WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT THE ROMAN EMPIRE’S FALL HAVING SOMETHING TO DO WITH LEAD IN THE PIPES? ….

I mean, why the chair portion?   Consider how complicated it gets; from a travel article:

 How to Use a Squat Toilet (Frank Burres in Worldhum, 9/25/06)

“Warning: This article contains language that some will find offensive, but that others will find refreshingly honest”

Background: Squatting is an ancient practice, but knowledge of it has recently been lost in the West. The flush toilet wasn’t even invented until 1596. And toilet paper didn’t become popular until the 1900s. According to the Toilet Paper Encyclopedia, pre-TP, humans used corn cobs, Sears Roebuck catalogs, mussel shells, newspaper, leaves, sand, hayballs, gompf sticks and the end of old anchor cables on ships. Ouch!

But the good folks at the TPE seem blissfully unaware that most of the world’s people still use neither toilet paper, nor western sit-down crappers. Nor do they use corn cobs, gompf sticks or anchor cables. Because, while most of us in North America and Europe sit, people on just about every other continent squat, using water and their left hand. In much of Africa and Asia you can be hard-pressed to find anything else besides the squatter.

Beginning Squatting: I called Doug Lansky, a traveler and travel writer who knows the hardships of squatting. “It’s difficult,” said Lansky, who edited a book called, There’s No Toilet Paper on the Road Less Traveled.

I wish Bill Gates well in his exploration of alternates to the water systems that make the economy go whirr and hum, some of which so reduce people’s self-reliance (and thinking about the basics of life) that they willingly allow commissions associations, agencies and task forces to try and keep up with the agencies (and commissions) to take their hard-earned (or, easily earned) income (taxes) and, such that they need a “Local Agency Formation Commission”  (I kid you not) to study whether to dissolve another agency — which no longer has a hospital, but is still collecting funds.  I cannot find this particular agency (maybe it’s been dissolved?) as a corporation or trust anywhere in the state — and the attorney which was hired to determine whether to dissolve the nonexisting entity — who was in 2010 head of an Association of (such) Agencies — which does not exist as either a corporation or charity in California, meaning, if anyone is getting paid for this association of (unregistered entitites),  it’s not reporting to the public without a FOIA request, WTF (that’s an acronym for an expletive) it’s doing, financially.

Association of California Healthcare Districts — and where is this “Mt. Diablo Healthcare District to start with?  I don’t know (I don’t see it registered as nonprofit or corporation), but here comes a news reporter to inform us that the attorney hired to decide whether to dissolve it doesn’t follow the rules either.  So rules were changed accomodate his inability to handle a $5,000 services cap.  Weird:

Mt. Diablo Health Care District lawyer billed beyond board limit

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Contra Costa Times

Posted: 11/28/2011 04:15:57 PM PST

An outside attorney hired to help save an imperiled Contra Costa public health district billed the agency nearly three times more than what was authorized.**

Heavily censored invoices obtained through the California Public Records Act show Sacramento lawyer Ralph Ferguson billed the district for 52.3 hours totaling $14,000 in September and October. The district capped his pay at $5,000 when it hired him.

It’s the latest development in the increasing scrutiny of the Mt. Diablo Health Care District, an agency that lost its hospital 15 years ago but has continued to collect and spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars. Roughly 200,000 residents in Concord, Martinez, Clyde, Pacheco and portions of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill live in the district.

It hired Ferguson three months ago as its liaison with the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission, which is studying whether to dissolve the agency.

**Note:   He’s an attorney.  So this surprises us, why?  Same reporter, earlier this month (11/5/2011), in “Riding in to Rescue a Flailing Agency

The lawyer behind the strategy to rescue the ailing Mt. Diablo Health Care District will be remembered as a visionary or an opportunist.

Ralph Ferguson, the former chief of the Association of California Healthcare Districts and Mt. Diablo’s new attorney, believes the embattled public agency could model itself after the successful Beach Cities or Camarillo health care districts.

By way of background, a regulatory agency could dissolve the taxpayer-funded Central Contra Costa health care district. It has been criticized by four grand juries and others for its failure to do little more than pay its overhead and keep up the health insurance for a current and a former board member.**

Like Mt. Diablo, two Southern California districts no longer operate hospitals.

**perhaps this is what many agencies are for to start with?  Remember the Phoebe Factoids and the problems with Georgia’s chain of nonprofit hospitals, that stiffed uninsured parents and kept huge profits offshore?  Then apparently had enough clout to personally threaten the family of two men reporting on this?

