Archive for the ‘Business Enterprise’ Category

Evaluate, Coordinate, Sow the Seeds of Mother-Hate (a.k.a. How to Accuse a Mom of Alienation)

I’m going to print that commentary here:

Typically, a Guardian Ad Litem is appointed in Family Court matters where a child is at risk due to a crisis within the family structure. In most counties across the state, about 5 – 8 percent of all family court cases has a Guardian appointed to make sure that at-risk child(ren) have access to legal representation of their own. It’s a good idea and it often saves children from abuse. In all other counties, there is a list of attorneys to select from.

However, in Lackawanna County, the appointment rate of a Guardian is nearly 100% of all family court cases. And, there is no list from which to select. There’s one Guardian that gets all the cases. It’s been that way since Harhut took over Family Court.

For years now, Family Court judges have appointed Atty. Danielle Ross as the Guardian in practically every single case. About a dozen cases a week are handed to Ross on a silver platter. The parents have to immediately cough up $600 as her fee, plus she tacks on heavy fees once she’s on board if she’s called upon for a recommendation in a custody proceeding. Ross picks up about $7200.00 a week, every week of the year, and it’s been going on like that for years, which why she drives a bevy of exotic cars and takes non-stop vacations.

{{more than one income stream, county-mandated services, county-paid salary, plus what else?}}

90% of the families have no crisis situation that requires her presence. Some families have kids under five years-old who are not at risk of any abuse, yet they are ordered to pay Ross $600.00 anyway. Ross gets a salary from the county, plus a free county office, free phone and utilities and a free county secretary, even though she’s easily good for half-a-mil a year, year after year.

Then, there’s the quality of her work. Having so many cases, she’s often very difficult to access when problems arise. Once appointed, it takes her weeks to make contact with the family. In fact, she’s required to inspect every house, which she can’t possibly do, so she sends her county-paid secretary, Sue, with no qualifications, to inspect these houses and the family pays her an additonal $100.00, which, by the way, is required to be paid to Sue only in cash.

Ross has a history of making custody recommendations to the court that are extremely politically motivated. She meets with children as little as 5 – 6 years old and interrogates and manipulates them to get them to agree to certain custody conditions that certain “political” litigants want. She’s personally serviced many county employees or cronies to get them a customized custody order, because the judge of the day follows her recommendations. I have some of those outrageous orders in my possession. There are many very angry parents who want Ross’ head on a stake, to say nothing of lawyers on the business end of her biased and unjust recommendations.

Claire Czaykowski is the Court Administrator for Family Court. She’s Harhut’s former tipstaff. He appointed her upon his appointment as President Judge. Claire gets certain cases scheduled before certain judges to make sure the “right” judge hears the “right” cases. If you call Family Court, in fact, it’s Danielle Ross’ voice that welcomes you to Family Court.

{{Case-steering, in other words. it’s a network of interlinked associations…}}

If anyone has a Family Court case involving Danielle Ross, wherein they are unhappy with Ross’ recommendations and the Court’s Custody Order that was issued as the result of it, I’d like to hear from you. I’m in possession of quite a few now, but the more the better.

This Kids for Kash Scheme needs to come to a halt. It’s time to end Ross’ Cash Cow days. Rumors of her paying kickback are out there, but I can’t prove anything, yet. That’s yet. If a Guarian Ad Litem is needed, that’s all well and fine, but in most cases kids are not at risk and the family does not need Ross’ interference or expensive fees for nothing.

And the link contains the feedback, including that this woman drives a $145K Mercedes, and doesn’t even do her own work, but hires others out to do so. AMong the comments:

Ourtraged parents have had to be dragged out of the courtroom over complaints about recommendation made by Ross. On top of the $300 each parent has to pay, Ross then bills at $200 an hour for talking with the family. She likes being alone with the kids and asks them very compromising questions to help steer her findings to assist who she likes in a custody case. The woman knows nothing about what’s best for kids, only what’s best for who’s best friends with the court system.

Different venue, sounds like the same behaviors….

This isn’t about “Kids First,” or Kids, at all; it’s about Purchase Immediately My Products (a.k.a. PIMPs in Govt, Inc.). Public Service? This is the public serving the self-appointed parenting preachers under guise of “it’s good for you,” i.e., public benefit.

It goes on:

Counsel and litigants without counsel are ORDERED to immediately consult their schedules for conflicts and to promptly request a continuance where necessary because of a prior attachment or emergency situation. ALL requests for a continuance of a Custody Conciliation conference must be made on the APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE form available from the offices of the Court Administrator, Custody Conciliator or Prothonotary in the Schuylkill County Courthouse. The application must be filed in the Custody Conciliation Office. A continuance will be granted only upon good cause shown.

The moving party shall immediately serve on all interested parties a copy of the original pleading, this order, ”Kids First” registration and information, and a custody conciliation questionnaire; and shall further file an affidavit verifying service.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: The Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any program, hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing.

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 10-2355. Filed for public inspection December 10, 2010, 9:00 a.m.]

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

This concept didn’t just appear fully-formed in the brain of this judge, this county, or these mediators; it was circulated among professionals with decades of experience requiring others to consume their product, get business referred to their nonprofits, and doing this at public AND private expense, and through the courts.

why do I think this is probably a Kids Turn knockoff? Call it feminine intuition, or that I happen to live in California where a man running for judge, who started a Kids First of Orange County (aka Orange County Welfare Coalition, a nonprofit) simply said he modeled it after Kids Turn:

http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2010/gerald-l-klein-for-judge/

Among his accomplishments, he founded Kid’s First in 1996. It is a program for separated or divorced parents and their children. Both parents attend this 8 week course together with their children to help the kids cope with changes in the family.

Klein has been practicing law for 33 years and has sat as a temporary volunteer judge in Orange and Los Angeles counties since 1981. He is active in the community and he also teaches Family Law and Community Property as a part-time professor at a local law school. Although I only witnessed his expertise in family law, he is familiar with many types of law as he had a general practice in his early years.

“The Story of “Kids First”

The History

The “Kids First” program is a project of the Orange County Welfare Coalition, Inc., a nonprofit corporation started by Attorney Gerald L. Klein and Attorney Ruth Shapin, MFT, in 1975. Through 1990, the coalition assisted individuals in obtaining governmental entitlements including social security and supplemental security disability benefits.

Left to right: Robert Schuler, Gerald Klein, Sara Doudna and Ruth Shapin, along with Kids First Staff members

Recognizing the need for a program focusing on the needs of children whose parents are separated, in 1995 Attorney Klein began looking for such a program. In 1995, he learned of the “Kids Turn” program in San Francisco which dealt with families going through divorce. The coalition adopted their idea and curriculum. Sara Doudna, MFT, became the Clinical Director, expanded upon it, and “Kids First” was born.

In 1996, “Kids First” became operational.”

Ms. Doudna-Klein (she married him??):

have worked extensively for twenty years with addiction problems and with individuals, couples and families in recovery. I am familiar with all forms of addiction but am most experienced with alcoholism. Ten years ago I co-founded a non-profit program for families in divorce. I am familiar with the issues that affect all members of a family during the divorce process. I am also experienced in the assessment and treatment of “Parental Alienation”.

Mrs. Sara Doudna-Klein, LMFT, Marriage & Family Therapist in Huntington Beach

Situations

involving divorce

Check out Kids First

A Program Helping Family in Divorce

http://www.kidsfirstoc.org/

Positive co-parenting
Single Parenting
Parental Alienation
Parent-Child Reunification
Blended Families

Or on another site: ” I am clinical director and co-founder of this nonprofit program called “Kids First”. Gerald L. Klein, Family Law Specialist founded the program in 1997. Since that time, we have served the community of Orange County and surrounding areas to make a difference in the lives of the parents and kids in the process of divorce.”

These behaviors and products are prime-time AFCC.

and overall would be Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), and perhaps may be with, however, the habit of actually legalizing this behavior may compromise it from being prosecuted under RICO. Also, if it were fully explored and prosecuted, as I may just about to show, it would possibly not clean up, but also completely empty out the family law system Justice = Therapy-dispensing monopoly of judges, mediators, certified family law specialist, and all kinds of psychologist, from J.D.-endowed Psy.D.s to the lowly man or woman who paid up the latest AFCC-approved parenting coordinator, or mediator, or supervised visitation center training course.

Cleaning up the racketeering element of AFCC might end up shutting down the system, because it is probably (at this point) not possible to separate the private nonprofit association, “Association of Family & Conciliation Courts” from the concept (and practice) of family law, at all. this is such a fixture of our society that people forget it had an origin, and at one time, did not exist. This origin was NOT by public, grassroots demand, but it was (like most oppressive systems) from top-down; by highly placed legislators, judges, and/or others who got a law passed, started practicing, and then expanded.

On the other hand, passive inaction will just send the US economy downhill faster –a situation for which those who’ve been marketing these things will be in a better position to handle than those they force to consume their products. At least they know how to operate businesses, reduce taxes, and even in some cases do it under the radar, avoiding taxes and dumping the real social needs of society (housing, food, water, the ability to defend onesself and one’s property — or to own property or assets of any sort) on those already hardest hit.

The RICO link, above, explains how the law began in the 1970s to stop the Mafia, in 1980s was applied to more individual situations, and in the 1990s the federal government sought to restrict this use:

During the 1990’s, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.

Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations.”

That said, let’s note that two judges in PA were convicted of this, recently — in Luzerne County; “Kids for Cash” scheme. And I cannot think of a better descriptive word, given the powerfully-connected (judges are members) and internet-connected, conference-churning, international, and training-oriented private “nonprofit” organization called “the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” — particularly when the associated network of nonprofits working with it are considered. Talk about undue influence! People who are subjected to this treatment routinely call it “Mafia” or refer to extortion, which I believe overall, the practices are. Doesn’t that last one sound like extortion (though only for $40, do the math X how many divorces and custody modifications…..)? Why, for example, shouldn’t someone besides Libassi Mediation be able to run a simple Kids First class? And what happened to Dr. Chet? Has he got his own line of business with the county now?

HOW I”M GOING TO SPLIT UP THE 17,000-WORD POST:

I AM GOING TO JUST “CUT & PASTE” INTO DIFFERENT POSTS. THIS IS NOT CALLED EDITING, IT’S CALLED, I GUESS, MACHETE CopyEditing.

ONCE THE BASIC INFORMATION IS OUT, I DO NOT FEEL RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP PUBLISHING AND BLOGGING IT — CAVEAT EMPTOR CUSTODY COURTS. THEY ARE BASICALLY (ANYMORE) PRIVATE, NONPROFIT ENTERPRISES WITH A VENEER OF PUBLIC LEGITIMACY. THOSE WHO DON’T TAKE TIME TO LOOK ARE PASSING THE BUCK TO THOSE WHO HAVE HAD TO, BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T SO FORTUNATE IN LIFE (OR COURT) TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DODGE THIS RACKET.

Jesus Christ said, long ago, “the poor you have always with you…” It’s obviously that the leadership of the US has figured this out, and made plans with how to control them through a variety of institutions, lest they riot, or there be another civil war. Also, to keep a substantial enough portion of people desperate and competing for jobs they are underqualified for, while promising them more help through reforming the public education system, run as a monoply anyhow, etc. Bread & Circuses..

Yesterday, I compiled, but didn’t publish, a triple-sized post, explaining the relationship between AFCC, Parental Alienation, High-Conflict (talk) and Parenting Coordination. And the absolute mother-hatred in a certain parenting coordination handbook, which is standard. I also show (and it’s obvious to those who look) that state borders (and at a certain level, state laws) are becomign meaningless when, for example, an Ohio Supreme Court Task Force (date: 1999), heavily AFCC-stacked, and lifting portions of its “tasks” wholesale from AFCC leaders — decides, in studying how to reform child custody — to simply fly its personnel out to Arizona and attend and AFCC conference. Again, this was about 12 years ago and NOT blogged by domestic violence advocates.

If I am able to complete the series on the Ellen Pence/Casey Gwinn (I.e., DV advocate / Family Justice Center) connections, I believe this will show an educated (researched) “guess” as to why NONE of the Domestic violence coalitions and primary ‘battered women’s” advocate generally blog, report, publish, or scrutinize the AFCC, OR the fatherhood grants system, (and its religious connections). One of them (Center for Judicial Excellence) has made a habit of not doing this (though they are informed of it, as are many others) until very recently, I heard. And probably because a few bloggers continued to “out” them for failling to address it.

Mainstream, professionalized groups have their rhetoric set in stone, pretty much — and simply do not follow the money, or report to the general public on the conference circuits. These posts are “Public Service Announcements.” I am one (networked) person reporting certain themes. I do not have an editorial staff and am not paid for my time here, as a whistleblower. I write what I see, and I see a lot. The alarm is definitely appropriate.

INDIANA & AFCC

Indiana has lots of Justice. In fact, it has TWO Justice Centers from the Casey Gwinn/Gael Strack/GWBush Initiatives Alliance.

But this is about its AFCC-State Government connections (which, FYI, the Kids First & Kids Turn concept is).

Indianapolis, on the other hand, did it differently, and rather than going through the expense of flying its judges OUT, simply decided to invite AFCC to hold their fall conference locally. This is from the Domestic Relations Committee, June 2009 meeting:

Domestic Relations Committee / Judicial Conference of Indiana / Minutes June 12, 2009

…

1. Members present. Craig J. Bobay, Francis G. Hill, Karen M. Love, Sheryl L. Lynch, Nanette K. Raduenz, Deborah J. Shook, Dean A. Young and William C. Fee, Chair, were present.

2. Staff present. Jeffrey Bercovitz and Anne Jordan provided the committee with staff assistance.

3. Guests present. Amber Njau, Project Analyst; Cynthia Longest, Deputy Director, Child Support Bureau; Karla Mantia, Prosecuting Attorney’s Council, were also present.

4. Minutes approved. The minutes for the May 15, 2009 meeting were approved.

5. Draft child support guidelines. Committee members reviewed comments submitted by topic area:

a. The Health Insurance Premium Worksheet (HIPW) and the Child Support Obligation Worksheet was reviewed. The committee made changes to ease the preparation of the HIPW. b. Members of the committee agreed all commentary should be italicized in the child support guidelines. c. The “Child Multipliers” commentary was revised in the Support Guidelines and the Child Support Obligation Worksheet was revised to encompass eight (8), not just five (5) children in accordance with the amounts from Dr. Venohr.***

[[Dr. Jane Venohr runs nonprofit Center for Policy Research, along with Jessica Pearson et. al, and I believe also works for PSI, its nonprofit arm. These two organizations are all over the HHS grants circuit, and found publishing and promoting access visitation policies. She is active in child support matters…See my last post.]]

6. Domestic Relations Conference.

a. Anne Jordan reported the two-day domestic relations conference in the areas of child development, family dynamics, custody and visitation is scheduled for November 19-20, 2009 in Indianapolis. Committee members suggested the following topics:

(1) The economy’s effect on the family, e.g. mortgage foreclosure, high layoff rate, and the court’s ability to respond to a crisis if its staff is reduced.

(2) Professor Marcia Klien-Pruitt, Connecticutt, to speak on family dynamics.**

[[**Mis-spelled, Marcia Kline-Pruett is AFCC presenter, with her husband Kyle, and discussed later]]

(3) Child-Informed Mediation, where a psychologist interviews a child and brings this input this into mediation.

(4) Court ordered investigations in custody disputes. Some courts use a guardian ad litem for this purpose, to investigate mental health issues, substance abuse issues, and criminality.

b. Committee members discussed having the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) hold their fall symposium in Indianapolis in November 2011 and the Judicial Center using the monies they would otherwise have spent on the two-day domestic relations conference on having Indiana judges attend the AFCC fall symposium in Indianapolis. Magistrate Bobay moved to have the Judicial Center contact AFCC about holding their fall symposium in November 2011 in lieu of the two-day domestic relations conference, with the Judicial Center using the monies they would otherwise have spent to have Indiana judges attend. Magistrate Raduenz seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

As I see from the Feb 18, 2011 minutes (thanks for publishing them, guys….) the networking with AFCC is going to continue:

This time there was a different set of guests:

“3. Guests present. Stuart Showalter,** Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates, and Craig Scarberry were also present.”

{{The links are relevant: both are fathers’ rights advocates;

Showalter characterized as former “Neo Nazi Skinhead” and in some trouble with the law (as a youth) for it. Later, he is found blaming a woman for her own stabbing death — because she sought a restraining order. She was stabbed to death in front of her two daughters, 8 & 12 Here’s the quote, just so we have a grasp on who was a Guest at the Indiana Judicial Conference this past February:

The wife was found stabbed in her bed at home on Sunday night. Investigators say the couple was going through a divorce and she had a protective order requiring him to stay away from her and their daughters. The killing came two days after the wife obtained a two-year extension on the order.

Angela Warnock’s use of the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act for leverage in the divorce proceedings with the father *of their two daughters failed her this past weekend. On Friday she had obtained an order that would keep the father from having any further contact with his daughters for two years. In addition she had the daughters, age 8 and 12, sleeping with her. These are both signs of Parental Alienation.

(Showalter’s comment was June 2009. Note: obtaining a restraining order is sign of parental alienation. wonder where that concept came from. It has nothing to do with protection, obviously — just using for an advantage in divorce. (the concept that perhaps her desire for divorce may have had to do with violence to start with doesn’t seem to have occurred to him…..)

Craig Scarberry (unfamiliar to me) had custody reduced because he became agnostic, after being formerly Christian. Plans for fathers’ rights rally in Marion County… Another article from “the democratic underground” asks whether(I DNK….) this was the same Scarberry who sued the City of Chicago (etc.) on the same grounds, for interfering with the distribution of gospel tracts with “Repent America”: link shows the pleading: including the Statement of Facts, which begins ”

STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. Plaintiffs are Christians who regard the Bible as God’s literal authority. In keeping with this sincerely held religious belief, Plaintiffs believe that they are obligated to tell as many other people as they can about what they believe is their individual need to be “born again,” that is, to be reconciled to God. This comes only by believing that Jesus Christ is God,{{i.e., Trinitarian, which founding fathers primarily weren’t}} and that Jesus suffered and died on the cross (and was resurrected from the dead subsequently) to pay the penalty for the sins of humanity, particularly those individuals who will believe in him; and who seek healing and forgiveness for and deliverance from their past, present, and future personal sins—“sins” being defined as transgressions of the binding commands of the Bible.)

Just including to show the mindset of someone who would attempt to “witness” in a legal pleading. Probably the same Scarberry, although, who knows? If so, he first proselytized FOR his beliefs God and then, disgruntled, for how his agnosticism shouldn’t be held against him. While it indeed shouldn’t, either line of thinking wouldn’t affect his position regarding father supremacy, most likely..or that it’s appropriate that his current beliefs be inflicted on others…. These two are not the major concern, they are two guys with a cause who sat in on a judicial conference. It’s the conference we should be most concerned about, and this style of decision-making within government.

This 2011 Judicial Conference meeting concluded peacefully:

10. Future meeting dates. Committee members agreed to meet again on Friday, March 18, May 20, July 15, August 19, and November 18, 2011 from 10:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. at the Judicial Center. They also agreed to meet in conjunction with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Regional Meeting in Indianapolis on Oct. 27-29, 2011 in Indianapolis.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey Bercovitz, Director Juvenile and Family Law

= INBRED with AFCC. So who ARE they, anyhow? What do they DO? (well, since you asked, I’ll keep posting….)

I don’t know how comfortable the average reader feels with abandoning due process, law, etc. and giving leaders a huge leash (or taking them “off-leash”) by simply ignoring what’s going on with the primary institutions that rule people’s lives, such as — say, the courts?

And behind the courts is the power to incarcerate, or transfer wealth, and offspring; to spare life or to waste life . . . ..

While an Indiana conference, or a Schuykill County parenting education mandate may not seem to relate to you — it does. We are a networked country, and the networks are to be watched. When not “nipped in the bud” these things only expand — and they are inappropriate tolls on the highways of life.

Would you trust this kind of back-door dealings with your life, or your children’s future? Do you want others — judges, psychologists, economists, and mental health practitioners (working together) to do the heavy thinking for you, so long as they leave you alone for a while? Even after they’ve been proven corrupt several times already?

(California’s illegal benefits to judges — legalized. Luzerne County, PA judges — sending adolescents to camps in which they had a vested interests, violating their rights and disrupting their and their parents lives . . . and here’s another post on some Pennsylvania court-based toll-gating with another individual:

To be continued …

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

June 15, 2011 at 12:38 PM

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

Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, Andrew Libassi (KidsFirst Lackawanna Co PA), Chet Muklewicz (AFCC-PA), Indiana Judicial Conference Domestic Relations Committee aka AFCC outfit, Jeffrey Bercovitz (IN), KidsFirst, KidsFirst-1996 (Orange & L.A. Counties-California), Pennsylvania Council of Children, SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURT RULES (mandated Parenting Class), Stuwart Showalter shows up, Supervised Visitation, Youth & Family Services (and Libassi-Muklewicz Contracts with them)

(“Say No! to SB 557,” cont’d.) Centralizing the Dispensation of Justice, Resource Centers to Train the Dispensaries…

CRIMINALS

California Releasing Mentally Disturbed Prisoners in Time for Tourists

By Ryan Tate, May 23, 2011 2:53 PM

Here’s an advisory for prospective summer visitors to California: The state must release around 32,000 prisoners under a new Supreme Court decision to help mentally ill inmates. It is one of the largest prisoner releases in U.S. history. Exciting.

Citing the state penitentiaries’ horrific overcrowding and high suicide rate, the high court upheld an order to reduce the prison population to 137.5 percent of capacity from 200 percent in recent years, translating into a release of around 32,000 people. It’s not clear how many of those people will come straight from mental treatment, but it’s plain that the overcrowding is corroding the minds even among the regular population.California prisoners have been living in gyms up to 200 at a time, and as many as 54 prisoners have been known to share a single toilet. There is, on average, about one suicide per week, according to a report by the governor’s office.

…Or, a nice photo from 2010, featured in the NYT:

CALIFORNIA REELING

California, in Financial Crisis, Opens Prison Doors

The prison in Lancaster, Calif., has 4,600 inmates, twice the intended number. Some 150 prisoners are held in the gymnasium.
by Randall C. Archibold in NYTimes, published March 23, 2010:

LANCASTER, Calif. — The California budget crisis has forced the state to address a problem that expert panels and judges have wrangled over for decades: how to reduce prison overcrowding.

The state has begun in recent weeks the most significant changes since the 1970s to reduce overcrowding — and chip away at an astonishing 70 percent recidivism rate, the highest in the country — as the prison population becomes a major drag on the state’s crippled finances.

Many in the state still advocate a tough approach, with long sentences served in full, and some early problems with released inmates have given critics reason to complain. But fiscal reality, coupled with a court-ordered reduction in the prison population, is pouring cold water on old solutions like building more prisons.

About 11 percent of the state budget, or roughly $8 billion, goes to the penal system, putting it ahead of expenditures like higher education…
….

To slow the return of former inmates to prison for technical violations of their parole, hundreds of low-level offenders will be released without close supervision from parole officers. Those officers will focus instead on tracking serious, violent offenders.

Some prisoners may also be released early for completing drug and education programs or have their sentences reduced under new formulas for calculating time served in county jails before and after sentencing.

The effort represents a “seismic shift,” said Joan Petersilia, a criminologist at Stanford Law School and a longtime scholar of the state’s prisons.

Public safety concerns have other states rethinking their decisions to save prisons costs by releasing inmates early and expanding parole.

The same red flags are being raised here, but the overcrowding problem dwarfs that of any other state and the budget deficit — $20 billion and climbing — has left lawmakers with virtually no choice but to move ahead. …

Proponents, including Mr. Schwarzenegger’s corrections secretary, Matthew Cate, have stood by the law, calling it overdue and necessary. The state spends, on average, $47,000 per year to house a prisoner. Early estimates suggest the new changes could save $100 million this year.

Gee, $47,000 per year reminds me of a similar $$$ figure of double-dipping by L.A. County Judges, featured in a “FullDisclosure.net” series of articles on Richard Fine, and retroactively “legalized” in California’s “SBX 211,” which I blogged recently in “What’s Money Got to Do With It?….” post.

This double-dipping has been known about for at least ten years — here’s an article from 2000, LA times, talking about this (although the figure was lower then):

“L.A. County Lets Judges Draw Duplicate Benefits and Perks“

Courts: Jurists, who get similar compensation from the state, say it’s well-deserved.

Others see double-dipping.

August 20, 2000|STEVE BERRY and TRACY WEBER | TIMES STAFF WRITERS

Judges across California can only look in wonderment and envy at their brethren on the Los Angeles Superior Court. In this town, judges make so much that a promotion to a higher level would mean a pay cut.

The reason: Los Angeles County officials allow the judges to draw duplicate benefits and perks from state and local taxes. As a result, the judges receive nearly $30,000 a year above their base salary of $118,000.**

{{**I wasn’t tracking judicial salaries 10 years ago, but recently I’ve been reading $178,000/ year, plus benefits. You can find out locally, I’m sure..}}

Although this compensation arrangement is largely unknown to the public, it is no secret to judicial insiders and county officials throughout the state. Some criticize it as “double-dipping.”

Here’s why:

* Los Angeles County judges now {{year 2000}}receive $22,400 in cash from the county for health and insurance benefits, even though they are fully covered by the state. There are no strings attached to how judges spend that money. “If they wanted to go to Vegas on it they could,” says Los Angeles County spokeswoman Judy Hammond.

* The judges are given $5,520 each year in “professional development” money for legal journals, educational books and conferences. They are not, however, required to submit receipts showing where it goes. In fact, records show that judges have charged the state for educational expenses instead of using the money the county gave them for just that purpose.

{{A “Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court” addresses this, as I noted earlier, in flying judges out to attend a SF- based conferrence on Domestic Violence (see title of post, today). So does this Opinion No. 98-16.

(Quote within a quote, here, is in red…)”

CJE Opinion No. 98-16

Attending Meetings of Domestic Violence Roundtables

~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > NOTE DATE: ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > September 15, 1998

CJE Opinion No. 98-16

You ask whether you may attend meetings of a domestic violence “roundtable.” In your court these roundtables are called monthly by a victim/witness advocate from the District Attorney’s Office. While all court personnel and the public are invited, the meetings are attended mostly by victim/witness advocates, assistant district attorneys, and probation officers, although police officers, court clinic personnel and clerks will also attend. While defense counsel are notified, they rarely attend. The roundtables typically involve a presentation by a guest who is often a professional involved with the provision of treatment or services to batterers and batterees. Generally, the discussions concern issues regarding the detection of and response to domestic violence, usually, but not always, from a law enforcement, prosecutorial, and probationary standpoint.

{{And the opinion goes on to say, it may compromise appearance of impartiality…..}} My quote, in red here, is to relate this practice (obviously now an established, and federally-supported (through HHS) practice to promote — to this article about double-dipping as to perks, which ALSO refers to the professional development moneys. And I did n’t even refer (here) to how this plays out when, in the family law side, the professional development absolutely does espouse a single point of view, and the organization’s name is AFCC (Association of Family & Conciliation Courts — although it’s a private, nonprofit corporation whose memberships primarily make their livings from the courts…). I recently found information in the state of Indiana where a steering committee simply decided that, rather than fly its judges out to attend a conference out of state, they’d request the organization to host its conference in THEIR state — Indiana. Want references? Comment-me; I’m busy, but will provide if you ask.}}

This Committee has been called upon several times to address participation by judges in activities that involve interaction with individuals identified with or otherwise supportive of a particular class of litigants. These requests have implicated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides, in part:

“(A) A judge should . . . conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

“(B) [A judge] should not . . . convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him.”

Based upon these provisions, we concluded in CJE Opinion No. 97-8 and CJE Opinion 98-9 that a judge’s participation in the activities of a community policing organization impermissibly conveyed the impression that the police and other members of the group were in a special position to influence him. Similarly, in CJE Opinion No. 91-2 we advised a probate judge that she could not serve on an advisory committee established by the Coalition for Battered Women Service Groups. There we concluded that her “membership in an organization dedicated to the needs of women who are battered would call into question [her] impartiality in deciding” abuse prevention petitions.

A judge’s participation in domestic violence roundtables is fraught with the same dangers, i.e., that the judge may be perceived as being on the victim’s “team” in G. L. c. 209A proceedings or in the prosecutions of c. 209A violations or domestic assaults, or that the other attendees may be viewed as having the opportunity, in essentially a one-sided format, to suggest the validity of certain legal positions that will inevitably come up in such proceedings.

SIMILARLY, in the family law venue, often, victims of domestic violence are not informed of the existence of a compromising set of grants (compromising IMPARTIALITY) that is very likely to being their case, given the $10 million/year funding (nationwide) for it, and the variety of groups that stand to profit by marketing products geared primarily to these grants. When these products tie back to nonprofits with judges & attorneys and family law therapists / marital therapist & social workers on them — then, we have an impartiality problem. Not that the judges seem to think so — after all, it’s just to “help” the clients — excuse me, “litigants,” excuse me — parents. Or grandparents. Or (best buzz word to use) “kids.”

Back to the 2000 article:

* On top of the money judges receive in their paychecks, they also are well positioned for their later years. They receive two retirements programs at taxpayers expense–one from the county, one from the state.

Chief Justice of California Ronald George said the great disparity between the pay of Los Angeles County’s 400-plus judges and those laboring elsewhere in the state “doesn’t make sense.” Judges in L.A., he said, are “in effect, double-dipping for benefits.”

“The Legislature has the authority to say judges can’t have both,” George said, but he stopped short of urging specific action.”

A simple solution : Take the double-dipped benefits and apply them to housing prisoners, for now. After also, Los Angeles already knows how to do such things, and so does San Diego, it seems (see recent posts). Surely something would be more sensible than to continue the double-dipping However, extra scoops can become addictive, and politicians and other leaders most definitely can get addicted to various perks of office, and excommunicate ethical protesters in egregious manners. But here’s the humorous rendition (May, 2010) of the issue:

In the early 1990s, California unified its court system and assumed the financial responsibility of paying the wages and benefits for all of California’s nearly 2,000 judges. A California Court of Appeals recently ruled it was unconstitutional (illegal) for Judge Yaffe and his cohorts (at least 500 of them) to accept dual benefits (aka, double-dipping).

It would be absurd for Judge Yaffe to assert that he was ignorant of the fact it was illegal to collect nearly $50,000 a year from LA County for the same benefits he received from the State. I suppose Yaffe will argue that he was ignorant of the law. As we all know, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense; however, in many instances it is a stepping stone to higher office.

Unfortunately for Mr. Fine his sole remedy is to seek redress from another judge, a proposition that in and of itself doesn’t pass the involuntary laugh test. {We now know he was released, the judge who did this has retired, and retroactive immunity for violating the California Constitution was later legalized, in this matter (I think), in SB

As we speak (ca. May 2010) Judge Yaffe and those of his ilk (FYI: Judge Yaffe, ILK is not defined as a male ELK!), are receiving around $57,000 annually in duplicate benefits from LA County that are also being paid by the overburdened taxpayers of California. And Judge Yaffe has the chutzpah to accept this unconstitutional gratuity with a smile on his face. Is Los Angeles County a great country or what?

Finally, when a defendant who wrongfully collected worker’s compensation while actually working appeared before Judge Yaffe, do ya think he gave him/her a pass for illegally double-dipping like he has for years?

You have to admire the graphics, on the post, though: It is no laughing matter, but perhaps if we expose how “laughable” these problem-solving courts are, when in the hands of double-dipping, ethical-attorney-tossing judges and panels of experts. . . . .

If you’re lost, here’s an orderly statement of events on SBX 211 at “tulanelink.com”

RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

Judges were apparently worried about being prosecuted for criminal acts and liability for taking the unearned payments. At the urging of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the California Judicial Council quietly authored a provision that was slipped into State Budget legislation SBX2 11 without public debate or awareness. …

{{Well, SB 557 is another one…. time to pay closer attention to our legislators, as best we can. I know it ain’t easy to keep up with them…..}}

NON-DISCLOSURE & PROSECUTION

Sterling Norris of Judicial Watch had these comments regarding unearned payments to judges and their failure to disclose:

The purpose of DISCLOSURE is so that anyone coming before a judge with a cause knows whether the judge as a financial vested interest in a certain outcome. It is to make sure the judges are not being bribed or influenced. If they do not disclose, the public doesn’t know if its judge is honest or dishonest. HONEST judges will disclose, and are responsible to know what they must disclose. Period. Honest judges making honest mistakes don’t retroactively vote to immunize themselves against systemic corruption because it’s somehow “for our common good.” Honestly, we need to stop being “morons united” and figure out what we do — and do not — have in common with our elected and appointed governmental figures.

• “There is no question that the judges should have disclosed they were receiving $46,000 from the County of L.A.; there is no way the judiciary, ethically, could get around it…”

• “$46,000 each year is not a small amount; many people don’t make that much all year, and this, from the County, is on top their $200,000 State salary. In California they are the highest paid court judges in the nation.

• “We have never seen people excused from liability retroactively.”

• “There is a criminal doctrine of law that, if you received money you are not entitled to and you keep it, that is considered theft.”

If you’ve heard of “Sterling Norris” (Plaintiff attorney on ‘Sturgeon v. Los Angeles,” which dealt with this issue), did you know he was a former L.A. County District Attorney? If find this interesting, because a parallel case (between the two of them, Richard Fine ends up jailed 18 months, age 69 — solitary coercive confinement, not the gymnasium variety, above….) was “Silva v. Garcetti, which dealt with another L.A. District Attorney (and his office) illegally withholding millions of collected child support — due the children — in order to retain the interest, and might still be doing this — had they not been caught. I still don’t know what became of “SIlva v. Garcetti,” but Californians know that around 2000, Child Support Collection (another thing that can land a man – or a woman – in jail, if they are in contempt) was removed from the District Attorney’s office to a Child Support Agency which (from what I can tell) is just as burdensome and not much more ethical — and THEIR “on the take” is from the federal government’s series of grants to increase noncustodial parenting time in the theory (and it IS “theory”) that this will improve collections and make better Dads out of the men.

Sterling Norris

Sterling “Ernie” Norris is an attorney for Judicial Watch, a conservative, Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization whose stated mission is to promote transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Norris is a former L.A. Deputy District Attorney and is the attorney who represented the plaintiff in Sturgeon vs. County of Los Angeles.

My ongoing theme, these days, is “Say No to SB 557” which is the California version of further legitimizing the Family Justice Center philosophy which, as I wrote, got its start with a Faith-Based President’s $20 million oomph and some sort of Republican empathy with a San Diego City Attorney (?) who was in hot water over financial matters in his hometown. I’m not in favor of the family justice center alliance — for one, where’s the justice, apart from the center’s own claims to be providing it? Show me the money, etc. When I learned who was behind it in Washington, I was even less impressed.

Then I learned at Ellen & Casey were conferencing and schmoozing (I call it that) — EDUCATING AND TRAINING — and so forth — I believe the whole damn thing is most likely a racket. (I plead the “First” — that’s my opinion. For what I based it on, read — or do your own research….).

DULUTH- SAN DIEGO – SAN FRANCISCO CONNECTIONS TO WASHINGTON, D.C. (HHS):

Washington DC is the “initiative” and a financer. Think “House Ways and Means, Appropriations.” Any federal initiative is a great chance for the resident White House CEO to give his favorites some Czar position, whether it reads on Fatherhood (there is none on mother hood), DOmestic VIolence, “Women and Girls” and I hear now they are pushing for a “Boyz 2 Men” initiative as well, per Washington Post, including among its Board of Directors, Warren Farrell, a powerful spokesperson for the “Powerlessness of Men” as he expressed in 1993 interview to his book about “The Myth of Male Power.” (I didn’t finish reading the interview and just found the website by search, don’t associate me with whatever else is on that domain):

FARRELL: By getting men to understand what their feelings are, and to express those feeling, and as a result, getting the society to understand what we are doing that is leading men to commit 80% of the suicides, be victims of 3/4 of the homicides, become 85% of the street homeless, most of the alcoholics and gamblers, and over 90% of the prisoners.

We have no problems understanding that blacks are more likely to be the victims of these problems because of the powerlessness of blacks, but when men as a group are victims of each of these problems we cannot conceive that it might be a result of the powerlessness of men.

{{And women start the wars and run Congress, I know . . . . as can be seen from our major institutions which, though funded through a Congress primarily white males, and many of them run also by males, somehow all these males are mistakenly ruling all the time in favor of females. SOmething oughter be done about that!}}

With men being so powerless, what better to do than have “a White House Council on Boys to Men” “A multi-partisan*” committee of nationally known scholars and practitioners [FATHERHOOD practitioners, for the uninformed, but across a variety of fields][what’s a “practitioner, anyhow? Someone with an advanced degree of some sort?] request that President Obama create a White House Council on Boys to Men….Short term investment, one million. Long-term savings: Billions of dollar…” (of course). For further info, contact Chairman, Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

For who is this mysterious “Commission” self-described as a “Bipartisan Commission of Leading American Authors, Academics and Practitioners” see the roster — it’s basically fatherhood advocates, including many that signed the last “fatherhood manifesto.”

The 2nd listed member of this “Commission” is Sanford M. Braver, Ph.D. (in psychology, what else?) described as:

Dr. Sanford L. Braver has been a Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University since 1970.

For his research on fatherhood, he has receivedFederal grants in excess of $20M, and published over 100 articles and chapters, as well as the landmark book Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths .His numerous awards include Vice-president Gore’s ReinventingGovernment Award, and both the President’s Award and the Research Award from the Association of Family and Conciliation Court

(Hmm. See my comments on the CJE Opinion 98-16 from September 1998, here, on AFCC — it’s another private organization, and obviously, has a position on custody given that Dr. Braver got its research award. Fact is, he can draw grants….)

Described at “The Boys Initiative” (a nonprofit I traced to a Family Foundation in Vienna, VA & New York (i think), but will spare you this time), Warren Farrell organized this commission to start with. So we ought to read some of his earlier work, found in the infamous (and well known among certain mothers fighting to retain or regain custody of their children) December, 1977 PENTHOUSE article, “Incest, the Last Taboo.” The blog this is from is called “Kinda Sort Like Almost Similar to Pro-Pedophilia.” but I’m sure the Penthouse article can be found on-line in its entirety.

WARREN FARRELL, interviewed in Penthouse, December 1977, “Incest: The Last Taboo” by Philip Nobile:

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,” says Farrell, “the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”

“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”

“Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. My book should help therapists put incest in perspective.”

Dr. Farrell has two daughters. I should go interview them (when they turn 18, if they haven’t) as to whether they have been able to live down their famous father’s reputation, and whether they agree with his comments back then. I suppose I could ask Mrs. Farrell, but typically anyone that can stick around for literature like this sort of has to work out a compromise, or buy into it wholesale, I imagine. . . . . Anyhow, there’s more than one way to sell articles & books and become “leading authors” ; one way is by offending people who then blog it to protest it….

(Bipartisan Commission: translation: Republicans and Democrats and even some progressive among the Democrats can unite, as can the religious and the atheist, when it comes to complaining about women have too much power. After all (says the 1993 article above), were they subject to the draft and forced to fight as infantry on the front lines when they turned 18? {{If they did, then I suppose the older females would have to breed the next generation of soldiers to die worldwide in combat zones in wars started over . . . . over . . . . . . . [?? See Iraq, Viet Nam, etc.]}}

If it has a logo like this, it MUST be legitimate, right?

As it turns out, Dr. Farrell went and assembled the Commission after he attempted to get in on as advisor to the White House Council on Women and Girls,” as even their own site says:

The proposal for a White House Council on Boys to Men was originally inspired by a discussion initiated by the White House Boards and Commissions Director Joanna Martin to Dr. Warren Farrell, inquiring of [her “WTF” response to?] his interest in advising the White House Council on Women and Girls, given his background with the National Organization for Women.*** Shortly after, Dr. Farrell created a multi-partisan Commission of thirty-four prominent authors, educators, researchers and practitioners to accomplish three goals: investigate the status of boys and their journey into manhood; identify both surface and underlying problems confronting boys and men; create a blueprint toward solutions. This proposal is the result.”

A problem-free society as designed by White House Councils on this and that — what a vision….

Council on Women and Girls

The White House Council on Women and Girls was created by Executive Order in 2009, and promptly, Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s right-hand woman, not counting Michelle) got the title role, appropriate for someone who, and her connections, were influential in helping him get to the White House to start with.)

