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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for the ‘Child Support’ Category

The Roots of Welfare DeForm — An Off-Road List of Links — and the Virtues of Educating Oneself

leave a comment »

At bottom are the links from the blog  “The Family Court Franchise System.”  In one of the recent posts I said, “I’m not your mother” and suggested people educate themselves.  Plus two interesting links, “Educate Yo’self” and “Educate Yourself” which is where I got part of my education.

Where I got the habit of educating myself goes far back — but in these matters, it came from having relied on others’ information, which — though true enough — was (1) not the overview– critical elements were missing, and (2) given what was missing, almost irrelevant.  Instead they (includes Lundy Bancroft, and classic DV rhetoric) talked psychology and group dynamics and some law — something anyone living through what I did has already figured out (though how nice to have the correct terminology).

But they should’ve talked finances — and corporate influence, federal incentives, and private nonprofit associations running demonstration social science projects on as many POOR people (or other distressed populations) as possible, allegedly for the public’s benefit, and definitely at the public’s expense.  In fact, public and private are so blurred at this point, it might be best to ignore what the law says about domestic violence and criminal behavior, and rebuttable presumptions against custody going to the batterer (after all — plenty of judges, family law attorneys, custody evaluators, guardians ad litem and child support professionals most certainly do.  And we have to deal with them anyhow, so why not figure out what’s going on!

ROUGHLY in TWO PARTS:  I.  “EDUCATE YOURSELF” — and several examples.  And then II. (as to the Roots of Welfare) — some links to do so.  (under 7,000 words this time).  That’s if you care to.  I’m not your babysitter, I do this for conscience, possibly for therapy, and for a track record. But they are — as this shows — hauling off (kidnapping) children systematically from good parents, to get drugged under foster care.  They are, when there are two parents fighting for custody, able to prolong and make horrible the fight for years — and so “justify” major grants continuations (under TANF, which makes this possible) to promote marriage and fatherhood, and other very chauvinistic (antifeminist) ideas.  At the heart of this is the concept that it’s OK to force indoctrination (“education”) on poor people to address why they are poor, that the elite are appropriate in “molding” the poor — through force — to understand their function and place in society.  Religion is a good aid to this policy.

Too much of this policy comes from places like the British monarchy, or the Nazi apparatus, or prior to that, Prussian educational ideas.  Too much of it depends on free time to philosophize on the backs of workers that barely make ends meet and have far less freedom or mobility simply because they have no family wealth (assets), whether earned, or inherited.  Add to this things like eminent domain (government condemning, then seizing, then selling to cronies, private property) and we’re headed back towards the concentrations camps.  Depending on when “Judgment Day” comes — or does not.  Whatever the status of “judgment day” — there is nothing “just” or equitable about Welfare Reform, which enables flexible grants to the states, and gives bribes to states for going along with federal policy.  Federal policy rubberstamped by Congress — but managed by the Executive Branch (White House and friends) through a grants system.  The grants system itself is based on the TAX system — and there you go.

This is commonly called fascism ,centralization and we know already where that heads off to.

I know what dictatorship is at the family level, the personal level — and am pretty hot and bothered to see how far down the line it is at the national level as well.  When one’s life’s work is repeatedly interrupted, and finally stopped — talking about the essential things one has done in life — one has to rethink the “hold a job til retirement model,” particularly being a female of a certain age in the USA, Post-Bush1 & Bush 2.

(Read PART I, those comments will make more sense).

PART I

Educate Yo’self was actually the domain name of a link someone else passed along.  What a source!

The Declaration of Independence – 1776
The Articles of Confederation – 1777
The Constitution for the United States – 1787
Its Sources and Its Application

Commitment One: To Freedom

The commitment of greatest importance is a DEDICATION To FREEDOM at all levels of society, and in all dimensions of our existence.

A commitment to freedom, at all levels, is automatically a commitment to Rigorous Honesty, the Truth of Reality. After all, once freedom is insured, why would one need to lie?

Any “security” that is gained through loss of freedom is a Commitment to Fear. Any nation that puts “national security” above personal freedom has lost its power base

And, tidbits such as (from 2008 — an election year. Worth a review this year?):

545 People Responsible for America’s Woes
by Charley ReeseHave you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

. . . .Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.    . . .

REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS . . .

They continue to re-authorize the bastard child called “Welfare Reform,” which has simply expanded the ways to steal from the public, without proper monitoring, to infinity.  Go review the beginnings of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (I’ve blogged).  Or, how from state to state, the We, the People method of disciplining criminal judges (leaving ethical ones on the bench) — which was the grand jury — was replaced by “judicial complaint boards.”

It was passed in 1996, a Bill Clinton year.  See “From the Transvaal to TANF” talking about “triangulation” and how Clinton promoted this version of the “contract with America” as inbetween and somehow “above” party politics.  The fact is, the Republicans had succeeded in shutting down government over this, his ass was in trouble with Monica Lewinsky, and there was the Hillary problem; in fact there were plenty of problems.

The “Transvaal’ refers to Cecil Rhodes.  Bill Clinton, among others, was a Rhodes Scholar.   The purpose of the Rhodes Scholarship, and the beyond-my-liftime-goal of Mr. Rhodes, was to regain the British control of the world, particularly the return of “the US colonies” to their master.  Some people were born to lead, others were born to serve, obviously.  Now, fast-forward to TANF reform and look at who it’s targeting for program indoctrination on how to stay married, and quit propagating outside of marriage, etc.

The fact is, were it not for the artificial income tax / fiat currency situation (our $$ is off the gold standard), were it not the need for extremely wealthy corporations to maintain their wealth by a constant flow of competition for jobs in their industries (i.e., keep wages down, profits up) and to through a HUGE variety of means — including trying to designate everyone, almost, a behavioral health case, and where possible, proscribe some nice medication for them (i.e., control by medication, even sterilization) — it would be a piece of cake for an intelligent, motivated and in control of her own infrastructure single mother (or single father) to handle their own affairs.

One of the affairs the largest mistakes made by OUR forebears (generally speaking of USA citizens), over a century ago, was to hand over the raising of our kids to the government in the form of compulsory public education — which is compulsory time-wasting and dumbing down, and has been for decades.  It’s an ABSOLUTE disgrace and has become simply a values battleground anyhow.    And as to equalization — go check your senators — and all the representatives in the state — how many of them are sending their kids to public schools, and were themselves the product of public schools.  How many of them came from honest working backgrounds and were not raised with a silver spoon, or a political spoon?

Some of the greatest minds and leaders had the least traditional schooling — for themselves.   Horace Mann fits that example, and it appears 1837 was the first year there was a “Secretary of Education” at least in massachusetts.  Now we have a Secretary of Health and Human Services (more control over this country than you realize, and the current one is from Kansas), plus the “Czars” — interesting term, huh?  Look at him:

HORACE MANN‘s SCHOOLING

” The Father of American Education”,” Horace Mann, was born in Franklin, Massachusetts, in 1796. Mann’s schooling consisted only of brief and erratic periods of eight to ten weeks a year. Mann educated himself by reading ponderous volumes from the Franklin Town Library. This self education, combined with the fruits of a brief period of study with an intinerant school master, was sufficient to gain him admission to the sophomore class of Brown University in 1816” (4, Cremin). He went on to study law at Litchfield Law School and finally received admission to the bar in 1823 (15, Filler). In the year 1827 Mann won a seat in the state legislature and in 1833 ran for State Senate and won.” Throughout these years Horace Mann maintained a thriving law practice, first in Dedham and later in Boston” (5, Cremin).

” Of the many causes dear to Mann’s heart, non was closer than the education of the people. He held a keen interest in school policy. April 20, 1837, Mann left his law practice and accepted the post of the newly founded Secretary of Education” (6, Cremin). During his years as Secretary of Education Mann published twelve annual reports on aspects of his work and programs, and the integral relationship between education, freedom, and Republican government. He wanted a school that would be available and equal for all, part of the birth-right of every American child, to be for rich and poor alike. Mann had found “social harmony” to be his primary goal of the school. (8, Cremin).

Horace Mann felt that a common school would be the “great equalizer.” Poverty would most assuredly disappear as a broadened popular intelligence tapped new treasures of natural and material wealth. He felt that through education crime would decline sharply as would a host of moral vices like violence and fraud. In sum, there was no end to the social good which might be derived from a common school (8, Cremin).

SO — how’d you say THAT’s going?  Because in Los Angeles, they had a schoolteacher feeding blindfolded teaspoons of his own semen.  THIRD-graders.  Has poverty, violence and fraud been primarily despite the school system, or perhaps as a consequence of it?
Horace Mann had one thing — freedom.  He had another thing — access to the library.  He was also male, and he could vote — it was another century, from his passing the bar (1823) before women could!  Rather than trying to train a nation (how egotistical!), what about establish these basic rights, and make available justice (and libraries).
Horace Mann and Education Reform
Reformers, some influenced by the Prussian education reforms of the early 1800s, emerged at an incredible rate hoping to change the general form and ideals of American education to keep up with the evolving country. No longer would small rural schoolhouses, untrained teachers, or limitations in education opportunities suffice. A more defined system, which, as Mann and others had hoped, would also be free and universal, slowly garnered both grassroots and governmental support. The goal was to mold individuals from all socio-economic backgrounds into good people and good citizens through education. It was believed that in doing so everyone would be able to achieve to their fullest potential.
I would always much rather see a sermon than hear one.   Moreover, we ought to take care about importing Prussian OR German ideas.  Germans tend to be real organized, excessively so, — and I think it’s fair to say, Centralized. There is a LOT of literature out, particularly I’m thinking about Alice Miller, and “The Drama of the Gifted Child,” (d. 2010; she was a Swiss psychoanalyst, the book is about the consequences of repressed trauma)– talking about how the attempts to “mold” good strong citizens with cruel child-rearing practices (from Germany) may have helped created the cruel, socially-detached, amoral child molesters and sociopaths of today that we are now cleaning up after.
Alice Miller, child abuse and mistreatment
And yet, we have in TANF, a government intent on even more education of the public — in morality issues like fatherhood, marriage, abstinence, and so forth.  The truth is — at least as to TANF — I believe it’s simply another form of wealth-transfer; and it’s a VERY high profit-margin on downloading information by the internet, setting up a franchise system, having people BUY into it to be qualified as a marriage educator (etc.) — it was a real smart development for some very dishonest people.

What about Ben Franklin? (1706-1790)– was he adequately schooled?  Methinks not:

Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston on January 17, 1706. He was the tenth son of soap maker, Josiah Franklin. Benjamin’s mother was Abiah Folger, the second wife of Josiah. In all, Josiah would father 17 children.

Josiah intended for Benjamin to enter into the clergy. However, Josiah could only afford to send his son to school for one year and clergymen needed years of schooling. But, as young Benjamin loved to read he had him apprenticed to his brother James, who was a printer. After helping James compose pamphlets and set type which was grueling work, 12-year-old Benjamin would sell their products in the streets.

What about Albert Einstein’s schooling?(1879-1955) (from a UK site): (take some time, here…)

Albert Einstein was born on 14th March, 1879 at Ulm, Germany. He spent his early life in Munich, where his family owned a small manufacturing business. He studied Judaism at home, where he also was taught to play the violin. He showed a great interest in Mathematics and taught himself Euclidian geometry at the age of 12.

What sort of education did Albert receive?

Albert Einstein began school in Munich, but does not seem to have been particularly interested in what was offered there. . .

He was already a self-motivated learner, with experience in (I presume) language, music, and geometry.  Are schools BORING the gifted? along with how many others?

Einstein hoped to become an electrical engineer and, at the second attempt, enrolled at the Swiss National Polytechnic in Zurich in 1896.

It seems that he continued to show little respect for his teachers, as he was not a regular attender at lectures. He spent considerable time studying physics on his own. Despite the lack of time in lecture halls, he graduated as a teacher of physics and mathematics in 1900, but was unable to obtain a post in the university. It has been suggested that he had not impressed his professors enough, which is perhaps not surprising, given his attitude, and so did not receive their all-important backing for an academic career.

Perhaps this lack of respect comes from someone who found something better to do with his time, working on self-assigned projects of interest.

What did he do next?

Albert Einstein became a temporary teacher of mathematics, first at the Technical High School in Winterthur, and secondly at a private school at Schaffhausen.

In 1902 he began work at the Swiss patent office in Bern as a technical expert third class. He remained there until 1909, having been promoted, in 1906, to technical expert second class! He married Mileva Maric, by whom he had two sons, in 1903. They later divorced.

During his time there, Albert Einstein devoted a great deal of his spare time to the study of theoretical physics, and in 1905, received his doctorate for a thesis entitled On a new determination of molecular dimensions. He also published three important papers on theoretical physics

 Anyone who’s honest today will admit that a major function of public school education is babysitter — to soak up the TIME of individuals so their parents (both their parents, if there are two) can go to work and pay their taxes to fund the teachers, among other things (or pay off some interest on the national debt).  As such, the kids (and youth) in school are going to have other things they would rather be doing, and/or exploring — so a good deal of the school day goes into administration and managing the kids.  And (now at least) running mental health screenings on them to see if some drugs can be marketed (see recent whistleblower on TMAP, PennMAP, who documented this).   More on Einstein:

In 1952, he declined the offer of the presidency of Israel and continued his work towards the world renouncing nuclear weapons.

Albert Einstein died on 18th April, 1955 at Princeton and was cremated that day at Trenton, New Jersey. He is, perhaps, the best known scientist of the 20th century

And just imagine — he was bored in school from the start, skipped a lot of classes, didn’t brown-nose enough in Swiss National Polytechnic around the turn of the century, resulting in his having a fairly humble job which left him time to study things of personal interest — eventually a Nobel Prize, etc. What does public education in the US do today?  Soak up time, DELETE a lot of music because not enough children are learning to read and write, substitutes values education, and when that (obviously) fails, recommend more money and start kids earlier and have longer school days and years.
The existence of the public school system, and its lower quality, is a caste-sorter, and intentionally so.   Where did our politicians go to school, prior to sponsoring initiatives to train the rest of us about the purpose of life, relationships, sex, and what and what is not healthy?  For example (to bring us to 2012 Presidential Candidacy, and which conservative do you want….)
Mitt Romney went to a private school from 7th grand onwards, where he met his wife, who also attended private schools.  Described as (Wikipedia):
Cranbrook Schools is a private, PK–12 school located on a 319-acre (1.29 km2) campus in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. The schools comprise a co-educational elementary school, a middle school with separate schools for boys and girls, and a co-educational high school with boarding facilities  …Romney went to public elementary schools[17] and then from seventh grade on, attended Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, a private boys preparatory school of the classic mold where he was the lone Mormon and where many students came from even more privileged backgrounds.[18][23][24][25] He was not particularly athletic and at first did not excel at academics.[18] While a sophomore, he participated in the campaign in which his father was elected Governor of Michigan.[nb 2] 
Cranbrook Schools is a private, PK–12 school located on a 319-acre (1.29 km2) campus in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. The schools comprise a co-educational elementary school, a middle school with separate schools for boys and girls, and a co-educational high school with boarding facilities. Cranbrook Schools is part of the Cranbrook Educational Community (CEC), which includes the Cranbrook Institute of Science, the Cranbrook Academy of Art, and Cranbrook House and Gardens. (Nearby Christ Church Cranbrook remains outside this formal structure.) The Cranbrook community was established by publishing mogul George Booth,
 Cranbrook was designated a National Historic Landmark on June 29, 1989 for its significant architecture and design. It attracts tourists from around the world. Approximately 40 acres (160,000 m2) of Cranbrook Schools’ campus are gardens.  As of 2006, Cranbrook Schools had an endowment of $191 million, among the 15 largest held by America’s boarding schools.[1] In addition, the Cranbrook Educational Community, of which the Schools is a member, has an endowment in excess of $300 million.[2]
Where did he get his wife from?

Ann Lois Romney (née Davies) (born April 16, 1949) is the wife of American businessman and Republican Party politician Mitt Romney. From 2003 to 2007 she was First Lady of Massachusetts.

She was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and attended the private Kingswood School there, where she dated Mitt Romney. Influenced by their relationship, she converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1966. She attended Brigham Young University and married Mitt Romney in 1969. She completed her undergraduate education through the Extension School at Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in 1975.

As First Lady of Massachusetts, she served as the governor’s liaison for federal faith-based initiatives.

Now THAT is disturbing . . . .

Her background — daughter of the mayor of Bloomfield Hills, who was anti-organized religion.  So, she converts to LDS (like Mitt) and her college is put on hold while he completes his.   Their marriage, being Mormon:

Ann Davies and Mitt Romney were married by a church elder in a civil ceremony on March 21, 1969, at her Bloomfield Hills home, with a reception afterward at a local country club.[4][12] The following day the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony inside the Salt Lake Temple; her family could not attend since they were non-Mormons, but were present at a subsequent wedding breakfast held for them across the street.[4][14]

When she fell ill, she had access to mainstream and alternative treatments for MS (a very serious disease) — such as equestrianism.  Suppose this had been one of her children — they’d have had that access also.

Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 and has credited a mixture of mainstream and alternative treatments with giving her a lifestyle mostly without limitations. In one of those activities, equestrianism, she has consequently received recognition in dressage as an adult amateur at the national level and competing professionally in Grand Prix as well
The topic is EDUCATION DISPARITIES by WEALTH — as contrasted with Horace Mann’s vision:
By contrast with the ONE child of a black single mother (also in Michigan), who — on finding out that her daughter, having developed complications possibly related to a vaccine, then was given Risperdal — and when that had even worse effects, like any good Mom, she took her child OFF it — and then all hell (including with tanks and helicopters) eventually took place.  (Link is below).  It “just so happened’ that the community they lived in was supposed to do what it was told with their kids, and not buck the system or seek — as Mrs. Romney could — non-mainstream ways to stay alive or keep their kids alive and healthy.  That’s cause for losing one’s kid to the state, apparently.
Ron Paul Op-Ed on Ms. Godboldo in context of overmedication of chidlren in foster care, forced mandatory psychiatric screening of children (think they get that in the Cranbrook Educational Community nowadays?):

“No Mandatory Mental Health Screening For Children!” by Ron Paul

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 Op-Ed by Congressman Ron Paul

Maryanne Godboldo, a mother in Michigan, noticed that pills prescribed by her daughter’s doctor were making her condition worse, not better. So Mrs. Godboldo stopped giving them to her. That’s when the trouble began. When Child Protective Services (CPS) bureaucrats became aware that the girl was not receiving her prescribed medication, they decided the child should be taken away from her mother’s custody on grounds of medical neglect. When Ms. Godboldo refused to surrender her daughter to the state, CPS enlisted the help of a police SWAT team! On March 24 of this year a 12 hour standoff ensued and young Ariana was taken into custody. The drug involved was Risperdal, a neuroleptic antipsychotic medication with numerous known side effects. Ms. Godboldo had decided on a more holistic approach for her daughter. She is still engaged in a costly legal battle with the state over Ariana’s treatment and custody.

This is one example of how government’s increasing proclivity to medicate children with questionable psychiatric drugs violates the rights of parents. Just recently, the Government Accountability Office released a report on the astonishingly high rate of prescriptions for psychotropic drugs for children in the foster care system. It is absolutely astounding that nearly 40% of kids in foster care are on psychotropic drugs, some of them taking up to 5 different pills at a time. Some of these children are under one year of age – too young to safely take over the counter cold medication!

 Another account:

Ethan A. Huff,
Natural News
December 15, 2011

The horrific saga of Maryanne Godboldo’s battle with domestic terrorists in the government of her home state of Michigan appear to finally be coming to an end. TheDetroit Free Pressreports that two higher courts have confirmed the ruling of a lower court several months ago that Godboldo’s refusal to administer the dangerous Risperdal drug to her daughter was fully legal, and that all charges and actions taken against her by the state were unwarranted.

In case you missed the story, Child Protective Services (CPS) in Michigan sent a SWAT team and tank to Godboldo’s Detroit home back in April after the mother refused to keep giving her 13-year-old daughter Risperdal (risperidone), a dangerous schizophrenia drug that had been causing her daughter to experience severe adverse reactions. Godboldo’s doctor had recommended that she discontinue use of the drug, but CPS felt otherwise, and decided to launch a full-scale terrorist raid on the woman’s home, where they proceeded to illegally kidnap her daughter (http://www.naturalnews.com/032090_M…).

In one of the series of articles on this raid, the demographics of the community spoke loudly as to what happened.  It wouldn’t happen in a gated community, and I’ll bet it wouldn’t happen in Bloomfield Hills, either.  However, another clue shows up in this (april 2011) article — not only was this woman acting — in accord with the doctor’s advice to stop Risperdal — not only was she single and African-American, she was also homeschooling her daughter!
Godboldos focus on daughter’s release:  April 17, 2011, The Michigan Citizen, Eric T. Campbell
“This case is very simple,” Defense Attorney Allison Fomar told the Michigan Citizen. “The child was taken out of the home without any legitimate, lawful authority. They took her in the most drastic way they could think of, which was to involve Detroit police.

. . .Ariana has been in state custody since March 25 without medication.

“If the issue was medication, where is the justice?” Penny said. “Why isn’t she home with her father right now? He has complete authority after Maryanne. To me, they sent her into harms way.”

Penny {{the mother’s sister and a dance teacher at Margrove College}} says her niece was active and normal growing up in a home-schooled environment. She was active in church and received lessons in piano and horseback riding.   “There were absolutely no mental issues with her until she had the immunizations and even more with the Risperdal,” Penny said. “It’s been a hell ever since.”

Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality  . . .“The child has a father and an aunt and that’s where the mother thought the child was going when she released her,” Scott said. “Judge Pierce says she’s an advocate for families, so we’ll see what happens.”

According to Scott, CPS knew the daughter was doing fine without Risperdal and she was not considered an imminent danger to herself or anyone else. 

August, in this same case (good article — read it all!)

JURY RULES AGAINST MARYANNE GODBOLDO IN CUSTODY TRIAL

Posted on 08/16/2011 by Diane Bukowski

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

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

Wenk said that as she watched the stand-off with police that resulted at Ariana’s home, her only concern was, “I didn’t want her to end up shooting her daughter.”**  Wenk is currently facing a federal lawsuit  filed by Nathaniel Brent (see next story) for taking his five children, who are of Native American heritage.

Captions: Maryanne Godboldo speaks at rally July 17, 2011 . . . Children’s Center recruits foster parents in billboard off John C. Lodge Fwy.; they are paid $34 per day per head by DHS for each child they take

(**Wenk provoked the crisis to start with, which seems to be pretty standard protocol, where possible to get away with.   It also signifies a serious attitude problem, job description or no job description.   In this situation, they simply didn’t reckon with an armed mother, and a supportive community expressing its outrage AND investigative reporting on it!  The problem is the presence of a system which enables this.  That the SWAT team would come in this situation shows that Wenk and friends hold far too much sway.  Meanwhile, over in Connecticut, a little boy (and across the country this is happening) is being tortured with symptoms BOTH medical and behavioral, as attested to by doctors — and the GAL in the case still has custody with the father who is doing this!  WHy not remove THAT child?) (Answer:  money in the family hasn’t been sucked out yet. See CT page on my other blog).

I keep finding more — and very disturbing — information on this case.  First of all — we note that this is a mature mother, not a teen mother (see photo, and article below says she’s in her 50s).  She is dedicated to taking care of her daughter who is an amputee, and was doing a good job of it; the troubles began with a school-required vaccination, and reactions to it.   And although parents are separated, this was not a case which could be played Mom VERSUS Dad.

“Police use Assault Weapons and Tank against Home School Mom wanting to protect daughter from Dangerous Medications.”

Health Impact News Editor

According to the Detroit News, a 56-year-old woman faces multiple felony charges and is being held on $500,000 bond after a 10-hour standoff with police, claiming she was protecting her 13-year-old daughter from unnecessary medication. The story which led to this incident, as reported in the Detroit News and The Voice of Detroit, is quite disturbing.

Maryanne Godboldo’s daughter was born with a defective foot that required amputation of her leg below the knee, which led to Maryanne becoming a stay-at-home mother after her birth. Maryanne and her sister Penny now run a dance school in Detroit. Penny Godboldo reported in the Detroit News her niece’s confidence grew, and despite her handicap, she swam, sang, danced and played the piano. However, as she approached middle school age, she apparently wanted to start attending school, and therefore had to “catch up” on required immunizations.

As the Detroit News reports:

“We believe she had an adverse reaction to her immunizations,” Penny Godboldo said.

“She began acting out of character, being irritated, having facial grimaces that have been associated with immunizations.”

Evans said Maryanne Godboldo sought help for her daughter from The Children’s Center, an organization that helps families with at-risk children, where a medical and mental health treatment plan was developed. Godboldo told relatives the medications ordered by the doctor worsened symptoms, including behavioral problems.

“It is an undiagnosed condition, but the doctor had given her psychotropic drugs that caused a bad reaction, made things worse,” said the girl’s father, Mubuarak Hakim. “Maryanne’s decision to wean her from that was making a difference, making her better, helping her to be a happy kid again.”

Maryanne Godboldo apparently has a good reputation in her community, and during the 10 hour standoff many people from the community offered to help with the negotiations, including ministers and community activists, according to reports in the Detroit News. Ironically, it was Wayne Circuit Judge Deborah Thomas, a former polio sufferer and advocate for the disabled, who finally convinced Maryanne to surrender

Embarrassed — or exposed? — although the mother had her criminal charges dropped, and her child back (late December) the Wayne County District attorney, per spokesman, is thinking of re-instating them.  They are crazy — but smart enough to know that this case is probably a good chink in the wall.

http://www.miweekly.com/news/85-detroit/5705-mom-in-police-standoff-awaits-decision-on-charges

Last Updated: December 10. 2011 1:00AM

Doug Guthrie/ The Detroit News

Detroit— A judge is expected to announce his decision Monday whether to reinstate criminal charges against a mother who resisted police who forced their way into her home to take her teenage daughter during a dispute over medications. . . .

Acting on a call from a Wayne County Child Protective Services (=CPS) worker, who told police she had obtained an order to remove the child on a claim of medical neglect, the officers responding to Godboldo’s home accused her of firing a handgun at them through a plaster wall after she refused to let them in. Godboldo was talked out of the house. She was jailed for several days until her release on bond, and her daughter was held in a state psychiatric facility for almost two months.

Godboldo was charged with resisting and assaulting police, as well as use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Giles tossed out the charges in August because he said the order used by police as authority to enter the house was invalid. It was never authorized by a judge, but had a rubber stamp signature. Police also testified they don’t normally enforce civil court orders, but had been told by the protective services worker it was a criminal warrant.

And the police didn’t LOOK at the warrant?  Do criminal and civil warrants look different from each other?

http://justice4maryanne.com/

Some excellent reporting.

Talk about the disparity of viewpoints:  Family, Community — versus the System who wants the child to be medicated.

My reading has led me to the conclusion — this is a class war, and at the bottom of the barrel (as to scapegoating) are women who look and act like this one.  Like Albert Einstein, Horace Mann, and other leaders, her daughter’s education was not traditional — and part of schooling these days is getting the vaccinations (I even found a reference to James Franklin — Ben’s older brother — protesting vaccinations in his time!).   Drugging people is a form of medical control — not just profits — get it?  If certain classes of people are being used as test cases for the effects of dangerous drugs, then this comprises a class war against them.   Why should this mother AND her community have to wage a legal battle to “buy” back a daughter which had been kidnapped improperly?   Why should anyone have to?

At some level, we have got to start acknowledging that mature, independent mothers are a threat to the status quo.   For the rest of us, the family law system with its fatherhood funding gets the job done without SWAT teams.  But both methods are extortionist.

Listen to “Managing Oneself” (found by checking out the spelling: Onesself or Oneself?)

(Peter Drucker, Harvard Business Review, 1999)  It’s password protected from copying a single sentence, but (bottom of page 5 or so) talking about what a knowledge ecomony we have, and how one must manage oneself, including knowing one’s learning style.  Are you a writer or a reader?  For those who learn by writing, he says, school is pure torture– writers learn by writing  — not by listening and reading (guess I’m one of those!).  Because schools don’t let them learn that way, they get poor grades (speculation, I suppose, as to cause)….