This Commission to control Agencies and “Special Districts” really does exist, and has authority and a staff.  This authority seems to relate largely to taxes, incorporation, annexing or detaching land to one city or another, and things that relate to things we need — like water, schooling, healthcare, and such.  Authority:

▪ Annex land to cities or special districts,

▪ Detach land from cities or special districts,

▪ Consolidate two or more cities or two or more special districts,

Form new special districts and incorporate new cities,

Dissolve special districts and disincorporate cities, — WOW.  And the commission has six people. Only.

▪ Merge cities and special districts,

▪ Allow cities or special districts to provide services outside of their boundaries.

I hope that the term “SPECIAL DISTRICT” is required, by law, to be taught in all K-12 Special Unified School Districts so that, as adults, they can know who helps determine what low-income jobs  global marketplace their education is preparing most of them for, which will increase their odds of becoming part of the welfare caseload (or target in a drive-by- shooting) they will be able to work at, decrease their odds of giving those who know what a special district is — and how to obtain control over it — and cities.  After all, their JOBS provide tax income for these people to hire pricey lawyers to investigate waste of their own taxes. . .

I don’t know any individual that has the time to write “FOIA’s” (Freedom Of Information Act letters, requesting, obviously, information) – for every entity that is affecting that indivual’s personal, well, — Freedom.  Do you?

So JUST PERHAPS if a Bill Gates and friends can figure out that the rest of the west never needed the white throne, either (toilets) — we might be able to figure, as much of the non-Western, Pre-AFCC world, in fact Pre-1913 world  — how to live life without a parenting class. And that would put enough administrative and bureaucratic educators, and real estate, out of work to make OCCUPY THIS look like a children’s birthday party.

Why?  Because once people develop the habit of thinking, non-drug-induced, about HOW their world is run, the habit is catching, and many more taken-for-granteds will topple.

Put that next to a recent news article with the title “Agency in hot water over fees.”  This turns out not to actually be attorney-exaggarated fees on a Health Care District, not about water — however this one, “An End to Padded Water Bills  (Metropolitan Times, Los Angeles, 2009) IS.  This 2010 notice by “Californians Aware” on ” Subject: Notice of Strict Enforcement Concerning Certain Common Brown Act Violations is addressed to people at four different associations involved in basic business of — living — in California.  It is from another association, “Californians Aware” — the Center for Public Forum Rights.”

  • League of California Cities
  • Association of California Water Agencies
  • California School Boards Association
  • California State Association of Counties, and
  • Association of California Healthcare Districts, Ralph Ferguson, Executive Director (see next)
ACHD
In a very well-fleshed-out-website, the group’s (or lack of a better word reflecting their tax & incorporation status)  mission is stated:  “The Association of California Healthcare Districts serves and advances the diverse needs of all California Healthcare Districts through advocacy, education and member driven services. “

The “Association of California Healthcare Districts, INC.” is “Not Registered” as a California Charity (or corporation, that I can see) and “Ralph Ferguson” is the attorney in question mention as overbilling (etc.) in the article “Agency in hot water over fees” I linked to, above.  Go figure!

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS, INC. Charity Not Registered RANCHO CORDOVA CA Charity Registration Charity
1

The Secretary of State Site shows zero listing for the same Association.  IN fact, when I searched on only the words “healthcare District” there only 3 local ones showed, one o whose corporate status had been suspended.  If so, why a need for an Association of Healthcare Districts to start with?  Either have them — and force them to expose their corporate status– or don’t have them, at all, and quit playing games with the public.  I believe (?) the word “District” here means a region of people/residents who can be sold on the idea of accepting a tax to support, er, “Healthcare.”

Which of course, have been the topic of some scandal as to use.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1993854 11/05/1996 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FOUNDATION HELEN WALSH
C2439485 03/11/2004 SUSPENDED HEALTHCARE DISTRICT INSURANCE AND MARKETING SERVICES, INC. JAMES L. BEYERS
C2858426 02/21/2006 ACTIVE THE CLOVERDALE HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FOUNDATION JAMES F DEMARTINI

While the phrase “healthcare district” on a charitable registry search produces zero results, which leads me to speculate that this multiple field search site does not have the ability to search phrases in the middle of the group’s name – unlike other states’ corporate searches.  For such a large state, California has a lousy corporation search website!