The White House Council on Women and Girls, has as its members the head of every federal agency and major White House office, so that everyone shares in this responsibility. The Council is chaired by Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen serves as the Executive Director. By placing the Council in the White House, we not only emphasize its work, but provide a central point for coordination and cooperation with the overall goals of the Administration. This structure is critical because as the President said at the Executive Order signing, the issues facing women today “are not just women’s issues. When women make less than men for the same work, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work harder just to get by.

Like the 2001 Office of Faith-Based initiatives (Bush) and the previous Memorandum re: Fatherhood (Clinton) these were executive branch directives that helped ‘REDESIGN GOVERNMENT” — which should be voted on, not executive-order-grafted in. ANyhow, they are here, and while Clinton said all the Federal Government EXECUTIVE Branch agencies, department, and programs should restructure, reconsider, incorporate, evaluate (?) and basically think “Fatherhood” because welfare is biased against men to favor Moms. That’s going strong, last I heard. Now, Obama, not to be outdone, continued to play to that audience and make large and increasingly grandiose promises (entailing transfer of funds) to organizations that are “fatherhood” . . . . . has also done it not to “motherhood” (that’s a word he has a mental block with) but to “Women and Girls” and in context, it’s expected that these mothers would not care for their own children growing up, but childcare providers would. As such, they were women, but they were not really “mothers.”

Here we go with who are the Council on Women & Girls Designees within each department.

Designee Biographies

When the Council on Women and Girls was created, President Obama asked each Cabinet and Cabinet-level Secretary and White House Office to appoint a senior level person within their agency to serve as their designee to oversee the work of the Council. The biographies of those designees are included in this section.

You know I’m going to look at the Dept. of HHS, and we find that it is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, formerly governor of Kansas. Council MEMBERs = all Dept. heads, and under that, they have Designees. The thing about the Secretary of HHS is that she is already by law (Code of Federal Regulations) also enabled to conduct demonstration projects utilizing access/visitation (fatherhood-based) grants, per 45 CFR 303.109, which you can look up yourself at this link (TITLE 45 refers to “Public Welfare”)

303.109 – Procedures for State monitoring, evaluation and reporting on programs funded by Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs.

(b) Evaluation. The State: (1) May evaluate all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs; (2) Must assist in the evaluation of significant or promising projects as determined by the Secretary.

States wanting these funds (and who wouldn’t in these times?) must take on projects as determined by the Secretary, or whoever pushes these projects to the Secretary of HHS, resulting in authorization. Access Visitation funding goes, for example, (as I can see it) to programs like Paternity Opportunity Program (Shasta County, California) between the Dept. of Child Support Services there and a Hospital District. It references 45 CFR 303.109 and pays $10/person on invoice (From these funds) to provide its information to “Natural unwed mother and father.” Alternately, the Hospital could NOT sign up with POP and be in violation of a Family Code. (See 2nd to last & last para on page 1 of 2).

On another note, the Child Support Dept. at least in this county (and in 2010) it says is “34% state and 66% federal.” (Who pays the piper calls the tune. Sounds like the so-called “Local” Child Support department is primarily federalized at this point…)

Here’s another contract from Tarrant County Texas, accessing these funds and citing this code’s purpose; in Texas, the Office of Attorney General is quite open about its dealings with this grants system, and they indeed endorse and promote fatherhood agenda.

CONTRACT FOR ACCESS AND VISITATION GRANT BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

AND TARRANT COUNTY

ARTICLE 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1.1 PARTIES

Contract No.: 09-00003

This Contract (“Contract”) is entered into by and between the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas (“OAG”) and Tarrant County (“Contractor”). The OAG and the Contractor may be referred to in this Contract individually as a “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

SECTION 1.2 AUTHORITY

This Contract is entered into pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §669b, which enables states to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children. …

1.3.2 Source of Funding Funds paid by the OAG to the Contractor under this Contract are Access and Visitation Grant funds

awarded to the OAG by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”).

(For a quick review, go to the HHS site (or, I’ve blogged it plenty): 42 U.S.C. §669b, authorizes the grants to states, and 45 303.109 regulates what they can do with the grants. The Office of Child Support Enforcement (which is under HHS) administers these grants.

Allowable Services

States are permitted to use grant funds to develop programs and provide services such as:

Mediation

Development of parenting plans

Education

Counseling

Visitation enforcement (including monitored and supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-up)

Development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

These are precisely the areas causing trouble in the family law situation, particularly when it comes to criminal matters of child abuse or domestic violence, B UT ALSO in the area where the fathers can be extorted into taking classes they neither want — nor need — which are run by people associated with the courts, i.e., it’s a racket…

That itself is quite a reframing (“redesign?”) of the purpose of these funds which were sold as a way to increase child support enforcement by involving fathers, and thereby, obviously helping solve our nations’ fiscal crises through more “research and demonstration” projects enabled without vote on the authority of one Executive Branch Designee.

Texas, here (Tarrant County, at least) chose to handle the situation by simply paying someone to do the job. One year, the cost was $45,300 + $500 for conferences:

4.2.2

Table 1. Fiscal Year 2009 (September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009), see Attachment C for Detailed Program Budget

Category Amount Salary $45,300 Fringe 0 Training and In-State Travel 500 Supplies 0 Contractual 0 Other 0 Total $45,800

RESOURCE CENTERS AND FAMILY VIOLENCE CENTERS

These appear to be more separate than they actually are. They are quite linked. Some of them were the visionary (which vision, is debatable), leveraged creation of just a few individuals. Minnesota Program Development, Inc. (“Duluth Model”) definitely seems to have been this, and it’s obvious that (see post title — but not listed below) the “Family Justice Center Alliance” fit neatly with then-President Bush’s wish to get the faith groups in into service providing centers dealing with child sexual abuse and woman abuse (noted among faith groups to start with….) — as well as Mr. Gwinn’s need for something to do after moving out of the San Diego City Attorney’s Office. Battered Women’s Justice Project, as well as conferencing with the Family Justice Center National Alliance (re-arrange words to get the right one — it attended a conference in San Diego) — also collaborated with Association of Family and Conciliation courts (AFCC) recently to reframe [“explicate”] “domestic violence” when custody is involved. The AFCC being the primary carrier of “PAS” theory which puts kids back into the custody of an abuser (or, if you’re a Fathers and Family Follower, wrongfully accused maligned, innocent Dads who did NOT commit a crime — even if CPS or a District Attorney’s prosecution convicted them of one in a different forum ).

Either way, “the house always wins” -because there is a class and a resource center (and now, justice centers) for any situation.

The “Duluth Abuse Intervention Project” in some ways is little different than the smaller (I think) version of Educational Marketer “Newday Services” in Tarrant County, Texas. Both take advantage of the federal funding stream to market their materials, primarily training populations they get from the courts — and curricula to get the desired results. The Texas Access Visitation funding has perhaps a closer alliance with the AFCC than it seems the Duluth Model did, however — how different, really, is “Batterers Intervention Programs” philosophy from the Parent Education philosophy? Both believe that training is the key…. and take a lot of funding for it. In the SF area, there’s the shape-shifting “ENDABUSE.org” which I learned here has no problem marketing to both the “health” side and the ‘Fatherhood” side of domestic violence prevention, all the while ignoring the existence of AFCC in its materials. The “NCFCJ” below (notice the URLS) is a family law oriented group based in Nevada.

National Resource Centers on Family Violence

National Immigrant Family Violence Institute
314-773-9090
www.nifvi.org

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
800-537-2238
www.vawnet.org

Battered Women’s Justice Project
Criminal and Civil Center
800-903-0111 ext. 1
www.bwjp.org

Battered Women’s Justice Project
Self-Defense Center
800-903-0111 ext. 3
www.bwjp.org

Health Resource Center on
Domestic Violence
888-792-2873
www.endabuse.org

Resource Center on Domestic Violence:
Child Protection and Custody
800-527-3223
www.ncjfcj.org/dept/fvd

Sacred Circle: National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women
877-733-7623
www.sacred-circle.com

Alianza: The National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence
800-342-9908
www.dvalianza.org

Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence APIA Health Forum
415-954-9988
www.apiahf.org/apidvinstitute

Institute on Domestic Violence in the
African American Community
877-643-8222

www.dvinstitute.org

National Training and TA Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health
312-726-7020
www.dvmhpi.org

**IAADV (“2nd from last) is worth some note, as it’s a fatherhood group, and I believe also Minnesota-based:

Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community (IDVAAC)

The Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community (Institute) seeks to raise awareness of the impact of domestic violence in the African American community, to identify community needs and best practices needed to eliminate domestic violence, and to facilitate local and national conference and training forums on domestic violence. The Institute organizes community forums, conducts reseaC7Jrch, and performs policy analysis. Additionally, the Institute produces publications and uses other forms of media and works collaboratively with other organizations to share knowledge and experience for developing culturally competent responses to domestic violence among African Americans.

NATIONAL AND SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence

The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV), a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, employs a multidisciplinary staff and supports a wide range of free, comprehensive and individualized technical assistance and training, as well as specialized resource materials such as resource packets, applied research papers, and training materials. In addition, the NRCDV operates a number of special projects designed to explore issues more deeply or develop more comprehensive assistance to a particular constituent group. These special projects include the Domestic Violence Awareness Projects, VAWnet – the National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women (funded by CDC), the Women of Color Network, Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence, and the recently completed national Domestic Violence Shelter Study (conducted with support from the National Institute of Justice).

Battered Women’s Justice Project

The Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP) consists of two partnering agencies that operate in separate locations:

The Criminal and Civil Justice Center is a project of the Minnesota Program Development, Inc. The criminal section focuses on effective intervention through interagency coordination and policy development that guides individual practitioners in their understanding of the use of arrest, prosecution, sentencing of abusers, victim safeguards, and batterer intervention programs. The Center provides technical assistance and advocacy to domestic violence victims of military personnel and supports the development of a coordinated response to domestic violence on military bases. The civil section provides leadership in the civil legal arena by improving victim access to civil court options and legal representations in civil court processes. Staff provides consultation to advocates, attorneys, battered women, court personnel, and policy makers on advocacy, representation and pro bono assistance, judicial practice, monitoring, civil court model protocols, and public policy. The civil justice component typically deals with legal issues, including civil protection orders, divorce, custody, child support, economic restoration, landlord-tenant, credit, employment, arbitration, mediation, and immigration.

SAMPLE SEARCHES:

If you go to USASpending.gov and look some of these up, especially if you can get a DUNS# for any of them, you’ll see that they often outshine their competitors (collectively, and some, individually) in the categories of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA, a.k.a., what you provide the IRS) where they are getting Discretionary, Research and Demonstration, etc. grants. I’ve posted a few DUNS#s in the last posts.

Some of the groups also have an associated fund-raising group to go with it, as does NCFCJ:

Foundation Center Data on NCFCJ (written out)

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php

results:

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges NV 2009 $2,742,133 990 40 36-2486896

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges NV 2008 $3,329,058 990 52 36-2486896

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges NV 2007 $3,530,962 990 50 36-2486896

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges NV 2004 $2,322,334 990 25 36-2486896

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Fund Inc. NV 2009 $2,278,092 990EZ 14 94-3109663

(SITE notes some problems for IRS receipts in a certain year rang, I think 2007-2009. The PDF I just looked at for 2002-2003 for the topic entity shows GOVERNMENT SUPport $12 million, PUBLIC support, around $1,000. … Salaries & wages, $7 million, Program services $5 million, etc. Contracts and Honorariums, $1+ million etc. The organization’s address is a PO Box in Reno; its one director (in this year), a man from Sparks, Nevada, and an “E. Hunter Hurst III” from Pittsburg (no “h”), PA Their mutual pay (granted, it’s a big organization) is a little above and a little below what I heard Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges get (NOT including any double-dipped benefits), i.e., back then $157K for one, and $180K for another. They are spending most of the $12 million the US granted them — that year — so — the benefits to the public are ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I decided to look up this “E. Hunter Hurst, III” and found he is/was also Director of a “Providence Service Corporation” out of Tuscon, AZ, and had a masters in social service, bachelors in psychology. The site acknowledges him as director of NCFCJ (1973 til retirement in 2003) and also lists his compensation from Providence, around $70K, plus other fees/benefits. I think we should know about it. This was found on a “Forbes” list and I had to get through a Scientology quote to get to this URL:

Hunter Hurst

Independent Director

Providence Service Corporation

Tucson , AZ

Sector: HEALTHCARE / Specialized Health Services {such as??}

72 Years Old

Hunter Hurst, III has served as our director since December 1996 and chairperson of the nominating and corporate governance committee of our board of directors since May 2005. Mr. Hurst served as Director of the National Center for Juvenile Justice from its founding in 1973 until his retirement in May 2008. The Center (NCJJ) is the leading resource for juvenile justice research and statistics in the western hemisphere. He has directed over thirty applied research studies and has authored numerous publications relating to juvenile issues. He received his bachelor?s degree in psychology and master?s degree in social work from Louisiana State University in 1960 and 1965, respectively.

Director Compensation (Providence Service Corporation) for 2009

Fees earned or paid in cash $70,000.00

Who is “Providence Service Corp?” Well:

PRSC Profile (Volume appears to be $167 million….)

Providence Service Corporation is a government outsourcing privatization company, which provides government sponsored social services directly and through not-for-profit social services organizations.

Providence Service
64 East Broadway Boulevard
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 747-6600
Fax: (520) 747-6605
Web Site: www.provcorp.com

Price and Chart delayed at least 15 minutes.
Price$ 12.85	Change-0.13
Open13.05	% Change-1.0%
Prev Close12.98	Volume19,026
Market Value167 mil	P/E Ratio9.0
Bid12.85	EPS1.43
Ask12.88	Dividend0.00
High13.16	Yield0.0
Low12.79	Shares Out13 mil
52wk High18.27	52wk Low11.88
Industry: Specialized Health Services
Sector: Healthcare

(IS this a conflict of interest? What do you think?)

(i.e., the FUND is a separate EIN from the organzation itself, but either way, it’s representing the Family Law industry primarily, only Juvenile will also be dealing with criminal issues. I’m not knocking this as a resource center — it’s impressive:

When reading the words “family violence department” under this group’s banner, it’s important to acknowledge what they claim to do, and who the organizing entity is — it’s a COUNCIL OF JUDGES — as it says. They are not a District Attorney’s office, criminal defense or prosecuting attorneys. The words ‘Family Court” and “judges” should speak loudly:

FAMILY VIOLENCE DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT

The Family Violence Department improves the way courts, law enforcement agencies, and others respond to family violence, while recognizing the legal, cultural, and psychological dynamics involved with the ultimate goal of improving the lives of domestic violence victims and their children.

The Family Violence Department will accomplish its mission by:

Providing training;

Providing technical assistance;

Providing policy development leadership; and

Developing cutting-edge products for professionals, victims of domestic, and children.

Domestic violence puts millions of women and their families at risk each year and is one of the single greatest social ills impacting the nation. The Family Violence Department (FVD) of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) has advanced social change in courts and communities across the country by providing cutting-edge training, technical assistance, and policy development on issues of family violence. The NCJFCJ’s projects have enhanced the safety, well-being, and stability of domestic violence victims and their children by improving the way criminal, civil, and social justice systems respond to family violence. Such projects include the:

Federal Greenbook Initiative;

National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence;

Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody;

Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant Program;

The Center for Education on Violence Against Women;

Full Faith and Credit Project; and

Enhancing Judicial Skills in Elder Abuse Cases.

The decision to go for Supervised Visitation rather than complete separation from a perpetrator has a history that’s not always public. The option go for ongoing training is often at public expense — both when the training fails to take effect (or no one mentions the contrary-training coming from other sources). And, it’s also, being a grants recipient, also to that extent, and being a nonprofit, “at public expense.” Individuals (not “practitioners”) calling any of these “resource centers” for more than information to download – for actual help — are in for a surprise. It’s not offered, and even the most persistent will rarely find out the most important information — has your judge disclosed properly? WHo is administering the federal grants to your local jurisdiction, and is that person involved in your custody case? Is the judge ruling in a custody case involved in allocating any child-support federal incentives, etc . . . . .

MPDI same database:

our query: ( Organization Name: minnesota program development inc. , State: “MN” , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: None Chosen , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
6 documents matched. 6 documents displayed.

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Minnesota Program Development Inc.	MN	2005	$1,898,718	990	17	41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development Inc.	MN	2004	$1,940,803	990	16	41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development Inc.	MN	2003	$1,887,601	990	15	41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development Inc.	MN	2002	$1,774,265	990	17	41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development, Inc.	MN	2007	$1,887,120	990	23	41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development, Inc.	MN	2006	$1,844,847	990	18	41-1382134

(but if I search only on that EIN, minus the dashes, nothing comes up….although doing this to NCFCJ, I did get results.)

Search Again

Under the 2005 990 PDF (grants over $4 million, public support, a good deal less) its 501(c)3 is simply “services to prevent domestic violence” — and listed under “Statement of Program Services Accomplishments” there are 4:

Battered Women’s Justice Project

Grantsandallocations $ 977 248 ► (Program Service Expenses) $ 2,756,428.

DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 283,793.

NOTE: My studies show that this actually “is” MPDI, from what I can tell… This was the heart of the program to start with.

MENDING THE SACRED HOOP

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 63,793.

DAIP TRAINING AND RESOURCES

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 389,470.

“See Statement 3”

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 735,035.

TOTAL SPENT (just about $14K more than their revenues, leaving still assets of over $1 million. )

Books are in the care of a Scott Miller (also one of their trainers, evidently — DNR if I published that post or not).

In this year, the Board of Directors were only 4 (Ellen Pence not being listed, she is associated with another subsidiary group I gather)

Denise Gamache (Search on my blog — she’s sitting over the $3+ million grants to MPDI) Rhonda Martinson, Loretta Frederick (Legal Counsel), Connie Sponsler (Training Coordinator) and Christina Olson.

Loretta Frederick is I believe associated with BWJP, although I could be wrong. My question being, who are these 4 women (or — the board of directors of ANY nonprofit, for that matter) to drive the agenda that determines whether I, or my children, get to live, or die — by taking money from HHS to insist that a certain model — and the heart of that model being both Batterers Intervention, Supervised Visitation, and a Multi-disciplinary model (called “CCR” ) is the answer to stop violence against — women and children, or for that matter against men, by women?)

Any more than, how come the 6 or 7 women atop another nonprofit based in Denver (Center for Policy Research) should have similar levels of influence, and privilege?

I showed a picture of 202 East Superior in a recent post. It’s just a storefront in Duluth, Minnesota. Rather than flying all over, why don’t these people take a simple car ride, next year, over to the Fatherhood Summit (also too place in Minnesota) and report honestly to the public — not just practitioners -on what THEY are doing with our federal funds?

Praxis, International lists two addresses in MN as their nonprofit, and its executive Director is Ellen Pence – it, too, works with OVW grants:

Praxis International

Praxis International, Inc. is a nonprofit research and training organization that works toward the elimination of violence in the lives of women and children. We work with local, statewide, and national reform initiatives to bridge the gap between what people need and what institutions provide. Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.

Ellen Pence, founder and Executive Director of Praxis, is honored by a collection of articles in the most recent edition of the Violence Against Women journal, for her many years of steadfast work in the battered women’s movement. Congratulations Ellen, and thank you for your lifelong commitment to improving the lives of battered women and their children!

Praxis International, in partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), is excited to announce the Blueprint for Safety Adaptation Demonstration Project (Blueprint Project). Praxis will work directly with three selected sites to create customized versions of the Blueprint for Safety: An Interagency Response to Domestic Violence Crimes; OVW will also provide financial support to the selected sites. Check back for further information.

To purchase a printed copy of the Blueprint for Safety: An Interagency Response to Domestic Violence Crimes, go to our products page.

As one can see from some of the topics (and note, SUpervised Visitation is an ongoing theme), it’s not about why supervised visitation, but HOW (“practice” ) to do it. The entire field of Supervised Visitation got a huge boost from applying it to situations of violence between spouses, and Karen Oehme (another “practitioner” and writer, of course) was (is?) head of the Florida Clearinghouse for Supervised Visitation Centers — a concept which DULUTH pioneered. Naturally, they are going to write about this and publish and sell what they write, one way or another, even if the whole things is heavily federally subsidized under the presumption that it’s a good idea.

http://www.praxisinternational.org/praxis_event_recordings.aspx

Safety During Post-Separation
Loretta Frederick, February 2007

Listen to recording

The Intersection of Battering and Child Sexual Abuse
Karen Oehme and Scott Hampton, December 2006

Listen to recording

The Co-Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Child Sexual Abuse: Implications for Supervised Visitation and Exchange Programs
Karen Oehme, December 2006

Listen to recording

Part 1: Battered Women’s Experience of Visitation and Exchange Centers
Ellen Pence and a panel of women who used visitation centers, May 2006

Listen to recording
These can (and probably will) go on, forever, including until the US debt tops $15 trillion, which it is heading towards. No matter. there’s always room for a panel of experts, whether or not their expertise (and its expense) is contributing to the pressure of the populations they continue to study and write about….

Sometimes they will get together and compliment each other, citing which organization they represent:

With “Equal Regard”: An Overview of How Ellen Pence Focused the Supervised Visitation Field on Battered Women and Children

Melissa Scaia

Advocates for Family Peace, Grand Rapids, MN, mscaia@stopdomesticabuse.org

Laura Connelly

Advocates for Family Peace, Grand Rapids, MN

Abstract

Ellen Pence has changed the framework for doing supervised visitation and safe exchanges in cases of domestic violence. Ellen challenged the basic tenets of “neutrality” and a primary focus on “safety for children” in the supervised visitation field. By incorporating equal regard for the safety of adult victims of domestic violence and children, Ellen challenged supervised visitation centers to reexamine their mission, role, intake/orientation, documentation, and rules for their programming. She designed services for supervised visitation that would account for battering of women and children while not being excessively policing and providing a respectful and fair atmosphere for men who batte

They should thank Ellen Pence for endorsing and promoting the concept that Batterers Intervention Programs actually stop or reduce battering behavior, which DAIP promoted to start with. STOP DOMESTIC ABUSE (a.k.a. Advocates for Family Peace) has on its site, today, a promotion for:

NOW AVAILABLE

Addressing Fatherhood with Men who Batter – 1st edition

Written by: Melissa Scaia, MPA, Laura Connelly, and John Downing

Forward by: Ellen Pence, PHD

Consultants: Ellen Pence, PhD, & Sylvia Olney, MA, LMFT

To order the curriculum and/or DVD click here ** Non Profits must also complete and submit a ST3 form with their order to avoid being charged sales tax click here

To preview the DVD click here

To sign-up for the September 2010 training offered in Duluth by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project

(Of course this group has its own Intervention program, which a link on the page shows, when men are court-ordered into a program by receiving a civil order of protection). This is what it does:

Purpose of the Intervention Program for Men and Fathers (IPMF)

The IPMF attempts to examine how men can build on their strengths to live a non-violent life. The primary goal of IPMF is to end violence against men, women, and children. The program holds men completely responsible for their behavior. The program educates men about choosing and developing non-violent behaviors. The program asks participants to stand back and look at the impact of their actions on themselves, their partner, their children, and their community in order to change.

I wonder how many dead women did this before going for an order of protection, or anti-stalking order. Surely that approach will work if someone else tries it…

“Advocates for Family Peace” just so happens to be? a “Wellstone Family Program” and they also jsut so happen to be running supervised visitation AND “therapeutic supervised visitation” centers in this Grand Rapids area: Kinda reminds me of CRCkids.org. This goes on, and on, and one:

The Wellstone Family Safety Program (WFSP) is a safe and friendly place that provides a positive and nurturing environment to promote healthy parent/child relationships.  The WFSP also reduces children’s exposure to domestic violence.

What services are offered?

The Wellstone Family Safety Program provides services to children up to the age of 18, who are from families where there has been a history of domestic violence.  Services are also provided to children who are in foster care.

Families that use the WFSP can be referred through the court, Human Services, attorneys, mediation, or they can refer themselves.

WFSP Services

Supervised Visitation

The Wellstone Family Safety Program offers on-site supervised visitation in Family Resource Centers throughout Itasca County.  Supervised visits allow non-custodial parents to continue or even begin a relationship with their child/children.

Therapeutic Supervised Visitation

Therapeutic supervised visitations are conducted when a family** has a history of sexual abuse of a child, there has been a long period of separation between the parent and child(ren), the non-custodial parent’s behavior scares the child(ren) or the last time the child(ren) saw the parent was during a violent incident.  A therapeutic visit operates similarly to a supervised visit, except that a licensed therapist is the person supervising the visit.  The therapist interacts with the family prior to, during, and after the visit to mend and heal the parent/child(ren) relationship.

Of course, it’s important for children to be able to get along with and respect people who have molested them, and of course if one parent only did the molesting, that it’s most vital to make sure the relationship with that parent can be mended. Mothers who don’t approve of this (nowadays) are likely to find themselves in the position of having “supervised visitation” ordered on THEM, because of “alienating” behavior. (What rock did THIS crawl out from under?)

(Actually, I know — but am just blogging it so more people know)….

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Advocates for Family Peace MN 2009 $1,260,301 990 29 41-1377489

Advocates for Family Peace MN 2009 $1,224,928 990 25 41-1377489

(notice — the charts show assets — not expenses and revenues, which are a different category). The 501(c)3 purpose of this is similar — stopping violence:

“To Provide Services, Resources, and Skilled Advocacy (Therapy?) to help battered adults in Itasca County; to reduce violence in their lives, to participate in a network of services (that’s for sure!), to advocate for institutional and social change that stops violence against women…”

{{How about starting with the institution of supervised visitation and the concept behind it that you can train someone to change their character, when in the United States, the COnstitution sets up the concept of liberty & justice, based on common laws to be equally enforced, and defining right and wrong, etc.)}}

Expenses include $43,220 for 26 supervised exchanges and 91 supervised Visits…. $37K for Emergency Safe housing for 21 women and 23 children, $23K for transitional housing (flee the home, let the perpetrators stay)… that actually, however, is a more legitimate type of expense. Family Court will catch them sooner or later, for the most part, anyhow, or a child support order, if one happens, will go reel in Daddy… I don’t recognize the (many) Board members, except I do know that Melissa Scaia has been featured on webinars run jointly by BJWP (Battered Women’s Justice Project) and a group in Maine. She works 40 hours a week for next to nothing ($13K per 990) so some other form of income obviously would be necessary). Here is some of it — definitely “in the loop” and has also testified as a DV expert in criminal cases in court:

You will see several of the groups (including NCFCJ & Praxis) in this listing, apparently a presentation at a medical group:

Melissa Scaia and Scott MillerMelissa Scaia
Melissa is the executive director of Advocates for Family Peace in Minnesota. Melissa co-facilitates a group with men who batter and a group with women who use violence. She provides training and technical assistance as a consultant for Praxis International and serves as a faculty member for the Family Violence Department for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She has conducted trainings for the Battered Women’s Justice Project, Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Program and the National Network to End Domestic Violence. She has testified as an expert witness on domestic violence in criminal court cases. She wrote her master’s thesis on the effects of domestic violence on children and wrote her doctoral dissertation proposal to address supervised visitation services for battered women. {{DID SHE READ JACK STRATON, Ph.D. (not in sociology, etc.)? I’d like to see what she has to say about his take in Supervised Visitation, which, being presented in Duluth (i think) around 1992, questioned its use at all in such cases….}}She has contributed to numerous publications related to supervised visitation and domestic violence. She recently co-wrote a curriculum and DVD for working with men who batter as fathers entitled, “Addressing Fatherhood with Men Who Batter”. She is currently writing the final draft on a curriculum for working with women who have used violence in intimate relationships entitled, “Turning Points: An Educational Curriculum for Women Who Use Violence in Intimate Relationships.”

Battering is a crime. Why is it necessary to “address fatherhood” with such criminals? Or is it not a crime, and are we all, collectively (including any victims who survived and are wage-earners) somehow responsible to “reach” the batterer and convince him (in this case)that’s it’s REALLY not nice, or sensible, and is impacting their “fatherhood” in a collective dream that this will stop them the nexst time around?

Phillip Garrido is a father, let’s go train him — right? OH, I forgot — he took someone else’s child to rape, falsely imprison after kidnapping, and beget children by, so he gets treated as a criminal not someone that a fatherhood program could be targeted to (at least, so I hope). If so, they should use a faith-based one, as he definitely had some religious ramblings going on there, too, inbetween keeping his victim captive of 18 years, and her having to lie to her own daughters, telling them she was their sister….

(Sorry . . . it was on the news again recently, and the victim is going to be speaking out about her experience this summer. A TV station was crowing that it got the interview…)

Scott has worked in the women’s movement since 1985 and has been with the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project since 2000. As team leader for the DAIP, Scott coordinates Duluth’s Coordinated Community Response {“CCR”} to domestic violence. Serving as system advocate and coordinator of the men’s non-violence program, he is instrumental in the evolving work in Duluth and provides training to others on the Duluth Model of Intervention. Scott provides training regarding conducting interviews and a mutli-disciplinary team approach to the investigation of child abuse based on his experience as a forensic interviewer for First Witness Child Abuse Resource Center in Duluth.

OK, here’s a NCJRS (remembering how Melissa Scaia is — she’s on faculty at the NCFCJ) publication honoring Ellen Pence, who is (for her part0 now honoring the “Family Justice Center Initiative” which is why I’m a little pissed presently as it came from a city in my state which already sponsored another problemmatic group with murky finances –a nd which is itself being modeled nationwide and globally (is the general idea), called Kids Turnsd.org…… Same legislator promoting both concepts…. Guess she just likes kids (and her life partner, a woman, also likes those city contracts, as I blogged, citing a blogger at sandiegoonline called “historymatters”).

http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=253873Scott Miller

NCJ Number: NCJ 231795

Title: Violence Against Women: Essays in Honor of Ellen Pence

Journal: Violence Against Women Volume:16 Issue:9 Dated:September 2010 Pages:979 to 1060

Author(s): Shamita Das Dasgupta (“Manavi.org*”) ; Edward W. Gondolf ; Melissa Scaia ; Laura Connelly* ; Jane M. Sadusky (opposing gay marriage ban in Calif, consulting in WI, writing with/for? Ellen & BWJP**); Rhonda Martinson ; Kristine Lizdas ; Casey McGee ; Rebecca Emerson Dobash ; Russell Dobash ; Mark Wynn

Editor(s): Claire M. Renzetti ; Barbara J. Hart ; Scott Miller

Document Url: HTML

Publisher Url*: http://www.sagepub.com

Publication Date: 09/2010

Pages: 86

Type: Literature reviews

Origin: United States

Language: English

Note: Special Issue: Essays in Honor of Ellen Pence

Annotation: A collection of essays are presented in honor of the contributions made by Ellen Pence in the field of intimate partner violence both in the United States and abroad.

Abstract: The authors of the following seven essays emphasize the profound impact and changes that Ellen Pence’s work has had on social institutions and individual lives with her commitment to ensuring the safety of women and children and her belief in the possibility of personal and social change. The first article traces Ellen’s vital contributions to the field of anti-domestic violence advocacy through two organizations, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) and Praxis. The second article discusses Ellen Pence’s contribution in helping build the foundation of batterer programming. The third article explains the philosophy and method of the Duluth Model men’s program, and the need to put the experience of women who have been abused at the center of work conducted with abusive men. The fourth article explains how Ellen Pence has changed the framework for doing supervised visitation and safe exchanges in cases of domestic violence. The fifth article describes Pence’s development of the Praxis Safety and Accountability Audit (Safety Audit), which provided a new and distinctive tool for a community response to domestic violence. The sixth article presents six appreciation letters from Britain and Europe on Pence’s efforts and impact on the domestic women’s movement. The seventh and final essay offers both personal and professional reflections on the contributions of Ellen Pence to changes in law enforcement responses to domestic violence victims and offenders. References

*Manavi.org is a bit different, in that the women it serves “”South Asian” women are those who identify themselves as being from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, or Sri Lanka “

Edward W. Gondolf (not a name I knew) — BA Princeton, MPH, Pittsburg, on faculty at IUP (Indiana University of PA), it says:

Dr. Gondolf has achieved a national reputation in the field of domestic violence that has brought numerous invitations for research, writing, and guest lectures. He has presented numerous invited lectures on the effectiveness of batterer programs, and been quoted or cited in a variety of prominent national newspapers and magazines: Scientific American, Psychiatric News, USA Today, The New York Times Magazine, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, Pittsburgh Press, Philadelphia Inquirer, Seattle Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, Time Magazine, Ms. Magazine, Bride’s Magazine, Mademoiselle Magazine, and Changes Magazine

**Sadusky pdf shows “New Perspectives on Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange,” put out by Praxis International, supported by a grant. Keep them grants a-coming….

Browse through THIS and see many of the above groups referenced, including Family VIolence Prevention Fund, and a good bit of discussion on the Duluth Model, Power & Control Wheel, etc. These will no doubt continue — and underplay the role of the field of the Family Law Practitioners forming a parallel, fatherhood-oriented set of nonprofits (to match the feminist-oriented — supposedly — VAW groups, although studied more closely most of them just are in the business, like it, and promote it — like any other professionals. What differentiates both sides of the equation — alas — is that access to Federal Grants To Facilitate, Demonstrate, Research and (other discretionary stuff) can very well be addictive. As this documentation fuels many networks, now, the equivalent of changing it might be something like setting up a new entire WATER system for a regions, plumbing, purification, septic tanks, input, output, and “the whole nine yards.”

The SPECIAL RESOURCE CENTERS are inbred, at too many levels. I personally found their information relevant. Not one of the family law practitioners I was in front of (or had hired) in the time from filing a protective order to the time I no longer saw my kids (and some time thereafter) thought any of it relevant to custody however, — and given the AFCC stranglehold on doctrine and judicial training — it probably wasn’t.

That’s one among several reasons I say, if the “CCR” (Coordinated COmmunity Response) model ain’t working, can we either de-fund it, try something else, or try nothing, which probably wouldn’t be much less expensive People will still kill each other if offended, or if losing control of a codependent relationship with a partner, or loss of status going along with loss of custody. Then there is the matter of child support. . . . BILLIONS spent per year, and then there are “compromise of Arrears Programs that hardly a mother is told of.

These are my children’s and grandchildren’s futures, and future landscape. It for sure is what’s left (i.e., none) of anything that might accrue to their retirement IF they rely on social security. This won’t stop our government from financing the theory that everyone should go get jobs — although the leaders themselves are instead positioning themselves to acquire wealth, and connection with wealth, be on board of profitable businesses (including nonprofits that get government work contracted to them sometimes) and in general teach THEIR offspring how business and finances actually work, including how not to pay more taxes than necessary by forming trusts, foundations, and other tax-exempt entities, then running around changing the world (and sowing some wild oats).

In looking up some of these groups, I found a very odd site that listed several of them together in one place (they do, after all, hang out together — they “ARE” the coordinated community, for sure. How many lives they are saving, or improving the safety of, remains to be seen. . . . . This one showed that (recently — talking May, 2011) the Head of the International Monetary Fund has felony charges pending in NYC for sexual assault (not of a relative). They settled his bail and house arrest (pretty high). He (? presumably) is married with four children.

Here, for what it’s worth: Rap sheet of Dominque Strauss-Kahn former head of an organization in many ways ruling the world, and apparentl in private, expects to dominate as well, including sexually:

Examine the bail application Dominique Strauss-Khan

The Grand Jury of New York City seven count indictment of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn: The counts include two of committing a criminal sexual act, one of attempted rape, one of unlawful imprisonment, two of sexual abuse and one of forcible touching.
Examine the statement in the charge sheet against Strauss-Kahn testified to by Detective Steven Lane of the Manhattan Special Victims Squad after taking evidence from a 32-year-old chambermaid:

“The defendant engaged in oral sexual conduct and anal sexual conduct with another person by forcible compulsion; the defendant attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion; the defendant subjected another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion; the defendant restrained another person; the defendant subjected another person to sexual contact without the latter’s consent; and in that the defendant intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, forcibly touched the sexual and intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading and abusing such person, and for the purpose of gratifying the defendant’s sexual desire./

Examine the bail application of former International Monetary Fund director Dominique
Strauss-Kahn: The bail conditions imposed by New York state Supreme Court Justice
Michael Obus include posting $1 million in cash and a $5 million insurance bond
secured by his house. He must wear an electronic monitor and have an armed guard at
all times. He won’t be able to leave his residence except for legal, medical and religious travel

On the other hand, LATimes fires back, why the media leak?

And the Telegraph in UK speculates on the legal defenses

After the alleged attack, he went to have lunch with his 26 yr old daughter, a Columbia Student.. Whatever the results, he will not be in a crowded gymnasium as pictured at the top of the post. However, just for the record, some of this behavior –is what the struggle in the courts is about, as Warren Farrell I’m sure realizes. Society just isn’t ready for Incest yet. . . . . But that doesn’t stop it from happening in high circles or low circles. Meanwhile, the circles of collaborations on how to stop this and other forms of violence, go on, endlessly.

(For what it’s worth, I just searched and posted a full day on this one, thinking about the groups…..)

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

June 9, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, Designer Families, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, public education, Vocabulary Lessons

(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose?

with 2 comments

This post is: “(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose? (Published 6-5-2011, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-J1”)

Seriously, now …..

What did a District Attorney, a City Attorney, and a Republican Faith-Family-Marriage-Fatherhood-pushing President have in common? In 2003, or since?

(Besides an urge to jumpstart an alliance of

One-Stop Family Justice Shops Centers)

BUSH: Family of Secrets (by Russ Baker)

Russ Baker shows that Decision Points is no candid memoir.

Investigative journalist Russ Baker updates what he uncovered in Family of Secrets about the Bushes with his responses to the former President’s best-selling book. In sum, Bush started a war under false pretenses, allegedly left the cockpit because of substance abuse, got fabricated religion in order to keep power, desired to invade Iraq even before his presidency, and works to set up his brother Jeb for the Presidency. Baker finds the Bush Family political system to be a brilliant con job, benefiting large wealthy interests, and being continued by Obama.

Russ Baker’s website ”

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years [Interview]

(note: I don’t have this book. But my work here, continues to run across the Bush brand of religion influence and its infiltration of the legal, judicial, etc. systems).

Or,

“The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” by Jeff Sharlett:

(from Harpers article 2003 by author. Note: The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative (below) began in 2003)

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family’s leaders, “a target for misunderstanding.”

Suharto reputedly involved, that he engaged in anti-Communist massacres didn’t seem to matter…Search “Suharto” and “Somalia” here (interview):

“The Family’s devoted membership includes Congress members, corporate leaders, generals, foreign heads of state, dictators. The longtime leader, Doug Coe, was included in Time Magazine’s 2004 list of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America. “

The connected, the powerful, the very wealthy, the dishonest, the means-justifies-the-ends crowd. I am not being facetious at all by placing these two books here in preface to protesting the expansion of a “National” (and planned INTERnational) Family Justice Center Alliance. I am alerting us to question exactly which “families” are referred to her, and not to be fooled about the underlying intents. Look at who is sponsoring the movement!

OK, let’s look back to the West Coast Connections and Family of Inter-connected politicians, including some who are indeed Family to each other.

DA = Alameda County Family Justice Center — headed up originally by someone with real “family” connections, til she began running for County Supervisor,

a post she got, though the retiring supervisor endorsed her opponent. Her husband just happens to be (presently) California State Treasurer, previously State Attorney General. Later in the post, more on this process is discussed. Mr. Gwinn & startup of the San Diego Family Justice Center has been addressed (in part) in earlier posts towards the end of May, 2011, and the topic itself is not exactly a new one to my blog.

ex-CA = San Diego County Family Justice Center

President = well, he was always into promoting Family.

Let’s Get Honest (that’s me) generally looks behind the scenes at funding and organizational histories of new Initiatives, Institutes, Centers, Movements, and other Projects proposed by those with political connections to better serve those without them, whose lives will be used to justify whichever project is next.

Right now, it seems that the Family Justice Center Alliance is proudly endorsed by the OVW (White House) starting back in 2003, and up and running. How the first two got up and running is a bit debatable. Used to these, I ignored it for a while, until I ran across CA SB 557.