Schools do not accommodate the different learning styles, forcing everyone to learn “the way the school teaches” is “sheer hell for students who learn differently.”   

“Success in the knowledge economy comes to those who know themselves, their strengths, their values and how they best perform.”

Easy to say, but that Michigan Mom seems to be someone who knows herself, her strengths (and her daughters) and certainly her values — so why should she catch this kind of hell, and have her daughter in a psychiatric institution for two months or more, where there is some question whether or not she was also sexually assaulted (some news accounts bring this up) — in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

In case you can’t guess why this case has so grabbed my attention, even though I don’t have a disabled child, while my children were not (to my knowledge) forcibly medicated, the “kidnapping” was enabled around accusations of educational neglect (among others, none of which were proved, as is common) which was in fact educational choice, and an informed one.  When we’ve come to kidnapping and tanks/helicopters to prop up a bad decision by a CPS worker, and (see Voice of Detroit reporting, plus I recognized some of the companies investigated, and the system) everyone has to go into behavioral health testing grounds EXCEPT those who are rich enough and independent enough to escape the target range of these programs – then I have to ask –  what are we putting our lives and taxes toward to start with?  Is THIS something you want to really endorse?

 

A closer look is warranted at the entire system, and its background.  It’s already “culling” the population and in a crisis (see Katrina) guess who gets sacrificed.  Now read from Transvaal to TANF, read the congressional testimony just prior to enacting 1996 Welfare Reform (or even read some of the current talk/writing — if you can do so without regurgitating — and, in the mirror, ask whether this was accidental or planned.)

It took me a while to come to the conclusions I have, and I don’t expect others to agree immediately — or ncessarily ever.  But I do stand my ground — pay less attention to the talking heads, the mainstream media, and a lot more to your legislators and do NOT underestimate the influence of the family court system.  After all, a lot of money is going missing in the process — so what’s that money going INto?  Drugs?  Legal or illegal, or is there a difference?

 

It takes a good deal of context to separate Info from DISinfo. And it’s work, too.  With time, it gets a lot easier, though.

At bottom are the links from the blog  “The Family Court Franchise System.”  In one of the recent posts I said, “I’m not your mother” and suggested people educate themselves.  Plus two interesting links, “Educate Yo’self” and “Educate Yourself” which is where I got part of my education.

 

Where I got the habit of educating myself goes far back — but in these matters, it came from having relied on others’ information, which — though true enough — was (1) not the overview– critical elements were missing, and (2) given what was missing, almost irrelevant.  Instead they (includes Lundy Bancroft, and classic DV rhetoric) talked psychology and group dynamics and some law — something anyone living through what I did has already figured out (though how nice to have the correct terminology).

But they should’ve talked finances — and corporate influence, federal incentives, and private nonprofit associations running demonstration social science projects on as many POOR people (or other distressed populations) as possible, allegedly for the public’s benefit, and definitely at the public’s expense.  In fact, public and private are so blurred at this point, it might be best to ignore what the law says about domestic violence and criminal behavior, and rebuttable presumptions against custody going to the batterer (after all — plenty of judges, family law attorneys, custody evaluators, guardians ad litem and child support professionals most certainly do.  And we have to deal with them anyhow, so why not figure out what’s going on!

 

ROUGHLY in TWO PARTS:  I.  “EDUCATE YOURSELF” — and several examples.  And then II. (as to the Roots of Welfare) — some links to do so.  (under 7,000 words this time).  That’s if you care to.  I’m not your babysitter, I do this for conscience, possibly for therapy, and for a track record. But they are — as this shows — hauling off (kidnapping) children systematically from good parents, to get drugged under foster care.  They are, when there are two parents fighting for custody, able to prolong and make horrible the fight for years — and so “justify” major grants continuations (under TANF, which makes this possible) to promote marriage and fatherhood, and other very chauvinistic (antifeminist) ideas.  At the heart of this is the concept that it’s OK to force indoctrination (“education”) on poor people to address why they are poor, that the elite are appropriate in “molding” the poor — through force — to understand their function and place in society.  Religion is a good aid to this policy.

Too much of this policy comes from places like the British monarchy, or the Nazi apparatus, or prior to that, Prussian educational ideas.  Too much of it depends on free time to philosophize on the backs of workers that barely make ends meet and have far less freedom or mobility simply because they have no family wealth (assets), whether earned, or inherited.  Add to this things like eminent domain (government condemning, then seizing, then selling to cronies, private property) and we’re headed back towards the concentrations camps.  Depending on when “Judgment Day” comes — or does not.  Whatever the status of “judgment day” — there is nothing “just” or equitable about Welfare Reform, which enables flexible grants to the states, and gives bribes to states for going along with federal policy.  Federal policy rubberstamped by Congress — but managed by the Executive Branch (White House and friends) through a grants system.  The grants system itself is based on the TAX system — and there you go.

This is commonly called fascism ,centralization and we know already where that heads off to.

I know what dictatorship is at the family level, the personal level — and am pretty hot and bothered to see how far down the line it is at the national level as well.  When one’s life’s work is repeatedly interrupted, and finally stopped — talking about the essential things one has done in life — one has to rethink the “hold a job til retirement model,” particularly being a female of a certain age in the USA, Post-Bush1 & Bush 2.

(Read PART I, those comments will make more sense).

 

PART I

Educate Yo’self was actually the domain name of a link someone else passed along.  What a source!

The Declaration of Independence – 1776
The Articles of Confederation – 1777
The Constitution for the United States – 1787
Its Sources and Its Application

Commitment One: To Freedom

The commitment of greatest importance is a DEDICATION To FREEDOM at all levels of society, and in all dimensions of our existence.

A commitment to freedom, at all levels, is automatically a commitment to Rigorous Honesty, the Truth of Reality. After all, once freedom is insured, why would one need to lie?

Any “security” that is gained through loss of freedom is a Commitment to Fear. Any nation that puts “national security” above personal freedom has lost its power base

And, tidbits such as (from 2008 — an election year. Worth a review this year?):

545 People Responsible for America’s Woes
by Charley ReeseHave you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

. . . .Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.    . . .

REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS . . .

They continue to re-authorize the bastard child called “Welfare Reform,” which has simply expanded the ways to steal from the public, without proper monitoring, to infinity.  Go review the beginnings of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (I’ve blogged).  Or, how from state to state, the We, the People method of disciplining criminal judges (leaving ethical ones on the bench) — which was the grand jury — was replaced by “judicial complaint boards.”

It was passed in 1996, a Bill Clinton year.  See “From the Transvaal to TANF” talking about “triangulation” and how Clinton promoted this version of the “contract with America” as inbetween and somehow “above” party politics.  The fact is, the Republicans had succeeded in shutting down government over this, his ass was in trouble with Monica Lewinsky, and there was the Hillary problem; in fact there were plenty of problems.

The “Transvaal’ refers to Cecil Rhodes.  Bill Clinton, among others, was a Rhodes Scholar.   The purpose of the Rhodes Scholarship, and the beyond-my-liftime-goal of Mr. Rhodes, was to regain the British control of the world, particularly the return of “the US colonies” to their master.  Some people were born to lead, others were born to serve, obviously.  Now, fast-forward to TANF reform and look at who it’s targeting for program indoctrination on how to stay married, and quit propagating outside of marriage, etc.

The fact is, were it not for the artificial income tax / fiat currency situation (our $$ is off the gold standard), were it not the need for extremely wealthy corporations to maintain their wealth by a constant flow of competition for jobs in their industries (i.e., keep wages down, profits up) and to through a HUGE variety of means — including trying to designate everyone, almost, a behavioral health case, and where possible, proscribe some nice medication for them (i.e., control by medication, even sterilization) — it would be a piece of cake for an intelligent, motivated and in control of her own infrastructure single mother (or single father) to handle their own affairs.

One of the affairs the largest mistakes made by OUR forebears (generally speaking of USA citizens), over a century ago, was to hand over the raising of our kids to the government in the form of compulsory public education — which is compulsory time-wasting and dumbing down, and has been for decades.  It’s an ABSOLUTE disgrace and has become simply a values battleground anyhow.    And as to equalization — go check your senators — and all the representatives in the state — how many of them are sending their kids to public schools, and were themselves the product of public schools.  How many of them came from honest working backgrounds and were not raised with a silver spoon, or a political spoon?

Some of the greatest minds and leaders had the least traditional schooling — for themselves.   Horace Mann fits that example, and it appears 1837 was the first year there was a “Secretary of Education” at least in massachusetts.  Now we have a Secretary of Health and Human Services (more control over this country than you realize, and the current one is from Kansas), plus the “Czars” — interesting term, huh?  Look at him:

HORACE MANN‘s SCHOOLING

” The Father of American Education”,” Horace Mann, was born in Franklin, Massachusetts, in 1796. Mann’s schooling consisted only of brief and erratic periods of eight to ten weeks a year. Mann educated himself by reading ponderous volumes from the Franklin Town Library. This self education, combined with the fruits of a brief period of study with an intinerant school master, was sufficient to gain him admission to the sophomore class of Brown University in 1816” (4, Cremin). He went on to study law at Litchfield Law School and finally received admission to the bar in 1823 (15, Filler). In the year 1827 Mann won a seat in the state legislature and in 1833 ran for State Senate and won.” Throughout these years Horace Mann maintained a thriving law practice, first in Dedham and later in Boston” (5, Cremin).

” Of the many causes dear to Mann’s heart, non was closer than the education of the people. He held a keen interest in school policy. April 20, 1837, Mann left his law practice and accepted the post of the newly founded Secretary of Education” (6, Cremin). During his years as Secretary of Education Mann published twelve annual reports on aspects of his work and programs, and the integral relationship between education, freedom, and Republican government. He wanted a school that would be available and equal for all, part of the birth-right of every American child, to be for rich and poor alike. Mann had found “social harmony” to be his primary goal of the school. (8, Cremin).

Horace Mann felt that a common school would be the “great equalizer.” Poverty would most assuredly disappear as a broadened popular intelligence tapped new treasures of natural and material wealth. He felt that through education crime would decline sharply as would a host of moral vices like violence and fraud. In sum, there was no end to the social good which might be derived from a common school (8, Cremin).

SO — how’d you say THAT’s going?  Because in Los Angeles, they had a schoolteacher feeding blindfolded teaspoons of his own semen.  THIRD-graders.  Has poverty, violence and fraud been primarily despite the school system, or perhaps as a consequence of it?
Horace Mann had one thing — freedom.  He had another thing — access to the library.  He was also male, and he could vote — it was another century, from his passing the bar (1823) before women could!  Rather than trying to train a nation (how egotistical!), what about establish these basic rights, and make available justice (and libraries).
Horace Mann and Education Reform
Reformers, some influenced by the Prussian education reforms of the early 1800s, emerged at an incredible rate hoping to change the general form and ideals of American education to keep up with the evolving country. No longer would small rural schoolhouses, untrained teachers, or limitations in education opportunities suffice. A more defined system, which, as Mann and others had hoped, would also be free and universal, slowly garnered both grassroots and governmental support. The goal was to mold individuals from all socio-economic backgrounds into good people and good citizens through education. It was believed that in doing so everyone would be able to achieve to their fullest potential.
I would always much rather see a sermon than hear one.   Moreover, we ought to take care about importing Prussian OR German ideas.  Germans tend to be real organized, excessively so, — and I think it’s fair to say, Centralized. There is a LOT of literature out, particularly I’m thinking about Alice Miller, and “The Drama of the Gifted Child,” (d. 2010; she was a Swiss psychoanalyst, the book is about the consequences of repressed trauma)– talking about how the attempts to “mold” good strong citizens with cruel child-rearing practices (from Germany) may have helped created the cruel, socially-detached, amoral child molesters and sociopaths of today that we are now cleaning up after.
Alice Miller, child abuse and mistreatment
And yet, we have in TANF, a government intent on even more education of the public — in morality issues like fatherhood, marriage, abstinence, and so forth.  The truth is — at least as to TANF — I believe it’s simply another form of wealth-transfer; and it’s a VERY high profit-margin on downloading information by the internet, setting up a franchise system, having people BUY into it to be qualified as a marriage educator (etc.) — it was a real smart development for some very dishonest people.

What about Ben Franklin? (1706-1790)– was he adequately schooled?  Methinks not:

Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston on January 17, 1706. He was the tenth son of soap maker, Josiah Franklin. Benjamin’s mother was Abiah Folger, the second wife of Josiah. In all, Josiah would father 17 children.

Josiah intended for Benjamin to enter into the clergy. However, Josiah could only afford to send his son to school for one year and clergymen needed years of schooling. But, as young Benjamin loved to read he had him apprenticed to his brother James, who was a printer. After helping James compose pamphlets and set type which was grueling work, 12-year-old Benjamin would sell their products in the streets.

What about Albert Einstein’s schooling?(1879-1955) (from a UK site): (take some time, here…)

Albert Einstein was born on 14th March, 1879 at Ulm, Germany. He spent his early life in Munich, where his family owned a small manufacturing business. He studied Judaism at home, where he also was taught to play the violin. He showed a great interest in Mathematics and taught himself Euclidian geometry at the age of 12.

What sort of education did Albert receive?

Albert Einstein began school in Munich, but does not seem to have been particularly interested in what was offered there. . .

He was already a self-motivated learner, with experience in (I presume) language, music, and geometry.  Are schools BORING the gifted? along with how many others?

Einstein hoped to become an electrical engineer and, at the second attempt, enrolled at the Swiss National Polytechnic in Zurich in 1896.

It seems that he continued to show little respect for his teachers, as he was not a regular attender at lectures. He spent considerable time studying physics on his own. Despite the lack of time in lecture halls, he graduated as a teacher of physics and mathematics in 1900, but was unable to obtain a post in the university. It has been suggested that he had not impressed his professors enough, which is perhaps not surprising, given his attitude, and so did not receive their all-important backing for an academic career.

Perhaps this lack of respect comes from someone who found something better to do with his time, working on self-assigned projects of interest.

What did he do next?

Albert Einstein became a temporary teacher of mathematics, first at the Technical High School in Winterthur, and secondly at a private school at Schaffhausen.

In 1902 he began work at the Swiss patent office in Bern as a technical expert third class. He remained there until 1909, having been promoted, in 1906, to technical expert second class! He married Mileva Maric, by whom he had two sons, in 1903. They later divorced.

During his time there, Albert Einstein devoted a great deal of his spare time to the study of theoretical physics, and in 1905, received his doctorate for a thesis entitled On a new determination of molecular dimensions. He also published three important papers on theoretical physics

 Anyone who’s honest today will admit that a major function of public school education is babysitter — to soak up the TIME of individuals so their parents (both their parents, if there are two) can go to work and pay their taxes to fund the teachers, among other things (or pay off some interest on the national debt).  As such, the kids (and youth) in school are going to have other things they would rather be doing, and/or exploring — so a good deal of the school day goes into administration and managing the kids.  And (now at least) running mental health screenings on them to see if some drugs can be marketed (see recent whistleblower on TMAP, PennMAP, who documented this).   More on Einstein:

In 1952, he declined the offer of the presidency of Israel and continued his work towards the world renouncing nuclear weapons.

Albert Einstein died on 18th April, 1955 at Princeton and was cremated that day at Trenton, New Jersey. He is, perhaps, the best known scientist of the 20th century

And just imagine — he was bored in school from the start, skipped a lot of classes, didn’t brown-nose enough in Swiss National Polytechnic around the turn of the century, resulting in his having a fairly humble job which left him time to study things of personal interest — eventually a Nobel Prize, etc. What does public education in the US do today?  Soak up time, DELETE a lot of music because not enough children are learning to read and write, substitutes values education, and when that (obviously) fails, recommend more money and start kids earlier and have longer school days and years.
The existence of the public school system, and its lower quality, is a caste-sorter, and intentionally so.   Where did our politicians go to school, prior to sponsoring initiatives to train the rest of us about the purpose of life, relationships, sex, and what and what is not healthy?  For example (to bring us to 2012 Presidential Candidacy, and which conservative do you want….)
Mitt Romney went to a private school from 7th grand onwards, where he met his wife, who also attended private schools.  Described as (Wikipedia):
Cranbrook Schools is a private, PK–12 school located on a 319-acre (1.29 km2) campus in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. The schools comprise a co-educational elementary school, a middle school with separate schools for boys and girls, and a co-educational high school with boarding facilities  …Romney went to public elementary schools[17] and then from seventh grade on, attended Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, a private boys preparatory school of the classic mold where he was the lone Mormon and where many students came from even more privileged backgrounds.[18][23][24][25] He was not particularly athletic and at first did not excel at academics.[18] While a sophomore, he participated in the campaign in which his father was elected Governor of Michigan.[nb 2] 
Cranbrook Schools is a private, PK–12 school located on a 319-acre (1.29 km2) campus in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. The schools comprise a co-educational elementary school, a middle school with separate schools for boys and girls, and a co-educational high school with boarding facilities. Cranbrook Schools is part of the Cranbrook Educational Community (CEC), which includes the Cranbrook Institute of Science, the Cranbrook Academy of Art, and Cranbrook House and Gardens. (Nearby Christ Church Cranbrook remains outside this formal structure.) The Cranbrook community was established by publishing mogul George Booth,
 Cranbrook was designated a National Historic Landmark on June 29, 1989 for its significant architecture and design. It attracts tourists from around the world. Approximately 40 acres (160,000 m2) of Cranbrook Schools’ campus are gardens.  As of 2006, Cranbrook Schools had an endowment of $191 million, among the 15 largest held by America’s boarding schools.[1] In addition, the Cranbrook Educational Community, of which the Schools is a member, has an endowment in excess of $300 million.[2]
Where did he get his wife from?

Ann Lois Romney (née Davies) (born April 16, 1949) is the wife of American businessman and Republican Party politician Mitt Romney. From 2003 to 2007 she was First Lady of Massachusetts.

She was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and attended the private Kingswood School there, where she dated Mitt Romney. Influenced by their relationship, she converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1966. She attended Brigham Young University and married Mitt Romney in 1969. She completed her undergraduate education through the Extension School at Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in 1975.

As First Lady of Massachusetts, she served as the governor’s liaison for federal faith-based initiatives.

Now THAT is disturbing . . . .

Her background — daughter of the mayor of Bloomfield Hills, who was anti-organized religion.  So, she converts to LDS (like Mitt) and her college is put on hold while he completes his.   Their marriage, being Mormon:

Ann Davies and Mitt Romney were married by a church elder in a civil ceremony on March 21, 1969, at her Bloomfield Hills home, with a reception afterward at a local country club.[4][12] The following day the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony inside the Salt Lake Temple; her family could not attend since they were non-Mormons, but were present at a subsequent wedding breakfast held for them across the street.[4][14]

When she fell ill, she had access to mainstream and alternative treatments for MS (a very serious disease) — such as equestrianism.  Suppose this had been one of her children — they’d have had that access also.

Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 and has credited a mixture of mainstream and alternative treatments with giving her a lifestyle mostly without limitations. In one of those activities, equestrianism, she has consequently received recognition in dressage as an adult amateur at the national level and competing professionally in Grand Prix as well
The topic is EDUCATION DISPARITIES by WEALTH — as contrasted with Horace Mann’s vision:
By contrast with the ONE child of a black single mother (also in Michigan), who — on finding out that her daughter, having developed complications possibly related to a vaccine, then was given Risperdal — and when that had even worse effects, like any good Mom, she took her child OFF it — and then all hell (including with tanks and helicopters) eventually took place.  (Link is below).  It “just so happened’ that the community they lived in was supposed to do what it was told with their kids, and not buck the system or seek — as Mrs. Romney could — non-mainstream ways to stay alive or keep their kids alive and healthy.  That’s cause for losing one’s kid to the state, apparently.
Ron Paul Op-Ed on Ms. Godboldo in context of overmedication of chidlren in foster care, forced mandatory psychiatric screening of children (think they get that in the Cranbrook Educational Community nowadays?):

“No Mandatory Mental Health Screening For Children!” by Ron Paul

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 Op-Ed by Congressman Ron Paul

Maryanne Godboldo, a mother in Michigan, noticed that pills prescribed by her daughter’s doctor were making her condition worse, not better. So Mrs. Godboldo stopped giving them to her. That’s when the trouble began. When Child Protective Services (CPS) bureaucrats became aware that the girl was not receiving her prescribed medication, they decided the child should be taken away from her mother’s custody on grounds of medical neglect. When Ms. Godboldo refused to surrender her daughter to the state, CPS enlisted the help of a police SWAT team! On March 24 of this year a 12 hour standoff ensued and young Ariana was taken into custody. The drug involved was Risperdal, a neuroleptic antipsychotic medication with numerous known side effects. Ms. Godboldo had decided on a more holistic approach for her daughter. She is still engaged in a costly legal battle with the state over Ariana’s treatment and custody.

This is one example of how government’s increasing proclivity to medicate children with questionable psychiatric drugs violates the rights of parents. Just recently, the Government Accountability Office released a report on the astonishingly high rate of prescriptions for psychotropic drugs for children in the foster care system. It is absolutely astounding that nearly 40% of kids in foster care are on psychotropic drugs, some of them taking up to 5 different pills at a time. Some of these children are under one year of age – too young to safely take over the counter cold medication!

 Another account:

Ethan A. Huff,
Natural News
December 15, 2011

The horrific saga of Maryanne Godboldo’s battle with domestic terrorists in the government of her home state of Michigan appear to finally be coming to an end. TheDetroit Free Pressreports that two higher courts have confirmed the ruling of a lower court several months ago that Godboldo’s refusal to administer the dangerous Risperdal drug to her daughter was fully legal, and that all charges and actions taken against her by the state were unwarranted.

In case you missed the story, Child Protective Services (CPS) in Michigan sent a SWAT team and tank to Godboldo’s Detroit home back in April after the mother refused to keep giving her 13-year-old daughter Risperdal (risperidone), a dangerous schizophrenia drug that had been causing her daughter to experience severe adverse reactions. Godboldo’s doctor had recommended that she discontinue use of the drug, but CPS felt otherwise, and decided to launch a full-scale terrorist raid on the woman’s home, where they proceeded to illegally kidnap her daughter (http://www.naturalnews.com/032090_M…).

In one of the series of articles on this raid, the demographics of the community spoke loudly as to what happened.  It wouldn’t happen in a gated community, and I’ll bet it wouldn’t happen in Bloomfield Hills, either.  However, another clue shows up in this (april 2011) article — not only was this woman acting — in accord with the doctor’s advice to stop Risperdal — not only was she single and African-American, she was also homeschooling her daughter!
Godboldos focus on daughter’s release:  April 17, 2011, The Michigan Citizen, Eric T. Campbell
“This case is very simple,” Defense Attorney Allison Fomar told the Michigan Citizen. “The child was taken out of the home without any legitimate, lawful authority. They took her in the most drastic way they could think of, which was to involve Detroit police.

. . .Ariana has been in state custody since March 25 without medication.

“If the issue was medication, where is the justice?” Penny said. “Why isn’t she home with her father right now? He has complete authority after Maryanne. To me, they sent her into harms way.”

Penny {{the mother’s sister and a dance teacher at Margrove College}} says her niece was active and normal growing up in a home-schooled environment. She was active in church and received lessons in piano and horseback riding.   “There were absolutely no mental issues with her until she had the immunizations and even more with the Risperdal,” Penny said. “It’s been a hell ever since.”

Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality  . . .“The child has a father and an aunt and that’s where the mother thought the child was going when she released her,” Scott said. “Judge Pierce says she’s an advocate for families, so we’ll see what happens.”

According to Scott, CPS knew the daughter was doing fine without Risperdal and she was not considered an imminent danger to herself or anyone else. 

August, in this same case (good article — read it all!)

JURY RULES AGAINST MARYANNE GODBOLDO IN CUSTODY TRIAL

Posted on 08/16/2011 by Diane Bukowski

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

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

Wenk said that as she watched the stand-off with police that resulted at Ariana’s home, her only concern was, “I didn’t want her to end up shooting her daughter.”**  Wenk is currently facing a federal lawsuit  filed by Nathaniel Brent (see next story) for taking his five children, who are of Native American heritage.

Captions: Maryanne Godboldo speaks at rally July 17, 2011 . . . Children’s Center recruits foster parents in billboard off John C. Lodge Fwy.; they are paid $34 per day per head by DHS for each child they take

(**Wenk provoked the crisis to start with, which seems to be pretty standard protocol, where possible to get away with.   It also signifies a serious attitude problem, job description or no job description.   In this situation, they simply didn’t reckon with an armed mother, and a supportive community expressing its outrage AND investigative reporting on it!  The problem is the presence of a system which enables this.  That the SWAT team would come in this situation shows that Wenk and friends hold far too much sway.  Meanwhile, over in Connecticut, a little boy (and across the country this is happening) is being tortured with symptoms BOTH medical and behavioral, as attested to by doctors — and the GAL in the case still has custody with the father who is doing this!  WHy not remove THAT child?) (Answer:  money in the family hasn’t been sucked out yet. See CT page on my other blog).

I keep finding more — and very disturbing — information on this case.  First of all — we note that this is a mature mother, not a teen mother (see photo, and article below says she’s in her 50s).  She is dedicated to taking care of her daughter who is an amputee, and was doing a good job of it; the troubles began with a school-required vaccination, and reactions to it.   And although parents are separated, this was not a case which could be played Mom VERSUS Dad.

“Police use Assault Weapons and Tank against Home School Mom wanting to protect daughter from Dangerous Medications.”

Health Impact News Editor

According to the Detroit News, a 56-year-old woman faces multiple felony charges and is being held on $500,000 bond after a 10-hour standoff with police, claiming she was protecting her 13-year-old daughter from unnecessary medication. The story which led to this incident, as reported in the Detroit News and The Voice of Detroit, is quite disturbing.

Maryanne Godboldo’s daughter was born with a defective foot that required amputation of her leg below the knee, which led to Maryanne becoming a stay-at-home mother after her birth. Maryanne and her sister Penny now run a dance school in Detroit. Penny Godboldo reported in the Detroit News her niece’s confidence grew, and despite her handicap, she swam, sang, danced and played the piano. However, as she approached middle school age, she apparently wanted to start attending school, and therefore had to “catch up” on required immunizations.

As the Detroit News reports:

“We believe she had an adverse reaction to her immunizations,” Penny Godboldo said.

“She began acting out of character, being irritated, having facial grimaces that have been associated with immunizations.”

Evans said Maryanne Godboldo sought help for her daughter from The Children’s Center, an organization that helps families with at-risk children, where a medical and mental health treatment plan was developed. Godboldo told relatives the medications ordered by the doctor worsened symptoms, including behavioral problems.

“It is an undiagnosed condition, but the doctor had given her psychotropic drugs that caused a bad reaction, made things worse,” said the girl’s father, Mubuarak Hakim. “Maryanne’s decision to wean her from that was making a difference, making her better, helping her to be a happy kid again.”

Maryanne Godboldo apparently has a good reputation in her community, and during the 10 hour standoff many people from the community offered to help with the negotiations, including ministers and community activists, according to reports in the Detroit News. Ironically, it was Wayne Circuit Judge Deborah Thomas, a former polio sufferer and advocate for the disabled, who finally convinced Maryanne to surrender

Embarrassed — or exposed? — although the mother had her criminal charges dropped, and her child back (late December) the Wayne County District attorney, per spokesman, is thinking of re-instating them.  They are crazy — but smart enough to know that this case is probably a good chink in the wall.

http://www.miweekly.com/news/85-detroit/5705-mom-in-police-standoff-awaits-decision-on-charges

Last Updated: December 10. 2011 1:00AM

Doug Guthrie/ The Detroit News

Detroit— A judge is expected to announce his decision Monday whether to reinstate criminal charges against a mother who resisted police who forced their way into her home to take her teenage daughter during a dispute over medications. . . .