So I looked up “Bear Valley Community” on the OAG (Charity) site and find SIX charities (and one raffle) beginning with those three phrases.  TWO of the sex are not registered, but our 1996 one (above) is.  One of the “not registered” charities is “Bear Valley Community Hospital.”  If I lived in Bear Valley, California — I’d get on this quick.  The BVHC District tax return of 2002 lists $13K of government funding, of 2004, $26 of public (but no government) and apparently the charitable registration didn’t start until 2006.  Since I’m a nice person, I”ll list what Bear Valley Community anythings are still around (the church — active as a charity — is no longer active as a corporation, but they began in 1946.  Besides (see row one, below).

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1137770 03/24/1983 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY CENTER FOR SPIRITUAL ENRICHMENT, A RELIGIOUS SCIENCE COMMUNITY CAROLYN DAWLEY
C0208456 08/02/1946 SUSPENDED BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH DONALD FOOR
C2233852 05/08/2000 SUSPENDED BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TERRY WOODROW
C1993854 11/05/1996 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FOUNDATION HELEN WALSH
C1287435 09/30/1985 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AUXILIARY DOROTHEA SCHWAIGER
C0306083 07/07/1955 DISSOLVED BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL FUND, INC.
C1604740 01/19/1988 SUSPENDED BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. VI COLUNGA
C0482507 12/16/1964 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY NURSERY SCHOOL AMY PREY
C3189110 01/30/2009 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY SPRINGS COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITIES FOUNDATION MARGARET WANGLER
C1764347 05/30/1995 ACTIVE BIG BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY ARTS THEATER SOCIETY KAREN SARGENT RACHELS
1 2

Bear Valley appears to be a Ski Resort area.  Cloverdale has a multitude of corporations, this is only a sample.  Notice the “Status” column:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C0978805 03/28/1980 SUSPENDED CLOVERDALE BOOSTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. DONALD SATO
C0175845 06/02/1938 SUSPENDED CLOVERDALE BRIDGE CLUB
C0412712 04/18/1961 ACTIVE CLOVERDALE CABANA CLUB NOE LONGORIA
C1602586 12/18/1987 ACTIVE CLOVERDALE CABINETS, INC. ARNOLD M. HAUG
C3098377 05/05/2008 ACTIVE CLOVERDALE CANINE ALLIANCE, INC. MICHAEL P CAMPBELL
C1235613 01/11/1984 SURRENDER CLOVERDALE CASTINGS INC. C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
C0576616 07/31/1969 SUSPENDED CLOVERDALE CB-ERS
C0767052 04/02/1976 SUSPENDED CLOVERDALE CHAPTER #2430 OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS, INC. DIANA TREANKLE
C0772429 06/24/1976 DISSOLVED CLOVERDALE CHILDREN’S CENTER, INCORPORATED
C1934975 05/15/1995 SUSPENDED CLOVERDALE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP JACK REGO

Cloverdale is in Sonoma County (California Coast, wine country) and in 2010 had a population of 8,618 in 2010, and is in California’s 1st Congressional District (FYI)

Cloverdale is located in the northern portion of Sonoma County, and is the farthest city north in the San Francisco Bay Area, about 85 miles (135 km) north of San FranciscoU.S. 101 runs through the town, as does State Route 128.

The city has a total area of 2.6 square miles (6.7 km2), all of it land.

Cloverdale is located in the Wine Country, being part of the Alexander Valley AVA.

(Thank you, Wikipedia) 

That’s a whole lotta business for a population of 8,000….

Californians Aware:  The Center for Public Forum Rights (who warned the above 4 association heads (at least one of who is an attorney) to mind their legal compliance on the Brown Act as to closed-door meetings) registered as a corporation in 2004, which indicates they filed articles of incorporation and paid a fee, and have a board of directors of at least one person.  THey probably even have a bank account.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2646702 04/16/2004 ACTIVE CALIFORNIANS AWARE: THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC FORUM RIGHTS EMILY KATHLEEN FRANCKE

They even dutifully filed with the IRS for years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, with a VERY modest budget (under $50K) and then stopped filing, meaning as of 8/23/2010, they are Delinquent as a charity.  However, their letter to the 4 association heads was written in November, 2010.  They do not appear to ever have sent anything to the OAG at all (either IRS return or RRF):

ull Name: CALIFORNIANS AWARE: THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC FORUM RIGHTS FEIN: 201008855
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2646702
Registration Number: 125817
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/2006 Renewal Due Date: 5/14/2008
Registration Status: Delinquent Date This Status: 8/23/2010

They apparently lost a leader very recently, but are still collecting donations — possibly illegally — from their website, not that this would put them in different company than groups they are reporting on, who financially I’m sure leave this group in the dust.  The foundation number shows no (none whatever) returns under this EIN# above, but the California OAG has information from somewhere that is posted.  Then again, neither does the “Association of California Healthcare Districts” show its face — at all under this name, on the foundation finder.  How could it, without even an EIN# to go on?