California’s SB 557 has been passed by Senate and is awaiting in Assembly

Here is some of the voting and excerpts — plus my comments

The California Bill SB 557 is to streamline and authorize the Family Justice Center Model. It’s whizzing by committees, and as we speak, was read in the Assembly June 2, and being held at the Assembly Desk. Right now, per “aroundthecapitol.com,”

Votes

06/01/11 – Senate Floor: 39-0 (PASS)

05/26/11 – Sen Appropriations: 9-0 (PASS)

05/10/11 – Sen Judiciary: 5-0 (PASS)

03/29/11 – Sen Public Safety: 6-0 (PASS)

and

Last Action last week. This bill is indeed moving. Remember that one of the Centers (Alameda County) boasted originally as its first director, the then-state Attorney General, and this person is now State Treasurer – Bill Lockyer. He also was previously Sen. Pro-Tem. fighting with the Governor for collective bargaining rights for the courts. His name is on the 1997 Lockyer-Isenburg Trial Court Funding Act, described as:

I am pleased to send you the enclosed Resource Manual for the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (Assembly Bill 233). Passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor last fall, this landmark legislation will take effect on January 1, 1998. Under the new law, funding of the trial courts will be consolidated at the state level to ensure equal access to justice throughout California.

Over the last several months, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), along with the California State Association of Counties and the Department of Finance, have worked together to familiarize the state’s judges, court administrators, and county executives with this historic new funding law. As part of that process, we are presenting this Resource Manual to assist you in understanding and implementing the new law.

There aren’t too many places in California politics, or its recent history, [SF performing Gay Marriage v Schwarzenegger] that one can go without finding the imprint of Mr. Lockyer.[Pension issues]

So I’m just wondering whether the relatively fast passage of this SB 577 was affected by the legislature’s knowledge (it’s obvious) that his wife was the former CEO of this grants-grabbing initative. And that the local D.A., who helped get this wife installed, was recently in Washington, D.C., lobbying with the OVW director for it . . . ..

The former CEO of the Alameda COunty Justice Center just so happens (yeah….) to be his third wife. Now she is County Supervisor, even though the retiring supervisor endorsed her opponents, characterized as “having more experience than [Ms. Davis-Lockyer] was alive.” The race was also locally characterized as having funding more equivalent for a race for Senator (around $2 million, though don’t quote me on that). Perhaps that’s next . . . .

I wonder what might happen if they all opposed this center on the basis of, has it produced results — would the legislature have the courage?

06/02/11: In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

As introduced February, 2011 (not current version, excerpts:)

This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to
establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to
assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and
human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to
access all needed services in one location and to enhance victim
safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to
services for victims of crime, as provided. The bill would permit the
family justice centers to be staffed by law enforcement, medical,
social service, and child welfare personnel, among others.

About privacy of information:

The bill would authorize a family justice center to share
information [WITH WHOM — each other?] pursuant to an informed consent process, as provided. The bill would authorize the National Family Justice Center Alliance, subject to certain limitations, to maintain nonidentifying, aggregate data on victims receiving services from a family justice center and
the outcomes of those services.

The bill would provide immunity from civil liability to staff members of the center for information shared with others based on an established client consent procedure, provided that the center has a formal training program with mandatory
training for all members, as specified.

There are so many issues with this (again, original version) its hard to know where to start. But those familiar with the history of the founder of this system can see why (he/they) might have addressed specific issues, including civil liability for sharing info.

(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be
defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where
public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or
part-time basis in order to provide services to victims of** domestic
violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, or human trafficking from one
location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell
their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help,
and increase access to services and support for victims and their
children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised
of, but are not limited to, the following:

**First of all, public agencies are on the public payroll.

Child victims and parents coming for help are quite likely to have business before some arm of the courts where any member of those public agencies may have a built-in conflict of interest in the case. Consider, if it has to do with guardianship of a child, child support, or other issues. When it comes to private agencies— (private organizations, individuals, or “agencies” — what is a private “agency”?) there are issues of where does the law protect the victims seeking help by accountability to any of these private members. The “consent process” has to be taken with a grain of salt — a person in desperate circumstances such as these crimes, may not comprehend what it is they are signing away at the time, their emphasis is survival. Anyhow, potential staff might include:

(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys. {{note: = who created the 1st & 2nd justice centers in CA….1 of each.

(Tell me — for what purpose might a CITY attorney have any business in a family justice center? )

(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human
trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.

(hey — are there still readers (active in this field as advocate, or survivor parent) who don’t understand, yet, that there are FEDERAL incentives to the states for

any number of actions which might quite well involve a social service agency staff member, or a child welfare agency social worker — such as adopting out, fostering out, or

declaring a child in need of services that may not, really, be in need of services. There are program funds for these activities. What about program administrators of such funds?

and so forth…..)

(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.

(Translation: People administering TANF funds. We already have become aware that the fatherhood movement has a significant interest in portions of Title IV-D (welfare) finances going towards facilitating increased “noncustodial parent” (i.e., possibly perpetrator) access. No. Uh-uh, No. )

(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.

Huh….

Excerpts from “Analysis” of this bill again specifies already-existing justice centers by name and requests they expand who gets served:

This bill authorizes the City of San Diego, the City of Anaheim, the County of Alameda, and the County of Sonoma to create a two-year pilot project for the establishment of a family justice center, as specified. This bill defines the Family Justice Center model in the law and expands the reach for whom services will be provided to include, not only victims of domestic violence, but also victims of officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying, and human trafficking.

(The cyber-stalking (stand-alone) and cyber-bullying provisions would just about make the average high school student eligible for services…)

This bill also allows for the FJCs to be staffed by, among others, law enforcement, medical, social service, and child welfare personnel.

This bill provides that victims of crime will not be denied services based solely on the grounds of criminal history.

(don’t quite know where to file that last statement. )

Votes so far, if you live in California and in any of these are your legislators:

03/29/11 Sen. Committee on Public Safety: 6-0 (1 not voting) — PASS
Motion: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.

Ayes – 6 Anderson, Hancock, Harman, Liu, Price, Steinberg / Noes – 0 / Absent, Abstention or Not Voting – 1 Calderon

05/10/11 – Sen Judiciary: 5-0 pass as amended (see site)

Ayes – 5 Blakeslee, Corbett, Evans, Harman, Leno

05/26/11 Sen Appropriations 9-0 — PASS as amended

Alquist, Emmerson, Kehoe, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Runner, Steinberg, Walters

06.01/11 – Senate Floor 39-0 (1 absent abstain or not voting – Emmerson)

Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman, Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Some of the Senate Amendments (strikeouts, replacement):

The bill would prohibit victims of crime from
being denied services at a family justice center solely on the
grounds of criminal history and would prohibit a criminal history
search from being conducted during the client intake process.

prior sections a, b, & c, were struck through.

Sections e, f:

(f) Each family justice center shall develop policies and procedures, in collaboration with local community-based crime victim
service providers and local survivors of violence or abuse, to ensure coordinated services are provided to victims and to enhance the
safety of victims and professionals at a family justice center who participate in affiliated survivor-centered support or advocacy
groups. All family justice centers shall maintain a formal client feedback, complaint, and input process to address client concerns
about services provided or the conduct of any family justice center professionals, agency partners, or volunteers providing services in a
family justice center.

No criminal background checks to be run, but protection for victims & professionals in the center who participate in affiliated survivor centered support or advocacy groups (off-grounds? How would this be done). This seems to address in part the situation Casey Gwinn’s employee Josie Clark sued him over (see recent posts).

Formal feedback good: (don’t recall that this even entered the original version — feedback fro participants…)

WELL, THERE WE HAVE IT. IT”S PASSED WITH FLYING COLORS, SO FAR, AND IS SITTING ON THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR. MAYBE IT WILL PASS IN TIME FOR FATHER’S DAY, BUT I HOPE NOT. See “District Attorney Dubious Doings.” and re: nepotism, cronyism, racism:

Politics in this famous SF Bay Area, at least Alameda County are, in one blog I read — while probably not equal to Chicago’s or New York’s, known for:

Nepotism, Cronyism, Racism and Corruption

The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it.

{{Quote is from a blog post dated July 2009,

The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it. . . . By hiring Chris Bates and Lisa Lockyer, Orloff had the kids of both the local assemblyman, Tom Bates, and the local Senator, Bill Lockyer (later became the Attorney General of the State of California), working for him. He already had the local Congressman’s kid, Jeff Stark, working for him, and he prmoted Stark.

And one of the articles I drew off in reporting this:

Attorney General’s Wife. with no previous experience, Gets Top Job in Alameda County Domestic Violence Center

Steve White 14 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT

This is a very short article and commentary on Nadia Lockyer, wife of Attorney General Bill Lockyer, being givena a $90,000 per year job as Executive Director of the Alameda County Family Justice Center, a job for which she seems to have no special qualifications. The article also questions the propriety of her employment, considering her husband’s position.

The Alameda county Family Justice Center is one of meny local agencies funded by the Federal Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, (OVW).

The center is relatively new, and there was a recent search for the Execuitve Director. Eventually, Nadia Davis Lockyer was given the top job, which pays about $90,000 per year. (initial pay was $65,000 but extra money was found to make it $90,000. I am researching where the extra money came from)

…Selection process was all for show, Nadia Lockyer is DA staff

Steve White 01.Jan.2007 15:47

I have just received a letter from the Alameda County District Attorney’s office which indicates Nadia Lockyer is an employee of that office.

The letter goes on to respond to my Public Records Act request for all info relaated to her hiring. The DA’s office claims all the info is exempt from disclosure, except for a brochure announcing the job. So they sent me a copy of that announcement.

The denial of information was expected. What was surprising to me is that Lockyer is an employee of the DA’s office. I thought the Family Justice Center was an independent entity which worked with the DA, not a subordinate office.

and, more, after he contacted the OVW for grant applicant guidelines:

[he] clicked the first link, which as the first page of a book on guidelines and rules for Federal graants, then went to the chapter entitled “Conflicts of Interest”

Reading that, it seems pretty clear Lockyer violated the Federal law, and presumably this is why they went through the big show of pretending to use an objective process to pick his wife for the job. These folks knew they were doing something shady from the start. Further evidence is that everyone involved is trying to duck my Public Records Act requests for more information. More on that in my next post

Phony Statistics put out by ACFJC

Steve White 25.Sep.2007 13:37

The first week of September, 2007, the ACFJC announced a large grant from the US Department of Justice, and in the grant announcement, which naturally everyone was very happy about, they added some statistics on how much good the ACFJC had done so far.

The stats were impressive. They claimed “Since it’s launch” the ACFJC had reduced Domestic Violence (DV) deaths from 26 to 6 in 2005, and, they had provided services to “20,000 victims and their families”.

Both claims were untrue. I checked with the Alameda County Public Health Department, and it turned out there has been a very long term decline in DV deaths, from 26 in 1996, eleven years back, to 6 in 2005. The Center opened in the last half of 2005, in August.

MORE (9/2007) INFO FROM Steve White “Boatbrain” on the ACFJC fudging (lying) on its statistics, in addition to improper appointment of CEO. Please read entire article we find further conflicts of interest and very disturbing dishonesty, reminiscent of the San Diego outfit:

The Alameda County Family Justice Center is an agency set up two years back as “one-stop shopping” for victims of domestic violence.

It was started by a Federal program to centralize several different types of services, (prosecutors, counselors, emergency housing) to DV victims. There are about 15 around the US, the Alameda center has been open two years as of August 2007.

I have already published, on Indymedia, an account of how the ACFJC hiring of Nadia Lockyer, the wife of then Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Executive Director of ACFJC was rigged by Nancy O’Malley, the Chief Assistant DA in the County.

Now, it appears the ACFJC is involved in other nefarious activities.

Recently, the ACFJC received another US Dept. of Justice grant, and the award was announced on their website.

The announcement gave several detailed claims for the achievements of the ACFJC, two of which seemed unlikely to me to be true: Since I knew the ACFJC was only open a bit over four months in 2005, I knew there was no logical basis for attributing all the 2005 decline to their actions.

But more than that, the reduction from 26 to 6 in one year struck me as extreme and improbable. That is an almost 80% reduction, too good to be true.

So, I called the Alameda County Public Health Department to try to get DV death rates, and called the office of the County Supervisor quoted in the article, Alice Lai-Bitker, to ask about the number.

My conversations with Public Health and Supervisor Lai-Bitker’s staff confirmed my suspicions. Too good to be true was exactly right. To get a death toll of 26 in the County, you have to go back to 1996, nine years before the ACFJC existed. There has been a steady long term decline in DV deaths since then.

The number for 2004, the year right before the ACFJC opened, was 11. Obviously, 6 in 2005 is a lot better than 11 in 2004, but there is a problem in the stats, in that Nancy O’Malley, the effective head of the ACFJC, is also the head of the DV death reporting team for the County, so she can fudge the figures.

I realize, one would not think deaths can be fudged. You are either dead or you or not. But, by using varying protocols for what the death was caused by, there is some maneuvering room for this. I am contacting the DV death reporting trainer for the state to try to nail this down.

All that aside, the point is, as far as attibuting the reduction in DV deaths to ACFJC, that was an extremely misleading claim, and I would argue deliberately misleading

He goes on . . . . after challenging the “20,000 victims and their families served…”

It seems much more likely they deliberately lied, to justify more funding in the future.

The County Administrator, Susan Muranishi, who was the highest paid employee of the County, a few years back, at $231,000 per year, is also quoted in the press release, expressing approval of the ACFJC and the grant.

I called her office to try to get documents to indicate what numbers ACFJC has been giving the County to justify the County’s funding. The receptionist there claimed they did not have any figures, and I had to contact ACFJC. If this was true, it seems to indicate a severe lack of oversight. No reports to the County Admin from the Center? How does Ms. Muranishi know how the County’s money is being spent? I doubt there are no reports, and intend to push them to release them, to see if there are any false numbers in the official accountings. Ditto for the Feds, who I have also requested info from.

((i))

That kind of reporting is why we most definitely need INDEPEPENDENT media centers, and pesky bloggers like myself and Mr. White (wonder what happened to is FOIA and Public Records requests on the ACFJC…

In 2010, here’s an article (and comments) on Ms. Davis-Lockyer running for county supervisor, replacing one of the retiring supervisors who, improperly, voted in Nancy O’Malley (per indymedia Steve’s writing). WHat goes around comes around. Again, for non-Californians, this is about how policies get institutionalized in practice, regardless of what results they produce — including initiatives, collaborations, institutes, coalitions, and so forth. This Family Justice Center seems symptomatic of what’s wrong, from both this end and (below) the White House end.

WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE ON FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS – AND GWB DECLARES OCTOBER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MONTH (in 2003).

I have a general rule of thumb. If it has the word “families” on it — it has a fatherhood (and possibly governmentally endorsed) / faith influence. This appears to be the case with the FAMILY justice centers, as it did with the FAMILY violence prevention fund of SF (see recent posts). After all, US is just one big “family” and everyone in power is there to serve and protect the little vulnerable ones among us, right?

The “Family Justice Center” model is absolutely federally funded, and here is the October (DV awareness month, or as I put it, DV Industry Awareness month) October 8, 2003 White House Press Release:

This offers $20 million of funding to establish 12 centers. The emphasis is Under One Roof (after all, the service providers are just one big happy family, right?) and with a particular emphasis on including Faith Based Initiatives, says our former Prez:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Contact: Angela Harless
202-307-070

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO SPEARHEAD PRESIDENT’S
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INITIATIVE TO BETTER SERVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Attorney General John Ashcroft today announced the Justice Department will lead a $20 million-dollar program to develop comprehensive domestic violence victim service and support centers in 12 communities across the country. The unprecedented pilot program, the President’s Family Justice Center Initiative, will make a victim’s search for help and justice easier by bringing professionals who provide an array of necessary services together under one roof. President Bush unveiled the initiative earlier today at a White House event formally declaring the month of October as “Domestic Violence Awareness Month.”

“Domestic violence is unacceptable, and this Administration is determined to end the vicious cycle of violence,” said Attorney General John Ashcroft. “Our efforts across the federal government have made it possible for tens of thousands of women and their families to renew their hope, reclaim their dignity, change their lives and protect their children.”

The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative will provide comprehensive services for domestic violence victims at one location, including medical care, counseling, law enforcement assistance, social services, employment assistance, and housing assistance. The Department of Justice will award grants to 12 communities nationwide to develop Family Justice Centers. Communities will be encouraged to look to the family justice centers in pioneered in San Diego, California and Indianapolis, Indiana for the development and creation of their own centers.

{{Sounds like Casey Gwinn (note: Republican) had a White House connection here… Indianpolis, home of Sen. Evan Bayh, is prime “fatherhood” country. Unbelievable….. The Indiana “Child Services” (a.k.a. Child Support Services) government website directly solicits “Fathers and Families” to pursue grants, as well as notices CRC (Children’s Rights Council)….. I doubt that the choice of these two cities was anything approaching accidental. Who else (grassroots up) was starting Family Justice Centers, around the United States, at this time?}}

Justice Department efforts will be further supported by its partners from the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Labor.

{{So much for treating domestic violence as the criminal/legal issue it really is, with consequences, of course, across the spectrum of life, as crime does….}}

“The President’s Initiative will provide communities with the resources designed to co-locate coordinated services to domestic violence victims into one facility,” said Office on Violence Against Women Director Diane M. Stuart. “The services provided by the Family Justice Centers will help victims pursue safe and healthy lives.”

Family Justice Centers are designed to bring together advocates from non-profit, non-governmental domestic violence victim services organizations, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, probation officers, governmental victim assistants, forensic medical professionals, civil legal attorneys,chaplains and representatives from community-based organizations into one centralized location.

Involvement of the faith community is integral to the Family Justice Center Initiative, as well as to the President’s overall strategy to end domestic violence. The Justice Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Defense Department are coordinating their efforts to ensure that faith communities nationwide get the training and tools necessary to help domestic violence victims in their communities.

{{Chaplains, imams, and rabbis don’t lack the “tools” to stop wife-beating — or the ability to network — but the problem has been historically the desire to do so. They are mandated reporters, too, and of child abuse. GO ask “SNAP” about how well that goes….

{{Reading this now, and as a survivor of domestic violence which was rationalized through religion, though I never accepted that basis, — I understand, and believe I’m right about this — that this has a more sinister purpose than “helping” victims from the faith-based perspective. Many of those victims that end up using the legal system went first to their spiritual perceived authority (translation, pastor, priest, etc.) and were ignored and the danger trivialized. SOme of the perpertrators were those people at times. Welcoming this group into these “centers” with open arms is simply wrong….but, how very “Bush”!!}}

“The faith-based component of the Family Justice Center Initiative is critical to its overall success,” said Office of Justice Programs Assistant Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels. “Faith-based institutions are often the first place a domestic violence victim turns to for support and guidance.”

(and the last place they are about to find it — which has been documented repeatedly . . . . ) Next steps, integrating the faith community into the system (2004 release)…

I got on the SB 557 kick, here, because I heard about it accidentally. Accidentally, I happened to browse the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Annual Report of 2010 (yeah, this is my “casual reading material” at times)… only to find that this San Francisco Bay Area [“East Bay”] county leadership was running up to the OVW and trying to sell legitimizing the Family Justice Center” model (see “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch” post)….

District Attorney Nancy O’Malley and the Alameda County DA’s Office are proud to announce the publication of the 2010 Annual Report.

We invite you to view this comprehensive report.

Alameda County District Attorney’s Office 2010 Annual Report (7MB PDF).

Because I’m familiar with the Justice Center idea already, I picked up on the graphics and mottos that also supported further promotion of it: the 2nd page of the report is a full page photo of a child and parent(?): “Justice isn’t served – – – til Crime Victims are.” On the palms of their hands is written: “I have the right to protection” “I have the right to be heard.”

Compare: (graphic on banner of the Alameda County Family Justice Center reads, next to an icon showing scales carring heart & dove, plus two figures reaching for them) “Justice isn’t served until victims are.”

Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center

Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center (ACFJC), a one-stop center for families experiencing domestic violence.

{{Domestic violence is a crime, and is committed by an agent. Note the grammar change: “families experience” it — no one actually DOES it. The District Attorney’s Office is the office deciding which crimes to prosecute, and which NOT to prosecute, and doing so ethically and honestly. District Attorneys offices in East Bay (and SF) counties have been experiencing multiple scandals recently, along with police departments… such as tampering with drug evidence and causing cases to be dropped, infighting during an election that resulted in an office fist-fight (Contra Costa County — nearby) and other serious problems, as well as having various members of their forces from time to time being prosecuted by employees or fellow colleagues on rape or other sexual harassment issues. In this context, I don’t recall hearing a major grassroots call for centralized, one-stop services.}}

The ACFJC provides, under one roof, the services required by domestic violence victims and their families:

Crisis intervention, survivor support, and victim advocacy, incl “MISSSEY”

Legal assistance services

Medical care and mental health counseling for victims and children impacted by family violence

Employment assistance, and information and referral to other community services

Law enforcement investigation and prosecution of offenders

In the past, domestic violence victims often had to seek help from a fragmented, disjointed system of separate agencies offering related by frequently uncoordinated services.

I’m thinking diversity, rather than inbred centrality might be the better order of the day overall. After all — was our country designed for efficiency or liberty?(But I’m talking, pre-Bush Dynasty there…..)

From the DA’s report, a segment:

5. Putting Victims First Page

Alameda County Family Justice Center 22

Domestic Violence Unit 23
Restitution Unit 24

Victims’ Rights & Services 25

Marsy’s Law 25

Victim -Witness Assistance 26

AND . . . .

Legislative Initiatives . . . p. 33

Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.

…. such as (one of several — the others sound legitimate, although if parents are involved, it’ll bounce to family law and become “moot” point sooner or later) . . . .. . . .

SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.

The TREND towards, meaning, the PUSH, enabled by BUSH towards . . . . . for these models. (other than, since the 1980s, the Duluth Model has been pushing this also, called “Coordinated Community Response.” So, how’d we say it’s going?

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

June 5, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”)

with 3 comments

This post title: Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-Hy,” published 5/29/2011 (May 29).

Memorial Day Weekend. Let’s remember that people who started out an organization pulling a fast one on the public -successfully – are likely to try the same thing, again.

Keep an Eye on our Public Servants: District Attorney’s Offices

Always.

Take for example (1), Los Angeles County‘s:

(By way of finding out WHY one better watch one’s local DA’s office..and make sure they know you are.)

For a clue what may happen when one doesn’t, see Gil Garcetti, L.A. D.A. (retired?)

BIOGRAPHY

Although Gil spent 32 years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, eight years as the elected District Attorney, much of his life has been spent as an urban photographer. His first photo book, IRON: ERECTING THE WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL, (November 2002, Balcony Press), received much critical praise in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other publications. The photographs emphasize the contribution of the ironworkers to the building of America, but they also document the beauty of the curved, angled, and bent raw steel of this building before being covered by its exterior skin.

Photographs from his second book, FROZEN MUSIC, (November 2003, Balcony Press), have been featured in multi page features in the Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine, American Photo, Newsweek, Time, Harvard Design Magazine, California Lawyer and other magazines. Gil’s second book is his interpretation of the abstract art created by the finished building. The book is a portfolio of 45 panorama lithographs.

How Nice.

I’d love to resume arts, leisure, writing activities like this, too — or even the concept that I might have some sort of “retirement” whatsoever. HOWEVER, thanks to this system, a lot of time is spent reconstructing where my kids, time, legal rights and finances went. Why does it keep leading back to these offices, in particular — whose function is to prosecute crime AFTER it happens fairly, and do it right & without corruption, to the extent of their budget. Just imagine in a world where crimes to & by men, women, and minors actually received prompt punishment as a deterrent and a message to others….

While Mr. Garcetti’s retirement plan includes urban photography and some book royalties, up here (and in San Diego), the retirement plan, I figure probably includes selling and letting someone else run, FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS — which is why this post. If the demand isn’t great enough for a family justice center, it helps to have a nice District Attorney well-positioned to get funds to start one anyhow, and with connections to staff it — and it appears also even connections enough to then legislate it into a business model for all times (and counties).

But this is the Los Angeles District Attorney’s legacy, here:

Pre-Retirement (from the office):

WIKIPEDIA describes — clearly from a bit of a disgruntled fathers’ perspective (and with good cause — ) his “Life as (Los Angeles) District Attorney” – First and Second Terms, 1992-2000 starting right after Rodney King riots, prosecution of O.J. Simpson, Ramparts scandal, and, as it mentions:

In the late 1990s, Garcetti’s use of default judgments in child support cases were considered by many to be particularly heinous. Garcetti openly refused to rescind judgments against men who later proved through DNA evidence that they were not the fathers in question. By 2000, 79% of paternity judgements in Los Angeles County were assigned by default.

Which is why I bring him up, as representing a Southern California leading District Attorney’s legacy…

Wikipedia (voice of the people, or at least people who write Wikipedia articles) goes on about the child support issue, a bit of heartfelt passion enters into the narrative…

Gil Garcetti created so much chaos and heartache that even diehard feminist attorney Gloria Allred protested.

Gloria Allred was a single mother in need of child support — which she went after. As this was before the invention of the post-feminist (?) “fatherhood” movement to keep people like her in place, and also became pregnant because of a rape, possibly part of how she became a “protester” activist lawyer: “During her years in practice, she has successfully sued Los Angeles County to stop the practice of shackling and chaining pregnant inmates during labor and delivery; put a halt on the city of El Segundo from quizzing job applicants about their sexual histories, …”

Allred, who has perhaps done more than anybody to promote the phrase and concept of ‘deadbeat dads,’ called Garcetti’s office ‘an organization without a heart, without any compassion, and without a sense of priorities…[it’s] a system run amok’… Jackie Myers, a former Deputy District Attorney under Garcetti, said that she quit her job because ‘we were being told to do unethical, very unethical things.’

Allred didn’t find out about the $14 million of collected child support cooling its heels (and earning interest) in Garcetti’s office, instead of going straight to its recipients, the children. Richard Fine did. The law said, if they couldn’t find the mother (parent) within 6 months, it goes back to the father. Narrated briefly here: When Fine saw them dismiss the Silva v. Garcetti case, it led to the discovery of payments to judges in the County (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles). Funny the upset for fathers wikipedia guy didn’t mention this — but MSM silence on certain cases can be effective.

This was an unbelievable mess. Child Support collections was eventually (in CA at least) specifically removed from the province of the District Attorney’s Office, probably because of this, and now the practice of holding onto child support collections while they collect interest (at least 30 days before anything is considered “late”) and attempt to divert them for private crony use, or otherwise seriously mess with mothers (and fathers) — is in the hands of a different centralized agency in California — and “Local CSA’s” (child support agencies) by county, for the most part. They’re doing approximately as well when it comes to conflict of interest and honesty, but at lest someone else had a crack at screwing families financially for a change.

See? CA.Gov

Welcome to the Department of Child Support Services Website!

California’s Child Support Services Program works with* parents – custodial and noncustodial – and guardians to ensure children and families receive court-ordered financial and medical support. Child support services are available to the general public through a network of 52 county and regional child support agencies (LCSAs).

* this must be why it’s “Child Support SERVICES” not collections, or enforcements. How ‘holistic.’

and (from same website, different tab) a note about the administrative costs:

The May 2011 Revision updates the DCSS local assistance budget for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2010-11 and SFY 2011-12. It provides the estimates of the administrative costs for the local child support agencies, as well as the detailed methodology for each estimate. The total administrative costs for local assistance are estimated to be $906.3 million ($277.7 million State General fund (SGF)) for SFY 2010-11 and $866.6 million ($270.8 million SGF) for SFY 2011-12.

and such financial concepts as:

Federal Performance Basic Incentives

DESCRIPTION:

This premise reflects the Federal Performance Basic Incentives. Pursuant to the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, the federal incentives passed onto local child support agencies (LCSAs) are to be based on the five performance measures and Data Reliability Audit compliance. California’s historical performance is displayed in the Auxiliary Tables section of this document on the Historical Incentive Performance Measures chart (Chart A-10).

IMPLEMENTATION DATE:

The federal performance incentive methodology was implemented October 1, 1999 and phased in over three years.

OR, say, a measly almost $100,000 to keep the pipelines open to Strengthening Families and other Cross-Collaborations which many child support recipients (meaning payees/ payors) would be hard-pressed to comprehend, or track (if they even knew these existed). No doubt this is far better than having ONE corrupt District Attorney’s Office simply sitting on the stuff, Los Angeles Style, until caught at it and sued to stop it:

Partnership to Strengthen Families Grant

DESCRIPTION:

This premise reflects the funds for the Partnership to Strengthen Families Federal Grant. The project will support partnerships among state child support program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies and university scholars and researchers. Research and data analysis will be performed to improve coordination between the state child support program and TANF agencies.

The child support program and TANF program serve many of the same customers and share a program goal of family self sufficiency. Cross organizational partnerships can support improved efficiency and effectiveness by bringing together program experts to evaluate policy making and to assess processes that cross both organizations. The policy choices of each program can have a significant impact on the other. Isolated decision making is not in the best interest of the child support program nor the TANF program. This demonstration grant will serve as the foundation for an integrated and more effective communication between programs.

This partnership will benefit both the child support and TANF programs with the help of university faculty and scholars to design and support data exchanges, store and analyze data, and conduct special studies or evaluations of program policies or practices. Additionally, the steering committee for the partnership will also involve local child support and TANF welfare directors so that all elements of the program leadership are included. A collaborative effort is expected to add substantial value to otherwise independent planning and actions by these organizations in isolation.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE:

This premise was implemented September 30, 2009.

KEY DATA/ASSUMPTIONS:

• Authorizing statute: Section 1115(a)(2), 1115(b) and 1115(b)(3) of the Social Security Act [42 United States Code 1315].

• This grant is effective from September 30, 2009 through February 28, 2011.

• The total project cost consists of Section 1115 grant funds, a required 5 percent state match, and federal financial participation. The 5 percent state match will be funded through redirection of existing resources. [from Childsup.ca.gov, various links]

Now, instead, they can figure out what to do with approximately $4 billion (per year) of federal funds to states intended to enforce child & family support (or, promote marriage, a.k.a. fatherhood), including Compromising Arrears (that they ran up to start with), jailing fathers for nonsupport of outrageous amounts — then letting them out into classes about “How to be a father” (including abstinence education — go figure) run by court-affiliated program promoters.

But that’s another topic.

Take for example (2), Alameda County’s:

Now, for ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

I casually noticed that the Alameda County District Attorney actually had an Annual Report 2010, I figured, why not take a look? (note: I also look other places – so should we — such as vendor payments for this one, contracts, payrolls, etc.)

For Annual Report, read “Sales Promotion” for receiving more money for more programs. It’s basically going to be a Business Plan, or part of one, right.

Being the smart woman that I am, I went straight to “LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES.”

I’ve been around the block a few times, and know what the word “initiatives” means

I find it odd that the law enforcement is so eager to write the law also. Kind of like the Executive Branch of the US changing the legal system (and adding a faith-based office to help the separation of church and state just a little more) and the Judicial Element forming nonprofits and directing traffic to them. Or the Legislative Element getting press for helping the homeless, while their wives are busy charging $225 an hour to subcontract work that probably should’ve been done by a public agency (which the public pays for) to start with.

Makes you kind of wonder where the criminal element of society really is, sometimes. I mean, what’s truly causing the level of poverty and street crime and disrespect for authority seen throughout this county (home to the 4th and 5th highest homicide cities in the country, last I heard — Oakland, and Richmond, California). Does no responsibility ever rest with this department?

So, here’s “Nancy (O’Malley) goes to Washington” — What a Wonderful Life it must be.

Once there she has some nice chats, by mutual request it seems, with Dianne, about SB 557 – instead of having this chat first with the citizens that actually live in this state and who don’t always have our U.S. Senators’ ear. They’re lucky, many times, if they can get law enforcement’s ear, if it’s just a “family matter” (aka domestic dispute), even though these matters can get both family and officers killed, and have.

And here’s SB 557. Glad I happened to hear about it. And guess who proposed it (sponsor, co-sponsor):

CORRECTED APRIL 27, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 05, 2011

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2011–2012 REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILL No. 557
________________________________________

Introduced by Senator Kehoe
(Coauthor(s): Assembly Member Atkins, Fletcher)

Wow —Senator(SB117) Kehoe (SB747) & Assemblyperson Atkins (SB 887): the Dynamic Duo strikes again

This time, to help their cohorts get proprietary language to promote a certain concept promising “justice” coach parents suffering from domestic violence and separation, including with their kids, from abusers.
This is not to say the same people don’t also propose better bills — like adding “strangulation” to the definition of “traumatic injury.” However, this still ain’t gonna change how little family law judges care about it, as opposed to pushing co-parenting, therapy and marriage & fatherhood to people who are, er, divorcing (etc.). Generally, they fall under the category of “special interests” it seems, including:
SB 117 (Kehoe)
Public contracts: prohibitions: discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. (see my last 2 posts on how Atkins’ partner got San Diego business…)

While this may be a good concept, common sense says to take it up with the California Healthy Marriage and the Bush-originator and perpetuators of National Fatherhood In Aeternum. Isn’t there some way we could lock the different factions into a single room — like is done with a sequestered jury — and duke it out while the rest of us get about our own business, and sex lives? Note: no minor children should be allowed into the room for any purpose during this time.

Actually, it was Kehoe sponsoring SB 2263 nine years ago, trying to one-stop shop an all-expense-paid (i.e., public funding through California Judicial Council) assessment of (Kids’ Turn). Has she had children? Has her partner had children? So what’s with this fascination with coaching others about how children feel about divorce, and what parents should tell them during the process?

Somehow I”m starting to wonder how these types of bills relate to each other.

So long as family court judges continue to exercise “wide discretion” and retain immunity for screw-ups, and so long as parents are too busy on on-line forums (arguing PAS or anti-PAS) and going to rallies to Washington, D.C. to plead for mercy — it doesn’t matter that Governor Gray Davis vetoed that one, saying gently that perhaps the highest judicial body in the state wasn’t, er, qualified to measure mental health (i.e., attitude adjustments that certain mental health professionals wish to see).

Family Law already makes just about any other law a moot point, no matter what gender you express this in — it’s possible to get permanently screwed in 2o minutes, or ex parte, and with or without a $$ to spare.

We, the People of California (insert your state, but this state has a well-earned reputation for being off the charts sometimes, it seems) should instead actually investigate who’s married to, in business with, or on the board of directors with whom, and we’d better keep our eyes peeled about whassup in the legislature, and whassup in Washington, too. And start respecting bloggers that do (historymatters of Sandiegooneline, or Ronkayeinlaw, etc.), rather than on-line weekly reporters (Mr. Peter Jamison of SFWeekly) that don’t.

February 17, 2011

________________________________________
An act to add Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) to Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to family justice centers. **

**the last suggestion (see my recent posts) was to simply amend Civil Labor Educational Insurance and Penal codes to clarify that gender expression is a civil right (as I understood it). This one simply adds a Title subdivision, i.e. 5.3.

While AFCC is busy legitimizing and legalizing “Parenting Coordinators” to further undermine due process (and confidentiality) a.k.a. legal rights, the DA’s office itself is trying to legitimize and hallow “family justice centers” that shouldn’t even be necessary IF the DA’s office (law enforcement and prosecution) had been doing their jobs right to start with, including taking criminal activity committed by one parent against the other without respect to gender. Same general idea — exploiting prior screwups by the same people to add another layer of bureaucracy to “coordinate” all the services needed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL DIGEST
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 557, as amended, Kehoe. Family justice centers.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) is added to Part 4 of the Penal Code, to read:
TITLE 5.3. Family Justice Centers

13750.
(a) A city, county, or city and county may establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and human trafficking. Family justice centers, if established in a city, county, or city and county, may include community-based domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking agencies in partnership with survivors of violence and abuse in the planning and operations process of a family justice center, and may establish procedures for the ongoing input, feedback, and evaluation of the family justice center by survivors of violence and abuse and community-based crime victim service providers.
(b) For purposes of this title, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Abuse” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6203 of the Family Code.
(2) “Domestic violence” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6211 of the Family Code.
(3) “Sexual assault” means an act or attempt made punishable by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264.1, 266c, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, 289, or 647.6.
(4) “Elder abuse” means an act made punishable by Section 368.
(5) “Human trafficking” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 236.1.

(6) “Victim of crime,” “crime victim,” or “victim” means a victim of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, or human trafficking.

(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or part-time basis in order to provide services to victims crime from one location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help, and increase access to services and support for victims and their children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys.
(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.
(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.

Text found at Survivors in Action (which addresses stalking — not parenting — issues)

Wow. I felt SO o o o o distracted by investigating the Nonprofit Filings of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” which I already knew was itself a Dubious District Attorney Doing. San Diego (where the model started) also reported on their Doubts as to why a retiring City? attorney should simply move functions that belonged to government over to the Y, later to become what I like to call Casey Gwinn’s Retirement Plan Model.

I found out that after getting a $3 million grant, producing a nonprofit structure (channel?) that has 0 $$ and 0 boards of directors (if one looks at the paperwork) yet suddenly a subsidiary group, “Family Violence Law Center” is getting flush with $millions of education & prevention programs under a different EIN.

Having wondered why none of these groups actually tell us how Family Law Operates (which is through AFCC/CRC and a host of nonprofit groups to receive federal funds to fix families, even though the fix is getting some of them killed from the resulting mix of turmoil & entitlements) — I see that the Executive Director of this Family Violence Law Center, has a background in Family Law.

Together, while they do not talk honestly about each other (or their relationships), they comprise an assembly line that shuffles families from separation through dissolution to destitution, getting grants along the way to “prevent family violence” at the top of the chute (abandoning those halfway down).

Wait a minute — don’t we deserve some better accounting of the EXISTING family justice Centers before they become the model of how to (not) help Victims of Crime navigate the family law system?)

FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT:

D.A. Nancy E. O’Malley and U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein

In May 2010, Alameda County D.A. Nancy O’Malley led a team from the District Attorney’s Office to Washington D.C. to honor fallen officers at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and meet with legislators.

The team met with many officials to discuss the Office’s nationally recognized programs and initiatives. Highlights included presentations on the Restitution Unit, the H.E.A.T. Watch program, and the Alameda County Family Justice Center

(A Nancy O’Malley/Davis-Lockyer, affiliate of the San Diego Family Justice Center model, founded by someone who was personally sued by one of his own staff for ignoring severe domestic violence and what appears to be death threats to one of his own employees, to which it seems he (Casey Gwinn) responded by moving the situation to a different floor, and thereafter ignoring it. Which I have blogged. Guess they don’t read my lovely, graphics-intensive, professionally organized posts.)

. Also overviewed was the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center and the innovative and successful partnerships between the D.A.’s Office, Probation Department, Alameda County Office of Education and Alameda County Health Care.

In a briefing with the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, D.A. O’Malley spoke about the Family Justice Center’s concept of collaborative comprehensive services.

Time to review (From FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT), “The Brown Act.”

Open Meeting Laws In California: The Brown Act

THE BASICS

Meetings of public bodies must be “open and public,” actions may not be secret, and action taken in violation of open meetings laws may be voided. (§§ 54953(a), 54953(c), 54960.1(d))

WHO’S COVERED

Local agencies, including counties, cities, school and special districts. (§ 54951)

“Legislative bodies” of each agency–the agency’s governing body plus “covered boards,” that is, any board, commission, committee, task force or other advisory body created by the agency, whether permanent or temporary. (§ 54952(b))

Any standing committee of a covered board, regardless of number of members. (§ 54952(b))

Governing Bodies of Non-profit corporations formed by a public agency or which includes a member of a covered board and receives public money from that board. (§ 54952(c))

This is my HOLIDAY (or the Sunday before it) and catching up with a Northern California District Attorneys’ latest Dubious Doings and proposed legislations wasn’t on it. Can I — like Kehoe recommended that Kids’ Turn (initially) — get some public funding to study the effectiveness (or rather, lack of it) of both kids’ Turn AND all spinoffs functioning in my area — AND of the local Family Justice Center closest to me? (I posted others, from an IRS lookup of charities with the name, yesterday, bottom of the post).

In other words, we can either work, and trust our local representatives and elected officials to do their jobs at least as well as we do our own — OR, we can scale back on work (and thus fewer taxes for them to waste) and take time to divert some of the slush funds to our scrutinizing the rest of the slush fund activity.

Having a family law attorney running FVLC is a conflict of interest, as shown (last I heard) on the total SILENCE on the characters, traits, and habits of the family law system and the nonprofits surrounding it, like

NAUCRATES DUCTOR (pilot fish):

(no, the term is not familiar to me, but isn’t the image appropriate? Because what they are escorting is indeed a shark. And the nonprofits surrounding the family law system, which may or may not be smaller than it (who knows? WHo is tracking) — are feeding off a fish which itself is paid for by the public to start with. At some level, this is starting to resemble family COURT systems, not just FAMILY courts. And I’m not the only person that seems to think this way — I have a photo on here of a bunch of judges (SF area) dressing up as royalty at an AAML meeting. They composed a cute song based on “Camelot” (itself a reference to the Kennedy White House as royalty) to go along with this and seemed to think it was funny. )

From the Legislative Initiatives section of the Annual Report.