Acting on a call from a Wayne County Child Protective Services (=CPS) worker, who told police she had obtained an order to remove the child on a claim of medical neglect, the officers responding to Godboldo’s home accused her of firing a handgun at them through a plaster wall after she refused to let them in. Godboldo was talked out of the house. She was jailed for several days until her release on bond, and her daughter was held in a state psychiatric facility for almost two months.

Godboldo was charged with resisting and assaulting police, as well as use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Giles tossed out the charges in August because he said the order used by police as authority to enter the house was invalid. It was never authorized by a judge, but had a rubber stamp signature. Police also testified they don’t normally enforce civil court orders, but had been told by the protective services worker it was a criminal warrant.

And the police didn’t LOOK at the warrant?  Do criminal and civil warrants look different from each other?

http://justice4maryanne.com/

Some excellent reporting.

Talk about the disparity of viewpoints:  Family, Community — versus the System who wants the child to be medicated.

My reading has led me to the conclusion — this is a class war, and at the bottom of the barrel (as to scapegoating) are women who look and act like this one.  Like Albert Einstein, Horace Mann, and other leaders, her daughter’s education was not traditional — and part of schooling these days is getting the vaccinations (I even found a reference to James Franklin — Ben’s older brother — protesting vaccinations in his time!).   Drugging people is a form of medical control — not just profits — get it?  If certain classes of people are being used as test cases for the effects of dangerous drugs, then this comprises a class war against them.   Why should this mother AND her community have to wage a legal battle to “buy” back a daughter which had been kidnapped improperly?   Why should anyone have to?

At some level, we have got to start acknowledging that mature, independent mothers are a threat to the status quo.   For the rest of us, the family law system with its fatherhood funding gets the job done without SWAT teams.  But both methods are extortionist.

 

 

PART II LINKS:

 

First set of links are ###  some stats (food for thought in a land flush with marriage/fatherhood theory — and grants).

Second set of links are $$$ — including some searchable databases to know about.

The three links beginning with  “—” I just felt were important summaries.  Right about now, J.A.I.L.4Judges is making a whole lotta sense (see site).  I also put my “What Rhetoric Are You” up there just to remind us — be aware whose rhetoric you are hearing.  It’s in the tone, language, and framing.  The third “—” link is an unbelievable account (except it’s happening nationwide; the rarety here is what a mother did to stand up, and that her case was eventually turned around) that we should read, it’s symptomatic.  (Maryanne Godboldo case).

After that, I go into some chrono links — at least a few references by year.

After that, it’s alphabetical by some of the organizations.

 

There’s a reason librarians are paid — and I’m not one.  But I felt that if I continue writing posts, and writing posts — no one will get through this information.  The best learning — anyhow– is situation relevant, and from people who are highly motivated to acquire the understanding or skill RIGHT NOW to address a problem facing them.  In other words, the best learning is self-taught, and from someone or some source you’ve checked out as reasonable, which knows more than you do.  Period.

Failure can be a far better teacher than success.  Perhaps that’s why I can’t look to those still holding on to their middle-class or lower-middle class jobs to figure this out.  People who’ve been treated like tetherballs IN the public institutions tend to be better reporters; they’ve had to work harder to regain their center of balance.  I am one of many such people around; look for loners, not followers! And always check out FIRST (as to organization) are they honest in (1) corporation status (2) filing tax returns with the IRS and (frequently missing) (3) filing with their local state as required by corporation and by charitable trust, if required.

Another common lie I find is date of the beginning of some organization.  When the corporation “begins” it has a record with a year attached.  Unless mythology is OK, check talk to incorporation.  You’d be amazed what’s out there.

“It’s Elementary” — The Links Tell The Story

Previous posts of this blog have had a little yellow flag labeled “Expose Corruption” up next to some of the posts on parenting coordination and/or Kids’First.  From Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania (next to the infamous Luzerne County).  The visuals (which a forum Administrator only could put up) have rather changed in quality recently, which exposes — well, the mentality or an assumed mentality that’d discredit the gravity of the situations they are handling, namely racketeering, money laundering, child abuse coverups, in general corruption of public officials.
Without saying too much more, I have had some private conversations (there is a messaging function) on the board with its moderators, who were first a couple, then just the wife.  It seems to me that the present graphics are hardly her style, and they do resemble Mr. Pilchesky’s style — but then again, what do I know?  With any forum, there can be multiple identities and some gamesmanship to keep the discussions going.
Either way, FYI:

Also, after several months on a forum in Scranton, the forum message board is posting a photo of a targeted public person (I gather) in his briefs.  JUST FOR THE RECORD — in the past week or so of 2012, the leading photos have featured a hooker leaning over onto a police car, a crude graphic of a man trying to plug a damn with water spouting out through his ear (i.e., flowing through his body) and then this.  Either Mr. Pilchesky is back on board, or something happened — but FYI, I wouldn’t have put out all that research onto the site with this level of visuals, and (though it’s been deleted since) inf act spoke up about some of this in 2011.

 There’s a line between expression and simply sharing the same gutter, and this is over it. There are individuals taking legal action to change the dynamics, but part of life is definitely who you hang out with.  That’s just plain offensive; it doesn’t help the cause at all, and may have been intended to hurt it by association.

PART II LINKS:

First set of links are ###  some stats (food for thought in a land flush with marriage/fatherhood theory — and grants).

Second set of links are $$$ — including some searchable databases to know about.

The three links beginning with  “—” I just felt were important summaries.  Right about now, J.A.I.L.4Judges is making a whole lotta sense (see site).  I also put my “What Rhetoric Are You” up there just to remind us — be aware whose rhetoric you are hearing.  It’s in the tone, language, and framing.  The third “—” link is an unbelievable account (except it’s happening nationwide; the rarety here is what a mother did to stand up, and that her case was eventually turned around) that we should read, it’s symptomatic.  (Maryanne Godboldo case).

After that, I go into some chrono links — at least a few references by year.

After that, it’s alphabetical by some of the organizations.

There’s a reason librarians are paid — and I’m not one.  But I felt that if I continue writing posts, and writing posts — no one will get through this information.  The best learning — anyhow– is situation relevant, and from people who are highly motivated to acquire the understanding or skill RIGHT NOW to address a problem facing them.  In other words, the best learning is self-taught, and from someone or some source you’ve checked out as reasonable, which knows more than you do.  Period.

Failure can be a far better teacher than success.  Perhaps that’s why I can’t look to those still holding on to their middle-class or lower-middle class jobs to figure this out.  People who’ve been treated like tetherballs IN the public institutions tend to be better reporters; they’ve had to work harder to regain their center of balance.  I am one of many such people around; look for loners, not followers! And always check out FIRST (as to organization) are they honest in (1) corporation status (2) filing tax returns with the IRS and (frequently missing) (3) filing with their local state as required by corporation and by charitable trust, if required.

Another common lie I find is date of the beginning of some organization.  When the corporation “begins” it has a record with a year attached.  Unless mythology is OK, check talk to incorporation.  You’d be amazed what’s out there.

“It’s Elementary” — The Links Tell The Story

Previous posts of this blog have had a little yellow flag labeled “Expose Corruption” up next to some of the posts on parenting coordination and/or Kids’First.  From Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania (next to the infamous Luzerne County).  The visuals (which a forum Administrator only could put up) have rather changed in quality recently, which exposes — well, the mentality or an assumed mentality that’d discredit the gravity of the situations they are handling, namely racketeering, money laundering, child abuse coverups, in general corruption of public officials.
Without saying too much more, I have had some private conversations (there is a messaging function) on the board with its moderators, who were first a couple, then just the wife.  It seems to me that the present graphics are hardly her style, and they do resemble Mr. Pilchesky’s style — but then again, what do I know?  With any forum, there can be multiple identities and some gamesmanship to keep the discussions going.
Either way, FYI:

Also, after several months on a forum in Scranton, the forum message board is posting a photo of a targeted public person (I gather) in his briefs.  JUST FOR THE RECORD — in the past week or so of 2012, the leading photos have featured a hooker leaning over onto a police car, a crude graphic of a man trying to plug a damn with water spouting out through his ear (i.e., flowing through his body) and then this.  Either Mr. Pilchesky is back on board, or something happened — but FYI, I wouldn’t have put out all that research onto the site with this level of visuals, and (though it’s been deleted since) inf act spoke up about some of this in 2011.

 There’s a line between expression and simply sharing the same gutter, and this is over it. There are individuals taking legal action to change the dynamics, but part of life is definitely who you hang out with.  That’s just plain offensive; it doesn’t help the cause at all, and may have been intended to hurt it by association.

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

March 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Child Support, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids

Tagged with , , , , ,

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

leave a comment »

What About that 66/34 effect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 66/34 Effect Show with Athena Phoenix was sponsored this week by a responsible father who wishes to assist us in carrying out or mission to improve the way the family courts do business.
He asks that you please consider signing this petition to tell Congress and the President to stop wasting money on HHS programs that lack oversight and harm families and children caught in the family courts:

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

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

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

Why This Is Important

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original content found here. 

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

Program Office Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Budget Year Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
CB GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families 0802GAFRPG 2008 FRP 1 05/21/2009 93590 Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants CLOSED-ENDED SOCIAL SERVICES $ 862,805
CB GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families 0902GAFRPG 2009 FRSS 1 09/17/2009 93590 Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants CLOSED-ENDED SOCIAL SERVICES $ 1,091,492
CB GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families 1002GAFRPG 2010 CBCAP 1 09/09/2010 93590 Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants CLOSED-ENDED SOCIAL SERVICES $ 1,073,087
CB GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families 1102GAFRPG 2011 CBCAP 1 09/02/2011 93590 Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants CLOSED-ENDED SOCIAL SERVICES $ 1,017,958
FYSB GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families 0902GAAEGP 2009 AEGP 1 05/21/2009 93235 Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program BLOCK SOCIAL SERVICES $ 1,100,934
FYSB GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families 0902GAAEGP 2009 AEGP 1 07/30/2010 93235 Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program BLOCK SOCIAL SERVICES $- 824,398
FYSB GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families 1002GAAEGP 2010 AEGP 1 09/27/2010 93235 Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program BLOCK SOCIAL SERVICES $ 1,810,331
FYSB GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families 1102GAAEGP 2011 AEGP 1 09/01/2011 93235 Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program BLOCK SOCIAL SERVICES $ 1,859,919
Results 1 to 8 of 8 matches.

 

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

1.
$1,897,000

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

Transaction Number # 24

Federal Award ID: 2010JFFX0026: 00 (Grants)

Recipient: GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGET
270 Washington St. S.W. Room 8095 Room 8095, Altanta, GEORGIA
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 15-0405:Juvenile Justice Programs
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.540 : Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States
Description:
FY 2010 Formula Grant Porject-GA
Date Signed:
July 13 , 2010 

Obligation Amount: 
$1,897,000


 

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

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Home Page

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

Responsible Fatherhood Grants

The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 provides funding of $150 million in each of five years for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood.  Each year, $75 million may be used for activities promoting fatherhood, such as counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting, and activities to foster economic stability.

Healthy Marriage

Healthy marriage services help couples, who have chosen marriage for themselves, gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage.

Effective Parenting

Involved fathers provide practical support in raising children and serve as models for their development.  Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior compared to children who have uninvolved fathers.  Committed and responsible fathering during infancy and early childhood contributes emotional security, curiosity, and math and verbal skills.

Economic Stability

Resources for helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities, such as Work First services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, and job enhancement; and encouraging education, including career-advancing education.

Access, Visitation, Paternity, & Child Support

About half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father.  The laws that cover these relationships are the responsibility of the state (Family Law), but the Federal Government does provide states with funding to assist in the development of programs that help establish paternity, collect child support, and provide non-residential parents with access to their children.

Incarceration

The Department of Justice has estimated that over 7.3 million children under age 18 have a parent who is in prison, jail, on probation, or on parole. Given these numbers, it is important to understand how children and their caregivers are affected by the criminal activity of a parent and their subsequent arrest, incarceration, and release.  Additionally, it is important to know which services and assistance might be available to those under criminal justice supervision to help them be better parents and to return successfully to the community.

Research, Evaluation, & Data

Good research and program evaluations assess program performance, measure outcomes for families and communities, and document successes.  Information on previous and current research and evaluation efforts can help programs and researchers to direct limited resources to where they are most needed, and most effective, in assessing results.

Program Development

The principal implication for fathering programs is that these programs should involve a wide range of interventions, reflecting the multiple domains of responsible fathering, the varied residential and marital circumstances of fathers, and the array of personal, relational, and environmental factors that influence men as fathers.

Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation

ASPE is the principal advisor to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on policy development, and is responsible for major activities in policy coordination, legislation development, strategic planning, policy research, evaluation, and economic analysis.  Pertinent Fatherhood topics found there include: Child Welfare, Employment, Family and Marriage Issues, andViolence.

Other Research Resources

Federal information relating to fatherhood research is spread throughout multiple departments and agencies.  This area includes other websites that have federal sponsored research related to responsible fatherhood.

Disclaimer:

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

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

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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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

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

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

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

Statutory Framework

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

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

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

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

The Arizona Litigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(the Karen Anderson case) . . .

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

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

{She then goes on to relate how custody was reversed to her, and she was put on Supervised Visitation based on “PAS”, the collusion of a minors’ counsel with a supervised visitation business owner, and how she was forced to pay cash for it! To see her kids!}}:

During the term of the A/V contract, the program director, Helen O. Page, under the authority of the Court, violated the entire intent of the program and specific terms of said contract for the gain of her private client, who is my ex-husband. Payment vouchers to herself and to other participants who are/have been involved in the private litigation of case 94 FL 0084, namely Larry Leatham, Marsha Nohl, and Nohl’s supervised visitation program A.F.T.E.R., prove that while mandated to comply with the terms of the A/V contract, all the forenamed have collectively engaged in accessing these public funds under a conflict of interest, thus violating the terms of the contract.

Here’s a few more of the players and the interrelationships – notice, some were made grant sub-contractors.  All of this comes under “Access/Visitation” grant programs — which are only a fraction of the other diversionary programs coursing through the system, and diverting parents from their primary purposes in life, which is to raise children, provide an inheritance of possible for them, and to be able to focus their lives on their kids — not on self-defense from abusive systems and program fraud by people working (some, as public employees aka “civil servants”) IN those system.  Remembering this is from 1999 — 12+ years ago!

The court orders which have obstructed my liberty interest in parenting my children and left my children at risk of continued molestation, along with the continual harassing litigation perpetrated by Page for her private client, cause the case to be categorized as “highly contested” for which Page/Court is able to access the A/V funds according to the grant application. While Page fights through private litigation for her client, my ex-husband, to keep me on supervised visitation, this also causes the case to fall into the category that provides the necessity for the A/V funds according to the grant application, which in turn personally benefits her financially through payments she receives from the grant. In order to maintain the case in the category that provided access to the A/V grant money, Page used Marsha Nohl (who Page made into a grant sub-contractor) and Larry Dixon (state funded minor’s counsel), as allies in support of the original grossly negligent evaluation and testimony of Leatham (who Page also has made a grant sub-contractor). I have been maintained on supervised visitation and the case itself is maintained as highly litigated, through acts of perjury, misconduct, intentional misrepresentation, willful obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, by Page, Nohl and Dixon

It’s known — and has been known for years, but not blogged enough for “the common women” (fathers’ groups tend to be told this) that the funding can come from BOTH the parent (in cash, as per Karen Anderson, and now parents in Lackawanna County, PA have been protesting the same issue, as I recall, with both supervised visitation, and/or parenting coordinator).  They had to pay cash for services.  To a decent parent, not seeing one’s offspring after removal from the home is NOT an option, so they paid AND the federal government funding stream, which is OCSE diversion.

And I showed readers recently that for FY2012, the HHS requested that — in light of how important continuing to promote “fatherhood” (whatever this is), they want mandatory access visitation orders for EVERY child support order, which then moves custody and visitation matters further out from a judge’s decision based on facts (allegedly, or at least potentially) to an administrative boilerplate (generally speaking) managed by a court-connected program manger or designated professional.

This is called Double-Billing.  “Don’t Ask.  Just Do it for your Kids.”

In years since, others have continued to research the same topic upwards and downwards, namely, taking it to the source:  The funds come from the HHS (grantees recorded in TAGGS database, and some other places), and child support TANF diversions.  At around the same time (post-1996, late 1990s, early 2000s) California along with other states was under a federal “centralize into a Statewide Distribution Unit (“SDU”) system for child support distribution — or give up your welfare assistance.  Of course, if you don’t need food stamps, cash aid, (Medicaid?) and other help from Big Brother, then don’t.  YOU put up 34$, we’ll put up 66% (not mentioned:  this 66% comes from funds previously collected through taxes etc. from the public, or interst/investment gains on it).

So yes, it does matter who baked THAT cake, because it’s got a little “leavening” in it which makes it a high-rise profit system for those in the system, and a debt production machine for stressed-out parents who eat from it.  How many people know going IN to the courts that any child support order, and EVERy child support order, and I’ll hazard a guess, in EVERY State and US territory, has as 66/34 effect called INCENTIVE.   In fact one of the hard lessons I learned (obviously) was to find out WHO is speaking to you whenever help or relief from injustice or danger is offered, in response to one’s cries for help, or without even those cries.

Who Bakes the Domestic Violence Group Cakes?  The same supplier — it may not be the 66/34 effect as to DV programs, but we’ve seen they are heavy into HHS funding (not just DOJ) and collaborating with fatherhood-oriented groups when protective mothers aren’t watching, while teaching them distracting information lest they DO watch.  See Loretta Frederick, who I’ll bet did NOT highlight her connection with AFCC (or teach women who AFCC was) at the last BMCC (“Battered Mother’s Custody Conference”).    In 2011, access visitation was mentioned from the podium by someone WITHOUT some product to market (after the conference was — like it appears to have been this year, too — well over an hour behind schedule on the last segment of the conference)  but as soon as the speaker went to the podium, a lunch break was called.  Un believably, I saw the same thing happen again this year — a break was called, and a woman’s voice at the mike (Ricky Fowler, search my blog) was surrounded by noise of coming and going, but when someone protesting what she said spoke up, another grabbed the mike and told everyone to quiet down and listen, because “this is important.”  (like the previous comment wasn’t?) and tried to counter it.

So, your Domestic Violence Advocacy and Protective Mothers Advocacy groups have, as it were, pre-baked cake mixes from pretty much the same source.  They have — amazingly coincidental — the same blind spots; which a little experience has shown is not blindness – it’s a “no-fly-zone.”    

My Para. from above:

I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed, ex-wife of D.C. Sniper, “Scared Silent” ca. 2002/John Muhammad, a Devoted Dad?
Connecting the Sniper case to family court corruption and federal fatherhood program fraud.  (Part 1)
by Cindy Ross © October 28, 2002), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups, plus trials that follow).

It is VITALLY important, in other words, that more people understand and protest the continued funding of a system of “evolving purposes” all labeled’ family” which are resulting in habitually increasing scenarios involving roadkill.  This scenario claims that the family is the basic unit of society, anything that threatens “family” is itself (by definition) a threat to society, and women’s right to live alone versus live with constant domestic terrorism based on the fact that they’re female, or vulnerable and happen to get paid less per $$ then men overall — and are not represented even halfway proportionately in our primarily white male Congress & Senate.  Sorry to put it that way, but one hellish marriage, and an equally long hell in the court system simply leads me rationally to acts of Congress designed to promote fatherhood.  I didn’t promote or pass these at the time, and am simply reporting their existence, and in part, their costs.  Plural.

This is the rationale which (if it’s bought & believed, or tolerated) which priorities “family” over Bill of Rights in EVERY case where there is a custody dispute.  That philosophy then enables passage of programs in which we find fraud, and incentives — which have zero (NO) place in promoting justice.  If courtrooms are not neutral — meaning, they are bribe-free — and they are “OUT-COME based” versus PROCESS-based” — they are kangaroo courtrooms.  So we need to report honestly — Let’s get Honest — about this facet in particular.  At the annual price tag of approximately $4 billions, and for the Jessica Gonzales’ the Dawn Axsoms, the Catalina Torres’, and the Officers shot in the line of duty during domestic dispute hostage situations, let’s defuse the need for the Federally Sponsored (with corporate help) “Special Interest Resource Centers” Publish, Design a Logo, Link to GroupThink, or We Perish industry.

It’s important.    Look at the site (probably not most current, for general idea only):

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

[HHS/ACF — and ACF is one of the largest OpDivs [Operational Divisions] of HHS)

PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY 2012

BUDGET PAGE APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 269

AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION …………………………………………………………………………………………. 270

APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY TABLE ………………………………………………………………………………… 271

AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION ………………………………………………………………………… 273

OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 274

SUMMARY OF CHANGES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 275

JUSTIFICATION:

GENERAL STATEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 276

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ……………………………………………………… 276

BUDGET REQUEST……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 278

OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES TABLE ……………………………………………………………………………… 280

RESOURCE AND PROGRAM DATA ………………………………………………………………………………… 282

STATE TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 287

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here are selected states (fairly whimsical, but I tried to honor Republican Primary Candidates, and Kansas gets a mention because it so recently re-organized the SRS department (which gets the OCSE funding) and is recommending women marry their way out of poverty, too bad for domestic violence (see Topkea) and as advised behind closed doors by some ultra-conservative experts, i.e., Wade Horn, etc.  Marriage & Fatherhood promotion are diversionary programs enabled under welfare law, and typically recruiting or program enrollment often happens at the child support level).  Look at some of the program titles and which branch of government gets the funding (or most of it), which varies by state:

Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS KS 11IAKS4004 2011 OCSET 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 535,121
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES KS 0904KS4004 2009 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 698,875
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES KS 1104KS4004 2011 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 27,012,837
Kansas Dept of Social and Rehabilitation Services KS 90FD0145 OCSE SECTION 1115 3 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY MONICA REMILLARD $ 15,469
PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI INDIANS KS 11IBKS4004 2011 OCSET 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 250,000

IOWA, TEXAS, UTAH

Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES IA 0904IA4004 2009 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 2,535,162
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES IA 1104IA4004 2011 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 18,224,176
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES IA 90FD0183 MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS 1 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY JOE FINNEGAN $ 95,214
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services IA 90FD0144 LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 3 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY HAROLD B COLEMAN $ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TX 0904TX4004 2009 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 1,735,514
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TX 1104TX4004 2011 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 193,122,346
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TX 90FD0137 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE 2 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY MICHAEL HAYES $ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TX 90FD0137 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE 3 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY MICHAEL HAYES $ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TX 90FD0169 URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT 2 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY MICHAEL HAYES $ 75,000
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES UT 0904UT4004 2009 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 446,019
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES UT 1104UT4004 2011 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 22,067,247
Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA:

Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES IA 0904IA4004 2009 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 2,535,162
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES IA 1104IA4004 2011 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 18,224,176
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES IA 90FD0183 MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS 1 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY JOE FINNEGAN $ 95,214
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services IA 90FD0144 LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 3 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY HAROLD B COLEMAN $ 50,000
LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE MN 11ICMN4004 2011 OCSET 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 143,405
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE MN 07IDMN4004 2007 OCSET 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 14,098
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE MN 11IDMN4004 2011 OCSET 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 217,386
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES MN 0904MN4004 2009 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 490,616
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES MN 1104MN4004 2011 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 101,786,892
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES MN 90FD0127 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION 2 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY PATRICK W KRAUTH $ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES MN 90FD0127 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION 3 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY PATRICK W KRAUTH $ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES MN 90FD0140 OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS 2 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY JILL C ROBERTS $ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES MN 90FD0140 OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS 3 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY JILL C ROBERTS $ 69,684
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES MN 90FD0147 OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE 2 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY KAREN L SCHIRLE $ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES MN 90FD0147 OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE 3 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY KAREN L SCHIRLE $ 50,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES OH 0604OHHMHR 2006 HMHR ** 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) CLOSED-ENDED $ 198,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES OH 0904OH4004 2009 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 2,961,680
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES OH 1104OH4004 2011 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 111,207,241
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES OH 90FD0142 OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE 3 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY ATHENA RILEY $ 50,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES OH 90FD0174 OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, COMMISSION ON FATHERHOOD, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL EDU 2 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY ATHENA RILEY $ 75,000
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE PA 0904PA4004 2009 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 4,560,291
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE PA 1104PA4004 2011 OCSE 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 150,800,949
RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS MN 11IAMN4004 2011 OCSET 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 403,801
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL MN 11BIMN4004 2011 OCSET 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 307,298
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL MN 11IBMN4004 2011 OCSET 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) OPEN-ENDED $ 230,371
Results 1 to 25 of 25 matches.

**This “demonstrates” that at least browsing where money from the Dept. of HHS/OCSE is going from time to time, can be illuminating.  When one sees an unexplained acronym, it may be worth a closer look.  I figured “HMHR” had something to do with “Healthy Marriage” and was right.  Here’s the rest of the Ohio “HMHR” grants (spent for What?  Ohioans should look up) and found $198K per year for several years.  I also figured this is going on in more than one state, i.e., it’s some federal policy — and was right:

OHIO only (see grant award number has “OH” in it)

Fiscal Year Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2011 0604OHHMHR 2006 HMHR 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) CLOSED-ENDED DEMONSTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) $ 198,000
2009 0604OHHMHR 2006 HMHR 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) CLOSED-ENDED DEMONSTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) $ 198,000
2008 0604OHHMHR 2006 HMHR 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) CLOSED-ENDED DEMONSTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) $ 198,000
2007 0604OHHMHR 2006 HMHR 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) CLOSED-ENDED DEMONSTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) $ 198,000
2006 0604OHHMHR 2006 HMHR 1 93563 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) CLOSED-ENDED DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
Results 1 to 5 of 5 matches.
 Excel Icon

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

From the web:

  1. Chapter 2: Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids …

    www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/eval…/grand_ch2.html

    The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement … TheHMHR project proposes to reach at least 2500 people over 5 years with direct …*   



  2. More Specifically (and predictably):

  1. Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids (HMHR) is a community-based initiative that delivers relationship skills-building services intended to encourage healthy relationships between parents, and between parents and their children, and to increase the financial well-being of children in a low-income urban area of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement Demonstration Section 1115 waiver in October 2003. The Federal funding required a non-Federal match, and HMHR received a private grant from the Grand Rapids Community Foundation in November 2003. Community needs assessment, recruitment, and relationship building with partners and service delivery planning led to the delivery of relationship skills-building services starting in June 2004.
(Grand Rapids is something of a faith-based community to start with, Dutch Reformed, I seem to recall.  But this could be done anywhere).
 

2.1 Project Goals

The HMHR project proposes to reach at least 2,500 people over 5 years with direct family-strengthening activities such as training in parenting and relationship skills. The initiative has established goals that are broad-based and comprehensive—they encompass improving couple relationships and the parenting skills of low-income parents in the community. Ultimately, HMHR aims to “enhance the financial and emotional well-being of children” (Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004a; Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004b). The specific goals of the initiative are to
  • increase the number of prepared healthy marriages among low-income couples in Kent county.
  • decrease the divorce rate among low-income couples in Kent county.
  • increase the active, healthy participation of noncustodial fathers in the lives of their children.
  • increase the responsible and effective coparenting skills of married and unmarried parentsto include improvement of the relationship between low-income adults parenting children.{{I.e., Marital Counseling = Child Support Enforcement (diversionary waiver…) philosophy — typical!!
  • facilitate, in Kent county, the measurable increase in agreement with the perspective that healthy marriages, healthy relationships between parents, and responsible parenting are criticalto the financial well-being of children.***SERIOUSly?? ?????   Governor Gray Davis (abou 2002 or so) vetoed an attempt to endorse Kids Turn programs to help children navigate the rocky terrain of divorce on the basis that he (as Governor of California) didn’t feel — although the legislature (which probably had a better idea of how this system works) that it was the place of the California Judicial Council to measure mental health matters.  Obviously persistent program promotion works.{{I.e., brainwashing, excuse me, attitude adjustment, typical favorable to religious views of independent mothers as dangerous more as wombs than full-status humans.  “HERE:  Take my classes, and afterwards sign this agreement (survey) saying you believe this stuff, so we can get our grant next year, too!  Hungry?  well, go to the childs upport office and seek a modification, or to get it enforcement; that’s not a service we offer (directly) here”}}
Taken together, achieving the above objectives are intended to support** the following Title IV-D child support enforcement goals:
  • Improve compliance with support obligations by noncustodial parents, when needed.
  • Increase paternity establishment for low-income children born to unwed mothers (HMGR, 2004a; HMGR, 2004b)

**the road to hell has always been paved with “good intentions.”  It’s only in recent times? that merely expressing intent to “facilitate” attitude adjustment in order to reduce poverty (i.e., by increasing sales of relationship skills programs has been so well (federally) rewarded with so little justification.  See “Smartmarriages.com” and acknowledge how very smart that corporation’s founder indeed was! (place of incorporation, Washington, D.C., which is where conferences are also held yearly, or were? from 2000-2010, as I recall).