Notice: The IRS has announced processing errors on electronically filed Forms 990 for filing years 2007-2009. Learn more»

Search criteria: ( Name: association of california healthcare districts State: CA )
0 matching documents retrieved (0 displayed)

Be that as that may, their board of directors is scheduled to meet this week, December 2, 2011.

The Brown Act in California deals with closed-door meetings on actions of public interest.

Perhaps in this case, the term applies.  Futures WIthout Violence has outgrown its britches, and I will not cease reporting on this.

(They’d better go abroad, because word is getting out — principally from me, that I can see — is that media campaigns don’t result in character transformations, and failing to report on the family court scams, and DV organization sell-outs is still getting families killed.  Last one — in the same general locality as this group — is a recent headline — a San Jose Policeman and his wife, apparent murder-suicide, and they have two teenagers. (Not sure about this incident, it looks almost staged from the reporting, and the word “apparently” shows up a lot.  I also note it was a second marriage (or, he had a stepson).  San Jose is not too far from San Francisco, however in the Bay Area there are drive-by-shootings hitting young people (recently a one-year old child) and in more than one neighborhood.  I believe that a $36 million annual revenue, even after subtracting several salaries over $100 million and Esta Soler’s of over $200 million (per year) should demand — not just suggest — some proof of effectiveness before getting one more cent — and this every five years at a minimum.  FVPF (FVW) claims to have begun in 1980.  If the Washington, D.C. corporations search bears this out, then it did — but in SF at least, it only began in 1989, meaning, a company that (now) specializes in media based campaigns and trainings, has been lying in its own self-descriptions.  1980 v. 1989 = nine years’ difference in reporting incorporation is not a minor issue, and I hope my suspicions on that one prove wrong.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2583174 05/17/2004 ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE DAVID B WEXLER

 Surely Relationship Training Institute (which falls under this category) also has to — but not one RRF or IRS hyperlink has been uploaded to the public website for it) while – there is not one single RFI filing from 2006 – 2011.   And the OAG somehow, hasn’t commented on this, and the charitable status remains labeled “Current.”  I figure this means someone is receiving money somewhere, and the “slap you on your wrist” letter may have indicated said someones wasn’t paid their (kickback, or payoff) this time.  Whether this is instinct, speculation, or error will not be known until other facts are known.

I certainly don’t buy that no one in the criminal branch of California Government (with the Attorney General being the top) knows about this group, for one, on their “About Us” page (including the “Guest Faculty list with Sandra Brown, M.A. (Christian “Liberty University” with on-line degree programs) and no known bachelor’s degree, plus CEO of her group whose corporate and charitable (if any) identity isn’t know either), not to mention  “Brian Erickson, Esq., San Diego City Attorney’s Office )(do a FOIA, get the payroll and reimbursements!), says:

The Relationship Training Institute is approved by the San Diego County Probation Department to provide clinical training for all authorized county domestic violence treatment programs for court-ordered offenders.

and it (RTI) is running certification programs for “Domestic Violence Providers,” probably receiving some help (whether as direct or subgrantee) from an OVW STOP program grant:

The STOP Program: Understanding & Treating Domestic Violence
40-HOUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TREATMENT PROVIDER CERTIFICATION COURSE

May 3,4,5 & 11,12, 2012

 Domestic violence is not a crime, but a disease that can be treated.  Sounds like the AFCC plan to transform language is indeed working….)

So, it just seems odd that this group doing quite a bit of business with the California legal and judicial systems (cf.  “court-ordered” “Probation”) has somehow escaped the OAG’s radar as to filing its annual statewide returns. Unlike many sites, I don’t see any claim of when they started (“ask me no questions, I will tell you no lies”), but from the registration site it’s been fully 4 years, from the Secretary of state site (above), fully let’s say 6 (allowing for the 2011 year to end) of its not doing anything.  Does this make you go hmmm? in context?  (it should).