Legislative Initiatives

Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.

In 2010, we were instrumental in writing numerous pieces of legislation, including:

SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.

As with “fatherhood” programs — this “trend” is hardly a grassroots demand for justice centers. No, certain people have a vested interest in continuing to “initiate” them.

I have a motto to counteract this trend:

JUST SAY NO!

Meanwhile…

Anyone willing to do some legwork and track the nonprofit status and get some verified results from any of the existing family justice centers — please do so. Are they all set up like this one? Are they obtaining public & private monies and funneling them to a favored nonprofit and changing the character of a nonprofit which used to simply help its clients?

How many of the board members are actually public servants — and let’s get some payroll records.

A reminder — someone who walked through the doors — in fact even someone who got a restraining order (already proven to have a good risk of getting him/her (a) dead or (b) eventually completely eliminated from (her) kids’ lives — when the people who should be instead supporting court order enforcement are those collaborating instead to “educate” and “train” others inside new centers…

McDonalds is hugely successful — it serves a lot of people. That doesn’t mean everyone should buy all their food form fast-food franchises…..

This “trend” is going to increase the number of DISenfranchised citizens, whose real needs don’t fit neatly into such expensive and unproven collaborations.

Just Say No. Then get on-line, and get involved demanding a better explanation of why we should put up with this.

Take time from TV and do some FOIA requests under the Sunshine Ordinance. Each one teach one — we can do this!

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

May 29, 2011 at 3:53 PM

What’s Money got to do with it? This is about love, helping kids, protecting gender expression, right?

with 2 comments

Yesterday, I almost got lost among AB 887 (redefining gender) and the backgrounds of its sponsor, after my recent post about the attempted (in 2002) AB 2263, suggesting that our top Judicial organization in the state (California Judicial Council) get paid — assuming it could also find other funding — to judge the mental health efficacy of ~~Kids’ Turn~~, excuse me, (this is the sanitized version)”

projects or programs that provide services to assist children and their 
families while the parents are in the process of obtaining a divorce or legal separation... [[not mentioned -- this process can and does often take years -- like 10, 15, 18...]]

and which measures, among 5 standards, 3 which deal such hard data as “degree of conflict,” “mental health of children,” and “change in (parental) attitude”:

(1) Any decrease in conflict between the parents regarding custody issues, as reported by the parents.

(2) The mental health of the children, as measured by their attitudes before and after participating in the project or program.

(3) Any change in the attitude of the parents who participate in the project or program.

Conflict is obviously bad — this is why, the US never engages in wars abroad or at home, such as on terror, drugs, homelessness, poverty, or fatherlessness. Conflict is Bad. Having the Judicial System involved in receiving public monies to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral modification programs (run by family law professionals and supported by millionaires and billionaires — see my posts, it’s true!) — is, per our Legislators (in 2002) Good. All they wanted was $50,000 — plus matching funds. In the cleaned up version…

Original version was more direct – but someone thought better of that and reworded it from the original, as reported May, 2002:

•AB 2263, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, which would require the Judicial Council to study the effectiveness of expanding the Kids’ Turn program, which assists children while their parents are in family court obtaining a divorce or legal separation. The bill was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 23-0 vote May 15, passed the Assembly on a 72-2 vote May 23 and was sent to the Senate.

I think we should know who those 23 people sitting on the Appropriations Committee that said YES were:

FYI, for a perspective Assemblypersons in 2011 have salaries ranging from $95,291 (most) to $109K (one) and a few $102K. Judges outrank them by ca. 50% as to salaries. Kids’ Turn is a judges project (if not slush fund..) Judge are always being so helpful, because they love kids.

One legislator (Atkins) had previous been chief staff of the other former assemblyperson, now Senator legislator (Kehoe), it turns out and both were “out” lesbians (hardly unusual for California, but sometimes even I forget). Another Sunburst Youth Housing Project has Atkins & Partner/Wife’s name on it.

January 2005, after more than 3 1/2 years of hard work, The Center announced the creation of an innovative youth supportive housing project. This cutting-edge program is one of the first projects of its kind in the United States. The Youth Housing project provides 23 units of affordable, supportive housing for youth between 18-24 years of age, with a special focus on LGBTQ+ youth. These high-risk youth were living in the streets or in public spaces after having been ejected from their homes because of their sexual orientation.

This project has been made possible by the leadership and vision of Rev. Tony Freeman, Dr. Heather Berberet, San Diego City Councilmember Toni Atkins, Jennifer LeSar, The Center and its project collaborators — YMCA Youth and Family Services, San Diego Youth and Community Services, Metropolitan Community Church, Walden Family Services and the Chadwick Center at Children’s Hospital. We opened our doors to youth at the beginning of February 2006.

Oh yes, and the AB 887 sponsor’s wife was caught — well reported — exploiting the homelessness problem in San Diego to turn a nice penny as consultant for herself ($225/hour) by farming out the work to others, while her wife (Assemblyperson Atkins) was photographed with the volunteers counting the homeless.

2011, SanDiegoReader seems to be keeping tabs on these conflicts of interest:

Why Was Toni Atkins Consulting for Developers Vying for Redevelopment Dollars After She Was Elected to State Assembly?

By historymatters | Posted January 27, 2011, 3:51 p.m.

Why was State Assembly Majority WHIP Toni Atkins working for LeSar Development Consulting firm as the Senior Principal of Housing Policy and Planning even after she was elected to State Assembly? Toni was consulting with developers and helping them lobby to get these redevelopment tax dollars for their projects. So how in the world can she vote objectively as a State Assembly member let alone State Majority WHIP to freeze this redevelopment money and return it to schools and other state resources when she has a definite financial stake in seeing that the money remain in the pockets of developers like her wife and their clients.

…

How is it that Atkins and her wife Jennifer LeSar are continually allowed to financially benefit from the affordable housing gravy train. Affordable housing is a multi million dollar issue with a multi million dollar bounty at stake to the most cunning and shrewd land developers and Atkins is voting on this issue despite her personal financial stake. LeSar served as a CCDC Board Member for years while Atkins simultaneously served on City Council and voted to approve millions in redevelopment funds.

Meanwhile, Hunting for the Homeless (2011 Feb. Press article)

State Assemblymember, 76th District, Toni Atkins uses a flashlight to look for people sleeping in a canyon as she participates in the Point in Time Count in Hillcrest. This year's numbers were up.

State Assemblymember, 76th District, Toni Atkins uses a flashlight to look for people sleeping in a canyon as she participates in the Point in Time Count in Hillcrest. This year’s numbers were up

I’m starting to like this blogger, “historymatters” — who seems to be on top of the issues — not that anyone seems to be stopping this flagrant wearing two hats at once while selling projects (contracts to cronies — or partners (nepotism?) — which are to help the public, allegedly). San Diego is not my area — except for the reputation they have in messing with parents around family law, and the infamous “Family Justice Center Model” (Casey Gwinn retirement program), same general idea. Our public servants are I guess to busy working on (and dreaming up, or expanding) projects to help the rest of us that it slipped their minds to report who was getting the contracts for those projects. During an era of increasing unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, closing libraries, thousands of California prisoners being released due to overcrowding, and such — it’s very important to sell educational programs to parents undergoing divorce (and measure whether they worked) — and of course SOMEBODY has to go hunt up the homeless (while, during the daytimes, they are encouraged to keep moving….)

In “I’ve Got Issues” (I’m starting to like this blogger):

Jennifer LeSar was on the Board of Directors of the Centre City Development Corp. (CCDC) from 2002 to 2009. She started her development consulting business in 2005 consulting many of the same developers she was working with on CCDC. http://lesardevelopment.com/about-us/ CCDC recently asked the City Council to approve the contract extension with redevelopment money, yes that same redevelopment money that Atkins as State Assembly WHIP will vote on in Sacramento….sound like a conflict of interest?

2009 Article stating that Kehoe is going to back her former staffer, ex-City-Councilwoman Atkins for State Assembly( which we can see, she obviously got).

2010, January — The GayandLesbianTimes protests politicking by this duo (Kehoe & Atkins) (control of a nonprofit board? stacked — under threat to the organization if it didn’t comply?)

‘Kehoe’ Pride board crosses over with political donors and supporters

Former board resigns, San Diego Democratic Club appointed by Kehoe to take over Pride

The reconstituted Board of Directors of San Diego LGBT Pride met Wednesday, Jan. 27. The first order of business was to accept the resignations of board members Philip Princetta, Co-chair and Mike Karim, Treasurer. According to Pride, the new board members are fully committed to transparency and will honor the duties and responsibilities of the organization and continue the mission of San Diego Pride. However, the first meeting was closed into executive session soon after it began.

At a special meeting held last Saturday, attended by City Councilmember Todd Gloria and former San Diego deputy mayor Toni Atkins, State Senator Christine Kehoe demanded that San Diego LGBT Pride board members Chair Philip Princetta, Treasurer Mike Karim, Secretary Carl Worrell either resign or she would place the organization into receivership – a court action that places property under the control of a receiver during litigation – according to an anonymous source at the meeting.

Kehoe, Atkins and Gloria packed the San Diego Pride Board with a crossover of supporters, donors, and endorsers of their political campaigns – appointing the San Diego Democratic Club to take over Pride.

Community members are questioning if they have legal authority to take such actions under the Brown Act….

In a letter, obtained by the Gay & Lesbian Times, Worrell said, “I don’t know that I have ever before found myself in a situation where every alternative solution is wrong. But, in my opinion, that is the situation now. After the unconscionable bullying we took from Christine Kehoe, Todd Gloria and Toni Atkins; it is obvious that my involvement in shaping the future of Pride must end.

In addition to demanding that the three current board members resign, Kehoe also stated that all Pride board meetings would be attended by a representative from both Kehoe’s and Gloria’s offices. She ordered a hiring freeze and said all Pride business must go through her office before any actions were taken, according to the anonymous source.

One reason I steer clear from nonprofits. Another reason is that I learned the hard way that they are answerable to their funders more than the clients they serve. I would NEVER deal with a nonprofit (If I were you) anymore without knowing who is on the board of directors, and who is footing the bills. Moreover, nonprofits can have their boards taken over and start firing staff, totally change the character of any organization which may have started out well.

So, I’m interested why these people would be so interested in controlling the nonprofit here San Diego LGBT Pride and looked it up. “Year Founded:1974 Ruling Year:1995” (meaning actually showed up as a nonprofit 21 years after it started… Wow, kinda like AFCC, which took forever to incorporate properly and start reporting income and paying taxes…). Income they deal with listed at $1.47 million… Purpose:

Foster pride in and respect for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

and Transgender communities locally and globally.

(See yesterday’s post on the gender expression bill. Guess some real progress has been made there.)

Guidestar’s IRS form 990 for the year 2009 shows only the 3 ousted officer, plus Exec. Director Ron deHarte earning $113K, and the main activity rallies, festivals, etc. (and operating in the whole). The income is mostly “program service revenue.”

Whether or not this type of behavior and leadership qualities is played out in the LGBT community or not, it seems common in these combos, I have noticed:

Legislator Connection
City level control (Councilmen, Councilwomen), and County Level Supervisors
Redevelopment Connections (real estate developers, or those financing it)
Favored nonprofits controlled by one of the above to provide services
Cronies getting the contracts, or cronies/spouses getting to be Exec. Director of the favored Nonprofit/agency (Example: “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys — Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s (3rd) wife gets coveted $90K job over a $3million-grant-initiated “Alameda County Family Justice Center” (I think was the title) whose actual benefits to the public are questioned (if ever proved). The process by which this Executive Director was appointed took the cooperation of County Supervisors, helped by the early resignation of a (as I recall) District Attorney (rather than waiting out is term to let the appointment happen normally: i.e., From Orloff to Nancy O’Malley.

For an example, here’s a quick summary (I also blogged it — but it was someone else who researched it):

SEPT 2009 (article shows an Oakland City Council person deluged with protests about constituents being whammed with parking meter increases, and slammed with violations…which is affecting business for the local retailers… So the City Councilperson is often between a rock and a hard place, meaning the collaboration between other already tightly bonded parts of local govt:

Case closed: One big reason the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to name retiring District Attorney Tom Orloff‘s handpicked successor, Nancy O’Malley, to the plum job was her role in helping launch the Alameda County Family Justice Center – a federally funded program that helps victims of domestic violence.

Not only are Supervisors Gail Steele and Alice Lai-Bitker big supporters of the program, but its executive director is Nadia Maria Davis-Lockyer – the wife of longtime East Bay pol Bill Lockyer. Nadia is also running for supervisor.

Both Steele & Lai-Bitker have a reputation for being really concerned about domestic violence, and Steele, even for this crisis in the courts. HOWEVER — has that justice center actually helped as many people as it says it did? And if they’re so concerned about the bottom segments of society (and kids, of course….) — why not set a better example, and let the heads of major nonprofits receiving a FAT federal grant – be picked legally, instead of voting to minimize public awareness, and public comment ? A “Steve White” (Indymedia) blogged this in 2006. I can’t see that the practices have changed much, over time. I blogged it, too:

Attorney General’s Wife. with no previous experience, Gets Top Job in Alameda County Domestic Violence Center

Steve White 14 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT

There’s a certain truth (though not as intended, I’m sure) in the testimonials from this Justice Center’s site:

This is really changing the way the system is responding to victims.”
-Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County Chief Assistant District Attorney

“We use business principles to address social problems and build lasting solutions.”
-Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq., Executive Director

Well, well — the Sneak Peak of ACFCJ finds out that Ms. Nadia is going to take retiring County Supervisor Gayle Steele’s place — very appropriate, because Supervisor Steele probably could have — but like Lai-Bitker, chose not to — protest the improper propelling of this woman to the head of the ACFCJ to start with (see the articles i’ve linked to). TWO county supervisors protested swishing the appointment past the public improperly. THREE County supervisors (including those two) did not. So here we are —

Congratulations and Thank You, Nadia Lockyer

On November 2, 2010, Nadia Lockyer was elected to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to fill the seat vacated by retired County Supervisor, Gayle Steele. Nadia’s last day as the Executive Director of the ACFJC was December 31, 2010. We wish to thank Nadia for all she did for the ACFJC and we wish her well in her new position. We know she will continue advocating to ensure the safety and health of all children and families in Alameda County.

Senior Deputy District Attorney, Kim Hunter, will be the Acting Director of the ACFJC. She and Cherri Allison of FVLC will work together to provide leadership until a new director is installed.

And of course a blurb in this ACFCJ newsletter celebrates the inauguration of Nancy O’Malley, who helped get this ACFCJ started:

District Attorney, Nancy O’Malley, Sworn in at ACFJC

The Inauguration Ceremony of Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County District Attor- ney, took place at the ACFJC on January 3, 2011. Approximately 250 people gathered on the 2nd floor to hear an introduction by Chief Assistant District Attorney, Kevin Dunleavy, and the Oath of Office administered by Cali- fornia Supreme Court Associate Justice Carol Corrigan. Nancy ended the ceremony with a touching speech that thanked her mentors and family. A reception immediately followed at Z Café.

Congratulations Nancy!

While most Centers & Units under this County’s DA’s office have addresses basically at the courthouse (1225 Fallon St most common address listed), “Child Abduction” and “Domestic Violence” have been exported to a different address, or “Center” here — 427 27th Street, Oakland. (I developed a recent habit — looking up street addresses of nonprofits to see who else is there).

Convenient for the providers, not necessarily the best for the clients.

While I’m here (on that Alameda County Family Justice Center) — FYI

Guidestar, the address shows a nonprofit “Bay Area Women Against Rape”BAY AREA WOMEN AGAINST RAPE

Also Known As:

Physical Address:: 470 27TH St
Oakland , CA 94612

2008 IRS Form 990 (contains warning notice on potential errors in this version)

EIN# 942300454

This group’s budget is small fry among big fry (Grants $650,000) and its Executive Director, Marcia Blackstock has something worth hearing about this group and practices in general:

If you’ve got ears, listen up to this one:

Biography

Blackstock is the Executive Director of Bay Area Women Against Rape, which was founded in 1971 and is recognized as one of the first three victim assistance programs in the nation.

Initial Involvement in the Crime Victims’ Movement

Marcia Blackstock became involved in Bay Area Women Against Rape (BAWAR) as a volunteer in 1978. BAWAR had been formed in 1971 by an outraged foster mother whose high school-age daughter had been treated badly both by the police and the emergency room staff after she was raped.

Context of the Era

BAWAR had a “huge adversarial relationship” with law enforcement, hospital personnel, mental health professionals, and the judiciary in the early days. Blackstock remembers that BAWAR’s views were not trusted, nor did BAWAR trust anyone in the system to appropriately assist sexual assault victims. “It was a lot of upheaval, a lot of anxiety, and frustration,” Blackstock recalls. On the other hand, there was substantial community support from the local universities and other collective groups such as the Berkeley Free Clinic and the Women’s Health Collective that were also working and organizing to see that people were treated with dignity and respect and that their needs were met.

Greatest Challenge

Looking back, Blackstock believes that the greatest challenge was establishing credibility among professionals in the various fields that dealt with rape victims. The therapists, law enforcement officers, judiciary, and hospital personnel considered themselves the “experts” and maintained an adversarial relationship with BAWAR mainly because of its grassroots origins. The BAWAR advocates were not considered to be “professionals.”

“We were coming from a peer-support, community-based, grassroots organization that brought in a huge variety of people from a variety of backgrounds and education and ideas, but all coming together and focusing on a common goal. But we were considered ‘peer’ and not ‘professional’, at best paraprofessional and rarely that.”

One of the problems that BAWAR faced was that licensed counselors who felt that they were more knowledgeable had no experience at all working with sexual assault victims.

Or course, professionals and experts know better than grassroots advocates (or victims of crime) what’s best for them, and should be paid accordingly.

In looking up another Board of Directors of BAWAR, (Candace Archuleta) the “Rakheem Bolton” case (Dallas, Texas) comes up, in which a cheerleader who was held down, locked in, raped — and whose rapist got off with a handslap — took a real stand.

In fact when she was supposed to be jumping up and down and shouting encouragement to him, she just stood.

She refused to cheer for him when he was back on the basketball court. She didn’t call names, throw things, threaten, or anything. She just stood, silent. And for this, was punished

(WHY does this remind me of battered mothers who have some resistance to co-parenting with identified abusers or child molesters? Family Courts have a hey-day with that obstinance….)

Oh boy — none of that lack of “spirit” in the school! — and she was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

The Cheerleader Rape Case Ends Horribly in Texas

A high school student who refused to cheer on her “rapist” has been ordered to pay $45,000 for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit. Where’s the justice in this?

By Cord Jefferson

Posted: 05/05/2011 02:54 PM EDT

“I didn’t want to have to say his name and I didn’t want to cheer for him,” she told reporters in 2009. “I just didn’t want to encourage anything he was doing.”

To that end, HS refused to cheer for Bolton when he stepped up to take some free throws during a game in January 2009, four months after he had pleaded guilty to the attack. When she folded her arms and stood silently, however, her school’s superintendent, Richard Bain, ordered her outside and told her she had to cheer for Bolton. When she refused again, HS was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

(How much money, fame, press does a good basketball team attract to a school?)

HS later sued the school for kicking her off the team, but the results of that lawsuit have time and again gone terrifyingly against her.

(What’s Gender got to do with THAT situation? Or, money? –or Justice? The rapist paid $2,500, and she has to pay the school district $45,000 for protesting — not with violence, but with silence?)

Now — think about it. BAWAR is at this area, and getting small amt. of funding compared to the larger scope, yet rape and assault is a major part of domestic violence. Yet Guidestar shows this “Alameda County Family Justice Center” at the same address — which we know is a major project — it has a physical, building presence — and yet it’s listed on Guidestar AS IF a nonprofit, incorporation 2010 (we know, formed much earlier) same address:

ALAMEDA COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC [EIN# 26-1141080]

Also Known As:

Physical Address:

470 270TH StOakland , CA 94612

At A Glance

Category (NTEE):

Human Services / (Victims’ Services)

Year Founded:

2010 Ruling Year: 2010

I’m looking at a 990 signed this past February by Harold Boscovich. (You can too — it’s free). There are no officers, no income, and no officer, it says, was paid. Now THAT’s an unusual tax return! “The purpose of this corporation (not nonprofit?) it “to provide comprehensive collaborative professional services to victims of domestic violence and their children, to victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation; to victims of elder abuse, and to victims of child abuse, at no cost.

WAIT A MINUTE! Aren’t these the legitimate functions already of governmental (not nonprofit) agencies? Such as the District Attorney’s office?

The books of this corporation are in the possession, it says, of D.A. “Nancy O’Malley, 470 270th Street, Oakland 94612″ (deliberate typo? Oakland has no 270th street; see address) and the corporation’s contact# is the same.”

We already know that Ms. Nadia’s salary was paid by the DA’s office (per indymedia blogger & local commentator, Steve White — see links) It is classified as a “community trust” (line 8, Part I, of “Schedule A”) I guess IRS Section 170 (b)(1)(a)(vi).

Huh?

I’m a novice and maybe you are. A SF Law firm summarizes / explains (Thank you, Adler & Colvin, a Law Corporation, 235 Montgomery, Ste. 1220, for this link and information):

QUALIFYING FOR PUBLIC CHARITY STATUS: The Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1) Test and the Section 509(a)(2) Test

Tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code permits a charitable organization to pay no tax on any operating surplus it may have at the end of a year, and it permits donors to claim a charitable deduction for their contributions.

There is a further division in the world of Section 501(c)(3) organizations, classifying them into private foundations and public charities.

The private foundation laws impose a 2 percent tax on investment income, limit self-dealing and business holdings, require annual distributions, prohibit lobbying entirely, and restrict the organization’s operations in other ways. Also, large donors to a private foundation have a lower ceiling on the amount of deductible gifts they can claim each year. In most circumstances, public charity status is preferable to private foundation status.

And it appears that this Alameda County Family Justice Center (“ACFJC” as I might refer to it again), started by District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, hand-picked by the retiring one TOm Orloff as a shoo-in (or to be the incumbent shortly before he retired) whose connections I’m sure helped get the $3 million grant to start this particular ACFCJ — and who then helped get another connected individual, Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq. become Executive Director and at once get a 50% increase in salary, to just below what a California Legislator (Assembly) typically gets ($90,000 / $95,921)….

Well, back to our IRS stipulations / qualifications link:

To determine the charity’s support base, (we might as well look at this….)

Gifts, grants,(Footnote 3) contributions, and membership fees received.

• Gross investment income (e.g., interest, dividends, rents, royalties, but not gains from sale of capital assets).

• Taxable income from unrelated business activities,4 less the amount of any tax imposed on such income.

• Benefits from tax revenues received by the charity, and any services or facilities furnished by the government to the charity without charge, other than those generally provided to the public without charge.

{{Hmmm….Does this rule have anything to do with why a new location was needed for the Center?}}

Footnote 3 In some limited circumstances, an unexpectedly large grant may be excluded from both public support tests as an “unusual grant” described in Regulation § 1.170A-9(e)(6). These technical rules are beyond the scope of this memorandum.

Not becoming a Private Foundation — Well, if there’s a whole lot of wealth involved, this could be annoying. Also, if you want very large private donors to support you, they deductible for those donors is also lower, which may make them wish to contribute instead to 501( c)3s as “Public charities” — like the Kids’ Turns of the family law world?

A Section 501(c)(3) organization can avoid private foundation status, and thus be classified as a public charity, in any of three ways: (1) by being a certain kind of institution, such as a church, school, or hospital; (2) by meeting one of two mathematical public support tests; or (3) by qualifying as a supporting organization to another public charity. In this memo, we discuss the two mathematical public support tests.

The Public/Governmental Support Test of Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1)

This public support test was designed for charities which derive a significant proportion of their revenues from donations from the public, including foundation grants, and from governmental grants. The test has two variations. If an organization can satisfy either of the two variations of this support test, it will qualify as a public charity under Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1).

The first variation is known as the one-third test. A charity can satisfy this test if public support is one-third or more of the total support figure. Nothing more is needed if this mathematical fraction is attained.

The second variation, known as the 10 percent facts and circumstances test, has two requirements. First, the charity’s public support must be at least 10 percent of its total support. Second, the charity must demonstrate, with reference to facts and circumstances specified by the IRS, that it is operated more like a public charity than like a private foundation.

For “Program Accomplishments” it says “See Schedule O.” One year, the return simply had the organization’s title in there; the next year, it again restated the organization’s purpose. These are hardly “program accomplishments.”

As it’s a certain kind of public charity, I’d like to see the IRS letter of Determination

Now — When I googled this Inc’s name (ACFJC) 3 and 3 groups only came up. This (also Oakland-based) is the second one. (The third is the Bill Wilson Center in LA? area). This is where the money seems to be recorded — the Family Violence Law Center (EIN# 942527939)

Income: $3,250,900
Also known as: FVLC
Oakland, CA 94623 Category: I71 (Spouse Abuse, Prevention of); P43 (Family Violence Shelters and Services); P62 (Victims’ Services)Physical Address:PO Box 22009 Oakland , CA 94623Web Address:www.fvlc.org Telephone:(510) 2080220 Facsimile:(510) 2083557 Contact:Ms. Cherri N. Allison, , Esq.cherri@fvlc.orgExecutive Director(510) 2080220 x32

This amount seems closer to the grant mentioned for the spanking new ACFJC a while back. NOtice different address (like a PO Box….) and although ACFCJ actually has a web address, Guidestar doesn’t list it for some reason.

2008 Tax Return says that

GRANTS — Prior Year, $318,322,

THIS year $1,386,008

Program Service Revenue — last year: 1,680,748,

THIS year $1,867,703

Given that part of domestic violence is economic abuse — the victims are not usually flush with funds — I’m going to hazard a guess that they are selling trainings and products to other nonprofits, or to agency professionals whose trainings are paid for by public funds. That’s just a guess. Unless you know a slew of domestic violence survivors that can pay this kind of money to help support the group.

I’d say collaboration works, eh?

Here’s a current job advertisement for “youth program director” — will earn perhaps a bit less than half what the former ACFCJ Exec. Director did, at $42K – $48K per year. Children are being born daily (hence no shortage of Youth in the area) and the former clients that ran through ACFCJ are probably dealing with high-conflict custody cases, wondering where their child support went, and figuring out how to co-parent with whoever this group helped them get a protective order on earlier. Meanwhile, their lives having first justified grants to this organization, will now be justifying grants for “access and visitation,” a cause which essentially undoes what the first round did — protection.

Their mission statement, history, accomplishments, and who they collaborate with is listed clearly here:

Mission Statement

Family Violence Law Center (FVLC) has been working to end domestic violence in Alameda County since 1978, when a small group of abuse survivors founded the agency. To advance our mission of ending domestic violence, FVLC employs a holistic approach that integrates a comprehensive service model with dedicated efforts to address and change institutional barriers for domestic violence survivors within the legal, health, education, and criminal justice systems.

Yeah, “holistic” and “comprehensive service” are definitely the keywords these days. Please notice carefully (underlined) which systems it tries to address and change “institutional barriers for domestic violence survivors” within — it specifically does NOT mention within the Judicial system, and it most definitely does not mention anything — at all – about the “FAMILY LAW SYSTEM” although it’s title says ‘Family Law Violence Center.”

Go figure, huh? And how telling. The most critical information people coming through “stage one” of leaving domestic violence, assuming kids are involved, is what is coming up next — which IS the “family law system.”.

After looking at the 990 (as usual, I often go straight to the officers’ page), and notice the Executive Director is being paid a modest (for this size of operation) salary of $90K year, and her name is:

ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT TEAM

Cherri N. Allison, Esq. is the Executive Director at FVLC. A lifetime resident of Oakland, Ms. Allison has more than 7 years of legal non-profit management experience. Ms. Allison also has over 12 years of experience as a family law attorney.

Prior to coming to FVLC, Ms. Allison was the Director of Programs at the Alameda County Bar Association. In addition to Ms. Allison’s expertise in non-profit management, she has experience in board development, program development, grant writing and investments. She currently serves as the President of the Board for the Women Lawyers of Alameda County, is a former member of the FVLC Board, and is a member of the California Alliance Against Domestic Violence and the Charles Houston Bar Association.

In 2008, she is (not inappropriately, I’m sure) awarded by the Bar Association for the work with this Community Organization, along with other judges, attorneys, etc., as it says (tickets, $125),

2008 Installation and Distinguished Service Awards Dinner

Join us on Thursday, January 17, 2008, as we swear in our Officers and Directors and honor the recipients of our Distinguished Service Awards while we enjoy a delectable dinner buffet and cool jazz. The festivities will take place at the Claremont Hills Resort & Spa, majestically resting on 22 acres of beautifully landscaped gardens in Berkeley.*

(*starting to sound like some of the wonderful AFCC, or for that matter, Kids’ Turn promoting retreats and seminars.)

(the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” is a grants recipient, from my understanding, through HHS and is where CPEDV went….). WELL, I guess that FAMILY LAW EXPERIENCE may tell us why this group doesn’t seem to educate its clients about the family law process, and what’s happened to it since, say, 2001 (Bush, faith-based), or even 1998, 1999 (US Congress passes resolutions on fatherhood). However, it’s clear Ms. Allison must be informed about the intersection of DV & Family Law; she has written about it:

Domestic violence remedies in California family law cases, 2008. Cherri N. Allison, et al. (CEB, 2008) KFC 115 D664 not accessible to general public, unless you are in L.A.?

Get this (2009)

Women Lawyers of Alameda County (WLAC) honors Exec Director of ACFCJ, District Attorney (who helped fund and start ACFCJ) who also honor a retired woman judge (Hon. Peggy Hora., Ret’d.) who pushed “therapeutic jurisprudence” – a VERY problemmatic practice in the judicial field, and also endorsed by AFCC.

How sweet — aren’t these professionals all close friends with each other then? (Except the women driven homeless through family law system and twice-thrice-and ongoing-abused (Legal abuse syndrome) through its practices, or while (out of state — MD — another state pushing Therapeutic Jurisprudence through Univ. of Baltimore School of Law “CFCC”) a pediatrician mother (is that professional enough?) lost 3 children, drowned in a bathtub on a scheduled visitation, although she warned, pleaded, and asked for visitation to be curtailed based on the prior mental health history and state of the father. (“Cabrillo”).

WLAC “Honor Roll”

This Issue’s Honor Roll:

Cherri N. Allison, Executive Director of the Family Violence Law Center of Alameda County, was recently named “Woman of the Year” for the Justice Category of the Alameda County Commission on Status of Women and will be inducted into the Alameda County Women’s Hall of Fame on April 25, 2009.

I think that instead of professionals honoring and decorating themselves in nice ceremonies (Sun Myung Moon and the U.S. Senate mock coronation ceremony comes to mind) instead some of the women who DIED because of stupid family law rulings, sometimes along with their children or in front of them, in scheduled exchanges with the father for co-parenting purposes — THEIR names should be honored.

I do not live in this county and so am not familiar with which is most dramatic, but how about honoring the mothers who, having left an abusive relationship (or possibly separated because of the abuse) thereafter, by complying with family court orders to fork over their children to an ex-batterer or abuser, ended up dead.

If this is too many low-income people to consider at once, then why not go for someone closer to the legal profession’s social class — Hans Reiser. Why not honor his wife, Nina. I’m not sure which county this case was in, but sounds like her body was unearthed Alameda County.

And whoever is recommending Batterers Intervention Programs gets my “dunce award of the year; here’s why from “Sagaria Law” — they don’t complete the programs anyhow! Or, (in one high-profile case) they complete the programs and then walk back and kill the woman anyhow (Scott McAlpin).

The programs draw funding — is there something too hard to spell about that?

I started this blog to warn others! after years of the rollercoaster (downhill slide, overall) of the family law system that no one who was involved warned me about when I separated from the abuser. In retrospect, it might have been better to ask for self-defense lessons, mace training, and just utilize it, so I could communicate directly to this person that was is and is not acceptable is, in marriage, a two-way street, and wives are people, too.

FVLC’s services include both protection initiatives for people currently experiencing abuse and prevention initiatives to eliminate future abuse. Today, FVLC is recognized as a leader in the community in both delivering exceptional services to abuse survivors and in advocating for long-term social change for victims.

Maybe I should go find these people — a list of clients with children who then went into “high-conflict custody battles”– and start interviewing them to see if the perspective holds — and if they then lost their kids to the abusers, because doing something about that issue is not, er, under FVLC’s 501(c)3 goals…. Abuse survivors with custody cases need not apply — go see your local family law attorney….

Well, I recognize that someone else has to tell about the Access Visitation Factor, the Child Support Incentives, and that that whatever groups like these WILL instruct people about, the functioning of the family law system is not on the curricula. We had to learn the hard way that if our problems were not going to attract major funding, we could just go deal with them ourselves. THESE types of programs, however do get the moulah:

How much easier to teach, coach and (allegedly) prevent — than to scrutinize, analyze, and dis-assemble destructive institutions which result in family wipeouts — but which are already entrenched…

During FY 07-08, FVLC achieved the following accomplishments [(accomplished the following)]:

Provided legal services (representation, paperwork preparation, and advice and counsel) to 525 clients, for a total of 2,250 contact hours and 692 court orders.

Provided crisis counseling and safety planning to 2,823 clients, for a total of 3,250 contact hours.

FVLC’s HEAL (Healing Emotions and Loss After Domestic Violence) Program provided intensive parent/child psychotherapy to 31 children and their primary caregiver, for a total of 900 contact hours.

FVLC’s RAP (Relationship Abuse Prevention) Program provided intensive leadership training to 56 youth and violence prevention education and outreach to 1,008 youth.

FVLC has set the following goals for the current year (FY 08-09):

Continue to strengthen collaborative relationships with other agencies co-located at the Alameda County Family Justice Center with FVLC. This includes the Oakland Police Department, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, and numerous other community-based agencies.

Engage in policy work around domestic violence by playing a leadership role on several state and countywide task forces, including the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic Violence, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Alameda County Family Violence Council, Domestic Violence Advisory Council for the Social Services Administration of Alameda County, and Alameda County Teen Dating Violence Task Force (formed and led by FVLC).

(As you can see, it’s now fashionable to say the words “domestic violence” and form task forces to do something about it, allegedly. Look at the variety of groups that do: The ABA, CPEDV, and something from Alameda County itself I can’t even find (yet), as well as a SSA “Domestic Violence Advisory Council.” How many of these talk to victims they helped 5 years down the road or so?

With our collaborative partners Youth ALIVE! and Youth Radio, expand leadership training and policy work around teen dating violence at Oakland middle schools through various classroom, after-school, and summer activities, effectively reaching approximately 1,600 adolescents. This is made possible through a generous four-year, $1 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

(Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is very big into funding fatherhood materials. )

These are recommended reading to pick up on the patterns, and alliances. It almost gives one a headache (for non-politically-minded individuals who just do their jobs, obey the law, pay taxes, volunteer locally, probably contribute locally, etc.) to conceive of the extent of deceit and collaboration that is simply government. And then all the public press about how poor we all are, and how it’s time to tighten our belts — and cut back on the social service infrastructure. And (in California) release from 30,000 to 40,000 prisoners.

This is simply taxation without representation, and totally unacceptable in my book.

And I’m not a Tea Partier.

It sheds a whole different light on the “social contract” that most of (what remains of) the middle class has bought into. If they stick to their jobs, neighborhoods, kids, and planning for leisure & retirement (and don’t ask too many questions about the top layer) — then the top layer will structure society so as to kind of leave them alone, and of course (this goes without saying) make sure the rabble doesn’t get out of control.

FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS, per IRS search (on the name):

Name City State Country

Code

ALAMEDA COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Oakland CA USA —

ANAHEIM FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Anaheim CA USA —

FRIENDS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Riverside CA USA —

NATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER ALLIANCE San Diego CA USA —

SOUTH BAY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Torrance CA USA —

STANISLAUS FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION Modesto CA USA —

FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY INC. Tampa FL USA —

FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION OF IDAHO Nampa ID USA —

FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY INC. South Bend IN USA —

THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF BOSTON INC. Boston MA USA —

ESSEX COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Roseland NJ USA —

CENTER FOR FAMILY JUSTICE Albuquerque NM USA —

TRI-COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF NORTHEAST NEW MEXICO INC. Las Vegas NM USA —

FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF ERIE COUNTY INC. Buffalo NY USA —

YOUTH AND FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. New York NY USA 4

FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY Georgetown SC USA —

KNOXVILLE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Knoxville TN USA —

BEXAR COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION San Antonio TX USA —

FRIENDS OF THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER San Marcos TX USA —

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MINISTRY FAMILY SERVICES CENTER Woodville TX USA —

to Be Continued…

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

May 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Posted in AFCC, After HE Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids

Tagged with 000 for refusing to cheer rapist and expecting local public school to understand why - What's Gender Got to Do With This? (Dallas TX), 500 and probation; Rape Victim $45, 501(c)3 categories - private foundation v public charity, ACFCJ, ACFJC, Alameda County Family Justice Center, Alice Lai-Bitker, California AB 2263, California AB 887, Cheryl Allison, Christine Kehoe, Conflicts of interest within local government, Family Violence Law Center, Following the money -- the nonprofits do!, FVLC, gayandlesbian Pride, Gayle Steele, Google Nonprofit Addresses, Guidestar, Harold Boscovich of ACFCJ, Homeless Counting, Jennifer LeSar San Diego, Kids' Turn, Marcia Blackstock BAWAR, Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Nancy O'Malley, nonprofit board takeovers, Public Servants Private Profits Nonprofit Charities, Rakheem Bolton- $2, Redevelopment Contracts, San DIego LGBT Pride, Tom Orloff, Toni Atkins, WLAC

What’s Love — I mean Gender — I mean Gender Expression Discrimination– got to do with it? (Calif AB 887 & AFCC June 2011)

“What’s Love Got to do with it?”

A film about the singer Tina Turner and how she rose to stardom with her abusive husband Ike Turner and how she gained the courage to break free.

[Yeah — how is beating a woman up related to loving her? And what’s using her got to, either?]

I recommend seeing this (if you somehow haven’t, yet). If not, at least hear the song:

This is a review of the movie. If somehow, you are unfamiliar with the story/film, you might as well read it, to get a grip on how AFCC — a group renowned for minimizing and reframing exactly what this woman endured as a “high-conflict” and prescribing their coaches to coach victims of this type of brutality to learn now to get along with perpetrators of it [Or, we will take your children and give them to the other parent — or the state]– parodied the title in a twisted perversion of the original reference — which is of a woman escaping brutal poverty and violence, a role model of success possible after confronting it.

This is hardly the first time AFCC did this, as I blogged earlier in “Clear and Present Danger — fuzzy usage by AFCC“, when a conference indicating that the “Clear and Present Danger” was not (as the California Penal Code stated it was) batterers, but lack of funding for their services.

Actually, that wasn’t fuzzy usage, but targeted usage — directly targeting legal language that addressed domestic violence, and switching usage. Totally in accord with the organization’s stated purpose, which is the transformation of language — including the language of the criminal codes from state to state. If, in the process, this also totally transforms the legal process, the courts (from judging law to dispensing therapy and counseling services, “Problem-solving courts” etc.) certainly (as defined by these helpful professionals), it was a worthy end to justify the means, right?

So o o o . . .. they next ask:

“What’s Gender Got To Do With It?”

( a search of the phrase without “AFCC” shows how Tina Turna’s story has permeated the language…)

Many of the conference handouts I’ve been mocking and “outing”recently (for the marketing schemes they truly are) are from this upcoming (like, next week) AFCC conference in Orlando, Florida. I mean, what’s not to mock? including that it seems they take themselves seriously.

For example: ”

This session examines the complex mental health challenges in some child custody litigants and the dilemmas they present for attorneys and mental health professionals working with flawed parents.

Yeah, for the superior professions, it’s sure hard to deal with flawed parents. It’s ever so irksome dealing with inferior human beings and their flaws. Perhaps they can commiserate with God in this matter… or seek counsel with Him (oh I forgot — it appears they already did..which is why we have to be subjected to the trainings…these conferences intend to fix us flawed parents (“been there, done that — I confess! I’m not flawless!”). At our own expense, when it hits the courtroom.

Perhaps flawed parents, on the next go-round, should be sterilized and make life easier for judges, mental health professionals, and attorneys to ply their trades.