About these SIP programs (from HHS) — This is another place for marriage/fatherhood programs to come in. For the novice, a marriage promotion program (as we’ve seen the HHS organizations doing this, not one of which is truly feminist) IS a FATHERHOOD program. the same is practically true of programs called “CHILD” any more.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/funding/child_support_past_projects.html
ACF-FUNDED HMI DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND GRANT ACTIVITIES:
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)

2003 SIP Grants  (see above link for active links to these).
2005 SIP Grants
2006 SIP Grants

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) facilitates State and Tribal development of programs that locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity when necessary, and obtain and enforce child support orders..

Special Improvement Projects (SIPs)

{{isn’t that “special”?}}
SIP grants fund faith- and community-based organizations, as well as state, local, and tribal agencies, to improve child support outcomes such as paternity establishment and child support collections and improve the well-being of children.

These grants are authorized through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. During 2003-2006, the following projects received funding to provide child support and marriage education services to improve outcomes for children.   

While it reads “to provide child support services” we can see the “roundabout” reasoning, meaning, Tour de Marriage Enhancement, and possibly — well, we hope — this will result in more child support payments.

Several States (award goes directly to states) got these awards, all are marked “budget year 1” all are “Demonstration” and none have a “principal investigator” listed.   MOST of the funding is as “Administrative Supplement” and this has been going on since 2003 or 2004.   Here’s a list omitting grantee institution so it’s alpha by state, “NEW” only, which is 27 awards out of 68 (a little less than half of them):

All of these are under straightforward CFDA 93563, “Child Support Enforcement” (although a separate category even exists for “research and demo).  These relationship mongering skills are Special Project Waivers.

State County Award Number Action Issue Date Award Activity Type Award Action Type Sum of Actions
CO DENVER 0604COHMHR 01/06/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 276,726
FL LEON 0504FLHMHR 07/15/2005 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 333,333
FL LEON 0604FLHMHR 07/14/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 333,333
GA FULTON 0504GAHMHR 05/27/2005 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 192,000
GA FULTON 0604GAHMHR 07/14/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 192,000
ID ADA 0404IDHMHR 10/03/2003 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 110,880
ID ADA 0404IDHMHR 12/01/2004 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 110,880
IL SANGAMON 0504ILHMHR 11/29/2004 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 273,003
IN MARION 0804INHMHR 07/16/2008 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
KY FRANKLIN 0504KYHMHR 07/15/2005 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 333,333
KY FRANKLIN 0604KYHMHR 07/14/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 333,333
LA EAST BATON ROUGE 0404LAHMHR 09/10/2004 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 308,000
LA EAST BATON ROUGE 0504LAHMHR 08/11/2005 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 308,000
LA EAST BATON ROUGE 0604LAHMHR 07/14/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 308,000
MA MIDDLESEX 0504MAHMHR 11/29/2004 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 324,939
MI INGHAM 0404MIHMHR 10/03/2003 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
MI INGHAM 0404MIHMHR 12/01/2004 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
MN RAMSEY 0404MNHMHR 09/10/2004 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
MN RAMSEY 0504MNHMHR 08/11/2005 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
MN RAMSEY 0604MNHMHR 07/14/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
MN RAMSEY 0704MNHMHR 08/07/2007 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
OH FRANKLIN 0604OHHMHR 07/14/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
TX TRAVIS 0604TXHMHR 10/11/2005 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 499,092
WA THURSTON 0604WAHMHR 03/15/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 200,000
WA THURSTON 0605WAHMHR 04/20/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
WA THURSTON 0704WAHMHR 08/08/2007 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 200,000
WA THURSTON 0705WAHMHR 08/07/2007 DEMONSTRATION NEW $ 198,000
Results 1 to 27 of 27 matches

For comparison — in ONE year (nationwide) 772 OCSE grants (including, but not limited to these), totalling:

Total of 772 Award Actions for 171 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 3,176,826,043

This doesn’t include important federal programs like abstinence education, either. . . . . .

Anyhow, click around TaGGS some, look at CFDA 93564 and find out just how much experimentation is really going on — plus get at least a few principal investigator’s names together to figure out what’s up.   Here’s a segment (no years selected) showing just how active TENNESSEE & TEXAS are, not to mention showing that sometimes people write “TEXAS” or “TX” or “State of” when it comes to state name format and sometimes, unbelievably, the word “Mr.” is entered under the name category, as I found out as to California, “Principal Investigator” for a $29,000 grant to help connect Title IV-A (TANF) and Title IV-D (Child Support). I hope the person making all these clerical errors (?) isn’t earning much more than $29,000 of my money to do so. Who’s training the database submission personnel at HHS, anyhow?   Howsabout some basic filing protocol, eh?  For reference, see phone book.

What this tells me is that these states are fairly busy in “Child Support Research and Demonstration”  These are all CFDA 93564 (not 93563, and not 93597, which is Access/Visitation — which also promotes some of the same things.

California:

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 90FD0003 PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYST  3 09/15/2009 DEMONSTRATION OTHER REVISION PEGGY JENSEN $- 73,983
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 90FD0083 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PRIORITY AREA 4 1 09/15/2003 DEMONSTRATION NEW LEORA GERSHENZON  $ 60,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 90FD0114 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS 1 08/24/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW DANIEL LOUIS $ 150,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 90FD0114 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS 2 09/19/2007 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DANIEL LOUIS $ 75,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 90FD0114 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS 2 08/29/2008 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS LESLIE CARMONA $ 0
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 90FD0114 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS 3 09/09/2008 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION LESLIE CARMONA $ 75,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 90FD0114 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS 3 10/22/2009 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS KATHY HREPICH $ 0
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 90FD0158 SERVE OUR IV-A/IV-D PROGRAM COLLABORATION 1 09/24/2009 DEMONSTRATION NEW MR BILL OTTERBECK $ 29,000
STATE OF TENNESSEE 90FD0108 TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 1 06/23/2005 DEMONSTRATION NEW CHARLES BRYSON $ 82,853
State of Louisiana, Department of Social Services 90FD0125 OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-2) 1 08/23/2007 DEMONSTRATION NEW ROBBIE ENDRIS $ 59,983
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0113 OCSE SECTION 1115 1 07/20/2005 DEMONSTRATION NEW GILBERT A CHAVEZ $ 108,112
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0077 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 1 08/26/2003 DEMONSTRATION NEW CHARLES BRYSON $ 60,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0102 TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES 1 09/16/2004 DEMONSTRATION NEW LINDA CHAPPELL $ 62,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0108 TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 2 07/31/2006 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION CHARLES BRYSON $ 101,427
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0108 TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 3 07/27/2007 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION CHARLES BRYSON $ 100,688
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0108 TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 3 03/06/2008 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS CHARLES BRYSON $ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0108 TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 3 02/24/2010 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS CHARLES BRYSON $ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0129 SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 1 09/20/2008 DEMONSTRATION NEW MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 54,612
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0129 SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 2 08/09/2009 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 52,034
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0129 SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 2 07/12/2010 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0129 SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 2 05/13/2011 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0129 SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 3 09/01/2010 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 50,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0129 SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 3 05/18/2011 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0139 FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 1 09/01/2009 OTHER NEW MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 100,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0139 FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 2 09/01/2010 OTHER NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 71,240
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0139 FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 2 03/14/2011 OTHER EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0139 FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 3 08/08/2011 OTHER NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 47,500
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0148 TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 1 09/01/2009 OTHER NEW MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0148 TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 2 09/01/2010 OTHER NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0148 TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 2 03/14/2011 OTHER EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0148 TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE 3 08/14/2011 OTHER NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MR CHARLES BRYSON $ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0171 BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES 1 09/25/2010 OTHER NEW CHARLES BRYSON $ 85,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0171 BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES 2 08/14/2011 OTHER NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION CHARLES BRYSON $ 75,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0177 INTEGRATING WORKFORCE STRATEGIES WITH CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES IN TENNESSEE 1 09/24/2011 DEMONSTRATION NEW CHARLES BRYSON $ 55,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0052 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) 1 09/15/2009 DEMONSTRATION OTHER REVISION WILLIAM H ROGERS $- 8,058
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0073 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-P.A. 2 1 09/15/2009 DEMONSTRATION OTHER REVISION MICHAEL HAYES $- 6,976
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0078 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #5 1 08/26/2003 DEMONSTRATION NEW MICHAEL HAYES $ 80,040
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0085 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 1 08/26/2003 DEMONSTRATION NEW MICHAEL HAYES $ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0088 SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 1 08/29/2003 DEMONSTRATION NEW WILL ROGERS $ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0088 SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 2 09/27/2004 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION PATRICIA CAFFERATA $ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0088 SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 2 01/08/2005 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS KAREN HENSON $ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0088 SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 3 08/16/2005 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION KAREN HENSON $ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0092 TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 09/09/2004 DEMONSTRATION NEW MICHAEL D HAYES $ 125,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0113 OCSE SECTION 1115 2 07/27/2006 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION GILBERT A CHAVEZ $ 108,400
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0113 OCSE SECTION 1115 2 03/19/2007 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS GILBERT A CHAVEZ $ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0113 OCSE SECTION 1115 2 06/26/2008 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS GILBERT A CHAVEZ $ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0113 OCSE SECTION 1115 3 07/31/2007 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION GILBERT A CHAVEZ $ 108,400
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0113 OCSE SECTION 1115 3 06/27/2008 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS GILBERT A CHAVEZ $ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0124 OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) 1 08/29/2007 DEMONSTRATION NEW HAILEY KEMP $ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0124 OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) 2 08/11/2008 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION TED WHITE $ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0124 OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) 3 09/01/2009 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION TED WHITE $ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0124 OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) 3 03/30/2010 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS TED WHITE $ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0134 OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER 1 09/29/2008 DEMONSTRATION NEW MICHAEL HAYES $ 703,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0137 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE 1 08/16/2009 DEMONSTRATION NEW KAMMI SIEMENS $ 100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0137 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE 2 09/07/2010 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL HAYES $ 75,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0137 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE 2 01/13/2011 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS MICHAEL HAYES $ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0137 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE 3 09/25/2011 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL HAYES $ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0169 URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT 1 09/25/2010 OTHER NEW MICHAEL HAYES $ 85,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 90FD0169 URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT 2 08/29/2011 OTHER NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL HAYES $ 75,000
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 90FD0141 FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 1 09/01/2009 OTHER NEW MARILYN R SMITH $ 99,348
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 90FD0141 FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD 2 09/19/2010 OTHER NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MARILYN R SMITH $ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 90FD0115 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 1 09/01/2006 DEMONSTRATION NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 150,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 90FD0115 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 2 09/26/2007 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JOHN BERNHART $ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 90FD0115 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 2 08/10/2008 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS JOHN BERNHART $ 0
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 90FD0115 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 2 06/15/2011 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS JOHN BERNHART $ 0
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 90FD0115 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 3 08/31/2008 DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JOHN BERNHART $ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES 90FD0115 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 3 06/22/2011 DEMONSTRATION EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS JOHN BERNHART $ 0
UT ST DIV

RE:

 

The 66/34 Effect Show with Athena Phoenix was sponsored this week by a responsible father who wishes to assist us in carrying out o[u]r mission to improve the way the family courts do business.  He asks that you please consider signing this petition to tell Congress and the President to stop wasting money on HHS programs that lack oversight and harm families and children caught in the family courts:

 

The shows bring up consistently valuable speakers, and it’s true some segments have featured the effect of the TANF budget, and the 66/34 effect.  The press-releases prior to show are jam-packed with links and information and shows in themselves.

My perspective and purpose differs somewhat, and I believe that given the urgency of the times, it is vERY necessary to locate people (particularly mothers) who are willing to blow the cover on the DV industry sellout AS MOTHERS in custody challenges, and FATHERS who are willing to blow the cover on how these program diversions are actually conceived with intent to divert profits to already profiting individuals in various institutions, and expand welfare until it blankets the United States with relationship education, whether or not this entails poor and needy families on the “take our program” side.  I have a general idea of what kind of people are drawn to the “give me a grant, I’ll push your product” side — whether at the professional level (the two professors from UDenver who have PREP, Inc. thing going), and other contracting organizations (MDRC, Maximus, etc.) who defraud (allegedly, judging by how often they get sued) and the judges etc. with their retirement plan & income supplementation at public expense plans (the Kids’ Turns and Family Justice Centers of the world) and the “let’s do a NICE conference business.

 

In recent days/weeks, I’ve had an absolutely wonderful looking, articulate, attractive intelligent mother (a widow) and grandmother in her sixties come up to me, at a loss regarding finding work.  She was downsized after twenty-nine (29) years in what sounds like very responsible, executive responsibility support staff in an engineering firm for a huge company.   What is she to do?  I looked at her with my court-custody-DV-strewn work life scenario and was thankful that at least this disaster prepared me for handling more of the same; my disadvantage working to my survival advantage in a rapidly changing world.

And I prefer to bake my own cakes at many points.  Years of having social / community relationships compromised by court filings and sudden disappearance of my kids (I don’t think a mother EVER gets over that, no matter what else she does in life), not because they served in Iraq, but because they were born in this country and in that decade of Jim Crow times regarding civil rights for women, too.

(and here’s the end of my 11,000 — so far — word post.  That includes the tables, of course):  A person working to stop child slavery in California is on:  here is the nonprofit description of HOW children girls are kept in line:

 

Director of this Chino, California organization, The Faces of Slavery, is “Juana Zapata.”  It’s site has tremendous graphics, and “FACES” is an acronym:  Fight Against Child Exploitation And Sexual Slavery    of AMERICAN CHILDREN.  “Amber’s Story” deals with a runaway (my mind immediately thinks of reasons a child might run away, one of which is violence or abuse in the home, including molestation.    So why not do better at stopping that to start with?)

Please read this site.  The problem is real!  (see “Franklin Coverup” also)

 

The Problem of Child Sex Slavery, http://www.facess.org/problem.html    

Today there are at least 20,000 slaves under the age of 18 in the United States. According to the Department of Justice, the average of these children is 13 years old. 80% of these children are girls and 80% of those girls are sexual slaves like “Amber”. The life expectancy of girls like “Amber” is 7 – 10 years from the time of their abduction and the start of their enslavement.

Amber and countless other girls experience on a daily basis:

  • Rape
  • Assault
  • Neglect
  • Starvation
  • Torture
  • False imprisonment
  • Exploitation
  • Drugging
  • Emotional, physical
  • And mental abuse

Slaveholders will send “testers” in to the girls to pretend to rescue the girl. If she engages with the tester she will be beaten. At some point the girl gives up and becomes resigned to her new life – her hell on earth. Survival mode will kick in and she will quickly become hardened, disconnected, hopeless, angry, and isolated – trusting no one, which is the slaveholder’s goal.

Why Don’t These Girls Try to Escape?

There are many different methods these slaveholders use to manipulate and control their slaves. These impressionable and dependent children want to be accepted by someone. The slaveholder is the only one they really know in their new reality. Between the abuses and in an effort to keep the children the slaveholder will also tell the girls he loves them, buy them gifts, and take them to exciting places in order to keep them submissive, producing a Stockholm Syndrome where the victim actually thinks they are being loved – thus skewing their concept of love.

What Is Our Government Doing About Slavery?

The answer to that question is, “Not much.” F.B.I. recovery numbers are 900 children per year. Typically, the recovery rate is less than 1% of the actual trafficked population. And what happens to a child like “Amber” when she is rescued? The Department of Justice has confirmed that care facilities specifically designed to support these trafficked children can give shelter to less than 100 of them. F.B.I. policy is to place these rescued victims into juvenile hall which sends the message to these children that they are criminals. The cost of a child in juvenile hall is $250 per day. Government agencies cannot give these children what they need most – love.

See the bullets above?  Sometimes many of those features happen WITHIN nuclear families — sometimes even within families that have biologically related Mom, Pop and Kids.   And yet still the building block of society has to be families?

for the healing process — imagine this:

 

How We Can Make a Difference

What does a child like “Amber” need to heal from the deep mental, emotional, and physical scars that have been inflicted upon her? She needs a warm, safe, peaceful, place. She needs to be surrounded by people who will gently guide her, support her, encourage her, and show her what real love is. We can provide these very things.

Our property in California is tucked away in a beautiful, quiet and safe place. We are surrounded by trees and ponds and mountains. We have the ability to provide fun and “normal” activities such as hiking, swimming, other water sports, museums, dining out, movies, playing games so she can regain her childhood.

 

Similarly, after severe violence IN the home — although surely this must be worse — children who grew up “Exposed to Violence” including watching one parent beat the other (adjust to accommodate step-parent, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc.) — they too need a healing and detox period.

But they are not getting it for long — and primarily they are not getting this because the custody courts, with their AFCC, their Access Visitation (CRC theory), their incentives to prolong war (while claiming they stop it) and their assets-stripping, bone-chilling, never ending encouragement of the worse parent when “worse” is obvious — will not allow for, our society is just not ready to accommodate and SAY NO TO  custody — ANY type of custody and particularly not joint, and not shared — when one parent has already demonstrated assault and battery, threats, economic oppression & “pimping” (this happened to me.  I worked, he got the checks, I got threatened and slapped, kicked, choked, etc., sleep-deprived anyhow.  I provided the job reference for the credit application — he got the credit! etc.  Once you start one of these relationships, if you are not committed to IMMEDIATELY terminate it, it’s very hard to get out.

And in this climate, once you get out, here comes “conciliation code” and a bunch of people who are not “rich enough” yet to defraud people of their rights to exist, legally and simply live, as INDIVIDUALS in this country.   See “Ohio Fatherhood Commission” (targeting counties with single mothers) for a nice example.  It is ONLY going to get worse until this is stopped, and I know that I alone cannot stop this.

 

Here is a facebook page which states Government Agencies are looking to F.A.C.E.S.S. but we also need your donations

 

REGISTRATION, Secretary of State?  I don’t know:   I see these (after FACESS and “Fight Against” searches didn’t turn up a registration) or “FACESS” with or without the periods:

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx

Results of search for ” F.A.C.E.S. ” returned no entity records.

Record not found.

As to those initials for Charities (i.e., nonprofits) in California, the only ones I see (both delinquent) relate to Autism, i.e., that’s what the “A” in the acronym stands for.  Our F.A.C.E.S.S. doesn’t show in California as a nonprofit:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
F.A.C.E.S. FOR KIDS, INC. 099503 Charity Dissolution Pending REDWOOD CITY CA Charity Registration Charity
F.A.C.E.S. OF THE EAST BAY 116862 Charity Delinquent OAKLAND CA Charity Registration Charity
1

F.A.C.E.S.S. (Fight Against Child Exploitation & Sexual Slavery) (facebook logo’ FB shows 392 followers on the page)

These would be the corporate registrations.  Only one (formed about a year ago) is left standing here in California:

 

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2439255 03/01/2004 SUSPENDED CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION DAVID REPLOGLE
C1229360 10/12/1983 DISSOLVED FAMILY AWARENESS OF CHILD EXPLOITATION – IN-TRUDERS CHARMAINE DENNIS
C3367022 03/17/2011 ACTIVE FOUNDATION AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION & HUMAN TRAFFICKING ERIC BUSH
C1195950 03/06/1987 SUSPENDED PEOPLE AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION JAMES D DAVIES

So far, I see a facebook page.  The website direcst people to the Facebook page, and the law enforcement link (on the website) is by password only, understandably.

 

Just that if someone is seeking donations, we seek an EIN# and registration.  It’s that simple.  So perhaps I will call in and simply ask — is there an umbrella organization?:

There are “10 people” names Juana Zapata in California, and 1 (with 1 connection only) on LinkedIn.  There’s the mother of a young man whose car crahsed into and killed a police officer in Freson, listed as his 47 year old mother (the young man not living at home at the time, and being the youngest of 5 at age 19)

http://www.kristieslaw.org/fresno.htm  This is a hard story to hear, and probably a different woman involved, as apparently this mother needed a translator.  It’s undated.

 

Featured here, protesting (it seems) an “adult” page in a paper, or on-line, from “The Majestic Dreams Foundation”

http://www.themajestic.org/blog/2011/10/07/Press-Release-The-Daily-Titan.aspx

”The advocates of anti-slavery held signs that read, “Hey Ortega! Real men don’t buy girls” and “I am the key to free,” while protesting Ortega and the conglomerate which owns BackPage.com.Lizeth Sebastian, 21, pioneer of the anti-human trafficking club at Chapman University called Set Captives Free, said many people are unaware that sex trafficking is happening in local areas.Juana Zapata, from Faces of Slavery, said for the past three years her organization has been rescuing and protecting girls who have been victims of human trafficking and who were advertised on BackPage.com, averaging one girl every six weeks.“We are a permanent residential place for them (the victims),” said Zapata, who was invited to the protest by Cenedella. “For us it’s very important that the public knows that this is actually happening right here; it’s not international. Students have to be fully aware what’s happening with their generation and they are the voice.

This is a GRIPPING story of Aimee, and what happened after she reported abuse from the ages of 8 to 12 by a priest, a friend of her aunt.  She reported it at age 17 to a minister, then to law enforcement, and was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, a 51-50 psychiatric hold (without her mother’s knowledge) with resulting lasting damage, and in general was treated as the criminal  .

Her report went from minister to law enforcement to hold, to hospital in short order.  Her family which refused to believe the story are estranged — BUT she was able to make a film.

 

The Majestic Dreams Foundation is a  nonprofit organization located in Southern California.  It was formed and created byAimee Galicia Torres on January 8, 2010.
The Majestic Dreams Foundation aims to provide aide to sexually abused survivors as well as promote awareness for all forms of abuse. The Majestic Dreams Foundation teams up with film production company, Trinity Alliance Films to provide films that reflect this growing epidemic so that we as a society can bring about a change.

 

This day forever changed the rest of her life.  That very day, Aimee underwent hours of questioning by the local police department as the suspect, Honesto Bismonte, was placed immediately in jail.  After a long interview, receiving scrutiny from the police department, Aimee was sent to undergo a psychological evaluation by a county psychologist.  However, to her surprise, when she was being escorted by two police officers, they admitted her into the hospital without her knowledge.  She was placed on a 51-50, hold, which means she legally must remain admitted for psychological evaluation for up to 72 hours. . .

When Aimee was 16,** she fell into an abusive relationship with her boyfriend of 3 1/2 years.  He would physically abuse her and attempted to kill her on various occasions. Through the numerous years of psychological, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse Aimee has received, she decided to turn everything into a positive learning experience.  She wanted to show abused victims and survivors, that despite any obstacle, you can succeed.  Aimee is proud to say, that throughout it all, she has never smoked or taken any drug of any kind. “Just because horrible things happen in our lives, we must be strong to not let it get the best of us.”
Relationship, much? from sexual abuse ages 8-12 by a priest, and from 12-1/2 through 16, sought “refuge” in another relationship with at least a non-priest, but another abuser?
Aimee has been a strong advocate for victim’s rights.  She is an avid supporter of RAINN (Rape, Abuse National Network), Rescue & Restore Victims of Human Trafficking, ACF Trafficking, SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), Perverted Justice and more.
This young woman is a graduate of the NY Film Academy, apparently her mother also was a producer?  Here’s a company she founded in “2004” (January 2005).  I did not find the foundations, yet, but I see the high energy that sometimes people who get OUT of abuse have afterwards; they/we are simply so excited to be free, and creativity is at an all-time high, plus speaking to the cause.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
200501110252 01/10/2005 ACTIVE AIMESTER PRODUCTIONS LLC AIMEE GALICIA TORRES
?? Aimee is the registered agent; the “jurisdiction” (which street address I looked up — I always try to look up street addresses ) is for “New America Foundation” — the California Office.  this is supposedly where the LLC business is, and Ms. Torres’ address (or, Studio City, CA) is the “registered agent” address:

Main Office

New America Foundation
1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Map & Directions
Phone: 202-986-2700
Fax: 202-986-3696

California Office

New America Foundation
921 11th Street, Suite 901
Sacramento, CA 95814
Map & Directions
Phone: 916-448-5189
Fax: 916-448-3724
This is a very interesting corporation (and not the subject of today’s post); ties to the council on Foreign Relations, and a board of 21 people, about 5 women, and some extremely high-achieving ones, too.  I am not sure how this ties into “Aimester Productions, LLC” of — as of yet — where “FACESS” actually resides as a corporation, other than on facebook and a website.  Such are the times we live in; we’d best deal with it!
one-half hour to the radio show, if you are planning to call in it’s 1-646-595-2134.  Again, I feel the focus is far broader than the pressing need in the family courts and child support (etc.) business entails at this point.  But it will be informative.
There is going to be a Judge from Georgia, we should ask what he thinks about (1) the Nancy Schaefer alleged murder/suicide while investigating CPS; (2) how nice to have a Georgia Judge on a Nationwide CCJJDP commission (“CC” standing for “Coordinating Council”:
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
These being the (appointed) “Practitioner Members” in addition to heads of various agencies:

Laurie Garduque
Adele L. Grubbs
Byron Johnson
Steven H. Jonesen
Gordon A. Martin, Jr.
Pamela Rodriguez
Deborah Schumacher
Trina Thompson
Richard Vincent

The Hon. Adele L. Grubbs, as I recall, made an in absentia appearance on a previous show, when one of the callers related being incarcerated for 18 months around something regarding the sale of her home AFTER she’d been forced into bankruptcy (through custody matters, what else?) and it had already been foreclosed.  I can’t recall ALL the details.   I also know a woman in Georgia in terror in that her ex-kidnapper had done his time, and was stalking again.   And people in Pennsylvania have been made aware of the dynamic duo Parent Coordinators (Susan Boyan & Ann Marie Termini, the latter working out of Lackawanna County), with the expired associations their names are associated with, and the invisible (to me, at least) anywhere “Cooperative Parenting Institute” advertised at parentcoordinationcentral.com or whatever that site’s name is.
Georgia must be a beautiful (landscape Geography) state, I have a feeling.  It is also known in some circles for the (in)famous Georgia Fatherhood Initiative, a statewide deal organized out of the DHS, OCSE I guess:
Office of Child Support Services Logo

The Georgia Fatherhood Program, created by the Division of Child Support Services (DCSS) in 1997, works with non-custodial parents who owe child support through DCSS but are unable to pay. Georgia’s Fatherhood Program is the largest state-operated fatherhood program in the country. Several thousands of non-custodial parents received services through the program during the past year. Gainful, stable employment enables these parents to provide regular financial support for their children. Fatherhood Program participants paid $18.7 million in child support during FY 2005.

Georgia recognized early on that many non-custodial parents wanted to pay their court-ordered child support, but lacked the economic capacity to do so. DCSS has partnered with other government and community agencies to develop a comprehensive network of services for this group.

The Fatherhood Program:
• Generally takes three to six months to complete.
• Serves both fathers and mothers who are non-custodial parents. . .