I think I know “what is it” about this — it’s simply that the profits from these practice are pretty hard to profile (trace).

I’ve heard it said (NOYB where) that a psychiatrist is a would-be physician, in other words, the field has a bit of an inferiority complex, even though they can indeed prescribe medications.  And psychologists are would-be psychiatrists, there is a professional jealousy, hierarchy and wish for glory.  I think the evidence supports this characterization, don’t you?  They like to pronounce, but without enough trade promotion, who’s going to give a hoot about what they say?

When psychologists begin to rule a nation – which FYI has already happened — it’s just about gone.  Not much difference from when religion does, which I think is my point in the ridiculous term “faith-based” with which we are now drenched in the field of social service, thanks to President Bush, President Clinton, and a while back (like 1994), Congress slipping up and letting a single HHS grant go to jumpstart the National Fatherhood Initiative, which story EVERy parent (male or female) should know in detail.  This now has morphed and multiplied to HHS funding groups with six-letter acronyms (and only one vowell, or none) like:

NRFCBI

GOFBCI

NCJFCJ

or 5-letter ones such as I’m going to profile today

ACFLS (“Inc.”)

Respectively, “National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity Building Initiative” (translation, more HHS funds and a Certfication College), Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (this is in Ohio; translations — grabs more HHS money, in the form of TANF funds, for starters), National Center for Family and Juvenile Court Judges (HHS and DOJ supported, in Reno, NV), and the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists (as opposed to what kind of Family Law Specialists?) based in California.

Here’s a glimpse at the purpose and method of the “NRFCBI” — think Wade Horn, Don Eberly, Don Blankenhorn, Institute for American Values (another nonprofit), etc.  Thanks to the web and well-trained trainers fo trainers (and not a few on the Congressional Legislative Task forces of NFI, see its site), one can simultaneously be meeting behind closed doors with a new Governor or head of the Social Rehabilitation Services for an entire state — and be training others, and get a whole dang lot of this soaking up public funds to do it.

About NRFCBI

In partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance,National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) has designed the National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity-Building Initiative (NRFCBI) to aid grassroots and community-based organizations through a series of capacity-building grants.

These grants will empower community-based organizations by:

  • developing each recipient’s organizational infrastructure
  • enhancing its leadership; introducing sub-awardees to new programming recommendations, and
  • improving each awardee’s connections in the community-at-large

Ultimately, the NRFCBI aims to strategically improve sub-awardees’ capacity to provide services to local fathers and families.**

The NRFCBI was developed with funds and support from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance. Each awardee receives a one-time $25,000 award to strengthen fathers and families in communities throughout the United States.

** local mothers — including those dealing with said fathers, to their risk — can go jump in a lake.  Particularly if they hope to actually get the access visitation local sub-grantee, which allegedly is for noncustodial parents (not exclusively men) when there are problems with — access and visitation.

What — really, when you examine it, IS this National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity-Building Initiative?  If you had to explain it to an alien, new to earth, new to the financial system, barely understanding the Internet, and someone who thinks instead in more concrete (versus “virtual” wordy) terms — what would you say?

Let’s try:

And most of these are “nonprofits,” which of itself means ??

Think about it:  Tax-Exempt = an IRS Perk that lets others pick up the “Social Services” 

Tax-exempt status implies (this isn’t actually true, but the theory goes) one is providing a legitimate public service, so this group should be exempt from the indentured service the people they serve (theoretically), that actually results things the public can use — cars, food, steel, paved roads, clothes — things that wage-earners labor at for their business employer, some of which the public actually needs (like homes to live in).  (I omitted the public school system in their intentionally).

Most of my close look at family law fields comes down to the same point:

The presence of the IRS and the accumulation of wealth, per capita (unless people know or figure out how to become tax-exempt or work under the table, which we know happens) — has enabled more inflated programs, initiatives, institutes, centers and for that matter has simply centralized wealth in the wrong hands — in the hands of people with global aspirations, historic to their family (Bush) and associations (Project for a New American Century, Family Research Center, etc.).  Billionaires and millionaires with apparently time on their hands (boredom – “let’s go find someone else to abuse,” and “play dominoes with countries”) and worlds to change, or as it may be starve into oblivion, attack without cause (Iraq), colonize — although supposedly the USA was “independent” of the empire on which the Sun never set, or simply blow off the face of the globe.

No wonder at the individual and family level, such societies have tr