Plus, besides the troubles of dealing with flawed parents, the professionals have some of their own friction to work out (these family law professionals at least know not to display their conflicts in front of the “kids” — i.e., mean, the troublesome parents that need to be educated on how to parent, and divorce, etc.):

Implications of various professional roles will be explored as will the inherent friction between the roles of attorneys and mental health professionals. … Ethical implications of this work will be reviewed….

Wow — in private, among themselves, they actually admit there is an “inherent friction” in mental health professionals & the representatives of law? And that ethical implications exist? — amazing. I caught no hint of this in any court proceedings I was in for the past (xx years), most of them lasting 20 minutes and set to review a mediator’s report we’d just received in the courtroom minutes prior to the hearing. This is called “due process” in action. (or “inaction,” should I say).

This workshop was run — typical AFCC combo — by a Judge, two Attorneys, and a Ph.D.:

Mary Ferriter, J.D., Esdaile, Barrett & Esdaile, Boston,

MA David Medoff, Ph.D., Suffolk University, Boston, MA

Hon. Edward Donnelly, Middlesex Probate and Family Court, Cambridge, MA

Kelly Leighton, J.D., Barens & Leighton, Salem, MA

OK, so apparently Gender has something to do with it. So let’s talk about Gender. Or, eavesdrop on our Legislators trying to talk about it.

What’s Pacific Justice Institute Got to do it?

(with the Gender Debate?)

Who??? — Well,

Pacific Justice Institute for one has lots of love. They provide services for free to “those” they serve according the the blurb at the bottom of my email alerts:

About The Pacific Justice Institute: Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need. Pacific Justice Institute’s strategy is to coordinate and oversee large numbers of concurrent court actions through a network of over 1,000 affiliate attorneys nationwide. And, according to former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, “The Institute fills a critical need for those whose civil liberties are threatened.” “Through our dedicated attorneys and supporters, we defend the rights of countless* individuals, families and churches… without charge.”

What gender individuals. Does this include the right gender individuals involved in the destructive jaws of the family law system, and spat out by it when there is neither wealth, nor children under 18, to suck the life out of?

(No. While PJI tangles repeatedly with the Public Educational system (public), they’re not so foolish as to consistently engage in the family law system, or those entangled in such “family matters.” Doing so on the behalf of women like me might jeopardize some of the financial support, I suspect….)

**Well, being a nonprofit, they’d better keep some books, like something resembling a headcount at least of their own clients….

AS TO CHURCHES NEEDING TO HAVE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTED, BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE CARES:

Churches and church-affiliated charities / organizations have received governmental support a decade by Executive Order. This means that even tax-paying atheists may be supporting them, unawares, and are, because then-President Bush thought it was a great idea and ordered it. “Let there be an office of faith-based and community initiatives.” Lightbulbs went off in religious institutions across the land about access to grants….. [see intro to google book “Godly Republic: A Centrist Blueprint for America’s Faith-based Future”

or a (positive, probably) Georgetown 2004 Master’s Thesis submission(search “Eberly”) ? Don Eberly, a founder of the National Fatherhood Institute, whose agenda was obviously to protect the civil rights of fathers — all fathers — nationwide, who had been attacked by welfare Moms and anti-domestic-violence feminists and the child support system. “

Don Eberly, deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives noted that he believes that the efforts are “’The Ultimate Third Way’” in the renegotiating of ways to approach social philosophy.25 The recent enthusiasm for the new method of social analysis is shared by President Bush as a result of his personal experiences. The faith-based initiatives stems from his belief that prayer has a transformative power to combat social ills.

“About Don Eberly” (Positive). Note the sections “Influence Domestically” and “Movement Founder and Scholar”:

His career includes a decade serving in senior policy positions in the Congress and in the White House under two Presidents, and another decade advocating for and creating non-profit organizations to strengthen community and civic life.

Don spent much of the 1990s as a social entrepreneur, founding several nationally recognized non-profit organizations, including the Civil Society Project, which promotes innovation in community development and offers technical assistance for new non-profit start ups. In 1994, he founded the National Fatherhood Initiative, a national non-partisan civic organization whose mission is to improve the well-being of children by increasing the number of children raised by committed, engaged fathers.

GWB had faith in him, for sure:

Remarks to the Fourth National Summit on Fatherhood
June 7, 2001 (GWB created the OFBCI office by Executive Order in 2001….)

“Thank you all very much for that warm welcome. It’s an honor to be introduced by Tommy Thompson, who not only was an outstanding Governor but, I can assure you, is going to be an outstanding Secretary of Health and Human Services. He is bright, capable, smart, and does everything the President tells him. [Laughter]

(We are less than amused….)

He’s my buddy. But thank you, Tommy, very much.

I am so honored Members of the United States Congress are here. I appreciate you all being here, Senator Carper, Senator Bayh, Congressman J.C. Watts. If there are other Members of the Congress here, thank you all for coming, as well. Roland Warren, it’s good to meet you, sir. I appreciate your focus and effort. I’ve got something to say about the other two characters up here in a minute. [Laughter]

For 7 years, the National Fatherhood Initiative has been a powerful voice for responsible fatherhood [programs.& funding…] [as defined by the NFI…] . And for those of you involved, on behalf of our Nation, I say thanks from the bottom of our collective hearts.

[Ha, ha, ha….How many restraining orders were in effect that year? ….How many femicides of women who tried to leave abuse? Was this detail somewhere, in a dark corner of the conglomerate heart?]

Most States now have initiatives that promote responsible fatherhood, and more than 50 mayors are involved in the National Fatherhood Initiative’s bipartisan Mayors Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion. The fatherhood movement is diverse, but it is united by one belief: Fathers have a unique and irreplaceable role in the lives of children.

Two people who have been a central part of the National Fatherhood Initiative are now a valuable part of my administration, . . . .

the Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Don Eberly, and the Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services—and, we hope, a man confirmed soon—Wade Horn. [Applause] I was pleased to see Senator Carper leading the applause. [Laughter] Thank you guys for your service, and thank you for your willingness to work on behalf of the American people.

Sounds to me like our former President, and the Congressmen with him, had VERY little confusion about gender, and which one it was most important to support intellectually, morally, and financially… and this was, obviously, love. It also sounds to me like the civil rights, if not privileges, of “parents families and churches” had serious support from above, and I don’t mean only their god. This was 10 years ago.

(This included to highlight the Federal support of Faith, Fathers, and Bush-buddy Don Eberly).

This has affected custody hearings, obviously, and issues surrounding child support, child abuse protection, and violence against women (GENDER-based violence, that is) obviously.

“About Don Eberly” (skeptical) (By: Bill Berkowitz / Published: Feb 7, 2005 at 06:38)

An advocate of shrinking government, Don Eberly, the head of the Civil Society Project promotes faith-based organizations, private philanthropic initiatives, traditional families, volunteerism and the building of a ‘values’ society. Whose ‘values’ is the question.You won’t find him on many of television’s talking head programs, you wouldn’t be able to pick him out of a line-up, and his essays aren’t sexed-up or buzz-worthy, but for more than 15 years, Don Eberly has been one of the leading advocates of a strain of conservative advocacy known as “civil society.”Although vague and often ambiguous, “civil society” advocates intend to shrink government by handing over responsibility for maintaining and administering what’s left of the social safety net to faith-based organizations, corporate and community groups, families and philanthropic initiatives. As neoconservative cultural critic Gertrude Himmelfarb has written, “When we speak of the restoration of civil society it is a moral restoration we should seek.”

The Teacher in me (forgetting Tina Turner for a few minutes here) believes that we should have a nice link to ath Executive Order of January 29, 2001). (George W. Bush of Texas having been President 2001-2009, this appears to be one of the first things he did in Office):

For Immediate Release January 29, 2001

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

ESTABLISHMENT OF WHITE HOUSE OFFICE

OF FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet social needs in America’s communities, it is hereby ordered as follows: …. (Recommended reading! For example, ”

d) All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall cooperate with the White House OFBCI and provide such information, support, and assistance to the White House OFBCI as it may request, to the extent permitted by law.”)

BARACK OBAMA 2010 UPDATE, incl. “(e) Administration of the Initiative. The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding and administrative support for the Working Group (which we can see (click on URL) includes the panorama of departments & agencies) to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.”

As we know, from Whitehouse.gov, there’s the:

And then, to get the jobs done, to execute the policies of the other two branches which the Constitution supports, there are for the Executive Branch

Federal Agencies & Commissions, too many to list on this site…

“There are hundreds of federal agencies and commissions charged with handling such responsibilities as managing America’s space program, protecting its forests, and gathering intelligence. For a full listing of Federal Agencies, Departments, and Commissions, visit USA.gov.

(complete with Czars, etc.) The first one of hundreds — alphabetically — is the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) where Fatherhood.gov, and Child Support Enforcement, Child Protective Services, Head Start, and many of the issues that this blog deals with, resides. Not to mention The President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities,

I’m not sure if I come under this category or not, yet. Academically, no. As to work history, no, or health — probably not. But if the highest levels of the US government itself cannot figure out whether gender does, or does not, matter how can I be expected to?

Again, how can “PJI” possibly supplement all this Faith & Fatherhood-laced Federal Endorsements of NFI and OFBCI? What ongoing attacks on fatherhood and faith is it addressing? (actually, I do know — I keep my eye on their email alerts..)

Well, for once, it earned its keep, in my eyes:

The conservative legal advocacy group (not that they ever helped me, a female with family law issues) for once earned its free place in my inbox by alerting me to another move by my state legislature to help deconfuse us about how to respond to people who are confused about gender, or at least express it differently.

They write :

CA Legislators to Consider “Refining” Definition of Gender

Sacramento, CA – Lawmakers in the golden state are considering changes to thirty-four statutes “by redefining the definition of gender to also include a person’s… gender expression.” The Legislative Counsel’s Digest explains that under the proposed amendments “gender expression would be defined as meaning a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” The bill, AB 988, amends the Civil, Education, Government, Labor, and Penal Codes

Well, who’s complying with most of those codes anyhow? If they are violated, what prison cell is anyone going to go to? Last I heard the recommendation from our “head of state” was to go build prisons in Mexico.

Consider what’s been poured into the “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” from HHS, enaabled years earlier by GWB as President, this sounds as though California forgot where it’s money comes from — haven’t they been listening? Or does California(‘s legislature) have some confusion about states rights, still?

Mission & Purpose

The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) is a pioneering non-profit organization that works throughout California to improve the well-being of children by strengthening the relationship of parents through Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes.

In 2006, CHMC received a five-year, $2.4 million per year grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.

Correct me if I”m wrong, but the main thing they were pioneers in was size of federal funding and scope of potential clientele (i.e., the entire married, or divorced, or separating but parents, or marriageable, potentially fertile population of California from age 15 up. male & female..). How courageous, to surge forth on behalf of “Family” with only $2.4 million/year backing….)

Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California. Each of CHMC’s funded partner organizations is a coalition consisting of many other FBCOs ** through which they deliver Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes, enabling CHMC to reach California’s diverse population by traversing the key demographic dimensions of geography, ethnic/cultural differences, and agency-type FBCOs.

Just a little reminder, ‘FBCO’ means “Faith-Based Community Organization.” Any faithless, secular, agnostic or atheist organizations that may have already been doing marriage counseling need not apply to join THIS marketing group……. You can be faith-based and counsel the unbelieving (perchance, they’ll be converted by imitation and association) but your leadership cannot be godless…. $2.4 million per year –shared websites — technical and marketing support — wanna reconsider the category of your org, wanna be transformed to a FBCO?

Well I suppose I better get to the point of this post, which began HERE, which at first blush looks to be a “what’s anatomy got to do with gender? And what’s my gender expression preference got to do with my employability?”

California Assembly Bill (“AB”) 887,

In bill text the following has special meaning
underline denotes added text
~~struck out text denotes deleted text~~

BILL NUMBER: AB 887 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Atkins

FEBRUARY 17, 2011

An act to amend Section 51 of the Civil Code, to amend Sections 200, 210.2, 210.7, 220, 32228, 47605.6, 51007, 66260.6, 66260.7, and 66270 of the Education Code, to amend Sections 12920, 12921, 12926, 12930, 12931, 12935, 12940, 12944, 12949, 12955, 12955.8, 12956.1, and 12956.2 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 676.10, 10140, 10140.2, and 12693.28 of the Insurance Code, to amend Section 3600 of the Labor Code, and to amend Sections 186.21, 422.56, 422.85, 3053.4, and 11410 of the Penal Code, relating to gender.

I don’t know Assembly Member Atkins, but it turns out that through redistricting, San Diego voters were able to (and did) elect an “openly Queer Councilmember,” some of which is detailed (when I simply searched on the Assembly person’s name) here. Lo and behold, Assemblyperson Atkins was the former staff chair of a similarly “out” lesbian, [current Senator] Christine Kehoe –– whose name I know from her attempt to sneak a thinly disguised attempt at legislating Kids’ Turn as THE state-approved parent education plan by having the Judicial Council conduct effectiveness studies. (Yeah, that’s a mouthful– but see post on Kicking salemanship up a notch.”). Amazing what you can do with some great redistricting….

While Atkins was addressing the San Diego Democrats about the horrible budget cuts, it appears a little GLBT (“L” to be specific) nepotism — caught by the San Diego Reader — was going on between her wife’s contract on tehcnical assistance to help San Diego’s homeless by counting them — yes, counting them — to the tune of $464,750 (Details at “Is Assembly Leader Toni Atkins Cashing in on Homelessness?“

By historymatters | Posted March 8, 2011, 9:07 p.m.

There is an enormous amount of money to be made solving the problem: so more homeless equals more money for State Assembly Leader Toni Atkins and her wife’s private business contracted to do a study.

The article boasts a photo of State Assembly Leader Toni Atkins leading the charge of more than 550 volunteers searching for homeless people with her flashlight.

I have actually heard (in a different county) certain homeless people at a soup kitchen joking about, could they get a county job counting themselves? After all, who would better know where to look?

To understand why certain politicians get all excited at the prospects of helping vulnerable populations (kids of divorcing parents, homeless, battered women, etc. . . . ) one must first understand what’s in it for them, or their associates = contracts. This sounds like a fairly typical situation. Do the math. I’m sure Assemblyperson Atkins’ wife Jennifer did. $225 per hour, hire an $175/hr expert, a $90/hr former reporter, and some volunteers. Lots of them.

(Welcome to My State….) Here are legislators supporting mandatory positive portrayals of LGBT as role models for children in public schools. Ah well…..

California wants lesbians as mandatory ‘role’ models ~ Family advocates call plan ‘worst school sexual indoctrination ever’

by The Rebel~PWCM~JLAPostedFebruary 12, 2011

{actually not just lesbians, interesting choice of lables to highlight)

“Equality California, an organization that advocates for homosexuality, said others sponsoring the plan include Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego; Assembly member Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco; Assembly member Toni Atkins, D-San Diego; Assembly member Rich Gordon, D-San Mateo; and Assembly member Ricardo Lara, D-East Los Angeles.

Lawmakers in the state of California are proposing a law that would require schools to portray lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals and those who have chosen other alternative sexual lifestyles as positive role models to children in all public schools there.

“SB 48: The worst school sexual indoctrination ever” is how officials with the Campaign for Children and Families describe the proposal, SB 48, sponsored by state Sen. Mark Leno.

Openly homosexual, Leno boasts on his website of founding a business with his “life partner, Douglas Jackson,” who later died of AIDS complications.

(Leno is known among some circles to be closely connected with a certain self-promoting judicial excellence nonprofit reporting on the “crisis in the courts” locally. This group was for years (the few years it’s been involved) refusing to report in the fatherhood funding, and still doesn’t, when it comes to feeding information to local on-lines. So, I do….)

To me, sounds like a very expensive Legislative WAR on Gender Definitions! However, when I hear about any assemblyperson or senator (LGBT, not LGBT, or redneck) involved in corrupt financial practices while yakkin’ about our broke state, I’ll blog the practices. Toni Atkins trained under Christine Kehoe and BOTH of them apparently were trying to pull a fast one on voters who can’t keep up with the ideologies (or are focusing on them, rather than on the payrolls)

BUT, MEANWHILE, if we are going to transform society,

AFCC I think has a simpler, more honest way. They force us all to pay them to force indoctrinations on as many people as possible which help make the Civil & Penal Codes, and the language of them, a moot point, and for that matter, the laws. They do this by getting paraprofessionals into private matters, causing chaos, then running off to hold conferences and trainings with themselves on how to best profit from the mess, and try to exclude non-AFCC-trained professionals (however qualified) from getting a piece of the action.

Jurisdiction was set decades ago, as the chink in the door — any couple having a custody conflict.

It’s clear when you read their conference materials and compare it to actions, that they are simply fulfilling the goal of transforming language — and with it government. And when you read, you can understand that this is the scheme. I think it’s a bit roundabout to undo our Bushwhacked Country by rounding up all damages done and starting a States/Federal fight here.

Why should I pay, in any form, for politicians’ gender wars?

I’m an adult without, to my awareness, gender confusion.

Is it OK if I get out from the middle of this ‘high-conflict” relationship? I’ll even take a “Kids in the Middle“(r), Children in the Middle(r), KidsFirst (though mine have aged out) or even Kids Turn(r) course at my own expense and not ask which foundation also sponsored my participation, or which government grant ALSO sponsored my participation because someone, somehow, somewhere, actually got their paws on my kids’, my, and my ex-husband’s social security numbers and truly understood they were worth more than their (virtual, I guess) weight in gold.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 887, as introduced, Atkins. Gender.

(1) Existing law contains various provisions that define sex as including gender and define gender as including a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

This bill would make technical changes to those provisions by refining the definition of gender to also mean a person’s gender identity and gender expression and would define gender expression as meaning a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth. The bill would also replace cross-references to definitions of gender with the referenced definitions refined in the same manner as specified above.

“THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 51 of the Civil Code is amended to read:

51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act…

….

(e) For purposes of this section: …

4) “Sex” ~~has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12926 of the Government Code~~ includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. “Sex” also includes, but is not limited to, a person’s gender. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender- related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth .

Copyright 2011 State Net. All Rights Reserved.

What about sex as the direct object of a verb, references to (or promises of) which activity fuels so much of our state’s economy? And Bush’s intentions to have us abstain from has cost in “abstinence education programs,” as in “Having Sex,” commonly known as (well, this is wordpress, so fill in the blank after a trip to the local school’s girls — or boys’ — rooms and reading the graffiti, in case your language hasn’t kept up.)

What about sex as a recreational — or procreational –activity, which occasionally and sometimes accidentally, results in human life which can and often is terminated in a variety of ways before or after childbirth, legally or illegally, throughout the lifespan?

Is it really possible to categorize and make legal (or, illegal) all the varieties of human behavior by VOTE?

Note: Bill was posted at the Network of Care for Behavioral Health with the seal of the City and County of San Francisco up top. I think their business will be booming shortly, if it isn’t already. What expressions of healthy behavior are permissible, and who is going to pay if I violate them?

Or feel that my right to, say, indecent exposure might be civilly protected on the basis that I was just engaging in gender expression, and wanted a response as to what others thought mine was…

Well, you tell me — what’s up NEXT in the Legislature that’s likely to affect the bottom line of, for example:

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

May 27, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Metaphors for Family Law, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons

Tagged with 2001 a critical year in Defending fatherhood against feminism and welfare, AB 887, Bush and Buddies it's a Family Affair, California Healthy Marriages Coalition only $2.4 mil per year in 2006, Don Eberly, Ethical considerations when mental health experts testify, Gender Expression Identity, How much Faith-based Federally Funded Fatherhood is enough?, NFI, OFBCI Bush, Recipe: a judge a JD and a Ph.D = an AFCC panel, the trouble with society is "flawed parents" but no fear the coaches are near, Wader Horn, What happens in California when your aren't paying attention to your legislature..., WHat's AFCC got to do with it?, What's Gender Got to Do with it?, What's LOVE got to do with it?, Who's PJI?

Kicking salesmanship up a notch: the nonprofit “Kids’ Turn” and my California Legislature (Sept. 2019 title update: Calif. Legislature 2001-2002 Session, A.B. 2263, 2002, C. Kehoe tries to legislate KT as a standard and order funds to study and expand it)

with 10 comments

Post Title: Kicking salesmanship up a notch: the nonprofit “Kids’ Turn” and my California Legislature (Sept. 2019 title update: Calif. Legislature 2001-2002 Session, A.B. 2263, 2002, C. Kehoe tries to legislate KT as a standard and order funds to study and expand it) (Shortlink url: https://wp.me/psBXH-G7, published May 19, 2011, this title update added Sept. 29, 2019, about 7,661 words. Original title as seen only in bold. I added explanatory phrase, and nowadays I add “date published” to the title where possible.//LGH.

From this post (tongue in cheek, my voice, after reading about it):

…Everybody who’s anybody in the family law fields (whether attorney, judge, or psychologist/family therapist, etc.) should take a turn at running Kids’ Turn.

From that bill, before amended to ask for generic help, not specifically admitting that what was meant was “our baby, Kids’ Turn”)…operates as a franchise sold only to nonprofits (not mentioned: started and run by, see previous quote):

Kids’ Turn is a private non-profit organization that provides workshops for children and their parents that are intended to teach skills to cope with the difficulty of divorce and separation….

Fees for workshops range from $75 to $600 (on a sliding scale). Kids Turn conducts programs in San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, and Contra Costa County. The organization has sold its curriculum and licensed affiliates located in Sonoma, Napa, San Diego, Shasta, and Yolo Counties (in addition to Dayton, Ohio and Hillsboro, Oregon. Although sold only to nonprofits, the program effectively operates as a franchise. Kids’ Turn currently is conducting its own study, in consultation with the California School of Professional Psychology. This bill would require the Judicial Council to duplicate, at least in part, the current study.

Among the objections raised, and possibly why (last I looked) it wasn’t passed SPECIFICALLY naming Kids’ Turn as the California (NB: Large state!) recommended parent education curriculum:

…According to the Judiciary Committee analysis, the author states that the bill is needed so that Kids’ Turn will have state approval as evidence of credibility and will allow courts to “recommend Kids’ Turn as a resource to the community.”

[[On the organization’s website, five-year strategy, this analysis continues]]

…Specifically targeted for consideration is: “Enhanced marketing strategies in order to increase the number of Kids’ Turn affiliates and sales of Kids’ Turn Curriculum.” This bill may create the appearance that a State study and Judicial Council recommendations are part of a marketing strategy..

In fact they are. The workaround was to delete specific references to the corporation name and limit the dollar amount for the study to $50,000, from the phrase amount “necessary.”

Author’s amendments: The author proposes amendments (LCR# 0216385), which (1) delete the specific reference to Kids’ Turn and, instead, study projects or programs that provide services to parents and children undergoing divorce, 2) to delete reference to program expansion; and 3) to delete the language requiring the Judicial Council to allocate the amount “necessary” to conduct the study, to limit the State’s obligation to $50,000. The third staff recommendation to authorize, but not require the study, was rejected by the author.

Shameless! I do not know what became of the bill; I was just discovering it at the time (and my second child was turning adult around the time I discovered it). The continued use of state government positions, websites, and affiliations (especially AFCC’s) continues in the second decade of the 21st century and as we are approaching the third decade, I expect unless someone develops the means and courage to stop it, will continue to do so.//LGH

BELOW THIS LINE: AS WRITTEN May 2011 (except as I may later return here to clean up formatting, which is seriously in trouble at this point, but for a snapshot in time, you can see the basic content is still here and was then/still is now, solid on the business model in play…//LGH 9/29/2019):

I was just casually searching on “Kids’ Turn Affiliates” and even I was surprised at how far proponents would go to push this judge-originated nonprofit.

To the California Legislature?

Yep. The original version was written specifically to this one organization that is probably something of a slush fund to start with.

Makes you wonder about some of our legislators. (posted below).

It was already mentioned 2001-2002 (at a minimum) in the Calif. Judicial Council’s Report to the Legislature on Access and Visitation Fundings, as a sub-grantee. In fact, looks like it was the first one that popped to their mind:

The following are some of the parent education programs funded by the grants that help promote and encourage healthy parent-and-child relationships.

Kids’ Turn (San Diego, Napa, and Shasta Counties): This is a nationally recognized educational program that offers workshops and counseling for families with separated or divorced parents. Kids’ Turn teaches family members the skills that can improve communication between children and parents and help parents understand their children’s experience during and after divorce.21

The San Francisco (founding org.) Kids’ Turn apparently gets some direct help from the City & County, and wants more:

We submitted our first grant to the Administrative Office (AOC) of the Court in November, 2011. This grant was submitted in a partnership with the Rally Project. If awarded, the AOC will fund low-income, noncustodial parents and their children to attend Kids’ Turn services.

6. The City and County of San Francisco initially reduced our 1011 grant award by 10%, but the amount was re-instated in September, 2010 raising our contract award to the original $50,000. This funding is for our very specialized, Nonviolent Family Skills Program for Juveniles.

If you’re actually still earning money, while in the custody process, the Sliding fee Scale does not seem to have an upper limit (?):

FEE TABLE

Pre-Tax Income Tuition with 1 Child 2 Children or More

0 — $14k $50 $60

$15k — $19k $65 $80

$20k — $24k $90 $120

$25k — $29k $175 $225

$30k — $39k $250 $300

$40k — $49k $325* $375*

$50k — $59k $450* $500*

$60k — $74k $625* $725*

$75k — $99k $750* $850*

$100k — $124k $900* $1000*

$125k — $250k $1075* $1175*

$251k — $500k $1400* $1550*

$500k+ $1700* $1900*

Pre-Tax Income	Tuition with 1 Child	2 Children or More
0 — $14k	$50	$60
$15k — $19k	$65	$80
$20k — $24k	$90	$120
$25k — $29k	$175	$225
$30k — $39k	$250	$300
$40k — $49k	$325*	$375*
$50k — $59k	$450*	$500*
$60k — $74k	$625*	$725*
$75k — $99k	$750*	$850*
$100k — $124k	$900*	$1000*
$125k — $250k	$1075*	$1175*
$251k — $500k	$1400*	$1550*
$500k+	$1700*	$1900*

For parents receiving child support (often the mother), this is counted in the “pre-tax” income to determine fees.

(I wonder if this includes child support that’s not being paid……)

Parents paying child support, however, can deduct that from the “pre-tax” income to determine fees….

WHO & WHAT IS KIDS’ TURN?

(well, see my recent post on this)…(or figure it out yourself):

What is “Kids Turn?” — it’s a nonprofit started by a family law judge in about 1987, with help later from some family law attorneys, one of who was called a Northern California “Super attorney.”

Kids’ Turn

THE HISTORY OF KIDS’ TURN

From 1987 to 1990, Judge Ina Levin Gyemant presided over the family law department of the domestic relations court, noting that while lawyers filed motions and parents sought orders regarding custody, visitation and other diputes,[sic] children and their needs were almost completely ignored. Mediation services were mandated for parents in California in 1980, but no educational program was available for children, who are often the people most vulnerable and confused during separation or divorce.

It’s perhaps a training ground on how to promote parental alienation and get paid for it.
It’s a debtor to the San Francisco Superior Court (figure that one out — because somehow, we found that the “SFTC” has a lien on this group).
It has tons of donors on its roster (many of them judges or attorneys), gets apparently some of California’s share of the Access/Visitation funding (which is $10 million per year, nationwide, and California, being so large, gets close to $1 million/year for this source of funding).
Foundations & Associations help it continue & expand:

This is the listing from the San Diego Kids’ Turn (only) website:

Foundations

2009

Linda Brandes Foundation CFLS
California Bar Foundation
Boys & Girls Foundation
Cuatrecasas Family Foundation

The Samuel I. & John Henry Fox Foundation at Union Bank

Sempra Energy

Lions Club of San Diego

Stensrud Foundation

JAMS Foundation

Lawyers Club- Fund for Justice

Leroy and Claire Hughes Family Fund

Mary and John Grant Foundation

American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers- National

American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

2010

Ellen G. & Edward G. Wong Family Foundation

JAMS Foundation (This is a foundation of Mediators. Pushing Mediation is central to Family Law….)

Lawyers Club- Fund for Justice

Cuatrecasas Family Foundation

Price Charities

Qualcomm

Linda Brandes Foundation (This wealthy couple never had any children….)(See photo of her 67 yr old ex, “Charles Brandes” with new 42 yr old wife — and Bill Clinton in between.. . )

Carlsbad Charitable Foundation, an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation

Fieldstone Foundation

Wells Fargo Foundation

WD-40 Company

Comerica Bank

The Samuel I. & John Henry Fox Foundation at Union Bank

2011

Leichtag Foundation

Linda Brandes Foundation

HD Supply

CFLS **

Cuatrecasas Family Foundation

Stensrud Foundation

AAML- Southern California Chapter

{{** {{CFLS, 2011 donor: Why isn’t this ACRONYM (not found on the web) specified? It apparently stands for “{Association of} Certified Family Law Specialists,” such as Linda Pabst de Leon here, speaking at a CFLS seminar and listing herself as a Kids’ Turn Board of Director (& Event Committee 2006) and “Featured guest speaker at CFLS’ Spring Seminar, “Nov-DV Restraining Orders” (2005))} “CFLS” is not an organization (I think) but a Designation that individuals can reach: }}
{{At least 2 of the “Corporate Donors” listed on same page are the firms that a Kids Turn Board of Directors member works on… meaning, not that the project is so great, but that someone already at the firm managed to finaigle, or sell, a donation ….}}

San Diego Foundation, 2010:
Kids’ Turn San Diego, Expansion of Kids’ Turn Workshops into Carlsbad $20,000Kids’ Turn San Diego plans to bring no less than four, 4-week psycho-educational workshops into Carlsbad, serving 100-120 families who are divorcing or fighting over custody of their children. The workshops will show families how their conflict is negatively impacting their children and teach them to communicate more effectively, manage their anger, focus on their children and create a healthy two household environment for all involved. Furthermore, Kids’ Turn San Diego will help children make a successful adjustment to challenging family changes.
2008 Donations
The Southern California Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyer supports the following organizations: . . .
- Kids’ Turn – San Diego – This is the only program in San Diego County working for te whole family to achieve a child centered and healthy divorce. It provides a low cost solution for families experiencing the pain of divorce or separation no matter how great the conflict.
A former Pro Tem Judge, Attorney Alan Edmunds, promotes Kids Turn through a link, at “SanDiegoDivorceCenter.” (services provided by The Edmunds law Firm).

It showed up in the San Francisco list of nonprofit organizations providing services to the City and County of SF, as a vendor. From what I recall, for 3 years in a row the billing was around $45,000.

Report 1234a
Data As Of : 05/15/2011

City and County of San Francisco
Vendor Payment Summaries Website

Page 1 of 1

Search Results by Vendor, Department, Type of Goods and Services and Document

Payments

Vendor Names

Non
Profit

Departments

Types of Goods and Services

Documents

FY 2008-09

FY 2009-10

FY 2010-11

In
Process

Remaining Balance

KIDS’ TURN

x

CHILDREN; YOUTH & THEIR F

CITY GRANT PROGRAMS

DPCH1000014101

$0

$10,063

$937

$0

$0

DPCH1000014102

$0

$35,679

$3,321

$0

$0

DPCH1100003001

$0

$0

$34,926

$0

$9,574

DPCH1100003002

$0

$0

$5,500

$0

$0

Totals:

$0

$45,742

$44,684

$0

$9,574

Far more than, say, “Fathers and Families Coalition” which only got a pittance (recorded here, at least) under “child Support” department. Wonder what for, though:

Search Results by Vendor

Payments

Vendor Names

Non Profit

FY 2008-09

FY 2009-10

FY 2010-11

In
Process

Remaining Balance

FATHERS & FAMILIES COALITION

x

$470

$865

$740

$0

$0

Totals:

$470

$865

$740

$0

$0

It’s apparently a model judges and attorneys love, because a spinoff “Kids Turn” is in San Diego; in fact a group called “Kids First” (There are a number of “kids’ Firsts” around, but indeed there was one which claims to be modeled after Kids Turn). The beauty of these programs is that the curriculum/curricula is designed, perhaps ONCE (with maybe occasional updates) — and can be marketed endlessly to families going through divorce court who can’t agree on the custody of their children. Which is usually what brings them to divorce court to start with, so obviously the market is right.
Everybody who’s anybody in the family law fields (whether attorney, judge, or psychologist/family therapist, etc.) should take a turn at running Kids’ Turn. Some of these people did and at least one is a Super-Attorney. Some even go on to create look-alike programs for other client sectors, such as Dr. Delisle…. PLUS, you can work there, if you have a BA (recent job listing, $35-38K/year. (Can a person who survived divorce court and a custody battle apply? Because such people include those with BA’s who are probably hurting financially… Of course, you’d have to buy parental alienation theory, which this group promotes.…)

The Founder of Kids’ Turn San Diego in 1996, Dr. Delisle received the 2001 Peacemaker of the Year Award from the National Conflict Resolution Center. In 2005, She was honored by Channel 10 news for its Leadership Award. She was also recognized by the San Diego County Bar Association for the “Distinguished Organization Award”. In 2008, Dr. Delisle transferred responsibility for Kids’ Turn to new leadership

In the Spring of 2010, Ms. Kalemkiarian was Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, teaching a full semester course in Family Law. From 1993 to 1996, she served as the Supervising Attorney of the Child Advocacy Clinic at the University of San Diego School of Law. An active community leader, she has served as the President of the Kids’ Turn San Diego Board for over ten years, and is a longtime Board Member of the Environmental health Coalition. (Ms. Kalemkiarian is also an AFCC presenter) As a leading voice for children in San Diego County, she oversaw the design and implementation of a new system of care for children’s mental health, as the Director of Project Heartbeat. She is a frequent author of opinion editorial pieces regarding public policy and children. … {{CHILDREN MUST BE SPEECHLESS & NEED LOTS OF INTERPRETERS}}Honors 2007-2010 San Diego Super Lawyers®

Alexandra M. Kwoka – Attorney at Law

Alexandra M. Kwoka has been practicing law since 1974, and Family Law for 20 years. She is not only certified as a Family Law Specialist but also holds a LLM/Masters in Tax Law….Association; Certified Family Law Specialists – San Diego & North County; founding member of the Collaborative Family Law Group of San Diego; SDCBA – Carmel Valley; Kids’ Turn – Board Member. She has published a number of articles and has been nominated and selected for a number of awards, including the Ten Top Attorneys in Family Law by the Daily Transcript, San Diego in 2006 and was listed as one of the top Family Law attorneys in San Diego Super Lawyers, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

Barbara is president of the board of directors of the Legal Marketing Association, Southern California Chapter. She is also a former member of the boards of directors of Kids Turn, San Diego, the San Diego Chapter of the Association of Legal Administrators and the Professional Women’s Roundtable. Barbara is a graduate of Coach University and has a BS in business Management with an emphasis in marketing

Ms. Milligan is a member of the San Diego County Bar Association, and is on the Board of Directors of the Foothills Bar Association. Ms. Milligan is also on the Board of Directors of Kids’ Turn, San Diego, a non-profit organization devoted to promoting the well-being of children who are experiencing the challenges of family separation….Ms. Milligan dedicates her practice to the area of Family Law. She is a Certified Family Law Specialist, certified by the California Board of Legal Specialization.

Specialties

Mr. Renkin has focused his practice in Family Law since 1991 and is a Certified Family Law Specialist. He has expertly handled all phases of Trials, Mediation, and Negotiation in areas including Marriage Dissolution, Property Division, Spousal Support, Child Support, Child Custody & Visitation, along with the complex issues of mental health and drug and alcohol dependency. High-asset and high-conflict cases have been settled both through negotiation and litigation. Mr. Renkin has the honor of acting as a Settlement Conference Judge Pro Tem for Family Courts. Member Board of Directors Kids Turn (Present) Fundraising for Hannah’s House and Kids’ Turn

Oh Yeah — Hannah’s House, Supervised visitation place, I remember. The founder was caught operating without a license., there were unsanitary situations, and the owner is having to pay back contracts…

Hannah’s House faces trouble

San Diego Area Licensed Psychologist / Marriage Family Therapist Dr. Simon lists this among his professional associations:

Professional AffiliationsMember, American Psychological Association Member, American Psi-Law Society Member, California Psychological Association Member, Ethics Committee of the California Psychological Association Editorial Board, Journal of Child Custody Member, Collaborative Family Law Group of San Diego,Board of Directors, Kid’s Turn San Diego Founding Member, San Diego Family Law Council for ChildrenMember, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”)Member, Program Committee, Association of Family & Conciliation Courts Member, Awards Committee, Association of Family & Conciliation Courts Member, International Association of Collaborative Professionals Associate Member, San Diego County Bar Association; Associate Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association

You noticed that many are AFCC members? So did I. Here’s another person, a judge, being honored posthumously and Board of Directors, Kids’ Turn is among her accolades:

Judge Grant’s many years as a family law judge and a probate judge during her tenure on the San Francisco Superior Court gave her ample opportunity to pioneer judicial change. Most importantly, Judge Grant became an icon for young female externs, paralegals, attorneys and judges for nearly the entirety of her long career. …

Following her appointment to the San Francisco Municipal Court in 1979, Judge Grant dedicated her life to public service. She was appointed to the Superior Court in 1982, serving as the Presiding Judge in the Family Law Department and later as the Presiding Judge of the Probate Department. She retired from Superior Court in 1996 but continued to work with the American Arbitration Association. She is a past President of the California Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and of the Northern California Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. (AAML Southern chapter donated to Kids’ Turn San Diego)…

She served on the Board of Kids’ Turn Honorary Committee for many years, an organization offering assistance for children impacted by divorce, including psycho-educational workshops for children being raised in two households. She also pioneered the first Guardian Mentorship Program for children being raised in alternative homes.

JUDGES, JUDGES, JUDGES are on the Boards of this organization:

Barbara W. Moser, SF Attorney, AFCC member, (in fact, a presenter at one COlorado conference), Judge Pro Tem, Family Law Bench Bar Program, Marin County Superior Court… SEttlement Judge Pro Tem, SF Superior Court — was “former secretary, Kids Turn”

IT’s NOT NECESSARY TO EVEN BE IN THE FAMILY LAW FIELD TO BE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

Mr. Semmer is also actively involved in the San Diego community. As a Board Member of the Cornell Club of San Diego, he has organized charity fundraisers to endow the Willie Jones Jr. Scholarship. He has volunteered for and assisted with fundraising efforts for Kid’s Turn San Diego, a San Diego non-profit organization helping children and parents whose lives are impacted by parental separation. He serves on the programming committee of the San Diego Receiver’s Forum and is a member of the San Diego Bankruptcy Forum.

(CLICK ON THE LINK. HE DEALS WITH COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, ETC.)

So what IS it, anyhow?

It’s not quite Avon, Amway, or McDonalds, but basically the same idea only using legislative loopholes and opportunities to promote it, and charging clients to consume the services (court-ordered), for people to be trained to run the courses, and taking federal grants to states money (and foundational support also) — in fact, where DOES all that money go, anyhow? ….?

Such a great organization obviously deserves some extra, extra legislative help…

I searched “Kids Turn affiliates” and came up with real interesting California Assembly Bill 2263. Other than it cuts down our fresh-air exercise activity, ya gotta love this Internet, sometimes….

http://www.metnews.com/endmomay02.html (This is 2002)

•AB 2263, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, which would require the Judicial Council to study the effectiveness of expanding the Kids’ Turn program, which assists children while their parents are in family court obtaining a divorce or legal separation. The bill was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 23-0 vote May 15, passed the Assembly on a 72-2 vote May 23 and was sent to the Senate.

Wow, the Assembly sure loved the concept of funneling divorce education to ONE nonprofit started by a family law judge…..

 BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                    Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary

                                           2263 (Kehoe)

          Hearing Date:  8/22/02          Amended: 5/8/02
          Consultant:  Karen French           Policy Vote: Judiciary
          4-2
          ____________________________________________________________
          _
          BILL SUMMARY:   AB 2263 requires the Judicial Council to
          allocate, from funds appropriated to it in the annual
          Budget Act, the amount necessary to study the Kids' Turn
          projects.  The bill also states that up to $50,000 shall be
          allocated only if the Judicial Council receives non-state
          source matching funds.   The bill requires the Judicial
          Council to report to the Legislature by January 12, 2004,
          on the results of the study and propose guidelines for 
project expansion, if Kids' Turn is found to be effective.
                              Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions        2002-03             2003-04               2004-05 
           Fund 
          Judicial Council
            Study              --          $100                   --General &
                                                            Other
            Court funding                 --       ---Significant, cost
          pressure---              General    

          STAFF COMMENTS:  SUSPENSE FILE.