The Georgia Fatherhood Program is implemented by the Fatherhood Services Network, sponsored by the Department of Human Services’ Division of Child Support Services. The Network includes:
• Georgia Department of Human Services
• Child Access and Visitation Program
• Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgement Program
• Georgia Family Connections Partnership** (a nice nonprofit including a Juvenile Court judge on its board…)
• DCSS, which contracts with:
• Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education
• Georgia Department of Labor
• DeKalb County Fatherhood Initiative Network

Anyhow, it sure should be interesting.

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

January 17, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Child Support, CRC Childrens Rights Council, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion

For BMCC Day 1: Why VAWA, DV Groups Basically Can’t (Won’t?) Stop [Terroristic Threats, Murder, Assault, Battery, Stalking, False Imprisonment, Harrassment– Child Molestation–or other Crimes]

with 2 comments

Why?

Well, I have one line of reasoning — that there is a family court around basically creates an immense loophole; any police officer anywhere can just about get out of arresting domestic violence perpetrators (they could anyway) by, when children exist, simply failing to arrest, and letting it land in the family venue.  Ditto with CPS.  But even if they didn’t, they still have immense discretion to simply not arrest.  If they DO arrest, the DA’s have immense discretion not to prosecute also.

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

(a site I quote below, and refer to often enough) I see has written an October 2011 letter to:

Dear Feminist Law Professors:

I’m a women’s rights advocate who has been working for the last 20 years in the exasperating struggle to end violence against women. I’m writing because we’re stumped, and we need your help.

My opinion:  these feminist law professors and women, in many respects,  have for over a decade completely ignored the role of the family courts, and their relationship to the criminal prosecution of (see title) real-time crimes play in simply invalidating domestic violence law, child abuse law, in fact most criminal laws of any sort for women who have given birth.   And women who give birth, aka MOTHERS, represents a significant portion of women against whom violence is routine.

In this current climate, and while that off-ramp from the criminal justice system (if the reporting and prosecution even gets there), it is next to impossible for these women to get free from an abuser – with children — and stay free unless HE simply chooses not to sue for custody or further bother her.  And, if there’s a Title IV-D child support order around, even if he doesn’t want to bother her, the county can and will go after that family and those kids anyhow.   That’s My take on it.  So I would not be asking a feminist law professor for help, based on the track record and under-reporting of this scandal.  And I’ve talked to some of them (including in my area).  However, this writer has a point:

The problem is this: Modern violence-against-women laws are in place throughout most of the U.S., as are crisis centers, hotlines, counselors, and shelters. But a critical piece is missing. We don’t have anywhere near adequate enforcement of the laws. Nor do women have any legal right to enforcement of the laws, nor any legal remedy or redress when police and prosecutors fail to enforce the laws.

As such, the laws are meaningless to us.  However, it takes a while — and sometimes costs a life — to recognize this.

. . . But the daunting and particular problem for women is that these absolute discretionary powers are in the hands of law enforcement agencies that are rife with anti-women biases, structures, and traditions. Violence-against-women cases are the cases these officials are most overwhelmingly prone to ignore, ditch, dismiss, under-investigate, under-prosecute, and give sundry other forms of disregard. This disparate impact and denial of equal protection is undermining all the other monumental efforts to end violence against women.

Despite all the high flying official rhetoric to the contrary, way too many police and prosecutors don’t want to do these cases. They know they don’t have to do these cases. They know a million ways to get rid of these cases. They know nobody can hold them to account. And the Supreme Court keeps driving this impunity deeper into the heart of American law. Not surprisingly, the violence against women rages on.

We can social work these cases endlessly, but when police and prosecutors don’t do their part and put the violent perpetrators in check, the perpetrators easily turn around and undo any stability and safety we and the women have attempted to secure. The freer she gets, the angrier he becomes. Without adequate law enforcement, victims of violence against women are doomed. And then they are double doomed by the void of any legal cause to hold unresponsive police and prosecutors to account. And then, all too often, she is dead

Notice that at the end of this eloquent (and I believe, truthful) letter, she refers to the “Judicial Ghetto of Family Law.”  It is this Ghetto that has to be addressed if “violence against women” is to stop.  To date, we are still the gender that produces children, gives birth to them, no matter how nurturing Dad is.  As such, this arena, that ghetto, ALSO has to be addressed, or as an obstacle to life itself for those in it, removed:

We urgently need your help. Not in the judicial ghetto of family law where victims of violence against women are too often shunted to fend for themselves.

Why NOT?  Why should women have to fend for themselves in a biased system  — because thats where it typically goes after any civil restraining order (see VAWA, below) is put in place.   Perhaps if there’d been more “feminist law professors” who’d gone through leaving DV AS MOTHERS, this might have been handled by now.  Not saying that it wasn’t a tough uphill battle to start with.  But we mothers are certainly not ballast in this journey; just treated like it in these circles!

But in criminal law where the state itself must take responsibility for securing justice for these heinous crimes. We can’t solve this problem without you.

As a first step, please pass this on to colleagues you think would most fervently fight to create a women’s right to justice. And then consider joining in yourself.

Thank you for your concern.

Marie De Santis, Director Women’s Justice Center Centro de Justicia para Mujeres

mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org

We like to believe that criminal law always applies when crimes are committed (the title lists some of the crimes which comprise “Domestic violence” and “Child abuse” and characterize the lives of people who sometimes, after years enduring these things, end up dead, or paying their abuser, which is a form of institutionalized extortion).

BUT — when a case is labeled “high-conflict” or “custody dispute” of any sort, BY LAW (apparently) it comes under the jurisdiction of a different court — which is not a real court, it’s a business enterprise.  (See this blog.  See other NON-federally-supported blogs or articles.

For example get this (“johnnypumphandle, re:  Los Angeles “Public Benefit Corporations Supported by Taxpayers”   Not only ALL the people walking through the halls — but the real estate — the halls themselves, apparently are often part of this enterprise!  Why this never occurred to me before reading these matters, I don’t know.   The family court is in a separate building from the main (Criminal) courthouse in MANY towns and cities across the county.  That alone should have caught our attention.  Now (same general idea), they are building, sometimes, “Family Justice Centers” as part of a National Alliance movement (see “One-Stop Justice Shop” posts, mine).

I reviewed this material carefully before, it takes a while to sink in.  It will NOT sink in if all you see mentally is the visual of the building and its inhabitants.  In order to “See” straight, one needs to see and be willing to think in terms of corporations, tax returns, and cash flow.  And something relating the words “taxpayer” with “tax-exempt.”  As the site says:

 We have again reminded the IRS of the same scheme being perpetrated by the Private Corporation – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation – with the same bond guarantees by the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. Taxpayers are still getting stiffed by this scam, since there is no accountability for the money and NO TAX FORMS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED!

Key in this EIN#

470942805

to This Charitable Search Site (for California) — and tell me why the Relationship Training Institute — which does business with and takes business FROM the court, evidently — is still marked “current” when no (zero, nada, zilch, nothing at all) has been filed (and uploaded) by this organization for the state of California as a charity -EVER; even though it’s filed with the IRS?  Is that cheating the citizens of California, or what?   Here they are (and here goes continuity in my post today):

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

The Relationship Training Institute (RTI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, established in 1986* by David B. Wexler, Ph.D. to provide training, consultation, treatment, and research in the field of relationship development and relationship enhancement.

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

Because — in the 7 years (at least) it’s been operating in California, David B. Wexler, Ph.D.’s group has not bothered to file it’s (by law) annually required tax return with the state (NOTE — which provides the California Attorney General with a Schedule B showing names and addresses of contributors, and has to list government funding) and because the CA Corporations search site is so limited, I can’t see  from there OR its founding articles if this is a domestic (Ca originated) or “foreign” (out of state) corporation.   

On the other hand, the group California Coalition for Families and Children which incorporated in 2010 (per same site) — and is critical of the San Diego Family Court Practices — has twice received a “file your dues” letter, which you can search at the same charities link, above.  It has no EIN# because it hasn’t registered yet.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3284403 03/09/2010 ACTIVE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

I believe any group that calls itself a 501(c)3 (or “4”) should fulfil the requirements of it.  However, there seems a bit of favoritism (OR, This group has no bribe to pay — below the table — for the regulatory agencies, including the OAG?); Emad G. Tadros, Ph.D., checked out the suspicious credentials of a custody evaluator, discovered a custody Mill (plus that a house cat got a diploma from the same place) and put up a website about all this, plus filed a suit, which was simply the right thing to do.  In retaliation for challenging the right of the courts to continue their fraud up on the public he was fined $86K in fees, and an attempt has been made at obtaining interest, too.   Apparently, this group has not cut a deal with anyone, and so the OAG WILL go after their nonprofit status.  Here’s the link to “San Diego Court Corruption.”

So, as to The Relationship Training Institute, I guess not filing with the state is “close enough for jazz The Office of Attorney General.”  And also close enough for an NIMH sponsored grant on Domestic Violence in the Navy, too.  If our Navy was run this way, we’d be losing a lot more wars.

RTI offers an on-going series of informative workshops and state-of-the-art training programs for mental health professionals and for the public, bringing innovative leaders and teachers to the San Diego community. RTI staff also travel throughout the world training professionals in the treatment models that we have been developing and publishing for over 25 years

So, don’t try to tell me the courts and attorney general are unaware — see its website, and see the detail on its charitable registration.  A letter has been sent to this charity, and its site claims it’s approved by the Judicial Council of California to provide CLE credits for its trainings!

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

APA American Psychological AssociationWDCA Board of Behavioral SciencesBRN Board of Registered Nursing     CATC Certified Addictions Treatment CounselorJudicial Council of California Administrative Office of the CourtsNAADAC Association for Addiction ProfessionalsNBCC National Board for Certified CounselorsNevada Attorney General

By the way, Dr. Wexler is listed under another one, IABMCP or something:

David B. Wexler , Ph.D., Diplomate IABMCP
Director, Relationship Training Institute, San Diego, California

International Academy of Behavioral Medicine, Counseling and Psychotherapy  (group registered in Dallas, TX in 1979, EIN has 11 numbers # 17523304719.  Usually it’s 9 or 12):

Name Taxpayer ID# Zip
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE COUNS 17523304719 75225

The actual EIN# is 751726710 and it’s registered in Colorado as a 501(c)6 ” Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc. formed to improve conditions..”  It has a tiny budget and apparently exists to distribute a newsletter, per 990 (2010 ruling.), registered as a foreign nonprofit (citing the Texas org.) since 1999 and apparently is filing its reports in Colorado OK.

2010  751726710 International Academy of Behavioral Medicine Counseling and Psychother CO 1980 06 31,455 1,402 990

Dr. Wexler anyhow, is on its Advisory Council, along with a long list of mostly but not all male personages, including Deepak Chopra…

I also note that this domestic violence training is very man-friendly…  But RTI is apparently the group that does the trainings OUTSIDE the courthouse, which makes them part of the personnel bill.  The earlier article was about who pays rents on the real estate, who owns the real estate, of the courthouses themselves?  Reading on:

August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these ‘Public Benefit’ Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others, drop us a line.

These companies are established as Tax exempt ‘charitable trusts’ under the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4). They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.

They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done ‘outside’ on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. As an example, O’Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.

Is this a donation? Somehow, I think O’Melveny & Myers are not providing legal services for free.

The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.

Who answers the phone? A county employee, doing ‘part time’ work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.

How are bills paid? We have a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor , who is told that he will receive a check for $4,730 and a like amount will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see, the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and four other underwriters have guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.

So WHY do I make those claims in the Title of this post today?   Well, for one, I research TAGGS grants, and read conference brochures, and pay attention to what groups do – -and don’t — report on, including the various elephants in the room…  

I’m not the only one, either, questioning what VAWA is for, except to inspire a lot of anti-feminist backlash, give Fathers & Families (GlennSacks hounds) something to complain about, and a source of funds to set up websites and conferences (ad nauseam) to perpetuate the illusion that whatever a civil — or even criminal — domestic violence action DOES, Family Courts will not quickly UNDO, even if neither parent  asks them to!

You might want to look at this article:

VAWA Critique
In Which a Little-Known Legal Brief Plows into Hallowed Terrain

I almost felt like a traitor (though I was sure in my opinion) with this round of requests I write someone to reauthorize VAWA.  WHY? I thought.  I already know who’s collaborating with these other courts.  Well, another (non-federally funded, intentionally so) site – I like this site, too — explains:

Ever since the U.S. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994, women’s advocates have rallied again and again to assure that VAWA stays authorized and funded. The steady torrent of threats against the act from antagonist men’s groups has left advocates with little inclination to question whether VAWA is truly delivering what’s needed to end the violence and secure justice for women. But a little-disseminated legal brief we came across recently rips along the fault lines and suggests that giving VAWA a thorough critique may be one of the most important steps we should be taking to advance the struggle.

“The legal brief, signed by a dozen domestic violence scholars from around the country and submitted in 2007 to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, emphatically makes the case that VAWA not only is failing to protect women, but that this failure is rooted in fundamental flaws in VAWA’s structure and administration. “VAWA is a limited remedy,” the document states, “That fails to protect women or to discharge the United State’s obligations under international law.”

(it’s going to talk about the Jessica Gonzales case, and the IACHR. However, NO — I say that these DV scholars have simply fallen asleep at the switch, or decided to look the other way, to keep their publications, etc. coming.   )

In summarizing their analysis, the brief states, “VAWA fails to accomplish four crucial things: 1) It does not provide any remedy when abuser’s or police officer’s violate victims’ rights, 2) it does not require participation of all states or monitor their progress, 3) it does not fully or adequately fund all the services that are needed, 4) it does not require states to pass or strengthen legislation around civil protective orders or the housing rights of domestic violence victims.” . . .

VAWA: “primarily a source of grants” which has not reduced domestic violence

The brief goes on to characterize VAWA as “primarily a source of grants” with non-binding terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates nothing. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That’s less than the cost of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to combat violence against women.

If the core of this brief is accurate, despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. ‘You can prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you feel like it. But if you’d rather not, don’t worry about it. VAWA doesn’t mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also made sure there’s not a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to account.‘

Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA’s passage in 1994 to 2007 when the brief was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government’s claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, “Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have not been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes

This site writes their rationale:

And perhaps worse, these fundamental flaws in VAWA are not even a matter of discussion, debate, or protest among frontline women’s advocates. It’s critical for progress in ending violence against women that that discussion begin.

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

VAWA requires that shelters and rape crisis centers that receive VAWA funding must demonstrate their cooperation with their local law enforcement agencies.

Individual states that administer the VAWA grants have implemented this requirement in various ways. But typically the shelters and crisis centers seeking VAWA grants must obtain signed operational agreements with their local law enforcement agencies. This has given law enforcement veto power over the survival of the violence against women centers, a controlling power law enforcement has not hesitated to use.

People should read this article — and a lot of this site, based in Sonoma County, California (wine country north of SF).  I notice that the Family Justice Alliance Center made sure to get a center into Sonoma County — and if I were going to donate to somewhere to stop violence (other than the time I’ve donated, here, and off-blog) it’d be to this group, responsible for the website:
Feel free to photocopy and distribute this information as long as you keep the credit and text intact.
Copyright © Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center,
www.justicewomen.com 
rdjustice@monitor.net

VAWA is a Federal Act of Congress first passed in 1994.  By Contrast (and to oppose its premises), the National Fatherhood Initiative is a NONPROFIT started by someone with close connections to HHS, and Washington, and now many legislators — and is not only still funded, but has permeated the structure and purpose of violence prevention, child welfare, and child abuse prevention  areas of goverment.  While VAWA (which at least went past Congress initially — the NFI did not) promotes one kind of training, NFI promotes the opposite theories.

Then the two groups get together, for example, The Greenbook Initiative and congratulation their federally-paid-behinds for being able to get along, while women continue to die after breeding and leaving abuse.  And etc.

The DOJ Defending Children Initiative:  even has an “Engaging Fathers” link:

The ILLUSION that there is protection for women and children through groups such as “Child Protection Services” is fatuous.  That’s not what they’re there for, apparently.  Nor, apparently, are the civil restraining order issuers (typically a domestic violence nonprofit of some sort, or possibly a parent might get one on his/her own) there to prosecute or punish any crime.

I heard this from a woman (grandparent) in an unidentified urban area, regarding her grandchildren’s being in the sole custody of an abusing father AFTER CPS and police had confirmed sodomy and forced copulation with the (young boy):

Hearsay #1:

There are no laws or penal codes against child abuse by a parent.  Child abuse by a parent comes under the Welfare and Institution Code (WIC).

The welfare and institution code does ONE thing — offers reunification services to the abuser.  The one and ony law mandated by legislators (in such cases) is reunification.

Since the theme is “reunification” (and really, let’s get honest — “supervised visitation” concept comes from this field, reunification), no family court has any interest in re-unifying a protective mother with her child once that child has been completely (and physically) “reunified” with the abuser father.  There are no fatherhood-promotion services for this (access/visitation concept is actually a fatherhood concept).  Supervised visitation with a sex offender (young) father and mother has resulted in child-rape INSIDE a supervised visitation facility in Trumbull County, Ohio, recently.  It has resulted in financial fraud on East and West Coast both (Genia Shockome/Karen Anderson of Amador County, PA), it has resulted in a child literally being supervised by a woman who had criminally sexually assaulted a DOG in Contra Costa County California courts (Welch v. Tippe), and — the commissioner? who made that order, as recommended by her court-crony, is I believe still on the bench — and has been, while we’re at it, on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too.  After all, it’s all about the “Kids” and what’s best for them, right?  How often do women whose children have been abused get put on supervised visitation for “alienating” the father by reporting — or allowing their kids to even report to someone else unsolicited, like a schoolteacher — real live criminal activity upon themselves?

Hearsay #2:

Child Protective Services labeled our case high-conflict which put it in custody court.  Neither the father or I had even mentioned divorce at the time.

This mother says she saw it on their report.  I’d like to see that report.  Assuming it’s true, this means that CPS knows quite well that they don’t have to prosecute anything against a parent when it comes to abuse of children; they can shunt it off to family court.

Hearsay #3 (to you — this is my case):

When my children were being stolen (abducted), and I was protesting on the basis of a valid court order giving me physical custody, an attempt was made to bring CPS in — although no abuse was being alleged!  When I pointed this out, the officers supervising the exchange — which I’d requested for personal safety — refused to enforce the court order, mocked me, and when I realized there was no recourse from this crew, I had to let my “ex-batterer” and the children’s father, drive off into the sunset with children I’d raised, and from this point forward (til today) not ONE single court order was consistently obeyed for more than a month, including visitation or phone contact with me, alternating holidays, or the children with the mother on mother’s day, all of which remained in the CUSTODY order.

In short, if I wasn’t going to voluntarily justify bringing on more (paid, public employee) professionals AFTER existing paid, public employee professionals simply refused to do their job (which I later learned — they don’t have to, even if not doing their job results in someone’s, or even three children’s, deaths.  See Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

Talk about “interlocking directorate” – – – – I also heard from a savvy investigator (mother) (noncustodial) in another state how that, literally, when a father is accused AND found guilty of abuse in one sector (for example, criminally, or child support services) this literally causes the father to be declared “incapacitated” or incompetent — making the child a “dependency” case.  The court that the mother then walks into is, in effect, a “dependency court.”  The state owns her child, and if she can’t ransom it back, too bad.  The ransom process is simply this:  the hearings go on, and on, and on and as much money is extracted from the mother, who WILL fight back, until she’s broke too, if not in spirit.  That’s the plan.  That’s not an anomaly or “burp” of the system — that IS the plan.

We have heard also of horrendous situations, and I’ve reported this, of dual electronic docketing.  (“Computerized or Con-puterized?”  Janet Phelan on Joseph Zernik reporting.  One week after she published the layperson’s explanation of this, he was picked up by police without cause and held).   We’ve heard of collected but intentionally not distributed child support, in the millions of $$ (Silva v. Garcetti (who was Los Angeles D.A., involving Richard Fine).    Even a brief look at what happened to Mr. Fine (besides getting incarcerated and disbarred) and how the California Legislature handled the fact that the entire judiciary was subject to bribery at the county level by payments to judges — from the county — in cases where — the county — was a party.  It retroactively granted immunity, and did this quickly, lest the entire judicial system get shut down.  (SBX-211) — that brief look should say, what we are dealing with is XX % crooks, and X% enablers or people who can’t themselves get out of the system because by participation, they’d be prosecuted too.  Talk about “gangs” . . . that’s a Gang.  Sometimes deals go between one jurisdiction and another, making them a little harder to catch (Gregory Pentoney)

Two other things which I’ve heard of from a non-BMCC “let’s ask the expert source” in recent times — and again, I present this as Hearsay, but it’s entirely in character for the venue — of more than one physical case file being kept.  One is shown to the litigant when she can afford it (which ain’t always), or qualifies as low-income enough to be shown it.  The other is shown and hauled out when it comes to justifying program billing — that one or both parents may be totally unaware of, occurring in their case, under their or their kids’ social security #s, and in their name.

Again, my plan is to curtail posting on this blog (I believe I’ve “said my piece” on most major points) at the end of January, and get about other aspects of life.  Oh yes, and I signed the blog up for Twitter, which should curtail the length some, like by ca. (10,000 to 14,000) – 140 characters!

I realize that conversational style isn’t communication, yet the information is urgent to present and get out.  The “end of January” date was in honor of the BMCC conference, which I plan to comment on every day it’s in session.  Ideally, you will see one post a day from here til 1/31, however, some of the material does cause vicarious trauma to report, which may affect quality of post, or my getting one out on a certain day.  While I know what I know, from study, research observation, reflection, and synthesis, expressing it is another matter.

Also, the conversing with the material style is laborious, and takes hours.  Whereas in a personal conversation, say, by phone, with interaction, I know I could convey the key FAQs, overall, in 10 minutes or less, and tell people where to find more information, should they be motivated.

So here we go:

Some people I know are headed up again to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference IX in Albany, New York again this year, where the same basic information will be presented by experts, while mothers are welcome to participate from the floor and by adding their square to the quilt, by buying books which the presenters will be selling (last year’s hot-off-the-press available in softcover and at a discount – only $59 — for conference attendees) and donate, too.   This is addressed to mothers who are probably being fleeced in the courts, have tortuous situations to handle, and some are paying child support to their child’s or their abuser, which is why they pull it together to come to this conference, seeking help and answers — from the experts.

One difference — a positive one — THIS year is the attendance of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who also will be selling her newly revised “Mothers on Trial”  which I know incorporates some new stories, and I plan to order it on-line.

However, I also know that it’s not about to contain the information on this blog, on NAFCJ.net, or much on the AFCC, Welfare Reform (1996), and the role of the Child Support $4 billion industry in prolonging custody conflicts, for profit.  However, it will be a new presenter, and an experienced feminist who I’ll bet is not afraid to address some of the issues of Gender Apartheid (which also results in “Battered Mothers”) in front of this audience, and on which she is an expert.  Perhaps she will — as I don’t think others have — bring up the impact of religion on this situation in the family courts.  It’s there – -not talking about it would hardly make sense.

At the  bottom of this post, I am going to list the Presenters, and brief comments or links on the ones I know.  The ones I don’t, I’ll look up.  Perhaps in the next post (as this one expanded into handling a few other items).

And in this post, I’m going to charge pretty hard into the entire concept behind this conference, as I did last January, afterwards.

NB:  I attended one conference in all its years, but primarily to meet mothers I’d been blogging with; I’d already realized that it was a marketing conference.  That’s responsible behavior for people shelling out travel, hotel, and conference fees, not to mention in general.  You find out who’s saying what and evaluate it.

The Title of this year’s conference is apparently “IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING”?

HUH?

 

  • We who?  (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)

  • Working for whom?*

  • Define “working” — what’s the goal here?  (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers’ Perceptions?)

Ask a foolish question, you will get a very foolish answer.  Act on those answers and you become a fool.  A sucker is born every minute, and I regret every minute of my own “suckerhood” which listened to domestic violence rhetoric for too long, and didn’t think to GO CHECK TAX RETURNS AND NONPROFIT FILINGS FIRST, which might’ve had a different result.  

That’s why I believe that it’s the “experts” that should be sitting around the tables in the conference and taking notes, and the women themselves that should be up on stage giving testimony, ideas — and controlling the microphones.  Then some of the questions they have might get some answers, through collective wisdom, as women tend to do — when not co-opted into the hierarchical model of relating to each other which is more characteristic of males, and of this society we live in.

The structure of this type of conference is didactic — from presenter to participant.  They are the dispensers of wisdom, women & mothers attending, the recipients.  Go forth and deliver the expert wisdom to your areas, (seek to hire us as expert witnesses in your court cases) and if it doesn’t work — next year we are going to do the same basic routine anyhow, and your feedback will NOT be front and center, if it is allowed at all.

Seriously — that’s how it goes.  And anyone with a child in a custody case has a ticking clock, if not time bomb, which is running.  We do not have time to beat around the bush and fail to address things in PRIORITY order.

So anyhow, “is what we (?) are doing working?”

Somehow this is going to be stretched out into a weekend’s worth of material?  Is there a better question to ask, such as — what can we do to either clean up or shut down the family law courts if they refuse to clean themselves out, which is unlikely?  How many experts does it take to distract a mother’s attention from who is paying her abuser and the judges that gave that kid to the abuser?  Why doesn’t this conference ever bring up child support, welfare reform, or mathematical issues, such as economics?

Or, for that matters, why are not the people who experienced abuse considered THE experts, and why are the true experts (the battered mothers) not as informed as the presenting experts on things that others figured out over 15 years ago in this field?

This is, among other things, a marketing conference, and a chance for women to sit with each other and have company in their distress.  It is NOT a place for them to actually reform the courts, or learn the most direct possible ways (if any ways are possible) to get their children back, or a crooked judge off their case.  That I can tell.

*A comment on the site says women can contribute to a quilt for missing children.   (Which somehow reminds me of a church situation — you may attend, women:  Here — serve some cookies,  greet perhaps, and of course work child care, the sermon and other important things will be piped in from our (male) minister).  . . . . now, there are presenters who are mothers on the platform, some of who I know by name, and I know those mothers are not about to rock the boat — by reporting on what you’ll find here, NAFCJ.net, Cindy Ross, Richard Fine (Emil Tadros either, for that matter) and other places.   Somehow that information isn’t worth informing Moms of, which results in Uninformed Moms, wondering why things aren’t changing.

You see, professionals (and I was one in one or two fields) know they’re not expert in other fields and so tend to defer to people presenting as the experts in a different field.  This works REAL well when mothers in panic, danger, or serious trauma go for help to DV experts who are hired (or volunteered) with agencies which do not themselves see fit to look at the larger picture AND TELL THE MOMS ABOUT IT.

Moreover, once a case — or person — moves out of their area of “expertise” — meaning, case in point for mothers, into the family law system — it becomes “not my problem” and they can, I suppose, somehow sleep with themselves at night (those who actually have functional consciences) without drugs or sedatives, by saying – it’s out of my hands now, I did my part!

Ay, there’s the rub.  It’s a win-win for the civil restraining order (DV agency) field AND for the Family Law Field, because no one “out-ed” either field’s collaboration and centralization over the years.  No one has done this much to date  because so few people follow the funding, particularly experts protesting “Child abuse, Domestic Violence” and so forth.

RE:  “IS What We’re Doing Working”

Here’s a short answer:   “ExcUUse me?   You  * #$!- ing (kidding) me, right?”

Slightly Longer answer, Fresh kill, two children (10 & 14) into someone else’s care (foster?  relatives?)  this week in California.  The woman showed up, obediently, for a family court hearing, and was murdered in cold blood, in her car.

Authorities say the man shot his wife, gave chase to police, then shot himself; they were scheduled to appear in family court for a hearing

BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON

STAFF WRITERS

kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com

Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM

A man at the Hemet courthouse for a child-support hearing calmly walked up to his wife’s car and fired two fatal shots, then led police on a car chase before killing himself Wednesday morning, according to witnesses and police

. . . .

Costales had no criminal record in Riverside County, and the couple had no history of domestic violence with each other, nor was there a restraining order in the case. However, Costales was accused of domestic violence in a previous divorce.