          Kids' Turn is a private non-profit organization that
          provides workshops for children and their parents that are
          intended to teach skills to cope with the difficulty of
          divorce and separation.  Workshops are six weeks long with
          one 90-minute meeting per week.  Fees for workshops range
          from $75 to $600 (on a sliding scale).  Kids Turn conducts
          programs in San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, and Contra Costa
          County.  The organization has sold its curriculum and
          licensed affiliates located in Sonoma, Napa, San Diego,
          Shasta, and Yolo Counties (in addition to Dayton, Ohio and Hillsboro, 
Oregon.  Although sold only to nonprofits, the program effectively operates as a franchise.  Kids' Turn
          currently is conducting its own study, in consultation with
          the California School of Professional Psychology.  This
          bill would require the Judicial Council to duplicate, at
          least in part, the current study.

          According to the Judiciary Committee analysis, the author
          states that the bill is needed so that Kids' Turn will 
have state approval as evidence of credibility 
and will allow courts to "recommend Kids' Turn 
as a resource to the community." On its website, the organization states that
          this Fall, its Board of Directors will be planning a
          five-year strategy to determine course direction of the
          organization.  Specifically targeted for consideration is:
          "Enhanced marketing strategies in order to increase the number of Kids' Turn affiliates and sales of Kids' Turn Curriculum."  This bill may create the appearance that a State study and Judicial Council recommendations are part of a marketing strategy.

(WHICH THEY ARE..... Better amend the bill so this is less obvious....)

          Author's amendments:  The author proposes amendments (LCR#
          0216385), which (1) delete the specific reference to Kids' Turn and,
           instead, study projects or programs that provide
          services to parents and children undergoing divorce, 2) to
          delete reference to program expansion; and 3) to delete the
          language requiring the Judicial Council to allocate the
          amount "necessary" to conduct the study, to limit the
          State's obligation to $50,000. 

          The third staff recommendation to authorize, but not require the study, was rejected by the author.
          .

HERE’s an AMENDED VERSION (attempting to conceal the blatant effort to legislate parents to consume this product in particular to “help” their kids deal with divorce):

AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 22, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 8, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 1, 2002

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—2001–02 REGULAR SESSION

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2263

Introduced by Assembly Member Kehoe

February 20, 2002

An act relating to family courts.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST AB 2263, as amended, Kehoe. Family courts: ~~Kids’ Turn~~ family assistance. Existing law governs the procedures for obtaining a dissolution of

marriage or a legal separation. This bill would require the Judicial Council to allocate, from funds appropriated to the Judicial Council in the annual Budget Act, the an amount ~~necessary~~ not to exceed $50,000 to conduct a study regarding ~~the effectiveness of the Kids’ Turn projects, which~~ projects or programs that provide services to assist children and their families while the parents are in the process of obtaining a divorce or a legal separation, as specified. The bill would provide require that ~~an amount not to exceed $50,000 shall~~ these funds be allocated only if the Judicial Council receives matching funds appropriated from sources other than the state.** The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature by January 12, 2004, the results of the study ~~and to recommend guidelines for expanding the projects if the study indicates that the projects were effective.~~

**The California Judicial Council just so happens to be the single designated state agency receiving the access and visitation federal funds (“SAVP”) to enable programs such as (but not exclusively!) this one, as I have reported before here. Check it out at TAGG.hhs.gov — there’s a CFDA number referring exclusively to this grant series (“93597,” or similar)(marriage/fatherhood promotion is 93086)( and related ones).

In fact, a great exercise would be to go HERE: http://taggs.hhs.gov/AwardsList.cfm

You’ll have to redo the search — search by “CFDA Program Numbers” (take 2011 year) and get the 50-state list of all 93597’s. Then you’ll have a panorama of which agency, in every state, gets these funds, and can click on the other funding they get. I recommend clicking on Texas (after all, the President who put some of these policies into full swing came from there). You can see that OCSE (collecting child support) is a major expense. Then learn how to do advanced searches (with more fields) and figure out which way the wind is blowing.

Again, TAGGS is your friend, in part. Especially if you are an employee these are your taxes, right? part of each hour you work … it’s collected, assembled, and distributed later by the IRS, along with distributing favors called “tax-exempt status” to certain corporations, and of course foundations….

KIDS TURN:

It is ever so important that everyone (parents, federal government, City and State of San Francisco (I guess for the SF Kids’ Turn….) and foundational donors, plus of course individual donors focus on THIS one program to help, to measure levels of conflict, mental health and attitude change on parents . . . . well, let me just quote the leginfo record. Our state was then and is now in budget crisis, so obviously measuring parental stress levels is an urgent public need:

2)Requires that JC's study include an assessment of all of the
            following:

             a)   Any decrease in conflict between the parents regarding
               custody issues, as reported by the parents;

             b)   The mental health of the children, as measured by their
               attitudes before and after participating in the project or
               program;

             c)   Any change in the attitude of the parents who
               participate in the project or program;

And of course, who better to help children navigate the difficult shoals of divorce than:

           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill was limited in its scope to the Kids' Turn project.

Apparently these entities supported it ( Senate Floor link on “leginfo” site):

SUPPORT  :   (Verified  8/23/02)

          Kids' Turn (This link lists San Diego Bd of Dirs./SF, Here)
          Cope Family Center  (See Kids Turn "Affiliates" list....)
          California Coalition for Youth
          Private Dispute Resolution of San Diego** (=Judge Geary D. Cortes)
          California Judges Association
          CARE Children's Counseling Center
          Gregory M. Caskey, Supervising Judge, Superior Court,(SEE **)
          County of Shasta (There's a Kids' Turn in Shasta County)
          Thomas Ashworth, Judge of the Superior Court
          San Diego County Office of Education
          Professor Janet Weinstein, California Western School of Law (Kids' Turn donor)

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author, this bill
          is needed because it is imperative for organizations to
          have state approval in order to provide evidence of
          credibility and efficacy to the community.

**I had no idea who Judge Caskey is, but linked to his 1998 Admonishment by the Commission on Judicial
Performance!   So he got this slap on a wrist, in part for:

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS

In November 1997, Judge Gregory M. Caskey was regularly assigned to handle juvenile dependency matters. On the morning of November 6, 1997, Judge Caskey sent a message by electronic mail to an attorney who regularly appeared before him on those matters. The e-mail message concerned a case then pending before the judge, in which the attorney was appearing. The message read in part:

I am considering summarily rejecting [the father’s attorney’s] requests. Do you want me to let [the father’s attorney] have a hearing on this, or do we cut [the attorney] off summarily and run the risk the third DCA reverses? . . . . I say screw [the father] and let’s cut [the attorney] off without a hearing. O.K.? By the way, this message will self- destruct in five seconds…

Later that morning, the attorney sent the following e-mail reply:

Your honor, I don’t feel comfortable responding ex-parte on how you should rule on a pending case.

Two hours later, the judge sent an e-mail response which read: “chicken.”

 
"Private Dispute Resolution" appears to be one retired San Diego Judge, although obviously
working (in dispute resolution) in Southern Calif (3 offices, so I guess he still has a license).
The site "noethics.com" says he made the cut of the top Judicial Misfits under this title:

Judge Geary D. Cortes – San Diego

“She deserved it! – Pugilists – p. 281

 
I don't know much about this Judge, although he's mentioned as being overturned on appeal
on First Amendment issues here:  He was overturned on appeal (I think) in an elder abuse case,
and was involved in the high-profile Prop 21, trying juveniles as adults, matter, described in
The Adult Boys of Rancho Penasquitos  (hover cursor for relevance)...Same case as the First
Amendment Issue...  More likely, he's probably been on that KT Board during some of its years.

Assuming I have the right Judge Thomas Ashworth, he doesn't sound much better:

Case Against Judge Should Remain in San Diego, Court Rules

January 23, 1990|ALAN ABRAHAMSON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

A lawsuit that claims a San Diego family-court judge committed fraud and legal malpractice before he took the bench should be heard in San Diego County, a state appellate court ruled Monday.

The 4th District Court of Appeal ordered the case against Judge Thomas Ashworth III returned to San Diego Superior Court, saying it was improperly ordered out of the county

 
Judge Ashworth also ordered a mother living in Utah, whose child was born after separation,
to send the 5-year old to her paternal grandparents for four, week-long visits (to San Diego).
Report is from 2002:

In Harris, the Court of Appeal held that substantive due process limits a court’s authority under the state’s grandparent visitation statue to cases in which there is clear and convincing evidence that the child will suffer harm if visitation were not granted.

The panel reversed a 1999 order requiring Karen Butler, a remarried Utah resident, to send her daughter Emily, then 5 years old, to San Diego for four week-long visits with the child’s paternal grandparents. Emily was the product of Butler’s brief and stormy marriage to Charles Erik Harris and was born after the couple separated.

The order by San Diego Superior Court Judge Thomas Ashworth III was based on Family Code Sec. 3104, which allows a court to order grandparent visitation when the parents are living separate and apart or the child is not living with a parent. The statute applies a best-interest-of-the-child standard, with a rebuttable presumption that grandparent visitation is not in the child’s best interests if the custodial parent objects.

Here’s another one reversed on appeal, where the paternal grandparents of a father who died after divorce took the mother to court to force more visitation (in San Diego). Ashworth granted them (and got the girl a counsel of her own), but was reversed on appeal, citing Troxel v. Granville:

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION (Punsly v. Ho, No. D036025 (Cal.App. Dist.4 03/16/2001)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Thomas Ashworth, III, Judge. Petition for writ of supersedeas. Judgment reversed. Petition granted.

Manwah Ho, the mother of Kathryn Punsly, appeals an order granting visitation to Kathryn’s paternal grandparents, Marilyn and Bernard Punsly under Family Code *fn1 section 3102. *fn2 Manwah contends section 3102 is unconstitutional, as applied to her, in light of the recent United States Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57 [120 S.Ct. 2054] (Troxel), a case concerning the constitutionality of a nonparental visitation statute, and Troxel’s appellate progeny. Manwah also contends the court’s ancillary orders attached to the visitation order, independently, violated her constitutional due process rights. We conclude section 3102, as applied in this case, unconstitutionally infringed on Manwah’s fundamental rights. Accordingly, we reverse the order in its entirety.

There was a "Day" named after Judge Ashworth:

Honors, Memberships, and Professional Activities

City of San Diego Proclamation of January 31st as “Thomas Ashworth III Day“

Judicial Lifetime Achievement Award, San Diego County Bar Association’s Certified Family Law Specialists, November 2002

Family Law Person of the Year, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Southern California Chapter, 2001**
 (**who donated to Kids' Turn.....)

Then again, The Ashworths themselves also donated to Kids' Turn. Wish I had a year on this
brochure, but readers should check out the judges & attorneys on the INdividual Donors lists.
(Found at California Men's Center website...)

WITH REPUTABLE PROMOTERS SUCH AS THESE, WHO COULD FORBID SIMPLY LEGISLATING A STUDY
TO GIVE IT STATE CERTIFICATION AS JUST THE BEST-EST PARENTING EDUCATION COURSE (COURT-ORDERED)
AROUND, IN FACT, WHY NOT HAVE IT BRANCH OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY, JUST IN CASE THEY ARE
THINKING ABOUT DIVORCE?  (On the other hand, with all those supporters, why does it need
more promotion???? SOmething doesn't look right about this....)

THANKFULLY GRAY DAVIS VETO’ed it with this message:

BILL NUMBER:  AB 2263
  VETOED	DATE: 09/29/2002

SEP 28 2002

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2263 without my signature.

This bill would require a study of projects or programs that serve
children and their families while the parents are in the process of
obtaining a divorce or legal separation.

Under this study, the Judicial Council would be required to assess
the results of, among other things, changes in the mental health of
children and any change in the attitude of parents.  The Judicial
Council, however, may not be well suited to conduct this type of
study.

For this reason, I must return this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

In 2003, the same assemblywoman comes up with a Gay Fathers' Day proposal, which met some resistance.

What normally is a legislative slam-dunk – a resolution honoring dads for Father’s Day – turned into a debate on “alternative lifestyles” in the California state Assembly.

According to a report in the Stockton Record, Republicans this week either withheld their support or voted against the resolution because it focused on “nontraditional” dads, including families with two fathers.

“It didn’t belong on the floor,” said GOP Assemblyman Alan Nakanishi. “It was a homosexual bill in the sense that they wanted to make a point out of two fathers” in a single household.

The resolution, sponsored by lesbian Democratic Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, mentions stepfathers, foster fathers, single fathers and families headed by two fathers, the paper reports. However, it fails to cite traditional fathers who are married to the mother of their children.

Republican Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian, as a traditional father, noticed he wasn’t represented in the proposal.

” Where is the (part) talking about a husband and a wife who have kids?” he said, according to the Record. “I mean, where is the love?”

“CRISPE,” A group for Shared Parenting was pretty upset about her also, although for different reasons and supplied a photo:

Senator Kehoe Plans if she has her way, will steal the SD Fairgrounds for HER greedy self interests!

However, it’s primarily a simple affiliate marketing operation — only with governmental connections.

Did I mention, “NONPROFIT”? Because of the public service it provides, obviously.

I just missed a March, 2011 conference — that’s what I get for falling behind on my FaceBook operations:

Gerard

Kids’ Turn Spring, 2011 Retreat and Training Conference

Theme: Welcome to the Future (of Kids’ Turn)

Dates: March 4-6, 2011 Location: Asilomar Conference Grounds, Pacific Grove, California

Take a deep breath and settle in for a time of serene relaxation, reflection and rejuvenation. Celebrated as Monterey Peninsula’s “Refuge by the Sea” – Asilomar State Beach and Conference Grounds is a breathtakingly gorgeous 107 acres of ecologically diverse beachfront land. www.visitasilomar.com

Who should attend: Kids’ Turn Leaders, Staff, Board Members, Volunteers, Affiliate
Representatives

Conference Goals:

1. Familiarize participants with the future direction of Kids’ Turn
2. Broaden exposure to contemporary issues affecting Kids’ Turn families
3. Refine skills to deliver The Kids’ Turn Way
4. Eight CEU’s awarded
5. R & R in a beautiful, tranquil setting
6. Enjoy camaraderie with Kids’ Turn colleagues
7. Explore the communities of Pacific Grove and Monterey (on your own)

Dr. Gladys Ato, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Argosy University
San Francisco Bay Area
Communicating the Kids’ Turn Message

Dr. Allison Thorson, University of San Francisco
The Impact of Marital Infidelity on Children

COST: (Must be why they need all the donors, and access to the “Access/Visitation” federal support).
Single Occupancy:
$350* (two nights, six meals, training, ECU’s, taxes, all inclusive)
$400 single occupancy AFTER 2/15/11
Double Occupancy (participants must self-select roommate):
$250* (two nights, six meals, training, ECU’s, taxes, all inclusive)
$300 double occupancy AFTER 2/15/11

Kids’ Turn is also an arts supporter, in fact partnered with an upcoming San Diego show, don’t miss:

26 MILES

by Quiara Alegria Hudes
Sept 29 – Oct 23, 2011
The time is 1986. Olivia is a half-Cuban, half-Jewish ‘zine-writing teen. Join us for our next full production written by award-winning Quiara Alegria Hudes (In the Heights), and in partnership with Kids’ Turn San Diego. (“Eight years after a Cuban mother looses [sic] custody of her Jewish daughter, she gets a second chance. At 4:30 in the morning she kidnaps the sick teenage girl and the two drive west in search of a remedy and their divergent American dreams.”)

In Washington County, Oregon, a nonprofit called YOUTH CONTACT features Kids’ Turn (and a pop-up indicates that Kids’ Turn is supporting their work also: See for yourself: )

Registration form shows it’s $230 per parent per 4-session class:

The enrollment fee for Kids’ Turn is $230.00 per adult. Children (ages 5-16) are free with a paying adult. The fee must be paid in full before a spot in the workshop can be reserved. This is done on a first-come, first served basis until each workshop is full. Acceptable methods of payment are Visa, MasterCard, debit card (with a Visa or MasterCard logo), or money order. We do NOT accept checks.

YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL FOUR SESSIONS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. IF YOU DO NOT ATTEND ALL FOUR SESSIONS YOU WILL HAVE TO RE-REGISTER FOR ANOTHER WORKSHOP AND RE-PAY THE $230.00 ENROLLMENT FEE. THERE ARE NO MAKE-UP SESSIONS AND THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!

Serves the parents rights for divorcing in the first place, eh? Domestic violence survivor parent concerned for your life? what kind of excuse is that!?

In fact, generally speaking, REALLY FAMOUS PEOPLE SEEM TO JUST LOVE “Kids’ Turn” — for example, Halsey Minor, founder of CNET:

Community programs for Children and Parents

experiencing separation or divorce. Featuring The Kids’ Turn Way© Curriculum

“Kids’ Turn has leveraged its resources*** and the progressive nature of San Francisco to become a global leader in addressing the problems children face when their parents separate.” Halsey M. Minor, Kids’ Turn Board Member; Founder, CNET

Oh, I forgot — he was on 2010 list for tax evasion, found auctioning off his art collection.

Found via LA Observed, the California Franchise Tax Board has released its list of the state’s biggest delinquent taxpayers. This year, the honor goes to Cnet co-founder Halsey Minor and his wife Shannon, who owe a whopping $13,120,479.39 in personal income tax.

They also maintained the #1 California ranking for tax evasion, for 2011 .

***resources such as connections to the legal/judicial community…..

I would love to see an audit of this organization’s books, all California operations.

The nonprofit directory “Guidestar.org” notes that Kids’ Turn San Diego started in 1996 with a grant from the “Seuss Foundation”…. 2009 form 990 lists only $151K net revenues, and Expenses include $124,424 salaries, plus $30,452 professional fees, and that they are running about one salaried position ($38K) in the hole. They ran a $50K ARt & Wine auction, but donated $36K of that, leaving revenue of $12K. Expenses, however, were $18K, so That event was a deficit, I guess…..

Lots of Directors (which my “select-copy” tool worked on the PDF) including what appears to be the infamous (or honorable) Honorable Thomas Ashworth’s wife? (also an attorney), Kathryn — in fact, eighteen (18) individuals listed, none drawing a salary. The Executive Director, however, is taking applications for a FT program director

One of these 18, “Patty Chavez-Fallon” just so happens to be (or have been) Director of Family Court Services at San Diego per this article (critical of) Supervised Visitation:

Patricia Chavez-Fallon, the director of the Superior Court’s Family Court Services in San Diego County, said people who want to be paid monitors submit documentation to the court showing they have attended a training class and meet the other state standards, which essentially require that monitors be 21 or older and free of any legal trouble in the previous 10 years. Chavez-Fallon then adds them to an alphabetical list of supervised visitation monitors that the court provides.

and she’s been there a good while (1991-2008): Kids Turn San Diego started in 1996. So did the Access Visitation Funds that help facilitate things like this (with PRWORA Welfare Reform). Must’ve been a coincidence, that timing. It was a very busy time, after all….

Patti Chavez-Fallon is an expert in alternative dispute resolution. Both as a counselor and Director of Family Court Services, she has served parents and children going through the process of defining and developing a cooperative sharing plan that benefits everyone involved. Her background includes:

Seventeen years as Director: Family Court Services, San Diego Superior Court

Four years as a mediator of Custody and Visitation disputes

Ten years of other child related social work services

She is also listed on the Federal HHS/ACF site for “Access and Visitation” grants as a California “State Access Program Contact:”

9. Superior Court of California , San Diego County
Contact: Patti Chavez-Fallon (619) 557-2100
Services: counseling, parent education

Subcontractor:
Kids’ Turn, San Diego
2136 Newcastle Avenue, suite 150
Cardiff, CA 92007
(760) 634-0280

Remind me again how this is NOT a conflict of interest? She is the program contact — on behalf of the Superior Court — for the federal funds, and a nonprofit where she sits on the board of the directors is the listed subcontractor…. There’s another one in Shasta County…..

. Northern California Center for Family Awareness
Kids’ Turn Shasta Cascade PO Box 991473
Redding, CA 96099-1473
(530) 244-5749

What’s in it for them, altruism? The art & wine auction factor?

Ms. Chavez-Fallon is even quoted in a “johnnypumphandle” review of a high-profile San Diego case (Morse v. Morse) where the papers featured the abducting ex-wife, the court had transferred custody to the father after finding allegations of abuse “inclusive” and Stephen Doyne (Note: also a Kids’ Turn donor, see link to their brochure, above) played a factor. It noted:

Robert and Eugia Morse divorced in 1994 after 10 years of stormy marriage.
Robert Morse remarried almost immediately and shared custody of his three
children with his ex-wife.

The battle over the children was contentious, McIntyre told jurors. In
January 1996, Robert Morse spent a night in jail after his former wife
accused him of hitting her when she came to pick up the children after a
visit. He was not allowed to see his children for two months.

After a psychological evaluation, Robert Morse received full custody in
October 1996. On their children’s first weekend visit with their mother,
the older girl contended that her father had molested her.

The Corruption Exposed

Before the custody battle even took place, we have learned that Eugia Morse was in the Family Violence Program sponsored by Children’s Hospital. Her records show a multitude of evidence of violence in the form of photos and documents detailing injuries at the hand of Robert Morse. In addition, the children had records of therapy for abuse alleged to be perpetrated by Robert Morse as well as records documenting the abuse. When the custody case went to court, this evidence was suppressed in favor of the court assigned evaluation team which recommended that custody of the children be transferred to Robert Morse.

Apparently Family COurt Services had a role in this case, one that ended up with the mother feeling she had to flee. YOu can read for yourself. While Chavez-Fallon was incidental (in this report), she was director of the same family court services that pushed a certain evaluator and psychologist on the family. Responding to the news article someone wrote:

I saw the news report about Morse v. Morse on T.V., we recognized the modus operandi, and in unison wesaid “LINDA HIRSHBERG.” Next time I was in court, I looked at the file. We
were right. It was LINDA HIRSHBERG and STEPHEN DOYNE working together again.
Later, I heard from the “victims of Family Court underground” that Eugia was
networking with others who had been exploited by these two. She was desperate
to get the evaluator changed. She was not successful. No doubt, this
evaluation was arranged by Family Court Services, because that is what FCS
does. They are brokers, not mediators.

The “Cope Family Center” (APparently = ‘Kids’ Turn Napa County) (found supporting the Legislative Action in 2002) states (falsely) that:

Kids’ Turn is supported entirely by generous contributions from individuals and foundations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Workshops are held in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa and Marin counties. Kids’ Turn requests that each participating parent contribute a sliding scale fee to help cover the cost of the program. Any family wanting to help support the program to a greater extent is encouraged to make a tax-deductible contribution at any time.

This “Cope Family Center” also runs Supervised Visitation:

Cope Family Center provides

Supervised Visitation

Monitored Exchange

Parent Education, including Kids’ Turn and Cooperative Co-Parenting

Coincidentally(?), the legislative purpose of the Access Visitation funding (in California), is:

Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of California be further limited to the following three types of programs:

Supervised visitation and exchange services;

Education about protecting children during family disruption; and

Group counseling services for parents and children.

This family center has an Assembly member, a State Senator, and a District Attorney among its honorary board members.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, MUCH?

Courthouse Forum (a place one can bellyache about court players) writers also noticed the phenomenon of family law judges referring business to nonprofits they sit on the board of. THis one notices a judge who was even Treasurer of Kids’ Turn. These 2006 entries are web-cached:

Contra Costa County KIDS TURN & Berkow

If this J Berkow is a Corporate Treasure of Kids Turn Inc. a organization that is often court ordered by Contra Costa County Family Law. This appears very improper to me doesn’t this violate the judicial standard to “avoid appearance of impropriety” I know in my business this would be considerd a conflict of interest, and the SEC would have a field day with a trader who was conducting there business like this judge

This is appalling I live in Contra Costa County and this judge is notoriously bad she has raped more fathers in this county then I can even list. Calling her the Monster of Martinez is not a understatement. It is common for father to be so severely financially raped by this women that they do actually end up living in a car with there children. Now she is runningKids Turn!(i.e., this is not my own comment!)

Below is the link to Kids Turn is you scroll down you will that Berkow is a Director. This is not a proper postion for Berkow she is ordering people from the bench to keep her company going. What a way to capitalize your company!

Apparently, they rotate membership in and out (of Judges, Attorneys, etc.). Here’s a 2010 new President, Greg Abel, who has been on the board a few years, and is quite active in family, appellate and other courts:

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, October 11, 2010 – Kids’ Turn, a San Francisco-based non-profit organization today announced the election of Greg Abel as president and CEO succeeding Steven Kinney, who remains on the board of directors of Kids’ Turn. Mr. Abel is a Partner with Whiting Fallon Ross & Abel, LLP, Walnut Creek, Calif., which represents parties in complex family law and matrimonial matters.

In making the announcement, Steve Kinney, outgoing president of Kids’ Turn said, “We are pleased that Greg Abel has agreed to assume the leadership mantel of Kids’ Turn. He has been a very proactive member of the board since 2008. Greg will provide important leadership as Kids’ Turn moves to the next level of service to customers in the five county region of the San Francisco Bay Area and extends Kids’ Turn curriculum reach to other parts of the U.S. and around the globe.”

Well, since they are going global, I suppose it was worth a try to get the California Legislature to pass a law standardizing this judge-initiated project, just in cases judges who sit (or sat) on the Board previously, or the Director(s?) of Family Court Services, etc. who donate to it (and sit on its board) aren’t drumming up enough business, or foundational support. As a little reminder, this has been operating IN THE HOLE according to its own 990, at least the San Diego One.

What a lesbian State Senator (in 2002, State Assemblyperson) is doing promoting that bill, Lord only knows. Guess it’s politically advantageous (do they donate to her, too?)

How can any organization with so much foundation support, a ton of volunteer Directors (with judicial, therapy, and attorney association connections) AND a guaranteed source of court-ordered referrals end up with a negative cash flow?

And what about that $45K in vendor services to the City of San Francisco, recently?

And what about that Lien that the San Francisco Superior Court has (or had) on this group?

. . . . This isn’t THE major question of the family law system, but it sure does make one go “Huh???”

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

May 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, History of Family Court, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids

Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, California Judicial Council, Christine Kehoe, Conflict of Interest, Kids' Turn, Super-Attorneys, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.

Let’s Eliminate OCSE — the Office of Child Support Enforcement — and why.

with 6 comments

No, that’s not a joke. I’m serious.

Or, we could just continue to watch this institution gradually eliminate the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution, in fact the entire concept of individual rights whatsoever, in favor of social(ism) science run amok.

This post also ran amok (as you can see) but the links are valuable.

The OCSE has to go. It’s out of control, and is hurting men, women, and children — generation after generation– while loudly proclaiming it is, instead, helping society, families and kids.

WHAT DO YOU WANT — A SOCIAL SCIENCE SOCIETY, OR LIBERTY?

Obviously, it’s either/or, not Compromise/And. Even the experts know this:

Do government sponsored marriage promotion policies place undue pressure on individual rights?

Karen Struening

Abstract

The dominance of social science research in the debate over the Bush Administration’s Healthy Marriage Initiative may explain why questions regarding the proper role of government in regulating adult intimacy (!!!) have received little attention. Social science research focuses on outcomes such as well-being and health. In contrast, rights-based legal theory considers whether state action undermines the rights of individuals. In this article, I intend to shift the debate over marriage promotion policy from questions of child well-being to questions of individual rights. I will ask the following questions: Do individuals have a liberty interest in making their own choices about intimate relationships, such as marriage? Do federally-financed (and frequently state-run) marriage programs compromise this liberty interest? Are there any constitutional grounds for objecting to marriage promotion policy?

Either we recover the OCSE from its fatherhood-dispensing-propaganda (and fundings) — repeal (or defund) the Access/Visitation grants system entirely. There is no question, whatever its grandiose proclamations, the system is rife with corruption, has failed, and hasn’t even reduced TANF, allegedly the purpose for its existence.

Let alone the dubious ROI for this agency — Can you spell Four Billion?

Yes, +/- Four Billion (federal incentives), courtesy the IRS, to fix families, support children by adding “fatherhood.” which as I point out elsewhere, is one of several “hoodlums” used to justify stealing time and money from honest people and transferring them to dishonest.

$4,000,000,000

I’ve uploaded (hopefully) and linke two PDFs to this post to illustrate the cost and the personnel investing themselves into the system. One is primarily charts the other, primarily rhetoric. Please browse the Dept of HHS/Administration for Children and Families (“ACF”)

(Federal)

PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS, including for FY 2012, and historic back to 2002. Its charts speak loudly as well as this paragraph justifying some of the expense:

Promoting Access and Visitation. The budget provides $570 million over ten years to support increased access and visitation services and integrates these services into the core child support program. The first step in facilitating a relationship between non-custodial parents and their children is updating the statutory purposes of the CSE program to recognize the program’s evolving mission and activities that help parents cooperate and support their children. The proposal also requires states to establish access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support orders. The proposal also would encourage states to undertake activities that support access and visitation. Implementing domestic violence safeguards is a critical component of this new state responsibility. These services not only will improve parent-child relationships and outcomes for children, but they also will {{??}} result in improved collections. Research shows that when fathers are engaged in the lives of their children, they are more likely to {{or is it “will”?? the program has been going on over 15 years. Don’t we know which it is yet — “more likely to,” or “will”?}}meet their financial obligations. This creates a “double win” for children – an engaged parent and more financial security.

and paragraphs like this:

Budget Request – The FY 2012 request for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support programs of $3.8 billion reflects current law of $3.5 billion adjusted by +$305 million assuming Congressional action on several legislative proposals, including those supporting a newly proposed Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative. The Budget promotes strong family relationships by encouraging fathers to take responsibility for their children, improving distribution policies so that more of the support fathers pay reaches their children, and continuing a commitment to vigorous enforcement. The Budget increases support for states to pass through child support payments to families, rather than retaining those payments and requires states to establish access and visitation arrangements as a means of promoting father engagement in their children’s lives.*** The Budget also provides a temporary increase in incentive payments to states based on performance, which continues an emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency and will foster enforcement efforts.

**(This program has been known to promote mother ABSENCE from lives of the children after custody-switching enabled through mis-use of program funds in conflicts-of-interest with custody hearings…Despite more and more mothers becoming noncustodial, this program still remains father-centric. )

Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative

The CSE program plays an important role in facilitating family self-sufficiency and promoting responsible fatherhood. Building on this role, the FY 2012 budget includes a new Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative to encourage non-custodial parents to work, support their children, and play an active role in their children’s lives.

After I sent this document to Liz Richards, of NAFCJ.net, I got the following response:

OCSE cannot override federal and state law; it cannot initiate legal disputes without the approval of both the assumed litigants. It cannot override standing court orders.
But this IS what the OCSE agency and been doing for years – and they believe they can get away with this fraud, because nobody is scrutinizing them.

You should not believe anything they claim about their policies and procedures which sounds good. They have been hiding their corruption with “sounds good” analysis for as long as I’ve been following them. They say one thing – and do the opposite.

Of the hundreds of women who contacted me each year, some are custodial mothers, and nearly none of them actually collect the support owed to them.
The local state agencies stonewall them for months and even years.

Once woman with a N. CA child support case got told by the San Fransico c.s. agency they couldn’t send her the support check because they hadn’t [earned] enough interest on it yet. After she made strong complaints about this dishonest practice – they sent a check a few days later.

The OCSE even admits they have a policy of “retaining” undistributed but collected support to earn interest on it and to declare it “abandoned” and split this collected money 60/40 between the federal and state c.s. agencies. (eg illegal confiscation of other people’s money).*** Even the HHS General Counsel, David Cade, admit to me this was the official policy.

I believe the whole agency should be shut down and the few vital services they have be transferred to Dept of Treasury.

Liz Richards

(**great example discovered by Richard Fine, resulting in the infamous Silva v. Garcetti lawsuit. This extremely disturbing case over county abuse of privilege in MILLION$$ IN L.A. County CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS ALREADY COLLECTED shows how corruption responds to corruption uncovered — Mr. Fine in jail, an attempt to intimidate him and a warning to others who might think to follow in his footsteps. As far as I can tell, this case was eventually dropped, although eventual Mr. Fine was released from solitary coercive confinement, at age 70!)

(This BUDGET document is found at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CSE.pdf)

AGAIN — what ROI, what overall good really comes out of this department, as reported by anyone who is not in on some of its many scams? She writes: “I believe the whole agency should be shut down and the few vital services they have be transferred to Dept of Treasury.”

I’m so glad she’s come around to my way of thinking, after I read enough rhetoric to gag on justifying the elimination of child support for most kids, and the inability of actual, legitimate abused children and/or spouses (primarily mothers) to EVER get free from abuse, resulting sometimes in their deaths at the hands of a father over a court-ordered visitation and after death threats and molestation had already been identified. Alternately, they can just be impoverished needlessly, and society can be robbed of working parents while these parents instead go to court and suffer more legal abuse and trauma, often for years.

I ALSO UPLOADED a “Reviving Marriage in America: Strategies for Donors” philanthropy roundtable talking about the foundations backing to these movements. File it under “what your social worker and child support advocate, your local domestic violence agency, or local legal aid office, didn’t and won’t tell you — but should have — about who’s really behind the fatherhood movement.“)

Looking at both these documents, I have to ask: how much priming the pump is needed to produce a few good fathers, or get child support enforced? Are these indeed producing good fathers, and if not, who gives a damn? The jet-setting, conference-presenting, politically connected fatherhood program administrators? The family law judges, attorneys, evaluators (basically, all AFCC membership categories) whose nonprofits profit from this arrangement? The funeral homes, who get extra business when some Dad goes haywire after separation? The press, who reports the casualties?

An article from the “Institute for Democracy Studies” (Sept. 2001, VOl. 2, issue 1), lead article by a “Lewis C. Daly” focused on the “Charitable Choice: The Architecture of a Social Policy Revolution” cites the Bradley Foundation’s influence, and provides a flowchart with National Fatherhood Initiative and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives central underneath. They point out the “Heritage Foundation” connection (which I’ve noticed) and that a certain Kay James (directing the US Office of Personnel Management at the time — and as such placing “vast numbers of individuals throughout the White House national security apparatus, government agencies (etc.) ) endorsed the resolution of the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention (regarding wifely submission to husbands) — an endorsement that caused former President Carter to resign from this group in protest of its treatment of women.

“O Say Can You See?” what’s happened to the “land of the free” (or even the concept of the land of the free….)

“OCSE”: CLEAN IT UP OR SHUT IT DOWN:

The more I read about this, the more outraged I get at tax dollars being used for social science rhetoric — most of it a combination of belief, myth, and confusion of results with causes.

While promising delivery on child support — the fact is, it extorts both mothers and fathers in the courts to consume services and classes they don’t need, such as parenting education classes produced by judges-and-attorney-run nonprofits with unholy alliances with the family courts (kids turn, etc.). (Kids Turn & look-alikes)
It s a guaranteed formula for reducing and eliminating child support, sold under the guise of doing the opposite.
The Access Visitation grants system, per se, while not huge — is the doorway to ever-expanding initiatives (fatherhood, marriage-promotion, etc.) — that undermine due process and individual rights.
Its own regulations indicate that the purpose of this grants system enables ONE Person in ONE Executive Branch Office to run demonstration social science projects on the populace, through the states, as I have pointed out before in reviewing 45 CFR 303.109: As such, it’s anti-democratic, and contrary to the purpose of having three separate branches of government, which was to counter potential tyranny. Section (a) basically says, there’s a need to monitor these grants. Here’s (b):

(b) Evaluation. The State: (1) May evaluate all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs; (2) Must assist in the evaluation of significant or promising projects as determined by the Secretary; (of HHS).

These significant or promising projects are going to be fatherhood promotion or marriage promotion projects. They are poorly monitored, especially after going to subgrantees once they hit the sole state agency in each state that dispenses them.

For a quick sample, tell me why the Texas Office of Attorney General (generally associated with matters of law, right?) even HAS a “Deputy for Family Initiatives,” let alone why are they using this post to expand opportunities to turn this office into more therapeutic, right-wing, family intervention schlock? (See RandiJames.com’s 2009 post, “Michael Hayes wants to Build Family-Centered Child Support” and how:

“Before his current post, he helped create and was director of the Texas Fragile Families Initiative, a statewide project involving community-based, faith-based, and public agencies to support fragile families.”

See also my comment on that post, showing Mr. Hayes flying up to Minnesota to present at a Fatherhood Summit. And about his plans for the “evolution of child support.”)

Now, when you have an Office of the Attorney General coming straight from a “Fragile Families Initiative” this tells me there is at least one foundation behind the scenes. While Michael Hayes may have got this going in Texas, “FFI” has been going strong, courtesy of at least the Ford Foundation, in NY and elsewhere, and typically links a researcher, a reputable university (or several of them) such as Columbia, Princeton, Cornell, etc. — and someone with a personal agenda getting paid to produce social science studies on how to fix America. For example, Ronald D. Mincy, Ph.D., of Columbia’s

For Dr. Ronald B. Mincy, Saving `Fragile Families’ is Personal

by Michele N-K Collison

Black people will never reach economic parity if Black children have to depend on one income and White children depend on two,” says Mincy, the architect of the foundation’s “Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative.“

{{i.e., while Mr. Hayes may have got it started in Texas, Dr. Mincy got it going, period. This is the “foundation connection.” As with President Obama’s stuttering on the word “mother” regarding his own mother, despite his obvious success in life (US President = success, right?), Dr. Mincy’s pedigree includes Harvard, and a Ph.D. in economics from MIT, teaching at Swarthmore, and heads up a

The multi-million dollar initiative focuses on increasing research about these poor fathers and their families, and working with policy-makers to create policies that encourage unwed parents to work together for the benefit of their children.

Since 1994, the Ford Foundation has spent a total of roughly $14.5 million on this issue. It is one of too few major foundations, according to Mincy, engaged in this work.

These days Mincy crisscrosses the nation giving speeches and meeting with child support officials and advocates for fathers as he tries to take advantage of the convergence of circumstances that has made fatherhood the issue de jour.

But there is a compelling personal reason why Mincy is so interested in this issue — he also grew up without his father. …

…So did many children, whose fathers served in the various wars our country has been involved in– Civil War, World War I, II, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc. Wars definitely contribute to fatherlessness. So did slavery, which routinely broke up families. Of all people who should know this, I’d think an economics expert would. Of all people who also should (and I bet does) know that “jobs” =/= “wealth” or financial independence stemming from assets which spin off enough income to live on. No, the experts are focused obsessively on “jobs” while themselves functioning, often as not, from their connections to foundations & government or university research institutes.

However, the “fatherhood” field developed in the LATE 1900s, not the EARLY 1900s or before. Why? When it was the air people breathed, there was no need to push the ideology. But now, there is some competition — and it has to be pushed. The most natural place to push fear of women, fear of feminism, is through institutions already controlled by men — faith-based ones, Congress, etc.

The “fatherhood” promoters did so in response to at some level, I believe, gut-level primal fear of women and feminism, a feminism in possible in part because women can indeed vote. It is also in fear of the reproductive capacity of people of color; this is clear from the boardroom discussions and the Congressional record. The conservative’s push into inner city churches and ministries helped split off some of the progressive and civil rights activities in those areas, and partly clean up their image, just as the recent nonprofit group “Women in Fatherhood, Inc.” [WIFI] is a more recent formulation to help clean up the obvious gender bias in the “fatherhood” policies to start with.

After graduating from Harvard, Mincy went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he earned his doctorate in economics in 1987. He taught economics at Swarthmore College, the University of Delaware, and Bentley College, before heading to the Urban Institute in 1987.

{{“obviously” no father in the home dooms a child to academic, professional and financial failure, case in point.}}

While at the Urban Institute, Mincy directed a policy-research project on the urban underclass. His work on poor, unwed families caught the attention of the Clinton administration and he led the Noncustodial Parents Issue Group for the Presidents Welfare Reform taskforce. The group’s mission was to figure out how welfare reform could accommodate poor men. His experiences in the Clinton administration laid the groundwork for the Fragile Families Initiative.

He’s now at Columbia, degreed, decorated, publishing and promoting. Note the Foundation Connection throughout ….

Bio:

Dr. Ronald Mincy teaches Introduction to Social Welfare Policy; Program Evaluation; Economics for Policy Analysis; and Advanced Methods in Policy Analysis, and directs the Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.

Dr. Mincy is also a co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, and a faculty member of the Columbia Population Research Center (CPRC).

He came to the University, in 2001, from the Ford Foundation where he served as a senior program officer and worked on such issues as improving U.S. social welfare policies for low-income fathers, especially child support, and workforce development policies; he also served on the Clinton Administration’s Welfare Reform Task Force.

This tells me, he may have had input into the Access & Visitation factor of 1996 Welfare Reform. And, he’s as much as stated he has a chip on his shoulder from childhood. However directed at low-income noncustodial fathers this work has become, by targeting the child support system, this re-balancing of “welfare” has been exploited by all levels of fathers (including some multi-millionaires) and has resulted in lots of noncustodial (and some homeless) mothers after processing through this wonderful child support system plus therapy-dispensing family law system. It has pushed social science dispensaries (whether institutes or initiatives) to the top of the administrative heap. The discussion is no longer of individual rights, due process, bias — but of outcomes, of best “practices” and “promising projects.” Such language keeps the research $$ flowing and sets up a subject/object relationship between the researchers and the poor slobs with the actual problems and lives affected the most.

Only through the internet have we become more able to “eavesdrop” in on some of these conversations, and hear the incredible logic behind them, pick on the tone of how policymakers view the nation, of how Federal entitities attempt to set up a trainee/dog relationship with the states (good states get more treats [incentives], bad states will have treats withdrawn…. Clearly in such an environment, the obvious line of work is dog trainer — if one is not of sufficient drive, connections, inspiration, pedigree, (etc.) or luck to be the ones paying the dog trainers.

NEXT QUESTIONS:

HOW MANY FOUNDATIONS DOES IT TAKE

TO ELIMINATE THE US CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS?

Whose idea was it, to switch society’s main institutions from the concept of individual rights (eventually — at least in theory — including minorities & females, in that order) in favor of “social science” (next step — back to eugenics….)?

Whose idea was it to centralize rule under Executive Dept. initiatives (versus the original idea — three branches of government).

Whose idea was it to eliminate the restrictions on sectarian religion on public government?

Well, in my book, this is in great part, a 4-letter word: “B.U.S.H.” (GWB), aka Government by Executive Order.

CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE

Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), was established January 29, 2001, when President George W. Bush “issued twoexecutive orders related to faith-based and community organizations. The first executive order established a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The second order established centers to implement this initiative at the Department of Justice, along with the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development. (wikipedia)

NOT a good idea for women…..

Let alone this particular President’s (and other right-wing Republicans) curious connection with the Unification Church. Don’t laugh. See my “Shady-shaky Foundations’ post and look at that picture of Sun Myung Moon being crowned in a US Senate building. And rethink all this “Family” and “Marriage” promotion agenda in terms of this known money-laundering, criminal-enterprise cult headed by the world’s “True Parents.” Or read from the Steve Hassan’s “Freedom of Mind” site on Moon/Bush: Ongoing Crime Enterprise (2007 article) :

By the early 1980s, flush with seemingly unlimited funds, Moon had moved on to promoting himself with the new Republican administration in Washington. An invited guest to the Reagan-Bush Inauguration, Moon made his organization useful to President Reagan, Vice President Bush and other leading Republicans.

Where Moon got his cash remained one of Washington’s deepest mysteries – and one that few U.S. conservatives wanted to solve. …

…

While the criminal enterprises may have been operating at one level, Moon’s political influence-buying was functioning at another, as he spread around billions of dollars helpful to the top echelons of Washington power.

Moon launched the Washington Times in 1982 and its staunch support for Reagan-Bush political interests quickly made it a favorite of Reagan, Bush and other influential Republicans. Moon also made sure that his steady flow of cash found its way into the pockets of key conservative operatives, especially when they were most in need. […]

Throughout these public appearances for Moon, Bush’s office refused to divulge how much Moon-affiliated organizations have paid the ex-President. But estimates of Bush’s fee for the Buenos Aires appearance alone ran between $100,000 and $500,000.

Sources close to the Unification Church told me that the total spending on Bush ran into the millions, with one source telling me that Bush stood to make as much as $10 million from Moon’s organization. . . .

The senior George Bush may have had a political motive, too. By 1996, sources close to Bush were saying the ex-President was working hard to enlist well-to-do conservatives and their money behind the presidential candidacy of his son, George W. Bush. Moon was one of the deepest pockets in right-wing circles.

The “Marriage Promotion” and “Fatherhood” fanaticism definitely has Unification overtones. I first began comprehending this summer 2009, while protesting another round of fatherhood funding at the Senate Appropriations Committee. This was headed up by Rep. Danny K. Davis. Naturally, I looked him up, some, and discovered the Moonie (Unification Church) connection. I told some friends, and now they think I’m nuts for the assumption… When our leaders start crowning kings in Senate Buildings, and don’t apologize for it – which Rep Davis did not — we have to start wondering where their heads are at. (Hover cursor over the “Danny K. Davis” link for the incredible/incriminating details… When our leaders start play-acting coronations and it’s somehow a joke, I think it’s time for someone else to be put on the stand and questioned.

Now that I think of this, several Judges in the SF area were found in a similar charade. Poormagazine.com alerted us to this. Photo is from 2002 AAML (Amer. Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers) gathering, apparently. It was accompanied by a spoof of the tune to “Camelot,” called “Familawt.” Compare to “coronation” photo(s)

The Round Table
Queen Dolores Carr (San Mateo)
Queen Charlotte Woolard (SF)
Queen Marjorie Slabach (SF)
King James Mize (Sacramento) King Gary Ichikawa (Solano)King David Haet (Solano)
Queen Beth Freeman (San Mateo) not pictured

Compare:

I’m not against a little light-hearted fun, but given the state of the family law system (and the increasing god-like attitudes found in the Executive Branch overall, towards the rest of the country), this is more than disturbing — perhaps it represents the true regret of some elected leaders and public “servants” (such as the judges/commissioners) that there is no title of royalty available, at least per our founding documents, in this U.S.A., which got its start protesting such abuses of power from England….

There is also a unification connection to an Arizona legislator, (1998 article on “Parents Day”). Sorry I’m not an Arizona resident following their elections, but here’s a 2007 article:

(www.bizjournals.com) “Arizona state legislator and member of Unification Church weighs bid for US Congress”

The Business Journal of Phoenix — August 29, 2007
by Mike Sunnucks, The Business Journal

State Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa, is considering a challenge of freshman Democratic Congressman Harry Mitchell in next year’s elections.

Anderson, who is in his seventh term in the Arizona Legislature, has formed an exploratory committee for a possible run against Mitchell.

Anderson is a Realtor and a member of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. If elected, he would be the only member of Congress to be part of the Unification Church.

The Republican lawmaker cited Congress’ low approval ratings in considering a run. In the Legislature, Anderson has favored tuition and school tax credits; abstinence education programs; and removing junk food and sodas from public school vending machines.

UNIFICATION CONNECTION:

Given what this particular organization represents, worldwide (criminal enterprises, money laundering, and cult activity), the simple math should tell us: (1) The Office of Faith-based Initiative comes from Bush by Executive Order, not popular mandate (2) Bush & GOP ties close to Moon & Moon’s money. (3) Some faith-based groups are just too danged misogynist, and turn a blind eye to wife-beating and molestation. Some women became single to start with, because they found no way to stop this in their local communities. Moreover, many faith-based (husband = head of the household) groups also encourage men to control the finances, thereby when they separate, actually CAUSING, rather than SOLVING, additions to the welfare role.

The co-founders of the influential National Fatherhood Initiative include the first appointee to this Office, i.e., Don Eberly. The other co-founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative is Wade Horn. Successor (?) Ron Haskins was instrumental in passing the Access/Visitation funding mentioned above. Combined with the powerful influence of foundational wealth, their social-science, religious-based myths rhetoric is distributed nationwide, and also funded unwittingly

Then come back here.

The HERITAGE FOUNDATION (with Unification church ties….) has its FAMILY & RELIGION page, and objectives, including developing a rhetoric. Yep:

Cultivate an environment in which the permanent institutions of family and religion can flourish and fulfill their role in maintaining ordered liberty in America.
Develop the best research and accompanying rhetoric that will strengthen and unify the current pro-family constituency and win over new target audiences to preserve the institution of traditional marriage and restore the family to its central role.
Unite religious and economic conservatives more effectively around the goal of restoring the family to its central role, both legally and culturally, and reviving religious liberty.
Shape a healthy public discourse that appreciates the historic and continuing significance of religion and moral virtue in American civic life. {as signified by the pedophile priest scandal, and coverups?}

THEY SAY:

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Family and religion are foundational to American freedom and the common good.** For example, the married family plays an important part in promoting economic opportunity: children raised by never-married mothers are seven times more likely to be poor when compared to children raised in intact married families. Meanwhile, religious institutions and individuals form the backbone of America’s thriving civil society, providing for the welfare of individuals more effectively than government programs. Yet the role of these institutions in maintaining ordered liberty is poorly understood, and policy and social developments have factored in undermining their important contributions.

**Not for young women, and middle-aged women honor-murdered for being too Western, or for divorcing.

**This must be why we have the First Amendment, to enable Congress — naw, let’s just work through other arms of government — to establish a state religion called “marriage and family/fatherhood” etc….. and facilitated by some of the most misogynist groups around, including faith groups that don’t permit ordination of women, require celibacy for their priests, and believe that Eve is responsible for bringing sin into the world, primarily because she acted independently from Adam in talking to someone besides her husband.

Here’s a sample Abstract of a Heritage Foundation report on Marriage as the cure for poverty:

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

Published on September 16, 2010 by Robert Rector

Abstract: Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware that its principal cause is the absence of married fathers in the home. Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet it continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result.

The rationale for pushing fatherhood through the child support system is that these engaged fathers will then contribute child support to the home, which would then help reduce poverty. Seems to me that using kids as child-support bait is not a good idea. Seems to me that anything that requires THIS MUCH POLICY PUSHING (and rhetoric-production) IS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE FOR KIDS.

Has anyone considered the custody-battle factor? When Moms go for child support, Dads go for custody and have federal help in this. Perhaps PART of the poverty factor is that both parents are being taken out of the workforce to litigate, but only one of them is getting the federal government on HIS side in the family law venue. Besides which child support contractors such as Maximus, Inc. (look ’em up!) have been caught in embezzlement, fraud (repeatedly, and in the millions) yet still get multi-million-dollar contracts after paying millions to settle. I personally think that until we either make a determination to root out fraud from this system — which would have to be consistent, local, diligent, and probably done by mothers and fathers NOT in think-tanks or on the federal (county, or state) “teat,” — we can safely assume that this is where a good deal of the nation’s wealth and GDP is going. Everyone gets a cut but the actual children….

Look at Maximus, Inc.’s range of services:

Look at one review of this group in TN, and the cases, to date, involving embezzlement & fraud:

Thursday, May 28. 2009

Maximus signs $49M Tennessee child support deal

Your private information may have just gotten more vulnerable in state of Tennessee. In a deal that is qualified as the largest state privatization deal up to this point has been awarded to “Government Health Services Provider Maximus, Inc.” to provide services that the state is paid to provide to its residents under a federally mandated social security program known as Title IV-D. (42 USC 651). The contract details, we are working on, but Maximus, Inc. will be doing the government’s job in locating absent parents, establishing paternity, carrying out support orders and medical support orders, processing interstate cases, and providing customer service. This comes as a surprise because just last month there was a Former Child Support Services Employee Arrested in Tennessee for selling confidential records.

I am in the process of obtaining the government’s documents associated with these contracts, stay tuned for more information. We have some legitimate fears of access to citizen’s private data that have not been found guilty of any crimes being placed in unregulated databases that are accessible by unsavory characters that aim to make a profit with identity theft.
Over the past several years we have noticed a climate ripe for embezzlement, identity theft, invasion of privacy, and more. Just this year the Federal government removed some protections to the taxpayer to stop the continuous growth of these agencies. The reversal of the tax payer protection policy that was originally implemented under the Budget Deficity Reduction Act of 2005, paves the way for more disastrous consquences for taxpayers.

Just in June 2008, Delaware Child Support Program Employees were caught stealing from taxpayers and the children. Just over a year ago, we demonstrated how Theft was Running Rampid in State Child Support Programs. The widespread lack of accountability in these programs continues, without sufficiently limiting access to private data and ensuring digital fingerprints are placed on all data in the various systems nationwide, there will continue to be fraud on the taxpayers and the participants of Child Support Enforcement programs.

The Child Support Enforcement program continues to be plagued over the past several years of documented fraud, identity theft, embezzlement, bribery schemes, and more.

Here’s a report from Canada complaining that this giant company has already run into problems in 5 US states:

B.C. Contractor Maximus Mishandled Public Funds in U.S.

Liberals, as part of privatizing push, gave a $324 million contract to a firm with a history of controversy in five states. A TYEE SPECIAL REPORT

By Scott Deveau, 3 Dec 2004, TheTyee.ca

In its move to privatize PharmaCare and the Medical Service Plan, the provincial (CANADIAN) government hired a company that was found by the state of Wisconsin to have misappropriated public funds.

The same company, Virginia-based Maximus Ltd., has been embroiled in controversies in four other states, involving accusations of mismanagement, overspending or improperly receiving information while seeking a contract. … …

U.S.-based giant

The company, which is one of the largest providers of outsourced business and information technology to governments, has 280 offices in the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and more than 5,000 employees worldwide. It provides a range of services from welfare, educational and judicial programs, to debt collection agencies on student loans and child support.

Bill Berkowitz tracks a lot of conservative funding, and wrote a famous article nailing Bush’s payoffs to certain individuals pushing marriage promotion (Wade Horn, Maggie Gallagher, etc.). This 2001 report Prospecting Among the Poor: Welfare Privatization (co. May, 2001, Applied Research Center) summarizes the situation and deals with the Maximus, Inc. group, first, including its troubling practices in Wisconsin:

Discriminatory Practices

The Milwaukee Business Journal reports that, on top of the company’s financial shenanigans, “16 formal gender or racial discrimination complaints have been filed with the Milwaukee office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, against Maximus or one of its subsidiaries. In addition…as many as a dozen internal grievances were filed with the company’s human resources office related to unfair promotion practices.”34

Linda Garcia is an organizer with 9to5, a national nonprofit grassroots organization working to empower women through securing economic justice. Garcia has observed the activities of Maximus first-hand from the front lines in Milwaukee. “The public has not been served well by privatization, “ she says. “The standards of accountability and monitoring have been practically non-existent. We’re not seeing decent services provided to the community or a decrease in poverty or homelessness.” Garcia, who has been working on behalf of the women involved in the discrimination suit against Maximus, believes discriminatory practices “may be widespread” at Maximus’ MaxStaff entity, which seems to be “funneling women to low-paying jobs in order to quickly receive the bonus staff gets for placements.”35

2001 Prospecting Among the Poor- Welfare Privatization~ Berkowitz

The bonus principle cited here exists in virtually any custody battle; in court cases easily become the “kickback” principle, opportunities to overcharge or double-bill, and opportunities to “buy” a decision, especially as the family law system is known for wide discretion given to judges.

In the Access and Visitation grants (and the expanding other grant systems they attract or work alongside, through the child support agency, as in Texas), the presence of (poorly-monitored) federal incentives, multiple nonprofit sub-grantees, and program facilitators with connections to the courts, makes an atmosphere ripe for case-steering when the stakes are, children and child support.

So I recommend scanning this report and considering its implications. I’m glad that people like Mr. Berkowitz have reported on events that took place while I, and other families, were struggling with their individual cases, and also to survive in their own households. Excerpts:

INTRODUCTION

Even before the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 was signed, sealed, and delivered to the states, the conservative Reason Foundation’s William Eggers and John O’Leary had lauded “aggressive” privatization initiatives in New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Georgia.

New York Governor George Pataki, chair of the Privatization Task Force of the Republican Governors Association, had argued at a meeting of governors that it was time for the immediate repeal of federal barriers to privatization at the state and local levels:

…

The privatization of welfare was a triumph for many Republican as well as some Democratic governors, and for conservative national and state legislators.

Policy analysts at right-wing think tanks and policy institutes were also elated. In a 1997 speech, Lawrence W. Reed, President of the conservative Midland, Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy, touted privatization as the wave of the future:

….

Bernard Picchi, growth stocks analyst for Lehman Brothers, estimated that the potential market (for welfare privatization) could easily be more than $20 billion a year. Others placed the target figure as high as $28 billion, more than 10% of the national expenditure on welfare recipients.15

…CHARITABLE CHOICE:

In addition to unleashing predatory corporate forces, the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 contains the first enactment of a concept conservatives call “charitable choice.” Far from expanding anyone’s choices, “charitable choice” forces state and local governments to include religious organizations in their pool of bidders for service-delivery contracts.

Cathlin Siobhan Baker, Co-Director of The Employment Project, explains although religious organizations have received government funding over the years for emergency food programs, childcare, youth programs, and the like, they were expressly prohibited from religious proselytizing. Baker writes: “Gone are the prohibitions regarding government funding of pervasively sectarian organizations. Churches and other religious congregations that provide welfare services on behalf of the government can display religious symbols, use religious language, and use religious criteria in hiring and firing employees.”50

…

On January 29, [2001] amidst great fanfare and surrounded by Christian, Muslim and Jewish religious leaders, President George W. Bush signed an executive order cre- ating a new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. As governor of Texas, Bush has been a strong advocate for charitable choice, supporting the notion that faith-based organizations take over a large part of the provision of a broad array of government services. One of the things the new White House Office will do is help religious groups compete for billions of dollars in government grants.

During the presidential campaign, Bush called for “armies of compassion” fielded by “faith-based organizations, charities and community groups” to help aid America’s poor and needy. In an opinion piece for USA Today, Bush laid out his plan for taking “the next bold step in welfare reform,” proposing $80 billion over 10 years so that faith-based organizations can become “our nation’s most heroic armies of compassion.” He also proposed a $200 million federal initiative to “sup-port community and faith-based groups that fortify marriage and champion the role of fathers.”51 The ceremony at the White House was only Bush’s first step toward fulfilling his campaign promises.

Right-wing ideologues find charitable choice attractive because it not only reduces government involvement in service-delivery but also injects their religious and “moral framework” into the welfare debate. Welfare is no longer a question of poverty or the economic inequities in our society; the debate is framed within such time-honored right-wing moral premises as an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births and the lack of personal responsibility – behaviors that conservatives believe contribute to the general moral breakdown of our society.

Not only has the web changed the workplace, it has most certainly also changed government. However the policies forced on the poorer population are geared to the industrial economy, a 9 to 5 mentality, a public education mentality, a faith-based mentality.

The welfare concept eliminates and discourages single parents from supporting themselves in creative ways (including through this internet). Its assumption that poverty has to do mostly with fatherlessness is nonsensical, and dishonest — when many times it may relate instead to a present, and abusive, father. Failing to distinguish one case from another, and listening primarily to their own rhetoric, social scientists in key positions + political appointees force basic “solutions” on the entire society, and stick society with the bill as well. It is basically taxation without representation.

The only people escaping this taxation without representation are those profiting from it — who run or own nonprofit businesses, have or benefit from private foundations or wealth — or in some other way have learned to maximize profits, reduce expenses, and make their expenses, including conferences on how to keep the systems going, tax deductions.

These people are not uniformly two-parent income, or even stable-marriage families. Heck, some (including Presidents & legislators) are not even faithful to their own wives. So how dare they preach to the rest of us, who are not quite so wealthy, or don’t have backing to get into political office, on our morals and work ethic?

In the “Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs” (links above), on page “271” there is an Appropriations History Table, from 2002 through 2009. Its simple, (two-column) and speaks volumes. The costs range from $2+ billion to $4+ billion, and always with an advance of $1billion or so. ALWAYS the appropriation is higher than budget.

The Philanthropist Roundtable (Reviving Marriage in America, link above) lists these benefits to Marriage. Are you in agreement with all of them? If not, do you want your IRS payments to go towards pushing marriage education, (let alone abstinence education for parents), do you want families EXTORTED into high-stakes custody litigation through the child support system, do you really believe that we should have such foundations running our lives through major institutions?

If not, take some time to read the links I’ve provided here, which prompted this piecemeal protest post. Really these are TAX issues. Perhaps more of us should focus on establishing foundations and stop working W-2 jobs;; there has to be a better way. Anyhow, rich conservative foundations declare:

The Benefits of Marriage

Benefits for Adults

1. Married men and women have lower mortality rates and tend to have better overall health than their single counterparts.

2. Married couples tend to have more material resources, less stress and better social support than people who are not married.

3. Married men are less likely to abuse alcohol.***

[[potential cause of divorce — wife gets tired of living with a chronic alcoholic. Hence, those who stay married might indeed drink less…]]

4. Both married men and women report significantly lower levels of depression and have better overall psychological well-being than

their single, divorced, widowed and cohabitating counterparts.**

[[Exceptions: marriages with abuse, or chronic infidelity. Which definitely is depressing and affects psychological well-being!]]

5. Married African-Americans have better life satisfaction than those who are single.

[[! ! ! How are these people checking out African-American’s “life satisfaction” quotient? Apparently, it’s important not to have too many angry, dissatisfied African-Americans around. After all, the prisons are already overcrowded, and with US already the largest per-capita jailor on earth, what’s a ruling elite to do if the anger spills over?]]

6. Married men report higher wages than single men and have been found to be more productive and more likely to be promoted.

[[So women should marry and stay married to encourage men to work. Single working parents, single nonparents should also contribute to the federal marriage movement, because without marriage, men are simply not as motivated to work. Potential cause — the wife at home is supporting the guy, or the wife at WORK is supporting the guy. What about married mother’s wages or likelihood of promotion? Knowing the high potential for divorce, women should (sure, yeah….) most definitely go for marriage, because it’s good overall for the nation, even if they sacrifice their financial futures post-marriage, ending up eventually on welfare, in court, and fighting for custody of their children with a federally-funded fatherhood mandate run through the child support system?]]

7. Married women tend to have substantially more economic resources than single women. The economic benefits of marriage are especially strong for women who come from disadvantaged families.

[[I really wonder where this statistic comes from… There are obviously exceptions, some of them in abusive religious marriages, some where, at times, a woman was sought from another country to make some babies for a US resident.]]

Benefits for Children

1. Children from families with married parents are less likely to experience poverty than children from single-parent or cohabitating families.

2. Children born to cohabitating couples have a higher chance of experiencing family instability, a factor that has been linked to poor child well-being.

3. Children from married, two-parent families tend to do better in school than those who grow up in single-parent or alternative family structures.

4. Children from intact, two-parent families are less likely to experience emotional-behavioral problems.

5. The more time children live in a married, two-parent home, the less likely they are to use drugs.

6. Children who grow up in a married, two-parent family are less likely to have children out of wedlock in their future relationships.

7. Women with married parents are less likely to experience a high-conflict marriage.

8. Single mothers report more conflict with their children than married mothers.

[**depending on date of this report, one factor may be this agenda being run through the family law system to start with — as it has been since 1996 at least, which guarantees ongoing court litigation where one parent wants to struggle, and the case was flagged for program funding to help ONE side do this.]

9. The rate of infant mortality is lower among married parents.

10. Children living with their married, biological parents are less likely to experience child abuse.**

[[see note on married men drink less. Child abuse by either parent is a deal-breaker for most marriages. And, what about also the ongoing situations where the child experiences abuse on visitations with the noncustodial parent — such cases would fall under “not living with their married biological parents” — but who is the perpetrator? If someone is willing to abuse a child initially, whether married or single, would life be better if such parents were together, and the abuser had daily access?? This statements imply doesn’t handle many situations.]]

What this entire report fails to address is that domestic violence can turn lethal within marriage, or leaving a marriage.
Moreover, an on-line “find” (search) in this report of the word “father” (which covers fathers, fatherhood, fathering etc.) shows 23 occurrences. The corresponding search on “mother,” only 7. That’s imbalanced, and typical of certain sites sponsored by conservative foundations.

A token reference to the fact that for some, marriage has problems occurs here, in context of the tail end of an inset about marriage education movement. Notice, no mention is made that some marriages result in death by femicide. This is virtual denial…..

“Feminist leaders at the time emphasized the dark side of marriage for women whose husbands refused to be equal partners to their working wives and women trapped in abusive relationships. {{note order: not equal partners, and just a token, vague reference to “abusive” which is then dropped. Completely:…}}

The mainline Christian churches emphasized pastoral sensitivity to divorced people and single parents, which seemed inconsistent with proclaiming the unique value of life- long marriage. {{meaning, to be consistent, churches who believe in lifelong marriage should be harsh to divorced people and single parents? which harshness of course would be inconsistent with the gospel record of their hero, Jesus’, sensitivity, including to a woman caught in adultery, a poor widow, a woman with an issue of blood, and so forth…}}

The conservative Christian churches still preached about life- long marriage but were not organizing programs for couples to help them achieve such relationships.”

OK, so the Bradley Foundation acknowledges there are churches with thoughts about divorce. But ….

Do we or do we not have other religions in this country? (But none mentioned here?). How about Islam — what about Shari’a? Does marriage promotion apply here also? Because the Muslim and the Christian/Jewish (let alone agnostic/atheist) concepts of marriage are radically different from each other. Should the US move towards the Shari’a model because marriage is “good” for a nation? How could any discussion of this topic among conservative foundations just “forget” other major world religions, let alone that First Amendment is intended to protect religious choice — not push one variety of it on all of us through governmental institutions.!

Nonie Darwish at Temple University (April 2011) — these are Youtubes of a presentation, and a following Q&A. I haven’t viewed them (fresh off a Google search to you), but have read at least one of her books:

Nonie Darwish: Shari’a Law & America at Temple University

Q&A to the above presentation

This is another reason why the US should NOT allow religious groups to be grabbing federal funds to collect child support and promote fatherhood. What if the group favors shari’a law, which goes like this:

Shari’a, that is Muslim law, controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the Western World (including America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shari’a Law under which wives can not obtain a divorce and men have full and complete control of their children. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities and other parts of the Western world are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shari’a law.

By publicizing the information below, I hope to help enlightened American and other women avoid becoming slaves under Shari’a Law:
1. In the Muslim faith, a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old, consummating the marriage by 9.
2. A dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman who becomes a slave.
3. Even though a woman is abused she cannot obtain a divorce.
4. To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.
5. Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.
6. Husbands can beat their wives ‘at will’ and do not have to say why the beating occurred.
7. A husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for a limited period at his discretion.

The goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shari’a law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Shari’a) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.

Peace and prosperity for one’s children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics – one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others..

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with G-d, Shari’a advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

This woman should know — and has earned the right to speak on it. The blurb:

“Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza. When he died, he was considered a “shahid,” a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society. But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing and later abandoned Islam.” (For Christianity, incidentally).

What about a woman who has escaped a violent marriage, and may wish to partake, for once, in a better one — but because of the family law system, is doomed to struggling with custody until all kids turn 18? Should she suffer, should the next potential partner suffer alongside, because some people believe that the problem with this country is out-of-wedlock fertility, unhappy AFrican American couples (read the list!) and of course the cause of child abuse and poverty is fatherlessness – not failure to prosecute child abusers properly, or economic policies that exploit wage-earners and outsource child support collections to corporations like Maximus, Inc., famous for fraud, gender discrimination, embezzlement, and poor performance?

We do not need cults (Unification Church), Crooks, or Misogynist Faith Institutions running the child support system as if there was a war on fatherhood by virtue of women having gained some options in the mid to late 1900s, including to vote, and an uphill fight that was.

We do not need another caste system — or royalty — created through welfare policies based on myths, which then undermine the primary documents on which our country has been founded by trying to tip the court favor towards fathers based on a job-based workforce system and inferior educational system.

As Berkowitz wrote in 2001 (above), Welfare Privatization is a cash cow, a big one, and Charitable Choice may fall hard on women overall, given how many religious groups already do. Those in the (expanding) bureaucracy get to inhabit lofty positions writing about the poor while those poor often live lives at risk from their partners, their neighborhoods, and the myth that the legal system exists for them — and not for those running it.

OCSE – TANF – FATHERHOOD PROMOTION, MARRIAGE PROMOTION — PRIVATE CONTRACTORS CAUGHT IN EMBEZZLEMENT AND FRAUD — GOP PRESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL MONEY-LAUNDERING, CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE (the Unification Church) & CULT — and PRIVATE WEALTH (whether honestly or dishonestly gotten) RUNNING AND RESTRUCTURING GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION, LOWER (EARLY CHILDHOOD) EDUCATION, AND SO ON.

Let’s begin with this Eliminating this Child Support System — which garnishes wages and has the power to put a man or a woman in jail, or homeless, if they don’t pay up, farms out collections to companies known for gender, race discrimination, fraud, embezzlement, and poor performances (Maximus), selling private information and in general tearing up the lives of innocent people (but still getting multi-illion$ contracts). While its federal fatherhood focus is indeed sexist, it is also equipped to turn on EITHER gender, depending on the case, and get away with it. Which, while the original concept was — child support — the “evolution” of it is becoming more and more like an episode of “Aliens” only more frightening.

Which is just too big and too entrenched.

Sounds like a good idea, on the surface: I briefly took welfare (food stamps) and the county went for the father to pay themselves back. They could be the “bad guy” in the situation, protecting me. But in practice, I see, they’ve had a makeover, and are more interested in being the nice guy (and enrolling men in fatherhood programs, access visitation programs, etc.).

I thought it was a great transitional idea immediately after marriage to have someone besides myself (for a change) asking the father of my children to pull his own weight, like I was, and to do so without in-home assault & battery privileges. We got a child support order when I got welfare help (rather than ask him for help myself). Not having the operational structure laid out in front of me, I thought that my getting OFF the system would be the end of the story, and they could go their way, and I mine, end of acquaintance. What did I know about the federal incentives, or how the interest income — of pooled, undistributed collections — was a real low-hanging fruit for the operation, and by withdrawing

Not so, not with all these grant programs and federal incentives flying around the place; not when within my own state, the same jurisdiction that basically spawned the family law industry was caught with its pants down, sitting on millions of collected child support (and its interest) until one father and one attorney caught them at this (John Silva, Richard Fine).

SO, LET’s ELIMINATE — OR AT LEAST BOYCOTT — THE ENTIRE AGENCY. HELP YOUR NEIGHBORS NOT NEED CHILD SUPPORT. KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IN ADVANCE. WARN MOTHERS LEAVING VIOLENT RELATIONSHIPS. AND TELL YOUR LOCAL LEGISLATOR (FIND OUT IN ADVANCE IF HE OR SHE IS ON A “NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE” LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE — MANY ARE…) THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! If a program takes over $4 BILLION just to enforce, and is still resulting in increased welfare loads, is not well-tracked, and has already been caught in repeated scandals — then it’s simply not worth the investment.

Mothers of minor children can only do so much, but one thing we can do is boycott (boycott seeking child support if you can. Or marriage — or sex (believe me, it’s been discussed in some groups I know) — or the family law system. You might get dragged in, but don’t go voluntarily — and publicize — put the warning labels out on blogs — they won’t reach mainstream media — and encourage them to find another way to live; there has to be one.

Decent Single Mothers AND Decent single Fathers AND decent non-parents (single or married) should figure out what we have in common, start asking hard questions about this OCSE agency and how it spends its funds. Meanwhile, we should work TOGETHER (unilaterally) to boycott it until it gets the message we are serious.

Most will not, or cannot, because their lives are already so entwined in and dependent upon this system, whether for work, for their kids’ school, or they are simply already employed by the huge bureaucracy. Or, their free time weekends is soaked up volunteering at the local faith-based organization…

FOUNDATIONS AND WELFARE POLICY:

Foundation after Foundation are writing the policy, through government institutions…. When one considers what foundations are, to start with, tax-exempt, one wonders about the arrangement. The Lynde and Larry Bradley Foundation (who published the “Marriage Guidebook — strategy for donors” I linked to, above) also is sponsoring another welfare think-tank in Wisconsin, with the “same old” players included that re-wrote welfare to include more Dads. Hmm. Wasn’t Wisconsin having LOTS of fiscal/political problems recently?

During the conference, an eclectic group of national thinkers will address the intersection between welfare policy and issues such as: parental involvement, especially fatherhood; {{now WHY doesn’t that surprise me?}} child well-being; marriage and divorce; family living arrangements; and non-marital sex, pregnancy, and child birth. Attendees will gain a better understanding of what the state of Wisconsin — and the nation as a whole — can (and can’t) do to build a welfare policy that has strong, stable families at its center.

The discussions will be moderated by former White House and Congressional welfare-policy advisor Ron Haskins of theBrookings Institution in Washington, D.C. The luncheon speaker will beWade F. Horn, a former Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee substantially supports WPRI.

This is hardly an “eclectic” group. Where are the feminists, where are the representatives from people affected by these policies? Where are the atheists who believe in separation of church and state? However the phrase “group of national thinker” (what is a “national thinker”? someone who wants to run the nation???) reminds me of the National Fatherhood Initiative self-description as having been founded by a “few prominent thinkers” (egotism, much?)…..

Presenters:

RON HASKINS — INSTRUMENTAL IN TACKING THE “ACCESS AND VISITATION” LANGUAGE ONTO WELFARE REFORM AT THE 9TH HOUR…

WADE HORN — CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (PRIVATE NONPROFIT WITH HHS)

ALSO GOING TO BE PRESENTING: DAVID BLANKENHORN:

“David Blankenhorn is founder and president of the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan organization devoted to strengthening families and civil society in the U.S. and around the world. Blankenhorn is the author of several books, is a frequent lecturer, and has been featured on numerous national television programs.”

{{another Bush appointee, per Wikipedia: “In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed Blankenhorn to serve on the National Commission on America’s Urban Families.^[4]^[2]^[5] Blankenhorn helped to found the National Fatherhood Initiative, a nonpartisan organization focused on responsible fatherhood, in 1994.“}} Blankenhorn is anti-gay, but not anti-polygamy, it seems……

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

May 16, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Posted in Business Enterprise, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids

Tagged with Access-Visitation, Beware, Bill Berkowitz, Boycott, Bradley Foundation, Bush-Moonie connection, Child Molestation, Clean up, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, Due process, DV, fatherhood, Feminists, Hazards of Charitable Choice, Healthy Marriage perks for Healthy Marriage promoters, Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS), Maximus Inc., Michael Hayes, Motherhood, Nonie Darwish, OCSE, OCSE -- boycott? Shut down? Eliminate? Beware!, OFCBI Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives, Privatization of Welfare, Ron Haskins, Shari'a law, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, Social Science v Rights, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., Wade Horn

Operating Systems Analysis for Family Law System — see the RICO Act [Published Mar. 18, 2011!].

with 2 comments

This post is:

Operating Systems Analysis for Family Law System — see the RICO Act [Published Mar. 18, 2011!]. (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ends “-EV”).** This post is about 1,700 words only which nowadays in my blogging is almost unthinkable (typical post length: 7,000 – 12,000 words most times…//LGH 7/3/2022.

(I only added the date to the title July 3, 2022, in a blog search for posts covering RICO, and for an opportunity to record it’s short-link, add a few borders to the post, etc.). For the record, it had just a few tags:

Family Law as legalized RICO operation
Psychobabble vs Organizational Analysis
RICO
social commentary

Also I see that (unlike most posts), someone commented on this one (username: “Mother of 8”) and I replied, at length. You can find those at the bottom of the post.

A recent post from a blogger friend of mine focuses — as we are taught to do– on the PSYCHOPATH/SOCIOPATH characters of litigants.

As with “Whacko in Wisconsin” post (subtitle “No, I’m NOT talking about the litigants…) I propose that it’s less

“The Tactics and Ploys of Psychopath Aggressors in the Family Law System“ as written by a reputable “Independent Advocate for Children and Families,” Dr. Charles Pragnell.

[that blog, Rightsformothers.com, whose author I knew at the time and had even met (at a conference) has long been shut down, voluntarily, by the author (not Pragnell, but a certain mother.//LGH commenting 7/2022].

than

The Tactics and Ploys of THE Psychopath Aggressors OF the Family Law System (including those who designed it!)

as proposed by me, an Independent “Devil’s Advocate” for my fellow-blogger, above, and practically anyone selling “solutions” for the crises (plural) in the courts which have any mental-health, jurisprudo-therapeutic-jargon-DSM-centric psycho-linguistic talk ANYWHERE ON ANY PROPOSED ANALYSIS.

WHILE TRUE THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY PLENTY OF PSYCHOPATHS AND SOCIOPATHS WHO LOVE TO DOMINATE OTHERS WITH IMMUNITY — AND ARE SMART ENOUGH TO SET UP AND RUN SYSTEMS TO LEGALIZE THIS ACTIVITY — I HAVE A DIFFERENT ANALSYSIS.

This paradigm is closer to the rock-bottom truth (and will offend almost anyone I’ve been dealing with in these matters in past years) and is not a jest.

The analogy of Family Law System as a Giant Squid, while it did ring true for me, and seem a valid paradigm, was obviously my joke, to relieve the pressure (by mocking the danged thing).
The Alice in Wonderland analogy (shared — or was it co-opted?) by others is also truthful — normal English words (for example, “Child Support Enforcement!”) take on new and strange applications. So yeah, for those who know Lewis Carroll’s book (or, an imitation — a recent movie about it) — that might ring true.
RICO analogy is no joke. It’s in earnest, and I think in its rock-bottom quality, that’s what the family law system IS. One has to look at the interrelationship of parts — not just the ones at the front and public storefront segments of this system.

I do believe this one is closest to its heirarchical structure, extent, and purpose.

SO, today, below, I post link to an explanation of RICO by Mr. Grell — whose qualifications are stunning to explain this concept: Georgetown University School of Law, magna cum laude, 1990, Assistant Attorney General ,Minnesota (2008-2010), plenty of court practices, he teaches or has taught it as at Univ. of MN, but most telling to me — he has been prosecuting and defending RICO cases quite a bit, and teaching on it as well. Some say “those who can, do, but those who can’t -teach.” It obviously doesn’t apply, here. So check it out…

WHY STUDY RICO TERMINOLOGY?

— the terms are a primer of understanding the interrelationships between the court entitites, the involvement of the US Federal Government’s grants to states, and the BEHIND CLOSED DOORS DEALS made to dupe and extort parents (and taxpayers) in so many matters.

WHY AM I POSTING IT NOW?

Well, I have already begun reporting on these things, and once one begins to “squeal” the best thing is to probably keeping on reporting — and in public — for self-protection, if nothing else. If people have questions about this “take” on the courts — I think the analysis holds, and without the emotion-based, cognitive-activity-curtailing rhetoric of PAS / anti-PAS (true or false, it’s the heartbeat of the courts, in the bottom line) or gender talk.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

March 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Posted in Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, History of Family Court, Metaphors for Family Law, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Vocabulary Lessons

Tagged with Family Law as legalized RICO operation, Psychobabble vs Organizational Analysis, RICO, social commentary

All the World’s a Stage. Or, is it Classroom? Or, is it Human Laboratory?

with 2 comments

Well, it depends on the point of view. In yesterday’s obnoxiously long post, I ran across the phrase “Recalcitrant parents” being used in Kids’ Turn propaganda. The word “recalcitrant” is generally applied to the word “child” —

A Sampler of Timeless “Wisdom” across the centuries:

“All the World’s A Stage” … the bottom line is…

1600s, roughly:

William Shakespeare – All the world’s a stage (from As You Like It 2/7)

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Whatever you may think of that phrase, it’s full of metaphors, and takes a few minutes to chew on them, translate into perhaps common terms (what is he referring to, in other words?) and you come out with a perspective on life pretty close to “from dust to dust.” Shakespeare’s seven stages of man go from infant to infant: A child “mewling and puking in its nurses’ arms…” and towards the very end, like the last scene, “sans (without) teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.” There is a real truth to this, and perspective — Life has stages, beginning, and end. Noting this, with elegance, puts man — meaning ALL of us — humbly in place; all have exits and entrances, and all go to the same final stage — helpless, like a child…

For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound.

At least it makes you think!

The World is a stage, and a sense of perspective says there are different acts, AND bottom line, the play is over, it has an exit, no matter how poorly or well we played our parts. He pokes fun at the sixth stage, a Justice — “full of wise saws (sayings)…”. He’s going to slip into high-pitched voice, no teeth, and that impressive presence is going to turn back into a helpless infancy on the way out…

Shakespeare’s speech finds something to mock in every stage — appropriately, because,

the bottom line is… there will be an exit.