The two children now aged 10 and 14, we don’t know who their biological mother was –whether the woman slumped over in her car that day, or the former Ms. Costales:  However, they were born (do the math, see article) prior to this marriage:  2012 January minus ten, minus fourteen years.  Mr. Costales prior marriage had mutual restraining orders as of the year 2000.

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

Kimberly Jones, 45, of Hemet, said she was in her car when she heard the first gunshot, which she thought was a firecracker. She looked back to see Schulz back away quickly.

Jones ducked as additional shots were fired, then ran over to find Schulz bleeding and slumped over in the driver’s seat. Jones, who is a nurse, said she tried to resuscitate the woman in the parking lot as Costales casually walked back to his car.

. . . She moved out, not him….

Schulz told the court in September that she was unemployed and receiving $550 in monthly aid. She asked for Costales to be required to make child and spousal payments and to make payments on their Honda Pilot until she could afford to get her own vehicle.

“I need hearing because of no income but aid,” Schulz wrote in court documents. “Living on my brother’s couch, looking for work daily, been unsuccessful. Children need their own home and stability.”

The age difference:  Him vs. Her — was 17 years.  We don’t know this situation, but here’s a woman who never apparently even SAID “domestic violence” — and yet still died asking for something reasonable.  Did she bring children into the relationship (was he their father?).  Did he seek a needy woman with children to make up for loss of his first wife and two sons (now adults)?

Do second wives EVER believe the record on the first wives’ court docket?

I went to look this one up at the Riverside Court, but found out that it’s not even free to view the images, and in doing so, they will know who is looking.  So much for public oversight from a safe distance!

Police closed off a portion of the courthouse parking lot, stranding about 50 people who were unable to get to their cars to leave, but the courthouse remained open. The Hemet branch of the Riverside County courts handles family law cases in addition to civil, small claims and traffic issues.

Why did she leave?  Who knows?  Was this unreported violence, nonsupport, or what?  Where are the children going to live now?  Who HAS them now?

This was a TANF case.  She was on aid — that means that only if there has been violence, or some severe extenuating systems, is she allowed some sort of diversion away from seeking child support from the father.  The county wants its programs funded.  If “aid” goes out, the County controls the collection of child support.  This was likely an administrative hearing — there seems not to be any discussion over custody or visitation.    This woman didn’t know, and now never will, what receiving welfare from anywhere in California puts one at risk of.  Had it not ended this way, it might have stretched out for years in the courts as well.

Suppose this man had not been just Mr. Costales, but Mr. DeKraii, and been in a real bad mood that day?  Who else might have died?

Hence, we have to re-think this phrase:  “Clear and Present Danger.”  It has 3 usages.

1.  In the law, unless it’s been rescinded by now — in California, a Batterer is a “Clear and present danger to the mental and physical health of the citizens of California.”  If one continues reading the law, they then talk about something like a task force at the District Attorney level.

2.  In Usage by AFCC,  “Lack of Resources” to the family courts is the “Clear and Present Danger.”

3.  I feel it’s safe to say now, clearly, and quite presently, that “the family courts are a clear and present danger to the citizens (not just parents) of the state of California.”

So much for the domestic violence industry.  It doesn’t hold water once it’s in “conciliation court.”  They just forgot to tell the mothers this, evidently.

I fully realize that’s “heresy” (but the courts themselves are based on psychological theory and clear intent to undermine the meaning of criminal law and drive business to therapists, etc.) but anyone concerned about my POST-battering relationship, POST-family law custody matters (like we say, it goes, so long as minors and two parties are all alive, until the children reach majority) — I have no criminal record and no criminal intents either.  I showed up to court hearings no matter how scared I was, and was forced to sit at the table with my ex, and from this close range, somehow “negotiate.”

People want to “reform” Family Court.  That’s crazy thinking.  It doesn’t account for the roadkill.

Although I can’t blame the average citizen, who thinks that his /her taxes are going to support something noble or good when it pays these salaries for family courts throughout the land, and more.  When the situation hits them, personally (evidence is that not all close relatives or friends figure it out, either), perhaps the 2 + 2 will = 4.    Who has it helped, and what’s the ratio of helped to roadkill, to children being tortured, children sent into foster care, parents experiencing MIA children, etc.?   That’s a system someone can supposedly MANAGE?

Here’s a summary, a post from long ago (about 1.5 years ago) which I’m amazed it still gets attention, and was today:

Toms River NJ femicide/suicide post-mortem concludes strangled DYFS worker should’ve hooked up with “agencies such as ourselves”

I posted this on August 17, 2009

This detailed a murder/suicide which occurred FIVE HOURS after the man posted $1,500 bail and was released.  The woman did everything right — almost.  She didn’t leave her job and the area, she didn’t evidently know to insist that if this man was released, she be notified (nor was she, apparently) in fact, perhaps she didn’t have a fast enough learning curve to understand that once provoked by resistance, some men become extremely dangerous, at which point in time, it is imperative to stay alive — and anything short of ENSURING that is risky, even putting job retention ahead of it.
I then in the blog talk back to the various circus of people saying “it spiraled out of control” and so forth, essentially failing to analyze.  THEN I go back approximately 10 years and look at DV murders in that area and in NJ, compare it to the money spent to stop domestic violence, and have to ask, HUH?
There are a few things I noticed on the re-read of my older post, which I may get out later.  For example — that the Prosecutor quoted had been Presiding Family Law Judge, and it had been a civil restraining order.
Is it possible that this very system of civil restraining orders, although they jumpstart safety, are themselves a fail-safe, which still end up with dead bodies afterwards?  How sad – in that this young? woman wasn’t a mother yet, either- – she really could’ve possibly relocated.  It is easier for a single person who doesn’t have to deal with ongoing visitation, custody orders, the children’s change of schools, etc. — to locate, than a woman with children attached.  Not that it’s easy, but it would seem LEGALLY easier.  If she wants to go, they were not married, have no property in common — what could LEGALLY prevent her from leaving?
But it’s not that way when there is a family around, in the eyes of the state.
Meanwhile:  We have a 7500 word post here, and below are the listed (possibly not the latest list, but from the website) PRESENTERS at BMCC IX.
I have to go now, but will comment another time on those that I know of.   It is not an alpha list and I notice that Jennifer Collins (who is a young woman and associated with or running “Courageous Kids” — daughter of HOlly Collins) is on their twice.
Several of these people, I have personally and sometimes several times, talked to about why there is so little tracking of AFCC, fatherhood funding and other things, in their advocacy.
2012 PRESENTERS   Bios to be added shortly

Jennifer Collins

Carly Singer

Michael Bassett, J.D.

Carol Pennington

Liora Farkovitz

Lundy Bancroft- author

Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney

Joan Zorza  – DVLeap, doesn’t blog family law matters

Kathleen Russell*

— *of Center for Judicial Excellence.  Won’t report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, but loves high profiles.  Not a mother.

Connie Valentine  (CPPA)

Karen Anderson  (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain’t interested.)

Phyllis Chesler  

(if there were better company I’d try and get there this year, to meet her)

Gabby Davis

Loretta Fredericks

Loretta Fredericks in my opinion should not be allowed to present.  She should be put on the spot and have women fire questions about her.  Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Battered Women’s Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in “Explicating Domestic Abuse in Custody” (or similar title) which was also public funding.   She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference circuit?   Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa.  This situation (not her personally — we’ve never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my research validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a “heat shield” for fatherhood providers.  They lend legitimacy where there is non.

Michele Jeker

Maralee Mclean

Angela Shelton

Wendy Murphy

Jennifer Hoult

Sandy Bromley

Renee Beeker  (advocates court watch)

Joshua Pampreen

Nancy Erickson

Karin Huffer

Jason Huffer

Crystal Huffer*

*Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome).

Holly Collins

Jennifer Collins

Zachary Collins

Garland Waller

**Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.

 

Dara Carlin*

*Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her.  Didn’t notice that the legislator she was sure was on women’s side actually had close ties to a Fatherhood Commission in Hawaii (a What?).  This was how I learned about Fatherhood Commissions, actually.  She didn’t “Get” it.  Also hadn’t noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc.

Toby Kleinman

Linda Marie Sacks

(mentioned in my 2nd “About This Blog” — how to get to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the rest of mothers protesting abuse a nice reputation for not being too bright.  Seriously!)

Rita Smith*  

(NCADV Leadership.  NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are state-funded, although not too much funding.  It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively by Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..)

Eileen King  (“Justice for Children” also I think on Linda Marie Sacks case, which Supreme Court refused to hear).

Mo Therese Hannah

(self-explanatory — and running the conference, with help It says from Ms. Miller.  I don’t recoqnize the other names).

Liliane Miller

Raquel Singh

Tammy Gagnon

Louise Monroe

Chrys Ballerano
Hopefully publishing this post won’t cost me what friends or colleagues remain (which is few anyhow), but I always am favorable to truth over friendship, when the latter compromises it and so much is at stake.  This conference, unless it exposes the operational structure, financing, and purposes of the entire family law business enterprise, can probably not help mothers win their court cases, u9nderstand the situation, and will redirect their activism towards asking for more task forces.  We just got this — and not one family law spokesperson on the last one (for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence).
Perhaps they all need a year off, and to go take a starter course from H&R Block, spend some time on their state corporate and charity websites, learn how to write a FOIA, WRITE some, and look at what comes up.  NOTE:  That’s not Rocket science, doesn’t require a Ph.D. and they won’t perish if they actually learn from sources, in tead of as interpreted through people who have things to sell.
I reserve judgment (any further judgment) until I find out who the other presenters are.  Meanwhile, say some prayers for the two children of Mr. Costales and his “estranged wife” he just murdered, while she was complying with a court order in order to have enough to live on after leaving him, this past week in Hemet California — which is in Southern, CA, Riverside County.

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

January 6, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Business Enterprise, Child Support, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Fatal Assumptions, Funding Fathers - literally, Lethality Indicators - in News, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, PhDs in Psychology-Psychiatry etc (& AFCC), Who set bail?

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

A Straightforward Explanation of the Federal/State Child Protection Industry

leave a comment »

 

I think that at some level, this country (USA) has to be collectively held responsible for just “going with the flow” in this field, including tolerating Presidents that rule by Executive Order, giving tax perks (tax-exempt status) to religious institutions which historically (along with plenty of others) abuse boys and girls — with impunity for too long — and continue to fund departments such as the Health and Human Services, which  — while it dispenses valuable medical research, Medicaid, etc. — is entirely out of control.

Feedback from the post recommended the bottom section be moved to the top.  This 12/8/2011 revision does so.  Often the idea that inspires a post gets gradually removed to the bottom, as the front matter (including further explorations of the matter) grows, pushing the punch line further and further down the page.

 

Let’s look at a Massachusetts report detailing “The Money Behind the Madness” which is not so emotionally disturbing one misses it’s common sense, and that is where I’d like to end this post on a fine December day.

Thanks (anonymously) the friend who forwarded this.  I’m marking this section RED, which in the context of Traffic Lights (cf. “trafficking”) stands for, STOP!

See, there are the conservatives (Eagle Forum), and family preservationists — and they report on CPS stripping married couples of their kids, but are hard of hearing when it comes to an individual mother needing to flee an abusive husband or father — because they are father-oriented by virtue of religious inclinations.  (Not to mention the existence of plentiful fatherhood incentives as well).

Then there are people like me, who thought they were normal citizens with some sort of rights, only found differently when their case went from protection against abuse to fight for custody.  Into the family law system.  In this phase of life, being a “conservative” will not help one much — because conservatives aren’t much into, say, divorce.  You’re on your own there, baby…

Adoption Bonuses — Why Not Support the Biological Parents Instead?

After this article (including my comments during it) material below checks out some of the groups and funding.  Please note that funding continues even if audits show noncompliance; and who knows, really, where the difference between a monthly simple support of a family, to the (more than double the size) payments to the foster care contractor to find foster care parents to house the same kids.

Moreover, we KNOW — it’s not speculation, it’s pretty obvious by now — that SOME (and what %, only good accountability — which we don’t have — would tell) — that there is massive trafficking of children in compromised situations (foster care, or institutions like Boys’ Town, Nebraska) into sex slavery, to high-ranking officials, who can then be blackmailed with the photographs.  This also relates naturally to money, drugs, murder, banking (The Franklin Credit Union in this case) and politics.  Documentation by a U.S. Senator (John DeCamp) and subsequent court transcripts (cited) and a million-dollar award to one of the victims of trafficking from age 3 through 17 (Paul Bonacci) show that this extended to the White House parties after parties.  Other testimony of a young woman who reported, mentions George H.W. Bush.

This is not “sex, drugs and rock and roll” — it’s access to vulnerable kids, incentives to get them away from their parents, sex– with minors, including torture of some of them, drugs, money, blackmail – – – and politics.  Who can handle even thinking about this, or emotionally deal with the logical conclusion — that when these hearings came up, the Congress decided NOT to clean its own house; the legislators involved were not removed from office or named, and no attempt was sought by the judge involved to name them either?

Because knowing, from ethical persons, will result in seeking activism — or guilt, or numbing of the conscience to continue life AS IF it were normal, and business if all is well.  In an attempt to restructure one’s life somehow to make more time for civic activism.

 

So, that’s apparently legislative, and judicial leadership in this country.  Merry Christmas.  That, plus the other financial corruptions in the family court (systemic).

 

The Per-Capita Bounty on Breaking Up Families**

 

**Not to be confused with alternate bonuses for attempting to reconcile families which either did not exist, or have already voluntarily broken up, sometimes around abuse or desertion issues.  THOSE profits are for the family law practitioners and the various corporations involved, and also have separate federal financing streams.  Let me repeat:  If you are married but on the radar somehow as abusive, or if you are in particularly a single black woman raising children — it’s fair game.  Someone may find an excuse to call CPS and violate all due process rights.  After this article, I posted (again) on the black couple with children from Pennsylvania who ran afoul of a new “Child Safety Team” with an agenda to promote awareness of Shaken Baby Syndrome.  I found the grants on TAGGS as well.  A father was incarcerated wrongfully for a year (shortly after the program was up and running), they medical authorities apparently didn’t know about Rickets among African-Americans, and positive (defense) testimony by a doctor on the same team was suppressed; “experts” used this case to BECOME experts, and when the Dad went in jail — the other children were grabbed by foster care.

SOMEHOW, they managed to sue back, and get some help in doing so.  But those stories are further down in the post.  I also identified how HHS is helping some coordinated (multistate) adoption centers AND a resource center to create awareness of what a great field this is, to be in.

If growing children cannot bond with their own parents, they WILL find someone else to bond with, another peer group, or another powerful individual — if they are not literally kidnapped by powerful individuals and use in unspeakable ways.    Those peer groups are not likely to respect the biological bond between parent and child, and its defensive nurturing qualities.  This population is likely to be raised by a government willing to warehouse and label them, drug them (and some recent evidence, testing drugs on foster care kids), and other behavioral science “demonstration” projects funded by the public, and force them to become an ever-consuming (of services, trainings, products, etc.) population.

 

And for what purpose, what REAL purpose ?  to satisfy the IMF somehow? or global billionaires with time on their hands and worlds to revise?The more authoritarian and repressive a society becomes, the more it is simply asking for anarchy — and it will get this.  It is about greed, and sale of human beings for greed’s and merchandising’s sake.

 

In the Bible, “Babylon” is railed and prophesied against in Jeremiah (Ch. 51) Isaiah (21) and Revelations (14, 18).  Babylon being the nation that carried Israel away captive and the prophets declared that it had deceived the world (made it drunk, made the nations mad) and vengeance will come:

Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this is the time of the LORD’S vengeance; he will render unto her a recompence.

7Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD’S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.

 

Rev. 18 in particular details the greed, merchandising, profits from transporting goods, and in vivid terms pictures their responses when they realize from afar that Babylon is burning.  Then it squarely lames the blood of “all that were slain” upon this.

Apart from characterizing the city as a woman (very thinly disguised cultural hatred of women and their sexuality), it seems to me the analogy of drunkenness applies.  One of the quotes on this post literally says, “has the nation gone mad?”  Long ago, pre-internet, pre-all this — the same sentiment comes out.  Notice the contrast between the Merchants — but habitation of “foul spirits” (birds also signifies spirits).  I cannot think of anything much more foul than and industry which sells children, with funds collected from the community at large, while promising to help them. And which, when these children then report how they were handled, jails them (happened in the Franklin Coverup), or when it’s well-known that children are both disappearing and/or dying in foster care, the system simply seeks for more clients.  The system also currently (custody matters) jails mothers for protesting abuse, or for intervening by fleeing — rather than by the officially sanctioned method, which is having someone ordered into a program, like batterers intervention, treatment for sexual addictions, or other reportedly effective programs which get state adn federal funding.

(*I found another one yesterday, a continuation of one already found allegedly cheating, demanding payments in cash, in 1999, their charitable report is of doing over $6 million of business in Sacramento — California’s capital; the CEO earns $172,000 to oversee this, and psychiatric services of over $200K to one of the Board Directors.  It is the largest single contractor for these things.  I will report on it, too.).

MERCHANDISING, described . .. .

<< Revelation 18 >>
King James Version

1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

The merchants are waxed rich. . . .. not all the inhabitants.  I’m posting a chunk of this (short chapter) for effect — and notice, it’s those that have investments, that own ships, that tule nations, that have goods to sell — that are benefitting; not those who made the ships, or the goods  This is the Corporate & Government sectors.  The final verse notes that in her (sic) are all the slain of the earth.

There’s a truth to this — for what other reasons to nations go to war, or do people kill each other, besides individually, men may kill for jealousy or feeling betrayed.  But usually, it’s for greed.  The language is yes, pre-occupied with “fornication” and rejoicing in the destruction of a city (built by men, not women) characterized as female.

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

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

14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. 15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

16And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

21And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;

{Industries, including the entertainment industry, that supported the merchants and kings…}}

23And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

There’s some truth to this.   In 2011, we are watching a globally-designed (by the great men of the earth) monetary system based on strong-arm collection from wage-earners (income tax, child support enforcement also) and with jails and police force to back up the intimidation, shuddering and crumbling — it has expanded beyond the weight it can bear, and never was to hot on accountability either — which helped increase the wealth of some of the “great men of the earth.”

And yes, this is getting people of all ages killed, including people that spoke out against the injustice and what would happen if it didnt’ stop (cf. prophets) and those who simply lived ethcial lives within their means, without devising ways to get rich illegally (tax evasion) or massively rich (multiple income streams), believing in stead in the merits and honesty of working — a job, or a profession — to produce a product or honest service.  And they are losing their houses, and sometimes, offspring, while helping bail out banks.  The people who helped create the larger and larger income gap do not LIVE in the neighborhoods they helped design, with each other, for others.  In far off places (institutions, Institutes, at conferences, in on-line webinars, and on Congressional and other committees) — they design and plan yet more ways to control the population, either social science, behavioral change programs, or basically the threat of prison for noncompliance, and (let me just say it, OK?), abstinence programs – and no indication the leaders of our country pushing this are even faithful to their own wives ,whichever wife it may be at the time.  Marriage promotion programs, fatherhood promotion, and one-stop-justice centers — all a public expense with corporate injections.

And I have seen so many out of compliance corporations in the past year, I cannot count.  California Healthy Marriage Coalition, I admit, really got under my skin when I saw the two or three corporate suspensions, a Unification church staff member, that Bill Coffin & Dennis Stoica (and others) worked together to get more grants after what proof of any benefit from the first rounds?

 

So yes, at a certain level, I can see the truth in the angry prophecies of a future day of accountability from The Lord.  Some of this is simply about ethics.

I mean no offence to the many good foster care families that I’ll assume (?) are out there, and not making news headlines.  Still, the system you are part of, and taking payment from, has its priorities backwards.   It’s simply true of institutions — unlike families, which seem to have a certain natural limit (barring polygamy) — they seek to perpetuate and expand, infinitely, and when the society allows this, they do.

 

From “Massachusetts New” Political — May 5, 2000 (per url)

Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness 

DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families

By Nev Moore
Massachusetts News

Child “protection” is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it. 

The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more “evaluators”, junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody.

In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to take people’s children – and not give them back.

In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child “Protective” Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a “business” in dealing with children.

Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the “Adoption and Safe Families Act.” The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to “President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed.”

Fiscal Appropriations for “Promoting Safe and Stable Families” for FY2011 was $565,000,000, Appropriations, $468,000,000.

It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to “consider the source.” In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves.

In other words, what sells it to the public is a good, warm, fuzzy feeling about helping strangers.  Open the pocketbooks…..

Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business. 

Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good.

. . . .

With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash “bonuses” to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them “adoption incentive bonuses,” to promote the adoption of children.

“A Whole New Industry — A Sweet Marketing Scheme”:

Where to Find the Children

A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?

The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen.

If Clinton had run this through the normal legislative processes, and gotten a public vote — would it have passed?  I bet lots of parents who lost children properly to the system ALREADY — would’ve voted NO!

Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the “care” of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m preaching to the already damned. 

The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us.

The author, Nev Moore, then contrasts the help, support (to “preserve families”) and perks foster parents get, as opposed to a welfare mother, who gets less, and is subjected to far more invasion in the process:

What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are. 

Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to “negotiate” with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: “We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills.”

I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place?

The writer points out, correctly:

So, if the natural parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society.

Thank God for writers like this, who in the article recommends boycotting a US stamp which sports a National Adoption Month, and concludes:

“I know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?”

“Remember that children in foster care serve many public purposes — not good ones — but they do.  They are being USED, and it’s hardly surprising.  Children are big bucks — they can be trafficked to serve legislator’s (and others’) perverse passions, and in the process enabling very profitable blackmail of the same.  They can be apparently disposed of easier after use than children with involved biological parents and relatives.  They can be used to bill the public for unnecessary pharmaceuticals more easily than kids in the home can be, although from what I read, there’s too much of that going on.  How many unknown deaths or adverse reactions result from over-dosing kids in foster care?   When inappropriately photographed as minors (sometimes without their knowledge), this pornography has a market, too.

Are there good foster, and really bad parents?  Obviously.  But just as obviously, the system is ripe for abuse.  And it’s SYSTEMS we have to watch out for as citizens — or lose it all.    Is this country about material prosperity — absent due process? — or about liberty, which will allow individuals to band together freely and seek their mutual prosperity and safety?

When daily survival keeps the average and poor too busy to monitor those with multiple streams of income and time to lobby and devise favorable legislation for favorite projects (or simply by pass the legal process, as too many Presidents have done) — then we are going to compartmentalize the best of humanity away.   I see this as an institutional matter — and as such, more people need to stop letting others direct the institutions that direct their lives, and manipulate different segments of society to fight each other.

Justice doesn’t happen without some accountability, whether one believes in a just highest power (God) — or justice underlying the principles by which the universe operates — it seems to me that mass abuse of the young (and using adults as breeding stock) would be its own prophecy of a system and society that cannot survive, that is going to implode, explode, be taken over — or all three.

This article is 11 years old, and I don’t think I could’ve said it much better.

+ + + + +  + + +

Trouble with TAGGS.hhs.gov — the free HHS Database for the Public:

 

The only database available to the public (for free) to really track its grants system  — is obviously inaccurate, hard to manipulate even by people familiar with database use (let alone others).

HHS/ACF recently (Oct 2011) announced over $119 million of grant awards — without providing the grant# in the announcement, and (when this was later looked up, by me) it turns out the last names of all principal investigators of said grants — were omitted from the database, having been replaced by first names only!   I.e., a grant overseen by a John Smith would read in the printout “John John,” as I showed earlier.

Moreover, TAGGS.HHS.GOV allows search by grantee identifiers such as EIN# and DUNS# — but many grants lack DUNS.  The most obvious searchable numeric identifier of any grantee — is not available to search on in the Taggs database under “Advanced Search.”

CFDA# Selections

The website drop-down-type menu showing which of the multitude of program identifiers (CFDA#s) available to track — for those curious about what’s being done within a state, or inter-state — is narrow, long, one can key in a CFDA#, but not search by CFDA title.  For example — in this post, I’m talking about Adoption and Foster Care.

To look up which grant programs (CFDA#s) are involved I would have to either already know them, or scroll down the entire list looking for clues.

The list has two columns — it could have been made searchable by either column, or key-sensitive by either column (i.e., if I typed in “healthy marriage” or “Adoption” — the cursor forwards to the first occurrence of it).

The “Award Search Menu” has a list of all these, and one can select them all — but not copy them all, which seems offensive to common sense!  Try it yourself (see link).  They are not all visible at once, even.  The menu which allows one to search by CFDA numbers (select by year and state) requires one to somehow know which numbers first — and no visual reference for them on the page.  Why not?

Here’s a recent grant announcment from “Grants.gov”:

04/27/2011 Infant Adoption Awareness Training Grants Administration for Children and Families

If I go about 4 different places, the CFDA# it falls under will show up:

Funding Opportunity Title: Infant Adoption Awareness Training Grants
Funding Opportunity Number (FON): HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CG-0170
Program Office: Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Funding Type: Discretionary
Funding Category: Cooperative Agreement
Announcement Type: Modification
CFDA#: 93.254
Post Date: 06/02/2011
Application Due Date: 06/27/2011

Then, I could search CFDA 93254 by state, region, or locality — but would not get a numeric identifier of the grantee in the results!

In searching AWARD/CFDA# (and not selecting state or year), I come up with a chart showing this total:

Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 62,965,046
Total of 95 Award Actions for 28 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 140,269,924

The results are displayed by individual award#s and zip codes — but not States! — are shown.  So, if one has a photographic awareness of all 50 states by zip code, one might recognize where the awards went.  Awards to a few key groups show up in different zip codes; here are some of them:

(1) Adoption Exchange Assoc. (MD)

Total Actions (under grantee) $ 39,674,027

Recipient: ADOPTION EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION
Address: 8015 CORPORATE DRIVE SUITE C
BALTIMORE, MD 21236-5917
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: BALTIMORE
HHS Region: 3
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

Showing: 1 – 18 of 18 Award Actions (1995 – 2011)

Total:
Total of all award actions: $ 39,674,027

Includes programtitles such as:

2005 90XW0010  HURRICANE KATRINA RELIEF 1 0 ACF 09-29-2005 DUNS# 140230892 $ 600,000 
 but also:
2002 90CQ0001  THE COLLABORATION TO ADOPTUSKIDS 1 0 ACF 09-04-2002 140230892 $ 4,438,959 
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2008 90CQ0002  ADOPTUSKIDS 2 0 ACF 09-16-2008 140230892 $ 3,669,500 

(2) Harmony Adoptions of Tennessee, Inc.

Total awards (this grantee) 2007-2011:  $ 5,434,761

(From the TN Corporations Search Site):

Control # Entity Type Name Name Type Name Status Entity Filing Date Entity Status
000365453 NCORP HARMONY ADOPTIONS OF TENNESSEE, INC. Entity Active 02/05/1999 Active

Website claims they were founded in 1996

Founded in 1996, Harmony Adoptions is a licensed, non-profit adoption agency offering programs nationally recognized for their clinical design, implementation and exceptional outcomes. We are highly trained and passionate about our work and we make a difference in the lives of children and families. Our greatest joy is when a child comes home to their forever family. Our work continues as we support them all along the journey.

 They also receive “Healthy Marriage Healthy Family” grants — that doesn’t refer to the biological family (see last article on this post), but adoptive:

The Healthy Marriage, Healthy Family (HMHF) program is a federally-funded program through the Children’s Bureau and was launched in 2006. HMHF was developed in hopes that, by stabilizing the relationship between caregivers, the entire household will stabilize which would result in fewer disrupted placements. By utilizing the existing statewide ASAP (Adoption Support and Preservation) program, HMHF is able to reach, train, and support resource (foster) families and adoptive families across the entire state of Tennessee.

In the TAGG grant (incidentally) the title of this program is mis-spelled for this grantee

NCCSdataweb shows they do have an EIN#  Purpose indicates a focus on orphans:

“TO ARRANGE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF ORPHAN CHILDREN LIVING IN THE US AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES WITH ADOPTIVE PARENTS AND TO PROVIDE COUNSELING AND SUPPORT”  but the Infant Adoption Awareness Training is focused on pregnant women — not orphans.

621772291 Harmony Adoptions of Tennessee Inc 5,546,738 700,199 2010
Recipient: Harmony Adoptions of Tennessee, Inc.
Address: 131 Cherokee Heights Drive
MARYVILLE, TN 37801-5413
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: BLOUNT
HHS Region: 4
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2007 90CG2659  INFANT ADOPTION AWARES TRAINING PROGRAM 2 0 ACF 07-27-2007 104115238 $ 1,013,434 
2007 90CO1032  THE HEATLHY MARRAIGE, HEALTHY FAMILY PROJECT 2 0 ACF 06-18-2007 104115238 $ 247,451 

The words “Awareness (one series), “Healthy” and “Marriage” were misspelled.  I wonder if there were similar errors or switching of #s in the amount$ columns…. The misspelling was not corrected for years of grants recordings….four years, to be exact…..

The Exec Director of “Harmony” (earns about $88K) also shows up (former?)University of Tennessee Legal Clinic Director:

Pamela L. Wolf – LCSW, MSW Founder and Executive Director of Harmony
Pam’s focus is the provision of quality services to children and families. As an instructor at the University of Tennessee Legal Clinic, Pam worked to identify comprehensive solutions for homeless families. Pam developed ‘The Parent Refuge’, a program designed to support single mothers. Following the adoption of her daughter, Pam founded Harmony Adoptions. Harmony provides comprehensive adoption services to adoptive families, birth families, adoptees and the community at large. Pam provides leadership for the Infant Adoption. Training Initiative (IATI) and is active with Harmony’s Adoption Support and Preservation (ASAP) program. Both programs tap into Pam’s passion for promoting comprehensive adoption services with her enthusiasm for education

Another director of Harmony in TN notes her background:

Pam Frye – Adoption Services Director for Harmony
She Received her MS in Educational Psychology, Community Counseling from the University of Tennessee. Pam comes to Harmony from the Helen Ross McNabb Center, where she spent 15 years counseling children and their families. Pam has a special interest in the needs of both rural and urban children. She and husband Kevin adopted their daughter from China. Pam’s work at Harmony combines her passions – meeting the needs of children, counseling, and parental education.

Among other things, the Helen Ross McNabb Center partners with TN Dept. of DCFS to help place children in Foster Care…

Foster Care Services

Helen Ross McNabb Center Foster Care and Adoption Program is a therapeutic foster care program operated in conjunction with the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

These children have been removed from their homes (and if they do not have appropriate relatives in their own family) are placed in protective custody of the state due to abuse, neglect, unruliness or delinquency. The program recruits and trains caring, structured foster homes to help these children who enter custody with a multitude of problems and needs. . . .A Helen Ross McNabb foster care specialist is a trained case manager with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in the children and families field. The specialist will help the foster family with behavioral interventions if the children exhibit any behavioral issues

The site — which is named Infant Adoption Training Initiative (pretty clearly after the grant series) features three of the recipients from TAGGS, and is copyrighted by them:

Copyright © 2005-2007  Spaulding for Children, Harmony & Arizona’s Children Association.
All rights reserved. Privacy & Terms of Use / ADA Statement

In fact, the initiative is pretty well described as simply a grant program from HHS, and 5 recipients are listed:

What is the Infant Adoption Awareness Training Program?
The Infant Adoption Training Initiative is funded by a grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Our Understanding Infant Adoption training program is designed to help health care professionals serving pregnant women and teens discuss adoption as an option with patients and clients who are not sure that they want to parent the child.


(3) Latino Family Institute (CA, Los Angeles area)

Total awards (grantee) since 2000 = $9,947,145

Recipient: LATINO FAMILY INSTITUTE
Address: 1501 W. CAMERON AVENUE STE 240
WEST COVINA, CA 91790-2724
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: LOS ANGELES
HHS Region: 9
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organization

The first two awards show recruitment:

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2000 90CO0905  LATINO RECRUITMENT AND ADOPTION INNOVATIONS 1 0 ACF 09-14-2000 042325063 $ 250,000 
Fiscal Year 2000 Total: $ 250,000
Total of all award actions: $ 9,997,145

They incorporated in California 1996 (same year as welfare reform, before Harmony — above):

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1967025 04/18/1996 ACTIVE LATINO FAMILY INSTITUTE, INC. MARIA L. QUINTANILLA

Their charitable status is also current, although there are no returns (state or federal) showing past the year 2007 in California for this amount: EIN#

EIN#
954587747
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-09
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
Total Assets: $1,344,706.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $2,388,114.00
RRF Received: 18-NOV-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

Their programs include Adoption, Foster Care, Kinship Care, Infant Adoption Awareness Training (above), Abandoned Infants Assistance, etc.:

Latino Family Institute is an Adoption, Foster Care, and Family Support agency dedicated to improving social welfare conditions leading to increased family functioning. We enrich society’s foundation by advocating for and implementing culturally effective interventions that elevate the collective well-being of our families.

Vision Statement:

The Latino Family Institute seeks to advance social welfare conditions facing Spanish dominant families. Our vision for every child to have love and permanency in their family of origin. We aspire to preserve the integrity of Latin American cultures among adoptive families and to promote kinship adoptions as a preferred alternative to family integration. We envision a social environment that is sensitive to the complex needs of children in Foster Care and one that is active in reducing the vulnerabilities of such delicate families.

Want more specifics?  Read this 2009 Los Angeles County audit of the institute’s compliance with its contract with the county, which also shows some $$ figures, for reference.  The Institute Contracts with the Department of Family and Children’s Services to recruit, train and supervise foster care parents.  Based on age, the institute received between $1,589 & $1,865 per month, per child of which parents were then paid between  $624 & $790 per month (2007-2008), approximately $352K that year. 
There’s the profit margin, now who is supporting the Institute, and what are its financials (multiply nationwide – this is the practice, do we know how often?)  $1,589 – $624 = the profit (overhead) is $965.   “Latino Family Social Workers did not make 3 out of the 5 required visits within the timeframe.”
The ACF report — Children’s Bureau Express — was glowing:
Children's Bureau Logo

Innovative Recruitment Strategies: The Latino Family Institute

A number of programs have received Adoption Opportunities grants from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau to carry out demonstration projects designed to improve outcomes for children adopted from foster care. One highly successful program highlighted here illustrates how these grants can be used to find permanent families for specific groups of children, in this case—Latino children in Los Angeles.

In 2000, the Latino Family Institute (LFI) received a 3-year grant from the Children’s Bureau to place 40 Latino children with families. By the end of the project period, the results spoke for themselves: 69 Latino children had been placed in adoptive homes, and 198 prospective Latino families had been recruited. In addition, the awareness of the need for adoptive homes had been heightened in the Latino community, and more than 200 child welfare professionals had received training on using culturally responsive approaches to recruitment and placement.

…

Since the end of funding, LFI has continued to provide adoption services and was able to expand programs after receiving additional Federal grants. In 2005, LFI opened a new office following the award of the Abandoned Infants Assistance grant targeting families impacted by substance abuse and HIV/AIDS. In 2007, LFI finalized 76 adoptions. Currently, LFI conducts the Infant Adoption Awareness Training Program {{also an HHS-supported project}} in California and Puerto Rico.

 This sounds wonderful.  I am wondering how much HHS funding this particular (different) institute gets also from the HHS:
Site logo
http://www.nlffi.org/
(the group is new to me, but it appears to draw on a number of existing grant programs already):

NLFFI LOCALLY
At the community level, the Institute provides culturally competent curriculum, social and educational services with programs designed to:

  • Influence men to become strong Fathers and responsible men
  • Assist men is healing and preventing the issue of Domestic Violence
  • Strengthen and preserve families
  • Address the Issue of Community and Gang Violence
  • Promote Rites of passage and Youth Mentoring
  • Address the issue of Teen Pregnancy prevention
  • Provide culturally competent health and mental health services
In this context, what chance would a Latina mother, if compromised in any other way already, ever have in a custody situation?
This group (NFFLI) announced that in January 2011 it is launching a California Fatherhood Initiative, and first-up in organizations it wants to partner with includes the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives:

About President Obama’s Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative

The White House Initiative on Fatherhood & Mentoring Initiative recognizes that engaged and involved fathers have an incredibly positive effect on the lives of their children. The Initiative is a national call to action to address fatherlessness in America and includes the following steps:

• The White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the Office of Public Engagement will host community forums on fatherhood and personal responsibility around the country, in concert with local groups.

• Organizations and Individuals who sign up for the Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative will receive e-newsletters featuring articles, tips and resources from prominent leaders in the fatherhood and family fields and information about model programs.

• Organizations supporting the Initiative will work to have an impact on responsible fatherhood, from local forums with the National Parent Teachers Association to community trainings by the National Fatherhood Leaders Group (NFLG). Partners from the National PTA to the head of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities have signed up to advance the President’s Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative in communities around the country.

Will post separately on this one, I am rather disturbed, and want to find out of MY government is funding it also. . . . ..  

In addition there is another nonprofit in Maryland serving the region to coordinate information and efforts to adopt:

http://www.adoptionsupport.org/about/index.php

(In MD a page full of corporations (incl. Forfeited, Suspended & Dissolved names) shows how popular the “Adoptions” field indeed is ….) (EIN# 52-2100734, it does exist; year 2009 reporting $766K contributions & grants plus $716K program services — not bad (the previous year, the program services far exceeded the grants).  This, too, is incorporated as of 1998:

(Dept. ID) Entity Name Entity Detail Status
(D04974622) CENTER FOR ADOPTION SUPPORT AND EDUCATION, INC. General Info. Amendments Personal Property INCORPORATED

This too (per my EIN TAGGS search) got HHS support, starting in the year 2000.  As of 2001, faith-based groups (see my last post!) could apply, too, in fact no doubt encouraged to….

Recipient: THE CENTER FOR ADOPTION SUPPORT & EDUCATION, INC.
Address: 11120 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE-STE205
SILVER SPRING, MD 20904  (very busy address appears to be right opposite huge hospital? and many other businesses at same street address)
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: MONTGOMERY
HHS Region: 3
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
THE CENTER FOR ADOPTION SUPPORT & EDUCATION, INC.  SILVER SPRING MD 20904 MONTGOMERY $ 900,000

WHAT A SHAME THERE ARE NOT MORE HHS GRANTS  OR PRO BONO GROUPS TO SUPPORT PROTECTION OF SINGLE MOTHERS FROM INAPPROPRIATELY LOSING THEIR CHILDREN TO ABUSIVE PARTNERS, OR TO THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM.  THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM HAS VIRTUALLY FUNDED AN ATTACK ON THE STATUS OF SINGLE MOTHERS LEAVING ABUSE, AND IT IS MANAGED BY THE SAME ENTITY, HHS.. . ..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

GRANTS INCENTIVIZE — SO THEY AND THE NONPROFITS GETTING THEM SHOULD BE MONITORED BY THE PUBLIC — BECAUSE THERE IS A PERVERSE INCENTIVE NOT TO MONITOR TOO OFTEN.

This 8,400 word grant began with the following section.  What’s above here is (per my style) lengthy intro, combining my lookups with a statement of position.  What’s BELOW is what inspired the post.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Grants and Programs Incentivize Action & Attract Traffic.  It’s a symbiotic relationship.  Their original purposes can be great — but once set up, the infrastructure is going to want customers.  Consider the father that apparenty spent a year in jail apart from his family, innocently, and the WHY wouldn’t have been unearthed unless they’d filed a lawsuit — as I blogged last October, in Courthouse Forum News:  Franklin County (PA) OCYF gets sued in Federal Court by Pennsylvania Couple.

By ERIN MCAULEY

HARRISBURG, Pa. (CN) – Parents say they lost custody of their children, were identified as child abusers and the father was jailed for more than a year because doctors and state officials falsely attributed their 4-month-old daughter’s childhood stroke and congenital rickets to child abuse.
Jamel Billups and Jacqueline Rosario, who are black, sued the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Franklin County and its Office of Children, Youth and Families and a long list of individuals, in Federal Court.
The parents say that when their daughter, L.B., suffered a stroke and showed signs of rickets on Oct. 19, 2009, the Child Safety team at Penn State Hershey Medical Centerfalsely blamed her condition on child abuse, and the state then seized her and her 2-year-old brother, T.R., and sent them to foster homes.

About the context:

The parents say the Franklin County Office of Children, Youth and Families “has a policy of relying upon doctors affiliated with the American Academy Pediatrics, whose opinions are tainted by a burden shifting medical presumption that the cause of any intracranial injury in a child under the age of one year is caused by abuse unless the parents provide an accidental explanation, to perform the medical investigation into whether injuries suspected to have been caused by child abuse were, in fact, caused by child abuse.”
They claim that agents of the Office of Children, Youth and Families, defendants Tammie Lay and Dawn M. Watson, “failed to conduct their own independent non-presumption tainted investigation” and “relied exclusively upon the conclusion of defendant Penn State’s Child Safety Team and defendants [Drs. Mark S.] Dias, [Kathryn R.] Crowell and [Arabinda K.] Choudhary that L.B.’s intracranial hemorrhages were caused by abuse on the afternoon of October 19, 2009 and rib fractures were caused by abuse 4 to 8 weeks prior to her hospitalization without conducting any independent medical review or confirmation of their own.”

It is horrible that this child suffered injuries.  However, there’s another kind of parent education program which might have been appropriate also:

They say that despite medical knowledge that Vitamin D deficiency can lead to rickets and weak bones in African Americans, Penn State’s Child Safety Team failed to require that L.B.’s blood be tested for abnormal clotting factors or that the child’s or mother’s blood be tested for vitamin D deficiency.

Another Doctor, Charles Pragnell — from outside the US — writes consistently on the problem with medical malpractice in presuming abuse, when it may or may not have been:

How children are suffering harm by those with a duty to protect them.

By Charles Pragnell

The abuse of children is a horrendous and unacceptable crime in any society and it is correct that when such acts occur, immediate protection is available for the children and appropriate action is taken in regard to the offenders.

However, what is also unacceptable is the high level of false accusation of child abuse which also has abusive effects on children and the families who are falsely accused.

According to statistical evidence in 1992 and 1997, over two-thirds of reports of child abuse in the U.K. have NO substantive basis i.e. False and wrongful accusations. [Dept of Health Statistics]. Similar proportions of false accusations were evident during the same time period in the United States of America and in Australia. There is evidence that false accusations of child abuse are occurring for mistaken, mischievous, and malicious reasons.

The current unproven medical theory which is resulting in many hundreds of families being wrongly accused of child abuse is Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy [MSBP], which is causing immense disruption, distress, and harm to children throughout the U.K. In these cases, physicians and social workers allege that parents (usually mothers) have fabricated or induced an illness in their child, yet on examination of such cases it can be found that the children have and are suffering serious illnesses. Groups which seem to have been particularly targeted for such accusations are families with children with Autism, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD] or Cystic Fibrosis. In other cases children have suffered adverse reactions to vaccines, or from medically prescribed drugs which have not been clinically tested on children by manufacturers prior to widespread distribution, or from birth injuries.

[[In other words, parents — esp. mothers — properly seeking medical care for their children, sometimes single, sometimes married — are told “it’s all in your head — you are the sick party, you have “Munchhausen’s by proxy” (search my blog)]].

Pragnell’s article seems to cover some factors relevant in the Franklin County Case…

Prosser’s research indicated that the major faults in child protection investigations are :-

  • The social workers perceived that abuse had occurred and the accused as guilty from the beginning of the investigation;
  • Thereafter the investigators only sought confirmatory evidence of their assumptions and disregarded evidence which would have cast doubt on the allegations;
  • Poor recording of evidence;
  • Inappropriate interpretations by investigators of statements or actions;
  • Idiosyncratic behaviour and interpretation of policies by investigators;
  • Investigators focusing on a single piece of evidence and ignoring contrasting sets of evidence;
  • Confusion over what constitutes a medical indicator of abuse and a “natural” condition [apparent in MSBP cases];
  • High status doctors (consultant) having substantial influence over other investigators. [apparent in MSBP cases];
  • Experts deviating from their areas of expertise [apparent in MSBP cases

Prosser identified three major areas of significant concern –

  1. “The imbalance of power within the investigating agencies;
  2. The abandonment of professional codes of conduct and practice by some investigators; and
  3. The failure of the system to adequately acknowledge or compensate the wrongly accused family for the trauma and losses suffered. This latter point is reflected in the statements of some child protection professionals who openly proclaim, “Who cares if nine innocents suffer, as long as we get the guilty one!”.

Finally, Prosser declares, “It is clear that the problem of false accusations remains endemic in both countries”. (U.K. and the U.S.A.).

When it comes to the case in Pennsylvania — I’ll bet the authorities had not expected to be questioned or challenged by a lawsuit!  But we can see the suit mentions the over-reliance on the “American Academy of Pediatrics” (AAP).  Well – the AAP just happened to be part of the cooperative agreement with Mark S. Dias’ (P.I.) project here!  (See below):  This is a financial and professional relationship.

(These quotes are from the Courthouse News Article, cont’d)

. . . About the Child Safety Team member’s expert testimony:

The parents add that Dr. Crowell, a member of the Penn State Child Safety Team, “qualified as an expert in child abuse for the first time in her life at the dependency hearing for L.B. and T.R on December 18, 2009. Defendant Crowell was qualified as an expert in child abuse for the second time in her life at Jamel’s preliminary criminal hearing on December 28, 2009. Dr. Crowell acknowledged under oath at Jamel’s criminal trial that she misrepresented medical evidence critical to L.B.’s case when she testified at Jamel’s preliminary hearing.”

She was a doctor, obviously — but was she an expert in identifying child abuse?

Thirty paragraphs later, the parents say that Dr. Crowell “testified falsely that L.B. had ‘an extensive screening’ for ‘coagulation problems’ and ‘an extensive screening for bleeding disorders’ that were ‘normal’ and that L.B.’s ‘metabolic workup was normal.’”

(LGH) Reminder:  The Child Safety Team had only been started a few months earlier.  Within one month of them being assembled, they had a black father in jail and two kids in foster care, erroneously.   The bail was set too high for this man to get out of jail.  How many times do we hear of people being quickly sprung from jail after domestic violence?    (or sent to diversionary programs instead of jail).  See my Toms River article for an example of this, when the woman victim was an employee of the DYFS herself….  But in this case, they kept the father.

This next part, if true, is disgraceful.  A medical doctor testifying FOR the family suffered restrictions that ones from the prosecution did not.  First, they point out that some doctors (for the prosecution) had liability insurance; while one wishing to testify FOR the family, did not:

The parents say that Crowell was also “paid by, and enjoyed the liability insurance, of Penn State” and was never their daughter’s treating physician.

(I looked up the HHS award for this, principal investigator Mark S. Dias.  This nonprofit hospital is a major grants recipient; most of the awards seem for technical clinical research…)

Showing: 1 – 9 of 9 Award Actions

Recipient: MILTON S HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 17033-2360

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 U49CE001274 PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM 5 93.136 CDC 07-20-2011   $ 492,537 
2010 U49CE001274 PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM 3 93.136 CDC 01-26-2010   $ 0 
2010 U49CE001274 PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM 4 93.136 CDC 07-14-2010   $ 608,903 
2010 U49CE001274 PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM 4 93.136 CDC 07-19-2010   $ 0 
2009 U49CE001274 PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 93.136 CDC 10-08-2008   $ 0 
2009 U49CE001274 PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 93.136 CDC 05-04-2009   $ 0 
2009 U49CE001274 PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM 3 93.136 CDC 08-03-2009   $ 554,142 
2008 U49CE001274 PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 93.136 CDC 09-09-2008   $ 554,920 
2007 U49CE001274 PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM 1 93.136 CDC 09-10-2007   $ 561,414 
Award Actions Count: 9 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,771,91

The anticipated program enrollment was 300,000; it is an intervention program and as described, participants were voluntary:

This study is enrolling participants by invitation only.
First Received on July 30, 2008.   Last Updated on July 31, 2008   History of Changes
Sponsor: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Collaborators: Pennsylvania Department of Health
American Academy of Pediatrics
Information provided by: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00727116
  Purpose

This project is designed to evaluate a statewide, hospital-based parent education program to prevent abusive head trauma (AHT) in Pennsylvania, and investigate the additional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of “booster” sessions of parent education delivered to parents at primary care provider offices in central Pennsylvania.

Specific Aims:

  1. Assess the effectiveness of an established statewide program of hospital-based postnatal parent education about violent infant shaking, provided at a single consistent point in time between the infant’s birth and hospital discharge, in reducing the incidence of AHT.
  2. Identify while [[I believe they mean “which“]] component(s) are the most important mediators of the intervention’s effectiveness; determine whether the intervention effect is more directly related to changes in perpetrator or caregiver behavior; and determine the effectiveness of the intervention among various socioeconomic groups.
  3. Determine the cost effectiveness of the hospital-based program.
  4. Establish the feasibility, additional costs, and effectiveness of a combined program of repeated exposure delivered both post-natally in the hospital and during follow up 2-, 4- and 6-month outpatient health maintenance visits with the pediatric care provider.
Condition Intervention
Injury
Traumatic Brain Injury
Child Abuse		 Behavioral: PA Abusive Head Trauma Prevention Program: State-wide
Behavioral: PA Abusive Head Trauma Prevention Program Booster: Central PA
Study Type: Interventional
Study Design: Allocation: Non-Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Prevention
Official Title: Pennsylvania Abusive Head Trauma Prevention Program
Primary Outcome Measures:
  • Incidence of abusive head trauma in infants [ Time Frame: 3 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Estimated Enrollment: 300000
Study Start Date: January 2008

This sounds like an excellent program, and obviously knowledge about the danger of  shaking babies in anger is vital.  But in application — something happened, which resulted in an innocently jailed father, and children wrongfully in foster care, for a year!

Detailed Description:

Upon the birth of the child, all parents (mothers, and whenever possible, fathers or father figures) will be asked to read written materials and view an 8-minute video on the dangers of violent infant shaking. Parents will be asked to voluntarily sign a commitment statement affirming their receipt and understanding of the materials; these commitment statements will be sent to the Principal Investigator. A random subset of parent participants will be asked to voluntarily answer a short questionnaire about their impressions of the materials. In addition, 31 counties in central Pennsylvania will be randomly divided into two groups. In 15 counties, the hospital-based intervention will remain as described above. In the other 16 counties, all primary care providers having offices in those counties will be asked to provide all parents of newborns at the 2-, 4-, and 6-month immunization visits.

Investigators
Principal Investigator: Mark Dias, MD, FAAP Penn State University Hershey Medical Center

+ + + + +    + + + + +   + + + + +   + + + + +   + + + + +  + + + + +   + + + + +

Did the additional state incentives for foster care parents play a role above as well?  Jail Dad, Mother separated from children, kids in foster care.

I focus more on the family court system (which is abusive to families, and the public through violations of due process, and more), moreso than “child abuse,” foster care, or adoption per se.  However, this system sometimes ends up with kids in foster care because one parent kills the other (one in jail, the other deceased) for a variety of reasons.  Then headlines also show cases of children escaping from brutalization in foster care, or dying in there.  Both happen.

And there seems there is no longer any question that children have been trafficked for sex abuse and used as entertainment by high-profile politicians, in numbers unknown — as the Franklin Coverup (Nebraska, Larry King, John DeCamp reporting, victim Paul Bonacci testifying, an investigator’s plane shot down in mid air (killing him and his son) as he returned with photos from an interview, involvement of Nebraska Boys’ Town, etc.).   No one normal can continue life “as normal” and retain an awareness of these activities, in our country; for sheer emotional survival, we back-burner it, and then believe that somehow CPS and other agencies will take care of the dirty business.  Yet in the subsequent investigation, the now grown Paul Bonacci was awarded $1 million for damages, yet not asked to identify the Congressional leaders involved!

This article is too disturbing, and not “casual conversation.”  As the point of THIS post is to expose the incentives for putting children needlessly into foster care and up for adoption — and to show an article neatly summarizing it from the year 2000 — let me just post the opening paragraph of the 2005  Article, detailing what is a curious lack of investigation by the highest investigatory powers in the US, or among them (not including Homeland Security, post 2001).   This is the summary of the matter — and please keep it in mind when one becomes aware of the immense foster care industry:  As this is talking about destinations of vulnerable kids and how they really cannot get out on their own, safely, once in this ring.  As posted on TomFlocco.com (this was shared with me, I didn’t look it up):

The Justice Department, acting through the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Omaha, emerges from the record of the Franklin investigations not so much as a party to the cover-up, but as its coordinator. Rigging grand juries, harassment of witnesses, incitement to perjury and tampering with evidence -federal personnel were seen to apply all of those techniques in the Franklin case. (John W. DeCamp, Esq., The Franklin Cover-up, Second Edition, January 2005)

Bless the Beasts and the Children

Photographer for White House child sex ring arrested after Thompson suicide

by Tom Flocco

WASHINGTON—March 13, 2005—TomFlocco.com—Photographer Russell E. “Rusty” Nelson was recently arrested two days after journalist Hunter Thompson reportedly committed suicide four weeks ago on February 10, according to two phone interviews with attorney John DeCamp last week.

Nelson was allegedly employed by a former Republican Party activist to take pictures of current or retired U.S. House-Senate members and other prominent government officials engaging in sexual criminality by receiving or committing sodomy and other sex acts on children during the Reagan-Bush 41 administrations.

In other words, most likely for blackmail purposes….  Now this photographer was arrested after the journalist committed suicide:

Hunter Thompson’s death and the news blackout of Rusty Nelson’s simultaneous arrest raise questions that someone may be attempting to limit Nelson’s freedom or threaten him, since according to testimony, both men had allegedly witnessed homosexual prostitution and pedophile criminal acts in a suppressed but far-reaching child sex-ring probe closely linked to Senate and House members–but also former President George H. W. Bush. [In U.S. District Court testimony, Rusty Nelson told Judge Warren Urbom he took 20,000 to 30,000 pictures, 2-5-1999, p.52]

Pedophile victim Paul Bonacci–kidnapped and forced into sex slavery between the ages of 6 and 17–told U.S. District Court Judge Warren Urbom in sworn testimony [pp.105, 124-126] on February 5, 1999: “Where were the parties?…down in Washington, DC…and that was for sex…There was sex between adult men and other adult men but most of it had to do with young boys and young girls with the older folks…specifically for sex with minors…Also in Washington, DC, there were parties after a party…there were a lot of parties where there would be senators and congressmen who had nothing to do with the sexual stuff. But there were some senators and congressmen who stayed for the [pedophile sex] parties afterwards…on a lot of the trips he took us on he had us, I mean, I met some people that I don’t feel comfortable telling their name because I don’t want to — …Q: Are you scared?…Yes…”

DeCamp, a former Nebraska state senator and decorated Vietnam War vet, told TomFlocco.com “there are tons of pictures still left; law enforcement is currently looking for them,” adding, “you can also assume there are senators and congressmen implicated; otherwise this would not be such a big issue.”  But no federal official has stepped forward to protect Rusty Nelson’s life, as Congress would be reluctant to hold hearings or force a federal prosecutor to probe its own members for sex acts with children–still punishable by law.

I’m saying this because society keeps thinking someone else is going to protect both children and adults (women specifically) from abuse.  While my case has no foster care, adoption efforts, or child abuse allegations in it — the principles remain.  How many times do people have to reach out for help, only to find out most entities (including individual families & relatives!) — have their own priorities, and when one gets down to it, will sacrifice up to a point, but are not willing to literally sacrifice their comfort, and — most important — their myth that this country, where they live (sometimes quite nicely) is fundamentally just and good.  And that their TAXES are paid in order to delegate life’s tough problems to others, who are handling it pretty well.

Nope.

This is why I came to the conclusion (after years of this) that the best defence is a good offence; that although independence, self-sufficiency, and the ability to physically defend onesself are resented by systems that profit and exist on constant streams of the needy, SEEKING THIS STATE is always better  – for all! — than seeking protection.   