Hundreds of Years BC (or, to be Politically Correct, “BCE”):

Solomon (book of Ecclesiastes, “the Preacher”)

Vanity of Vanity, all is Vanities — the bottom line is …

From Ecclesiastes 12 (last chapter)–

Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; 2While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain: 3In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,4And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;

Basically, he’s describing that seventh stage of life, in a very picturesque way, rich in symbolism.

5Alsowhen they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.

7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.

And he gently mocks the endless writings….

. . .of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

To be condensed into:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Again, the bottom line is Fear God, because what you do, including what you tried to do in secret, is going to be judged (in the resurrection, is implied):

Remember thy Creator while young, and Fear God, keep his commandments. THere’s even a rationale provided: “for God shall bring every work into judgment, every secret, whether good, or whether evil.”

Even those who may not believe in that future judgment, or in terms such as “good” or “evil” (perhaps this is a sad loss in our society, to openly say we believe there is good and there is evil — as opposed to functional & dysfunctional, healthy and unhealthy (as defined by ……?) might be able to grasp some interest in the symbolism, the recommendation towards humility in life. Some of the phrasing, about Times and Seasons has made it into music, old and new… it’s simple enough to grasp the concept….

“Simple Pictures are Best!”

The basic commandments cited were about ten only (one for each finger, in intact humans), not too many to count…and they too had a condensed internal order to them that refer to ethical behavior and not putting onesself first as “God” in worship, or in relationships. Most of these have some direct parallel in law today — i.e., thou shalt not bear false witness ( slander, libel, perjury), though shalt not steal (self-explanatory!), thou shalt not commit murder (homicide), and a few most have tossed since — honor the sabbath, honor mother and father, don’t commit adultery (definitely tossed by the wayside), and stop coveting all your neighbor’s stuff.

How about just TWO concepts?

Anyhow, moving on… Jesus, in the gospels, further simplified those 10 down into just 2: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Hard to remember? No. Hard to do? Yes. But one need not Ph.D- it (pile it higher deeper) (Ph.D.) to practice, or sit at the feet of one to practice these, either. It relates to choice, determination, and will — not education only..

Even atheist George Carlin (search my site — believe I linked to this YouTube) was able to boil those 10 down to 2 also, and with some humor. Most normal people could figure these out. It takes a special mindset NOT to….

Fast forward to somewhere between 30 and 70 A.D. excuse me, politically more correct, “CE”). This — still in Shakespearean English (but in any language — Greek, Hebrew — the elegance of language still holds)

Or, OK, THREE main concepts…

Things go better with “Love” (Charity) — without them, it’s just all show and noise”

The apostle Paul, to some Gentiles with significant “relationship” problems, including even incest, strife, and divided loyalties, ignorance, and (this addresses), the omnipresent hyperinflated EGO…

<< 1 Corinthians 13 >>
King James Version

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

There is a difference between doling out tons of charity, and living with this love and concern for others’ well-being. They are not the same things, and sometimes people sitting atop and running charitable foundations can be real pompous and arrogant. I can think of few things more arrogant than the attempt to train the entire U.S. population (at its own expense) in concepts like “fatherhood” or “abstinence” and so forth…. let alone “healthy relationships.” Sorry, but that’s ARROGANT! Congresspeople that voted for this are not likely monogamous, uniformly faithful to their own wives (and/or husbands — though its the male indiscretions we hear most about), or even all straight. The intent is to legislate this for the common folk — not the upper echelon or the policymakers.

Bear with the Bible stuff, please…

I wouldn’t be exposing readers to all this scripture without a point, be patient please. To recall: all the world’s a stage, in the bottom line, all is vanity — you’re going to die, one way or another/strength will fade; constant writing of books is weariness of the flesh, and MOST wisdom can be condensed down in to a very few basics — whether 2 items (Fear God & Keep his Commandments), 2 OTHER items (Love God with all you got AND your neighbor as yourself), or here, we are going to have THREE items, and ranked as to which one ranks the highest:

12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of theseis charity.

This world view values humility, and realizes that changes happen — that we are NOT know-it-alls or perfect. So, until then, recognize this, and focus on the three most important qualities:

Faith
Hope
Charity

The first two relate specifically to the religion — faith in Jesus Christ, hope in the return, and future judgment of good & evil, and that we are on the right side of that judgment, and recognition that, like it or not, a lot of secret things will exist till then. ALl will come out in the wash. Faith and Hope relate SPECIFICALLY to where the individual will stand at that future judgment, and expects it to come.

I don’t take this (case in point, see blog!) to mean passivity in the face of evil, or lack of social justice efforts. But anyone who undertakes serious reporting of corruption, crime, or attempts to clean up institutions, or to live so clean one-self regarding all standards– will soon learn it’s a rough road (if a good one) and a risky one, and vast in nature. Without some kind of personalized hope, personalized faith in what one is doing, the sustained effort simply wouldn’t be worth the pain and drain!

People who have this faith and hope (whether in this religion, or other causes they actually are personally committed to) are hard to manipulate, sway, and intimidate — and threaten people to whom those practices are normal.

Among such groups are parents attempting to protect their children from abuse, and I have to say judging by the courts, that SOMETHING about the mother-child relationship must be quite threatening to the status quo — because it has been disrupted, intentionally and systematically, by judges, and “in the best interests of the child.” The real bottom line in the courts is, parents cannot decide for themselves, and must not be allowed to. they are infants, they are incompetent, they are “recalcitrant” some literature from Kids Turn said (last post….). They need to be taught…. ALL of them…..

We just passed the month of Valentine’s Day. That’s about romance. This is a deeper kind of action:

The Greatest of these is Charity.

It will abide beyond the Faith and Hope…

It is the deepest motivator.

the bottom line is… charity. And a healthy dose of humility — because now, we know in PART…

Now, I’d like to contrast the above sections with where we are now, in the permanently in need of education, training and I suppose, diapering?, population of the United States of America primarily from the Executive Branch, and again, at its own expense…

No more stages of humanity — for those teaching or for those taught. Of childhood and development, yeah sure – but once in the courts, immaturity for ever seems to be assured. THis is basic public policy (those doing the teaching and “training” excepted, of course). We have really sunk so low to a permanent, unchangeable state of needing to be taught and trained…. And this is reflected in the degraded, pompous, self-important language of the trainers, which bears no relationship to the timeless wisdom of the ages — Love God (i.e., YOu are not God..) Love your neighbor, work no ill to your neighbor, and keep things in perspective…life has stages, and consider how you spend them, because assuredly there is an exit.

Nope, no more of that. Instead we have “constructs” and “Initiatives” and “Explications”. We have ever-expanding “mental health” needs (probably because the society is so insane!….).

How about “Parenting Coordination”?

I’ll just pick a random AFCC conference agenda, or a random term, for a sampler:

All North America — well, at least (here) USA — and heck, let’s throw in Canada — needs PARENTING COORDINATION:

Parenting Coordination. The bottom line is. . we need parenting coordinators.

But someone has to Coordinate the “parenting” coordinators — so why not put together a task force to define practices in this new field defined (and created) by the court system itself…

This is from May, 2005

Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

Developed by The AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination May 2005

Scratch the surface (or look at the foundations — see my blog!) of almost any family court, or “domestic relations” court, or “Unified Family Court” system — and this AFCC organization will be there, and probably helping run it as well.

Just enjoy the elegance, catch the flavor, catch the drift…..

The Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (“Guidelines”) are the product of the interdisciplinary AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (“Task Force”). First appointed in 2001 by Denise McColley, AFCC President 2001-02, the Task Force originally discussed creating model standards of practice. At that time, however, the Task Force agreed that the role was too new for a comprehensive set of standards.

The Task Force instead investigated the issues inherent in the new role and described the manner in which jurisdictions in the United States that have used parenting coordination resolved those issues. The report of the Task Force’s (2001-2003) two- year study was published in April of 2003 as “Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues.”1

The Task Force was reconstituted in 2003 by Hon. George Czutrin, AFCC President 2003-04. President Czutrin charged the Task Force with developing model standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named two Canadian members to the twelve-member task force. The Task Force continued investigating the use of the role in the United States and in Canada and drafted Model Standards for Parenting Coordination after much study, discussion and review of best practices in both the United States and Canada.

AFCC posted the Model Standards on its website, afccnet.org, and the TaskForce members also widely distributed them for comments. The Task Force received many thoughtful and articulate comments which were carefully considered in making substantive and editorial changes based upon the feedback that was received.

I was in the court system at this time. No one asked MY opinion…. Of course we weren’t the type of family that could afford the custody evaluation/parenting coordinator route. There are two tracks in the courts (surely you know this by now) — families with money to be drained out — they go for the custody evaluation route — and families WITHOUT money to be drained out — they go the mediator route, with the end goal of getting the minor children away fro BOTH parents and into the foster care system somehow. Alternately, someone in government could end up personally adopting children, or adolescents, if such is desired. (see my Wacko in Wisconsin series — an account is detailed, and the on-line docket supported the pattern the forlorn, probably bankrupt by now mother, described). Sometimes foster care kids get trafficked (Franklin County, NE coverup being a horrible example). Sometimes they run away and get picked up by other abusers, as has happened in the Northern California area at least once. So the No-MOney-to-extort segment of society, they are encouraged to fight in court, and then, any number of alternatives may result — but I do know in my case, when I said I was NOT going to call in CPS on a simple (but blatantly illegal) violation of a physical custody order, the local law enforcement stood by with their arms folded. I wasn’t going to, as a mother, produce some income for the county up front by abandoning my children, so “forget you!”

Track one — extort money from the parents by promoting litigation on frivolous issues, call in some parenting coordinators, custody evaluators, court-appointed attorneys, or in short almost anything court-associated. The medical equivalent would be something similar to dialysis — blood is drained out, recirculated at huge expense, and put back into the parent’s and children’s blood stream, a total sea change of relationships…

Track two — is “Give us your kids, or forget you”

Back to the sample of “literature” in the endless education field of the courts:

Even the name of this document was changed to “Guidelines for Parenting Coordination” to indicate the newness of the field of parenting coordination and the difficulty of coming to consensus in the United States and Canada on “standards” at this stage in the use of parenting coordination. The AFCC Board of Directors approved the Guidelines on May 21, 2005.

The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.

1 See AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination, Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues, 41 Fam. Ct. Re. 533 (2003).

Joan Kelly, Ph.D. (not ‘J.D.”) appears to be one of the grand dames of the system – her name, and her work is “everywhere.” Then again, AFCC has great PR.

At the bottom of this post (under the line of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ‘s) I’ll post a classic 2003 condensed summary of the interrelationships, still a good writing on this (Cindy Ross). The same intelligence is also found at NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’) blog, which has been exploring these matters since 1993…

The key to the system is the “business and professions” model analysis. Where professional organizations, and certain professionals who conference, task force, promote certain legislation, etc., fit into this picture is that these ASSOCIATIONS (affiliated with certain professions – judges, mediators, psychiatrists, mental health services providers, and of course, now, parenting coordinators….) are going to, each and every time, try to drum up more business. Why not — the groups boast memberships with judges on them ,and have learned how to become “principal investigators’ or “program directors” in various funding streams, and then channel those streams one way or another — and parents who lack the skill to investigate and challenge this — are babes in the wood when it comes to the family court process. THey get lost there, too.

the bottom line apparently is, “NO exit from this system, at least in this life…”

The system expands — endlessly — and gets more and more pompous and arrogant in the positions, the languages, and the number task forces needed to change a light bulb. Experts fly to and fro across the country to collaborate with each other on the next (scam) (possible profession to establish from the messes created by the courts to start with!). …. Most parents are not alerted to the hyper-active flight schedule of their overlords…. or where they congregate.

What pithy language, what clear terms, what graphic real-life symbolism comes from this trade:

Overview and Definitions

Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal 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.

And a little grammar fluke “assist parents . . . .. to implement their parenting plan” The correct usage is “assist parents . . IN implementing their parenting plan…

To review the wonderful terms, nouns, verbs, adjectives.

PARENTING COORDINATION IS a . . . . . . PROCESS.

….Wow, I’m gripped already…. I can’t wait to hear the rest of the plot.

What kind of process?

. . . . it is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process….

Wrong on both counts.

(1) It’s not focused on the children, it’s focused on the professionals, and drumming up more business for them. Decently written “parenting coordination plans” (what are we, cattle?? In need of personal assistants to write in dates and times of drop off, pick up?) would need extra help to implement.

(2) From what we are reading about the courts, the disputes don’t get resolved — but rather heightened and escalated until someone breaks, or someone else shuts down emotionally socially, etc.

…in which a mental health or legal professional ….

i.e., what AFCC is primarily composed of, and of course not any ordinary person. People outside the fields promoted and endorsed by this group NEED NOT APPLY. (i.e., an elite squad of only the truly informed…)

…with mediation training and experience…

Of course. The “mediation” promotion (also endless in this field) is CENTRAL to family courts and has already been identified as how to increase noncustodial parenting time. They have rules, but don’t follow them. Fact-finding on the parents is DISCOURAGED in some circumstance. Recently, an ETHICAL mediator was fired (for doing the right thing — actually reading where criminal records existed — unheard of almost, in this field) and won a case that her firing was discriminatory retaliation for, basically ,whistle-blowing.

This quote is from TODAY’s post, article by Peter Jamison, cover story on the SF Weekly.

{FYI: I have submitted 2 comments (under this name) on the site Rightsformothers.com which, if approved, may shed some more light on the article and what it does, and does not, cover.}}

Emily Gallup, a Stanford-educated mediator in the Nevada County Family Court, was fired after her supervisors criticized her for reviewing parents’ criminal histories when making her custody recommendations. In a March 2010 written reprimand of Gallup prepared by Court Executive Officer Sean Metroka, and obtained by SF Weekly, Metroka states that it was “unprofessional and unacceptable” for her to have requested a criminal history report in a recent case she was handling. “I admonished you not to take the role of a court investigator,” he wrote.

Research on parents is part of a mediator’s job, as it is for evaluators, minors’ counsels, and judges — no single court official is specifically designated as an “investigator.”

Hmm. I was told — to my face — by a court mediator that he could NOT even look at information I submitted which completely countered the story portrayed in court. It included handwritten notes from my daughters at a young age, and some photographs of them. But I was told that because it hadn’t been filed also with my ex (on the record) he couldn’t look at mine. THis didn’t go both ways — the information he himself had, submitted by my ex, I hadn’t received before the meeting. And I had ONE shot to state my case as to a multi-page, pre-fab, INDEXED parenting plan which I hadn’t seen in advance, to “come to an agreement” or take it back to court. My ex didn’t type at the time, and it clearly wasn’t his work. Moreover, once I (year or so later!) learned the rules of court for parenting plans involving domestic violence — this didn’t follow any of them. I suspect by then he’d already been contacted by a fatherhood-funded program attorney, who knew what to do — file for divorce and custody, and set up a parenting plan that didn’t state place, or exact times, and was GUARANTEED to produce a lot of debating and negotiating on these matters — and there was a restraining order on at the time….

I can see wisdom in the mediator NOT going beyond the court file– contrary to this article’s portrayal. How can a parent respond to invisible information he or she has not received or been served? It dilutes the legal due process.

Metroka says that Gallup went too far, conducting criminal background checks in cases where they weren’t relevant. “It’s easy to violate [parents’] due-process rights if you try to make more out of a case than is there when it’s presented to you,” Metroka says. “Emily’s position is that in every case a mediator should investigate and get every piece of evidence she can before the mediation.”

Just last month, Gallup prevailed in a grievance against the family court system over her dismissal. Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that she “had reasonable cause to believe that Court’s Family Court Services department had violated or not complied with statutes and rules of court,” and ordered an audit of the court to investigate the claims in her grievance.

“They’re making these monumental decisions based on air,” Gallup says. “They think if you have too much information about a parent, that makes you biased. My contention is, if you have more information, that will make you less biased.”

Something doesn’t smell quite right about this situation. Perhaps Gallup is not aware, as some of us are, of the true purpose of mediation– which is to increase noncustodial parenting time, per federal grant, and allow the Secretary of the HHS to suggest (and get states to implement and evaluate) demonstrations on people that come through the courts, generating MORE revenue for those in courts employ, or at least in their entourage. She musta been a rookie….

For example, suppose — in a “mis”-guided (according to this mindset) attempt to comply with the state code, (I can’t speak to Nevada, but IF it has the rebuttable presumption against custody going to a batterer code) — she checked for a criminal background in domestic violence. This would compromise the mission of retaining federal funding and INCREASING custody to such people, and it would actually add some weight to a protective parent’s position.

OK continuing with this 2005 AFCC Coordinating the Parenting Coordinators whose job is to help IMPLEMENT an already- written coordination plan that parents are working with — people who do this must also:

Overview and Definitions

Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal 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.

. . . assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan….

[pause to adjust to the “assist . . .. to” syntax error again. OK, I’m better now …I’ll go on…]

Any legal professionals ought to know that one way to encourage a parent to comply with a written plan incorporated into any court order is, if it becomes habitual, file a contempt and seek some kind of sanction for it through the courts, putting this IN the court record..

Let us remember again – parents that comply with well-written parenting plans don’t drive more business to the courts. This behavior should NOT be encouraged……

FIRST OF ALL both parents may not need assistance. ONe may be an asshole, simply decides not to comply, thereby causing problem for either custodial or noncustodial parent, who then gets frustrated. I suppose enough of that frustration, and disruption of the children’s schedules and lives and/or someone’s work, might cause the other parent to come into a state of “needing assistance” and circuitously justify saying BOTh “parents” need this help.

“HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS” — How about someone — for god’s sake! — actually investigating what the conflict is about, i.e, analyzing it, putting that on the record, and fixing it through normal legal means, promptly? This incessant lumping of both parents into “high-conflict” when only one may have started and continued to cause it is wrong. It’s a lose-lose combination.

Any good parent has conflict with certain BEHAVIORS, one of which is called, failing to comply with court orders. Complying with court orders is a GOOD value to give children. IF the courts themselves cannot recognize this (because some organizations wish to perpetuate work for their members) then who will?

well, here’s some more decisive, to the point, and clear writing:

…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.

….facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner…

[by creating a co-dependent behavior between the parenting coordinators and the parents, in total conflict the court’s own theory that any domestic violence (etc.) issues are just disputes and parents should WORK IT OUT THEMSELVES!]

[“facilitating dispute resolution in a timely manner” and involving more court personnel is an oxymoron. It’s a contradiction of terms! Add to this Task Forces that can’t write straight, and what a mess! Most family law cases I personally know lasted a minimum of five years, some, three -times that. These professionals are most likely WHY….]

…educating parents about children’s needs. .

AHA! We come to the juicy caramel center of what this is about — another opportunity for endless education, including Kids’ Turn -type agenda..

Why don’t these professionals content themselves with HAVING and RAISING their own children — grandchildren, if they need to — and thus be able to help form new characters etc. Or, are they the cast-offs from the public education system, which is constantly having “peripheral” positions cut, such as psychologists and counselors, librarians, and sports/arts/ etc. roles?

“…..and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, . . .

“…OR the court?” Meaning, if the parties don’t approve beforehand, the COURT can make more “prior approval” decisions WITHOUT their approval or prior knowledge? (commonly called ex parte when it changes a court order, so I guess this one just means, sort of fine-tuning the terms of an existing one. If that. . . It shoulda been fine-tuned out the gate. ….

making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

In other words, high-conflict parents (some of which conflict might be with poorly-written court orders, or inappropriate decisions to start with) should become co-dependent/passive and learn to let these people make their decisions instead. Also, if some highly legitimate causes of conflict exist (like someone threatened to abduct, or did) — then how nice to have already got a new profession in place in case some illiterate judge goes back to allowing shared parenting after custody-switch, etc. (Many mothers know that the “shared parenting” with an abuser escalates in conflict, and leads to various crises, and sometimes on calling on the courts (a mistake, probably) to resolve this . . a judge will switch custody. Thereafter, she may not see her kids again — PERIOD. Or, only for pay — and a high pay — such as supervised visitation for HER (because of potential “parental alienation..”). … And so on.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>,

(Apologies today — my hyperlink function on this computer is temporarily not functional — so I am pasting titles, not links, to material discussed….).

MORE FROM TEXAS AFCC, 2007, ON THIS SAME TOPIC:

Report of the Texas Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Taskforce on Parenting Coordination

(translation: two years later, still needing more task forces..)

Members

Jack Bannin, San Antonio, TX Carrie Beaird, Dallas, TX Mike Booth, Dallas, TX Mary Bullock, San Antonio, TX Deborah Cashen, Houston, TX Jeff Coen, Dallas, TX

Bradley Craig, Arlington, TX Deborah Higgs, Galveston, TX Sondra Kaplan, Houston, TX

Toni Jo Lindstrom, Texas City, TX Susan Marsh, Houston, TX Judith Miller, Houston, TX Leta Parks, Houston, TX

Aaron Robb, Keller, TX Christy Schmidt, Dallas, TX Dina Trevino, San Antonio, TX Robin Walton, San Antonio, TX

Compiled by Aaron Robb, Chapter President August 8, 2007

Read a bit of this and see how it’s clear they wish to limit WHO can be a parenting coordinator to affilliated professions…. and missed the legislative bandwagon that might have allowed such a professional restriction… This article cites the one above, summarizing the scenario like this:

The AFCC parent organization began examining the issue of parenting coordination early in this century, forming a Taskforce on Parenting Coordination composed of nationally known experts in this emerging field.

“Nationally Known Experts in this emerging field.” . That’s “rich.” why does this, somehow, remind me of The National Fatherhood Initiative’s self-description as having been started by a “few prominent thinkers” back in the 1990s? Maybe it’s just the tone, I can’t say for sure.

“this emerging field” — -give me a break! With time, one comes to understand that in some lips the words ’emerging field” actually means a field that they (themselves, or close associates) are personally developing and promoting — in part by naming task forces after it — and it didn’t “emerge” like grass, or buds at springtime, or chickens from eggs, except that it IS sure that the seed was planted long ago that the sky’s the limit on professions that can spring out of the family court high-conflict parenting theme….

Supervised Visitation “emerged” the same way, as did “Batterer Intervention Programs.” Neither has proven particularly effective, both require lots of conferences, task forces, publications, and nonprofits to actually DO the supervising and intervening. Also those last two terms are known compromises with the battered women’s movement which in late 80s/early 1990s was much more pushing for full separation of the women and children from the danger, whether in shelters, or through full-custody.

The initial Taskforce produced a report entitled Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues in August of 2003 outlining the various forms and formats of practice that fell under the general heading of “Parenting Coordination.” The task force was reconstituted in 2003 and continued its work, expanding to examine best practices in both the United States and Canada.1

In 2004, in anticipation of growing interest in parenting coordination services in the state, Texas AFCC conducted a formal survey of our members, examining basic issues of role clarity and role delineation. At the same time Texas AFCC was approached regarding input on legislation that was being drafted regarding parenting coordination for the 2005 legislative session.

(Probably by someone affiliated with a father’s rights program… or CRC, etc.)

Responses from AFCC members to the survey came [“amazingly” given what AFCC is basically comprised of] from a mix of legal and mental health professionals, however the actual legislation regarding parenting coordination failed to address many of the prevailing opinions noted in the survey.

Chief among these was a strong consensus (89%) that to be qualified as a parenting coordinator a practitioner should be a mental health professional. A majority (56%) also noted that a parenting coordinator should be trained as both a mediator and parent educator.

If this became law, then any HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS with POORLY WRITTEN PLANS (or, one or more parents who refused to comply with them) ARE GUARANTEED TO HAVE A HIGH-PRICED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL — OR ATTORNEY — WITH A MEDIATIOR (PROMOTE MORE ACCESS FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENT) MINDSET, AND A PENCHANT FOR EDUCATING PARENTS.

I CANNOT THINK OF ANY FIELDS I WOULD LESS LIKE HAVING IN MY PERSONAL OR RELATIONSHIP LIVES. WOULD YOU? SUPPOSE ONE PARENT JUST DECIDES TO ABANDON THE KIDS ON WEEKENDS WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A SOCIAL LIFE OR DATE. OR HE MIGHT… CALL IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AND SIT DOWN — BOTH OF YOU — FOR MORE LECTURES ON HOW TO BE A PARENT, LET ALONE AN ADULT WITH A COMMITMENT OF SOME SORT!

THIS IS WHAT THIS GROUP APPEARS TO WANT.

A substantial majority of members (74%) also indicated that they believed parenting coordination Services should be non-confidential to allow reporting back to the court.

THIS NEXT SECTION IF FUNNY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT:

The AFCC Board of Directors accepted the final report and Guidelines on May 21, 2005.

Unfortunately this direction from the parent organization came too late for our local group to effectively act on it. HB 252 (relating to the use of parenting plans and parenting coordinators in suits affecting the parent-child relationship) had been introduced in February 2005 and had been voted out of the House by April 2005. It was subsequently voted out of the Senate in May 2005 and sent to the governor just days after the parent organization’s years worth of work on this issue came to a close.

Sounds to me like the would-be coordinator coordinator’s task force, dreaming about expansion into Canada, wasn’t too coordinated — and didn’t pay attention (or process input from the local Texas AFCC group) in time for the parenting legislation to be voted on! They were behind the 8-ball.

And this is who is trying to restrict the profession to people like themselves!

Parenting coordination is a maturing field and nationally there are many different theoretical and practice models for services that fall under the broad heading of “parenting coordination.”

Keep your (God-damn) “practices” away from my kids, and me. If I have a broken leg, I’ll go somewhere around a medical practices. If a loose tooth (both of these factors which may occur around “high-conflict” marriages and/or divorces), a dentist. If I am short an academic degree, or wishing to enter a new field MYSELF, I will approach someone qualified in that PRACTICE and will myself engage, and PRACTICE that they are qualified to teach, forming a contract between me and that person which PROBABLY would be bound the contracts, (i.e., breaking it would be a “tort” and could be handled in CIVIL courtrooms, unlike “relationship” issues which land up in this morass of family law….)

But for the “crime” of having a relationship (marriage, or out-of-wedlock birth parent) that went sour — in other words, it wasn’t a great match, or something seriously deficient or wrong showed up — we are to be doomed FOREVER to being ordered into FAMILY COURT PRACTICE PROFESSIONS (“parents forever, right?”) by a group of people who can’t find something more useful to do with their lives, and which might require hard sciences or truly disciplined practice THEMSELVES….

Here it is — they want more “training.”

Increase education and training requirements for parenting coordinators to include basic and advanced family mediation experience as well as formal parenting coordination training for all parenting coordinators.

Commentary: Given that parenting coordination is now firmly codified as a hybrid ADR procedure it seems only logical that the state should require parenting coordinators to have family ADR training. Issues of positional vs. interest based negotiations and other mediation related issues are core to helping families progress past their disputes and adopt a healthier problem solving strategy. This is reflected in not only the AFCC Guidelines but the Texas Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Parenting Coordinator Taskforce Recommended Practice Guidelines for a Family Systems Model of Parenting Coordination within the Context of Texas Family Law report as well.

Can you do this? Read aloud the title (it’s ONE title) for another related to the courts organization (AMFT). Read it in one breath, without stop, and with a straight face. i dare you. Now picture how many more such taskforces are flying around the land, invisibly spreading bad grammar, creating emerging fields, and writing model practices for those fields, and of course setting up the entrance fees to get into them, through more training…..

Did you? Try again: The Texas association for marriage and family therapy parenting coordinator taskforce (break for the short-winded)… recommended practice guidelines for a family systems model (what other kind of models would there be for ‘parenting coordination’ Extra-familial systems model, like with the athletic department of junior’s afterschool needs, or there’s a budding gymnast in the high-conflict parenting family??) within the context of texas family law

Wow — brilliant. I myself was thinking of developing some practice guidelines that CONFLICTED with texas family law — that way, more business for the cognitive dissonance folk, mental health professionals.

They go on to note (apparently catching up with FL Attorney Liz Gates — who wrote this I bet much earlier in Therapeutic Jurisprudence )

Ethically dual roles are problematic (and highly restricted) for many professionals. {{they’re more than problematic, they create a conflict of interest….}}

Attorneys, therapists, and others who may have had a previous relationship with a family member bring history to the process that may undermine their effectiveness as a parenting coordinator. A parenting coordinator who goes on to serve in one of these other roles with a family may be seen in hindsight as self-serving, and compromises the integrity of the process.

That bird has flown the coop already. People know, parents know, they blog and write and complain on the nepotism, cronyism and backroom deals around the courts — with or without the new field of parenting coordinators.. Here’s a wise group in 2007 noticing that.. This problem is intrinsic to the family law profession, let alone an expansion in that profession..into uncharted territories where “need” is anticipated — probably because these people INCLUDE many judges who are able to order such things, if they choose to..

But, they want more training — naturally.

My friends, … about those court-ordered train the trainers trainings — I have to tell you something:

“Where the Wild Things Slush FundsAre.”

Looking for where the money went, or kickbacks tend to happen? Look no further — you got it!

From “NAFCJ: Fathers Rights and Conciliation Court Law’ (article by Cindy Ross of N. CA area):

When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get [in getting] custody and get [in getting] out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases. Judicial slush funds, such as the “hearts and flowers” fund exposed in Los Angeles Superior Court, are established using fees charged for child custody “training” seminars. [20]

Because Conciliation Court codes specify how funding is dispersed to the court itself, huge sums of money are diverted out of federal and state block grants by AFCC affiliates, in the guise of “amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies”. [15] (See Codes 1800-1852). The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) was founded in 1994, to “lead a society-wide movement to confront the problem of father absence”, i.e., to embed the fathers’ rights agenda into government policies and programs. [21]

This is such OLD news, but [far too] few women seem to be acting to do anything about I. I’ve heard of more men – such as the Richard Fine folk — who at least understand the process and strongly advocate against this. No mention of this was made in the SF Weekly Article above…. and at this late stage of the game, I’d have to say that this omission is suspect. People who work in and report on these fields KNOW the basic literature that’s out on it, it is no longer an unsolved mystery…

This is not kindergarten any more. See my Shady Shaky Foundations page, look at other sources, connect the dots, and don’t believe everything said in FRONT of the curtain. Become a Toto (Wizard of Oz) and bark, and keep on barking .

Maybe all the world IS a stage, but we need permission to “exit stage left” from this family court system, and as we are forced into the roles, it’s time to find out who wrote the screenplay, and who’s on the Lights, who’s pulling curtains where, and who is providing the cue cards…

To Be, or Not to Be, that is the question…”

A recent hit movie “The King’s Speech” shows how a man overcame a stutter because he had to be king in the time of radio — and when Hitler was threatening Europe and Great Britain. He didn’t want to be a public speaker, OR king — and as presented, he’d suffered some serious childhood abuse, emotional and physical (like not enough food) which probaby precipitated the stutter — but he stepped up to the plate once he fired the bad speech coaches (including the ones recommending smoking!) and got an off-ball, un-doctored Australian who actually knew how trauma works, and how to get past it. The relationship was STILL voluntary, even by a king, or future king — but once it was entered into, it became successful.

We are in times like that. I’d rather be doing something else, and investigative reporting is not my primary field, and smoking out slush funds is very disturbing. But it certainly beats walking around in a daze, wondering what happened, and blaming something or someone else for the problem!

I changed from doing free PR for psychologist professionals who talk about PAS and bad custody decisions (and not slush funds, federal funds, and fatherhood funding, etc.). I changed because I missed my daughters, and I love them, and as part of this love, I want the truth out. As part of caring about my local communities, I want to spare others going through three or four years of anguish as I did (at least) BEFORE I connected some of these dots.

Remember — Three things abide, BUT, the greatest of these is charity.
How’s yours these days?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For footnote to Joan Kelly being omipresent (sort of) in these organizations and their literatures: From 2003,

NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/ross,familycourtcorrupt2nd2,19,03.htm

Family Court Corruption, Part 2: Fathers’ Rights and Conciliation Court Law: Federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection

by Cindy Ross © 2/19/03

Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization. [1]
While publicly touted as “responsible fatherhood programs” official federal documents say the purpose of their programs is to provide noncustodial fathers with free attorneys to litigate for custody. [4]

. . . . {{SO — read those document, just don’t buy the “party line” that it’s really all about “relationship coaching” and healing, and so forth… It ain’t.

AFCC affiliated experts who have established federal “model custody” programs using PAS methodology, include Joan Kelly, a founding official of CRC, and Judith Wallerstein of the Center for the Family in Transition.

Richard Gardner originally based his PAS theory on Wallerstein’s and Kelly’s research. [23] Joan Kelly sets up family court services programs and trains judges and “special masters” (mediators with quasi-judicial authority), using Access to Visitation grant funding. She is also connected — primarily through CRC — to Michael Lamb, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Kelly and Lamb promote materials developed by Richard Gardner (and other pedophiliac experts), in conferences and seminars regarding “parenting time” and “alienation”. [8]

Judith Wallerstein, is an advisor to NFI. According to CA NOW’s “Family Court Report 2002”, in 1986, Wallerstein provided testimony — along with David Levy of CRC — to the House committee on Children, Youth and Families. regarding the “problems of single female parent families”. [24]

Members of Wallerstein’s Center for the Family in Transition and Kelly’s Northern CA Mediation Center, have “reformulated” PAS as “alienated children”, possibly to distance themselves from Richard Gardner.

However, in addition to being connected to some of the most egregious local (Marin County, CA) PAS cases, as the “Northern CA Task Force on the Alienated Child”, their group promotes PAS custody switching methods and “threat therapy” at AFCC conferences around the country and the world.

[25]Wallerstein, Horn, Eberly and others connected to NFI, CRC and AFCC have expanded the Conciliation Court agenda to include not only divorce prevention, but marriage promotion. By merging conciliation court and fathers’ rights agendas with a “faith based” marriage “movement”, they call for even more federal programs promoting “two-parent” families, through “marriage initiatives” funded by TANF/Welfare grants. [26]

And we wonder why the economy is in such crisis!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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

March 2, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Designer Families, History of Family Court, Mandatory Mediation, Metaphors for Family Law, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons, warfare: strategic, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, All the worlds a stage, Child Molestation, Cindy Ross, coordinating parenting coordinators, CRC, custody-switch, Due process, Education, expanding US-based tax-funded programs to other countries, family law, fatherhood funding, frivolous litigation, Joan Kelly, Judith Wallerstein, Kids' Turn, Liz Richards, mandatory mediation, mediation, obfuscation, Obsfuscate alienate explicate and legislate, Parenting Coordination, Peter Jamison SF Weekly, Richard Fine, Richard Gardner, slush funds through trainings, social commentary, task forces on coordinating parenting coordinators didn't coordinate response in time for legislation, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., Wade Horn, What the Crisis in the Courts folks don't tell you

_________________ ,	:
:
Plaintiff,	:
:	No.: S-
VS.	:
:
_________________ ,	:
:
Defendant.	:

	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	sandwich near Detroi… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Historic Day Today, and Week,…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on ‘Table Talk’ Helps…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on So, You Want Us To Speak Out A…

NCJ Number:	NCJ 231795
Title:	Violence Against Women: Essays in Honor of Ellen Pence
Journal:	Violence Against Women Volume:16 Issue:9 Dated:September 2010 Pages:979 to 1060
Author(s):	Shamita Das Dasgupta (“Manavi.org”) ; Edward W. Gondolf ; Melissa Scaia* ; Laura Connelly* ; Jane M. Sadusky (opposing gay marriage ban in Calif, consulting in WI, writing with/for? Ellen & BWJP*); Rhonda Martinson* ; Kristine Lizdas ; Casey McGee ; Rebecca Emerson Dobash ; Russell Dobash ; Mark Wynn
Editor(s):	Claire M. Renzetti ; Barbara J. Hart ; Scott Miller
Document Url:	HTML
*Publisher Url:**	http://www.sagepub.com
Publication Date:	09/2010
Pages:	86
Type:	Literature reviews
Origin:	United States
Language:	English
Note:	Special Issue: Essays in Honor of Ellen Pence
Annotation:	A collection of essays are presented in honor of the contributions made by Ellen Pence in the field of intimate partner violence both in the United States and abroad.
Abstract:	The authors of the following seven essays emphasize the profound impact and changes that Ellen Pence’s work has had on social institutions and individual lives with her commitment to ensuring the safety of women and children and her belief in the possibility of personal and social change. The first article traces Ellen’s vital contributions to the field of anti-domestic violence advocacy through two organizations, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) and Praxis. The second article discusses Ellen Pence’s contribution in helping build the foundation of batterer programming. The third article explains the philosophy and method of the Duluth Model men’s program, and the need to put the experience of women who have been abused at the center of work conducted with abusive men. The fourth article explains how Ellen Pence has changed the framework for doing supervised visitation and safe exchanges in cases of domestic violence. The fifth article describes Pence’s development of the Praxis Safety and Accountability Audit (Safety Audit), which provided a new and distinctive tool for a community response to domestic violence. The sixth article presents six appreciation letters from Britain and Europe on Pence’s efforts and impact on the domestic women’s movement. The seventh and final essay offers both personal and professional reflections on the contributions of Ellen Pence to changes in law enforcement responses to domestic violence victims and offenders. References

Archive for the ‘Business Enterprise’ Category

Title 255—LOCAL COURT RULES SCHUYLKILL COUNTY

Amended/Adopted Civil Rules of Procedure

[40 Pa.B. 7041] [Saturday, December 11, 2010]

Order of Court

Proposed Revisions to Schuylkill County

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 1915.1(b). Definitions.

Rule 1915.3. Commencement of Action. Complaint. Order.

Rule 1915.3a. Kids First Program.

Rule 1915.15. Form of Complaint.

I’m going to print that commentary here:

This isn’t about “Kids First,” or Kids, at all; it’s about Purchase Immediately My Products (a.k.a. PIMPs in Govt, Inc.). Public Service? This is the public serving the self-appointed parenting preachers under guise of “it’s good for you,” i.e., public benefit.

It goes on:

The History

These behaviors and products are prime-time AFCC.

INDIANA & AFCC

This 2011 Judicial Conference meeting concluded peacefully:

I don’t know how comfortable the average reader feels with abandoning due process, law, etc. and giving leaders a huge leash (or taking them “off-leash”) by simply ignoring what’s going on with the primary institutions that rule people’s lives, such as — say, the courts?

And behind the courts is the power to incarcerate, or transfer wealth, and offspring; to spare life or to waste life . . . ..

To be continued …

SHARE THIS POST on...

CRIMINALS

CALIFORNIA REELING

CJE Opinion No. 98-16

Attending Meetings of Domestic Violence Roundtables

If you’re lost, here’s an orderly statement of events on SBX 211 at “tulanelink.com”

RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

Allowable Services

Mission

RESOURCE CENTERS AND FAMILY VIOLENCE CENTERS

SAMPLE SEARCHES:

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Sector: HEALTHCARE / Specialized Health Services {such as??}

PRSC Profile (Volume appears to be $167 million….)

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Abstract

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

SHARE THIS POST on...

Seriously, now …..

What did a District Attorney, a City Attorney, and a Republican Faith-Family-Marriage-Fatherhood-pushing President have in common? In 2003, or since?

(Besides an urge to jumpstart an alliance of

One-Stop Family Justice Shops Centers)

BUSH: Family of Secrets (by Russ Baker)

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years [Interview]

“The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” by Jeff Sharlett:

(from Harpers article 2003 by author. Note: The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative (below) began in 2003)

California’s SB 557 has been passed by Senate and is awaiting in Assembly

Here is some of the voting and excerpts — plus my comments

The California Bill SB 557 is to streamline and authorize the Family Justice Center Model. It’s whizzing by committees, and as we speak, was read in the Assembly June 2, and being held at the Assembly Desk. Right now, per “aroundthecapitol.com,”

03/29/11 Sen. Committee on Public Safety: 6-0 (1 not voting) — PASS Motion: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.

Steve White 14 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT

Phony Statistics put out by ACFJC

MORE (9/2007) INFO FROM Steve White “Boatbrain” on the ACFJC fudging (lying) on its statistics, in addition to improper appointment of CEO. Please read entire article we find further conflicts of interest and very disturbing dishonesty, reminiscent of the San Diego outfit:

He goes on . . . . after challenging the “20,000 victims and their families served…”

WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE ON FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS – AND GWB DECLARES OCTOBER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MONTH (in 2003).

Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center

SHARE THIS POST on...

Keep an Eye on our Public Servants: District Attorney’s Offices

Always.

Take for example (1), Los Angeles County‘s:

BIOGRAPHY

Title 255—LOCAL
COURT RULES SCHUYLKILL COUNTY

[40 Pa.B. 7041]
[Saturday, December 11, 2010]

03/29/11 Sen. Committee on Public Safety: 6-0 (1 not voting) — PASS
Motion: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.