The Tom Flocco article (2005) states clearly testimony from the abused children, trafficked in one case through foster parents in Nebraska, connections to George Bush Senior and intentional use of these photos to get favorable legislation passed in Congress.  If there was opposition, Larry King could blackmail the opposing side.  The situation is entirely sick:

..If they wanted to get something passed through the legislature, he would put some people that were against it in a compromising position. By using us boys and girls…Judge Urbom: Was this by your being the sexual partner of that person?…Yes…Judge Urbom: …Any estimates of how often you participated as the sexual partner of one of these persons that he wanted to get some kind of control over?…There were times when it would be four or five in a night…on probably a couple thousand times…sometimes dozens of times with the same person…” [U.S. District Court testimony, 2-5-1999, pp. 146-151]

Curiously, Paul Bonacci told investigators that the sex ring was based out of Offutt U.S. Air Force Base near Omaha, having been taken there to be abused since he was three years old in 1970. At Offutt, Paul said he was “trained” by tortures, heavy drugging and sexual degradation. [Offutt AFB played a major role immediately following the 9/11 attacks as George W. Bush made the base his post-attack headquarters for a short period.]

(There is testimony from young women also on the article).

Perhaps keep this in mind when you are writing a Congressperson asking for help regarding child abuse.  WHY such a huge industry?  When a child wefare worker “Walters” reported, credibly — the report was ignored, as below:

Presidential indiscretions–or criminal acts?

According to a Nebraska state police report, Nebraska Foster Care Review Board letter to the Attorney General, Nebraska Senate’s Franklin committee investigative report, and a 50-page report by Omaha’s Boys Town welfare case officer Mrs. Julie Walters,

by my count, that’s 4 sources!

pedophile victims Nelly and Kimberly Webb detailed a massive child sex, homosexual and pornography operation run out of Nebraska by Larry King–but with close ties directly to the Congress and the White House. . . .

(paragraphs later, not easy reading):

In spite of four polygraph tests administered by a Nebraska state trooper who said he was convinced Nelly was telling the truth, in December, 1990, a Washington country, Nebraska judge [David Quist, I believe] ignored Julie Walter’s 50-page report, numerous debriefings of the girls by foster care officials and youth workers stating the sisters told the truth–specifically about George Bush Sr., and dismissed all charges against their foster parents Jarrett and Barbara Webb, who Nelly and Kimberly said had allowed them to be abused.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Did you ever wonder where all these abusive parents came from?  Who raised them?  Since Child Abuse is obviously a heinous crime, why are there so many participants?  What is it about human nature that we collectively don’t understand about ourselves, such that there’s still a booming industry in Child Protection?

Why would a state Senator and her husband have to die while exposing this industry in Georgia?  This is the conclusion several people have come to who were close to the Schaefers, although the Georgia Bureau of Investigation quickly labeled it a murder/suicide. (see HERE, among other places).

I am simply coloring this section GREEN, regarding the Schaefer’s CPS expository work (with its links underlined) in green, to distinguish from what follows, after which we can end this difficult post – for a holiday season.  Perhaps state by state individuals can do their own work —  but it must be shared, as obviously children are being flown OUT of state for trafficking purposes too.  In the long run, this also becomes a FINANCIAL issue, as also the Franklin Coverup was — as in Franklin Credit Union.  Larry King did time for embezzlement, not child abuse.  It seems the two go together, and if major child traffickers are caught for money crimes, not child trafficking crimes — but it stops them — perhaps that’s a message on which direction to investigate.  Quite honestly, I don’t think most of us can handle the vicarious trauma even of consciousness of how far down is the ugliness (within America, ruling circles).  But, what is the cost of living unconscious lives?  Or our delayed bill when what we can’t face now, comes back stronger, later, and right next door?

PERMISSION TO REPRINT GRANTED

Garland Favorito
404 664-4044

REFERENCES

Regardless of how the couple may have died, former Senator Nancy Schaefer lived the last couple of years of her life dedicated to helping children and families who were victimized by the very government agencies that were supposed to be helping them.

Mrs. Schaefer had found during the last few years that:

– Georgia housed children in a foster home with a known pedophile who molested the children.

– Habersham County failed to remove six children from a home where they were being abused and tortured.

– Georgia turned two girls over to a California father who had a pornographic video business.

A report that she produced on these remarkable cases can be found at the fight CPS web site:

http://fightcps.com/pdf/TheCorruptBusinessOfChildProtectiveServices.pdf

Nancy Schaefer was interviewed extensively by talk show host Alex Jones about corruption in Child Protection Services nationally. A multi-part series of her interview and an Eagle Forum presentation can be found on You Tube here:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nancy+schaefer&search_type=&aq=f

More details on the video she was working on can be found on the Alex Jones Channel of You Tube at:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=WILLIAM+FAIN&aq=f

In addition, former Senator Schaefer led opposition to HB582 and SB304. These two bills, introduced by her fellow Republicans, would have likely increased child sex trafficking if passed during the 2009 or 2010 sessions. These bills would have made it legal for teenagers to participate in certain illicit acts. The bills would have effectively removed the legal authority that police have to pick up teenagers and get them into protective custody so that they can no longer be pimped for those acts.

PV Pop-Quiz: Who were the idiotic State Reps sponsoring HB 582 (analysis of HB 582 here by Sue Ella Deadwyler) in the 2009-2010 Legislative Session, and who were the idiotic State Senators sponsoring SB 304 (op-ed here on SB 304)? Inquiring minds should find out for themselves

The age of consent in Georgia is 16.

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

December 4, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Posted in Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, Designer Families, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Where's Mom?

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ABOUT THIS BLOG (@11/2011) There’s (still) No Excuse For Abuse, Including Economic Abuse of Taxpayers to Allegedly ‘EndAbuse.’

leave a comment »

A Few FAQs, but first

let me invite readers to something normally beyond my social media skillset: a Tuesday Night Blogtalk Radio show

My email alert said

“It’s going to be a hell of a show.”
(it was).
This is not your typical Battered Women’s Protective Mothers–Reform CPS–Involve More Fathers  show.
(Nor is my blog typical)
Like me (nowadays) I don’t want to hear it.  For one, we already tried (to cite a Bible reference) the
“widow and the unjust judge” theme, the “two women before King Solomon” theme,
and many also tried actually reporting to what we considered the proper authorities such things as:
Violations of Court Orders, Domestic Violence (or threats, stalkings, etc.) against us, violations of due process,
and in some cases, M.I.A. children the context of an ex who had threatened to run off with them.
ALSO this 64/34 effect show is NOT about
~ ~holding Congressional Hearings and Rallying in front of the White House in hopes that
the residential Change Agent (President Obama) will please help our cause ~ ~ ~  do something ~~  do anything! ~~ just make us feel heard!!
(As some have felt might be more effective the the representative form of government called one’s state & federal legislators)

NOPE.  It is different.  So I hope you will call or tune in next Tuesday at 9pm EST (til further notice):
THIS TUESDAY NIGHT @ 9pm, Abuse Freedom Presents: The 66/34 Effect Radio Show,
Funding in the Courts
With Host Athena Phoenix
November 15, 2011 at 9:00 p.m. EST
This week ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED welcomes our newest team member, Athena Phoenix to help us improve the justice system by bringing reformation to the apathetic and corrupt divisions of our state and federal governments.
Dear Abuse,
(From the Show Description, continued):
Have you ever wondered why the justice system and the media ignores some predatory CPS or child support enforcement programs which target and exploit families? Are courts and the Department of Children and Families receiving financial incentives from the Federal government to increase conflict in family court cases by awarding custody to unfit and unwilling parents, and even taking kids out of good homes and into the system?
Abuse Freedom Radio invites you to tune in this Tuesday night at 9:00 EST to welcome Host Athena Phoenix to the AFU family and support our newest program, The 66/34 Effect: Funding in the Family Courts with host Athena Phoenix.  Guests this week will be:
  • LIZ RICHARDS, Founder of National Alliance for Family Court Justice (www.nafcj.net) For over 20 years, Liz has been a pioneer in the mother’s rights movement a national expert on HHS funding research, fraud, and political reform.
  • FRED SOTTILE, President of the LA Chapter of Fathers 4 Justice, author, radio host, and a prominent TANF Title IV-D abolition activist.
  • JACK KELLY, Democratic party political activist, Boston based blogger and columnist who wrote about the Penn State scandal.

See Jack Kelly’s article here:

A Message To PennState Prez

Rodney Erickson: Clean House!

November 12, 2011

By 

Find out from special guest Fred Sottile why father’s rights groups are joining the fight to cut $5 billion in wasteful spending on IV-D TANF programs, including fatherhood programs funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS].  Also learn about Fred’s work on judicial reform and transparency with activists like Richard Fine, Full Disclosure Networks, and Judicial Watch.

Liz Richards will educate listeners on the politics of HHS Fatherhood and Healthy Families program funding, and how these funds are used to effect the outcome of court cases. Are grant programs administered through child support enforcement agencies, such as Responsible Fatherhood programs and Access and Visitation programs meeting their funding and accountability requirements? Is there a connection to the Penn State scandal and Occupy Wall Street?
Please join us, and feel free to call in and join the discussion as we find ways to improve the system.
Sincerely,

Jane Boyer & Josie Perez

Abuse Freedom United

IF HHS PROGRAMS ARE FAILING FAMILIES, WHY DO WE KEEP FUNDING THEM?  What can we do to reform them?
Why is child support enforcement creating TANF programs which waive due process, collecting billions in child support, then fail to disburse it to the children it is intended to benefit? How much does your judge know about HHS funding and family services? How much of your tax dollars is being used to support programs like CPS, foster care, The Second Mile nonprofit, and Penn State who failed to protect the children raped by Coach Sandusky? Tune in and find out.

Join Athena Phoenix
Tuesday Nights at 9:00 p.m. EST  

GUEST CALL-IN #
(646) 595-2134
PRESS #1 TO SPEAK WITH GUESTS OR ATHENA
9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
4:00 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time
5:00 p.m. Alaska Standard Time
6:00 p.m. pacific Standard Time
7:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time              8:00 p.m. Central Standard Time


                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

I believe this 11/15/2011 show is now available to hear, and it will be weekly (though with which guests, I don’t know).  However, the “64/34 Effect” — which has nothing to do with what most “expose the impact of domestic violence” or Train The Judges to recognize it — movements talk about.  That 64/34 effect, however, has had greater influence in preventing families from getting out of it.

You’ll also note that there are both men and women on the show, and (for the record) that’s not men and women who are all pro-feminist, or pro-father.  Rather, at least some people have started figuring out it’s time to stop playing the Good Cop Bad Cop (Men v. Women) themes that have been fed us by media campaigns — and instead look at some of what I have begun to (for some years now) report on this blog.  I report on organizations, nonprofits, foundations, and funding behind the policies that messed with my family (yes, even my ex, who was also a batterer) and compromised our futures –badly.

(I hope the show is helpful//for the record, I’m not a regular listener and don’t know about previous episodes), or the hosts Boyer & Perez)

NOW —

ABOUT ME (& the Let’s Get Honest BLOG)

I am What I am, which is changing with time. . ..  (so is the blog, only it’s an it).

  • I don’t tag consistently, so if you’re hunting for something, use the search field.
  • I don’t proofread, copyedit, and once the thing is off my chest and published, usually that’s it’s format (love it or leave it).
  • I know — and deduce, from who’s watching it — that this blog has information on it you will NOT typically find elsewhere.  I know that, because I’m a diligent person and voracious reader, and I explored the usual alternatives –consistently and hard — during a seven-year period (and thereafter) between filing a domestic violence restraining order with kickout, and watching my children have a custody-switch overnight (not getting to say goodbye to them, or vice versa) after which they basically disappeared out of my life.  This was a planned event, and an enabled event — and in this blog, I am going to talk about the CONTEXT in which planned and enabled events of this sort take place.
  • I quit dealing with nonprofits, or asking them for help, after I realized who they are actually answerable to — and that’s their funders, NOT their clients, who represent warm bodies that come and go through their doors, justifying the funding.  This includes all kinds of nonprofits.
  • The most important things needed for a mother (specifically, but it can also help nonabusive fathers) to know in the court system — to possibly stop getting screwed with (pardon the French) will NOT be found on domestic violence prevention sides, family court self-help sites (naturally), or even protective mothers sites.
  • I can document a family law case (Sacks v. Sacks) that had all of the above type groups backing it from Florida to the Supreme Court of the USA (where it was declined for a hearing) and back, which chose to ignore what I blog, and think that the case was “about” their individual judges, custody evaluators, attorneys, or situation.  It’s not.  Get over it.  Deal with it.   Grow up.  What happens in the courtroom — in the bottom line — is NOT about you, and in many cases, the outcome is often settled before you get there (if you have the privilege, which some don’t).

(Sample of the language — notice the drama — and people are supposed to write the judges about all this:)  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

WE ARE ALL WITH YOU LINDA MARIE

We thank you Linda Marie for your courage, faith, and strength to speak for those who have been silenced by their abusers and the courts.

CASE UPDATE: JUNE 27, 2011 CASE

US SUPREME COURT: “WE DONT DO FAMILY LAW”

THE US SUPREME COURT DENIED LINDA MARIE SACKS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN SACKS V SACKS. WE ARE DISSAPOINTED BUT NOT SHOCKED AT THE US SUPREME COURTS COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. DESHANEY V WINNEBEGO, CASTLE ROCK V GONZALES, TITELMAN V TITELMAN ARE PRIME EXAMPLES OF OUR NATIONS HIGHEST COURT IGNORING THE PLEAS OF PARENTS TRYING TO FIND JUSTICE FOR THEIR CHILDREN WHO ARE SEVERELY ABUSED OR MURDERED. OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE STATE SUPREME COURTS AND THE US SUPREME COURT REFUSE TO PROTECT VICTIMS AND POLICE THEIR OWN. WHY HAVE SUPREME COURTS THAT ARE DEAF TO THOSE MATTERS THAT REALLY COUNT. IS BURNING OUR FLAG, STRIP SEARCHING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN, SCHOOL PRAYER, AND THE LIKE-MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN FROM ABUSE AND MURDER?

READ MORE  www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org

Write the judges in SACKS V SACKS   

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ All the groups involved should thank her for free (negative) publicity at her children’s expense.  However, ignorance — and this WAS ignorance, and pigheaded refusal to smell the coffee – – – – is no excuse, either.  (I wouldn’t say this, but tried to present information to this mother as well.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This  Petition for Writ of Certiori, i.e., to be heard by the US Supreme Court under “Other Authorities” cites Dr. Phil and the O (Oprah’s) magazine, a SF online weekly, a radio interview of Linda Sacks, and basically a laundry list of the nonprofits and individuals that did NOT inform this parent about what just happened to her.  Or  why a Supervised Visitation Center — or having a person on her case (Dr. Deborah O. Day) who just happened to be a founding board member of the Florida AFCC, and a Certified Family Mediator and is big on Munchhausen’s by Proxy — might relate to the problems she, like others, has been having. Instead, she focused on being “squeaky clean” and how unfair the system was to her — rather than studying the system.  The groups cited (see the writ) don’t talk about AFCC, either, nor does a recent tome called Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody (see the groups listed).

 

Meanwhile — in Lancaster, Pennsylvania very recently– a forum exists “Expose Corruption” exists, which reports on its local courts and potential corruption, and the moderator (I think it’s the moderator) simply sent off a “Right to Know” information request on one of the court personnel, and got payment vouchers,* (*it doesn’t look like Ms. Sacks ever did this) discovered no contract exists for the person in question, found out  what a nice living she is making at public expense, as either Guardian Ad Litem or Parenting Coordinator.  She sued him for inadvertently posting SS#s that the responding officials “forgot” to redact on the vouchers, and the game’s on.  But it began with someone noticing that judges were steering cases to certain profiteers, and inquiring about the profit.

FBI searches court administrator’s office

BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER)
Published: November 15, 2011
FBI agents executed a search warrant on Lackawanna County Court Administrator Ron Mackay’s office Monday afternoon as part of an investigation into a program that provides lawyers for children in family court cases.

Mr. Mackay declined to answer questions about the visit and answered “no” when asked if he would provide The Times-Tribune a copy of the search warrant.

The visit lasted less than an hour.  For a while, as agents worked in his office, Mr. Mackay was required to stand in a waiting room outside the suite that houses his office. An FBI agent stood near Mr. Mackay guarding the entrance to the suite.   Eventually, four men dressed in plain clothes, only one of whom acknowledged being an FBI agent, walked out, with one carrying a box with white papers sticking out of the top.

. . .The FBI has been investigating the county’s guardian ad litem system, which is in the hands of one lawyer, attorney Danielle Ross. The county court sometimes appoints a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of children in family court disputes between parents, often in cases of divorce or when custody is at stake.

Late last month, agents served subpoenas at the county courthouse and administration building as part of their investigation. In September, a federal grand jury subpoena ordered County Controller Ken McDowell to produce all bills, invoices, receipts and statements for every case assigned to Ms. Ross.

Now THAT’s how you investigate!

Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/fbi-searches-court-administrator-s-office-1.1232356#ixzz1e62IvTLL

 

Funny how Sacks’ coaches and/or centers of reference:   Battered Women’s Custody Conference, Barry Goldstein, The Leadership Council, California Protective Parents Association, Center for Judicial Excellence, etc. But ordinary citizens (well, perhaps some “extraordinary” is involved here) on a forum can pick up:

(etc.)(who you know I’ve been looking at too — as I can’t see where Termini & Boyan are currently incorporated — and I don’t think they are.  Termini’s making a good living in Lancaster County at the courthouse, since (it seems) about 2008.  Coincidentally?  The “National Association for Parent Coordination” in Georgia got dissolved in about 2008 (same dynamic duo in charge).  now they run advanced parent coordination training (for a stiff price) and well they should — because in Lancaster at least, it seems to net $60/hour, plenty of referrals (and without a contract even??). . . We, too, can do “right to know” or “FOIA” inquiries, and should do more.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

On the other hand, knowledge — and knowledge you can act on locally — is empowering, even if the scenario is daunting.  I have learned so much by having all systems fail in the family law, family, (religious institutions), criminal justice system (i.e., law enforcement), and a few more along the way.  I know I am a better woman for it, though sorry it took so many years (i.e., I got older in the meantime) Forgot to add

  • I’m longwinded.  The posting has really gotten out of hand, and while it may be a warm blanket to me, I’m getting ready to let go of it and go Facebook, Twitter, or something else.  I don’t seriously believe anyone reads the entire posts.   It’s where I keep (SOME, FYI, not all), of my research, for the record.  The research has borne out, and there IS a clearer picture (in my understanding) of what to ignore and what to pay attention to in these systems.  And of the country I live in (shudder!) as a woman, particularly a woman beyond kicking out some more babies, or with an appetite for raising someone else’s.  That frees up a lot of thought time ..  … ….
  • Oh yes — there are about 9 different pages on here.  But only the main page, generally, is added to.  It’s structured like this.  I write until I’m done (and only a small portion of the screen is visible at a time; no hardcopy printouts or second drafts).  When I’m done –or sometimes several paragraphs beyond that, then I stop, and usually hit “Publish.”
Whatever I am saying, visits are steadily coming from state & county & city governments, various court systems, law firms, the California Judicial Council, 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Alaska Court System (209.165.166.194) [Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
United States FlagAnchorage, Alaska, United States
(No referring link)
16 Nov 13:00:29

– – – – – or, say:

Total Visits:1

Location:San Francisco, California, United States

IP Address:City & County Of San Francisco (204.68.210.39) CA CityCnty of SF – KT artklReferring URL:

(No referring link)

Visit Page:

 familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/lets-get-honest-about-kids-turn-and-judges-profit/

 – – – – -or, say:

Total Visits:1

Location:San Francisco, California, United States

IP Address:American Lawyer Media (208.8.241.6) [Label IP Address]Referring URL:

(No referring link)

Visit Page: familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/lets-get-honest-about-kids-turn-and-judges-profit/

– – – – – or …

State Of New Jersey (12.195.10.99) NJ State of (undistrib CS)    0 returning visits
(No referring link)

16 Nov05:35:30

 familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/66-to-34-undistributable-child-support-collections-and-why-hhsoas-is-more-concerned-about-its-share-than-kids-getting-theirs/

Total Visits:

United States FlagSouth Amboy, New Jersey, United States     Show Full URLs


1Location:Baltimore, Maryland, United States

IP Address:Psinet (38.112.73.146) [Label IP Address]

Referring URL:(No referring link)

Visit Page:    familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/tag/parents-day-comes-from-true-parentsunification-church/

   [[that post has a lot of corporation / charitable regisration lookups on some well-known California Marriage Promotion groups — more on that later]]
or, ..
County Of Los Angeles(159.83.4.157)[Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
(No referring link)

15 Nov14:02:52

 familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/pc278-5-arresting-moms-at-least-for-felony-child-stealing/

United States FlagLong Beach, California, United States

or … (i’m not sure if this is good news, or not good news….).

Executive Office Of The President Usa (198.137.240.197) WDC EXEC OFC PRESIDNT! 9/2/11    0 returning visits
United States FlagWashington, District Of Columbia, United States     Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
2 Sep 08:55:24familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/page/18/?pages-list
 
(No referring link)
15 Nov 05:53:57familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/ocse-child-support-enforcementfederal-grants-to-states-lets-look-at-the-taggs-hhs-charts-cfdas-93-563-93-564/
Executive Office Of The President Usa(198.137.241.197)WDC Exec Ofc Pres!198137241197    0 returning visits
United States FlagWashington, District Of Columbia, United States     Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
2 Sep 08:55:17   familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/category/wheres-mom/page/2
(No referring link)
15 Nov 05:53:55

 

– – – – – Or (just one last one!):

Calnet2 St Of Ca Judicial Council (aoc San Francis(63.202.171.143)CA SF CalJudiCouncil SFAOC    0 returning visits
United States FlagSan Francisco, California, United States     Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
26 Jul 12:23:39familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/whats-money-got-to-do-with-it-calif-legislators-judges-at-play/
(No referring link)
4 Aug 11:34:38familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/afcc-coordinates-parenting-coord-and-the-courts-democrats-spearhead-next-fatherhood-legislation-hr-2193/
 
(No referring link)
18 Aug 14:28:21familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/how-nonprofit-status-all-nonprofit-status-large-small-leads-to-abuse-of-individuals-money-flows-towards-the-visionary-dictatorial/
(No referring link)
14 Nov 09:22:46familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/say-no-to-sb-557-contd-local-connections-faith-focused-ovw-grants-all-in-the-family-but-whose/
(I’m not going to keep posting visitors here, but the posts they chose to look at are an indicator of possibly something YOU might want to look at.  Also, I believe we should keep certain public entities on their toes (if possible), particularly ones that have been on our HEELS, dogging us, driving us — and for what?  For profit?  For someone’s career track?  To bring world peace or solve world poverty?
(besides which it was seriously difficult to get those stats into the WordPress margins… ) 
 
 
 
IN THE BOTTOM LINE, THE QUESTION BECOMES — WHOSE LIFE IS MINE?  WHOSE MONEY IS THE MONEY I EARN?  
WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN?  IF A MOTHER AND FATHER HAVE CHILDREN AND A CUSTODY DISPUTE, WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?    
By law, the ANSWER is here, and the answer is NOT his or hers….
 
The UCCJEA talks about which STATE has jurisdiction, when it’s a multi-state custody matter.  But what about within a single state?
 
JURISDICTION:
So what is jurisdiction?  It is the right, the power, and the control that the court will have over a certain legal issue or subject.  Thus there is geographical jurisdiction (where can the case be heard?), subject matter jurisdiction (which court has authority to hear and decide this particular legal issue?), personal jurisdiction (does the court have the power to make a person obey its orders?) and there are other jurisdictional questions. 

What we normally call FAMILY COURTS ( as I am understanding this) are actually by statue “CONCILIATION COURTS….Now the type of people going to the family law system are not typically the happily married couples, but couples with often “irreconcilable differences” this may come of a bit of a shock — while you are figuring out how to separate, the court is actually (by legal purpose) trying to get you back together, apparently (I’ll use that word a lot so no one thinks about accusing me of practicing law ….).

No, seriously …..

WHAT IS A “CONCILIATION COURT” (ever heard the term?)

Conciliation Courts

California was one of the first states to establish conciliation courts. The purpose of a conciliation court is to encourage families to attempt reconciliation and reduce litigation in family law cases. In California counties with conciliation courts, parties may petition the court for help in resolving disputed family law matters prior to, or even after, filing an action for dissolution. While the matter is under advisement by the conciliation court, neither party may file an action for dissolution without permission of the court.

(taken from Robert L. Lewis site; San Jose Family Lawyer)

How many mothers or fathers are even aware that in having ANY custody dispute and going before a judge to settle it, they have entered “Conciliation Court Land” (I think.  NOTE:  I’m not an attorney, and reader is advised to consult, law, a licensed attorney or a better source before acting on any FYI information I post, from other sites, hereon!)

Basically when there is a custody DISPUTE (parents cannot work it out separately) in — I believe most counties in the US, but don’t know for sure — that opens the doorway for all THIS:

(CALIFORNIA LAW — which may explain where all the behavioral scientists get off in studying your children and collecting data from courthouses about this or that):

 FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS (California Code 1800ff (part, below:)

1814.  (a) In each county in which a family conciliation court is
established, the superior court may appoint one supervising counselor of conciliation and one secretary to assist the family 
conciliation court in disposing of its (ITS, not YOUR) business and carrying out its functions. In
counties which have by contract established joint family
conciliation court services, the superior courts in contracting
counties jointly may make the appointments under this subdivision.
   (b) The supervising counselor of conciliation has the power to do all of the following:

   (1) Hold conciliation conferences with parties to, and hearings
in, proceedings under this part, and make recommendations concerning
the proceedings to the judge of the family conciliation court.
   (2) Provide supervision in connection with the exercise of the
counselor's jurisdiction as the judge of the family conciliation
court may direct.
   (3) Cause reports to be made, statistics to be compiled, and records to be kept 
as the judge of the family conciliation court may direct.
   (4) Hold hearings in all family conciliation court cases as may be
required by the judge of the family conciliation court, and make
investigations as may be required by the court to carry out the
intent of this part.
   (5) Make recommendations relating to marriages where one or both
parties are underage.
   (6) Make investigations, reports, and recommendations as provided
in Section 281 of the Welfare and Institutions Code under the
authority provided the probation officer in that code.

(7) Act as domestic relations cases investigator. 
 (8) Conduct mediation of child custody and visitation disputes.
   (c) The superior court, or contracting superior courts, may also appoint, 
with the consent of the board of supervisors, associate counselors of conciliation 
and other office assistants as may be necessary to assist 
the family conciliation court in disposing of its business.
Which, for the record, may or may not relate to YOUR business or intents in being there.
In fact, the two purposes are often at odds.  But did you know what its business was to start with?
This is not told you in the basic self-help legal center, but it appears to be so....
The associate counselors shall carry out their duties
under the supervision of the supervising counselor of conciliation
and have the powers of the supervising counselor of conciliation.
Office assistants shall work under the supervision and direction of
the supervising counselor of conciliation.
   (d) The classification and salaries of persons appointed under this section shall be determined by: 
(1) The board of supervisors of the county in which a noncontracting family conciliation court operates.

(2) The board of supervisors of the county which by contract has the responsibility to administer funds of the joint family
conciliation court service.

OK, Let’s review this:  COUNTY (financial) vs. STATE (pays judges) responsibilities and associations:

And State to Federal ….

The county commissioners (or, “Board of Supervisors of the County”) in which a conciliation court operates appoint the classification and salaries of people helping there work. Got that? (Judges, in California, are to be paid by the state — not the counties).

SO — when here comes the United States (federal) Child Support & Welfare System and says — “we will fund you, only it’s a $2/$1 relationship (or the 66/34% effect), …

provided you follow our rules — some of which includes, we want to do social studies on your families, (Just whatever the Head (Secretary) of HHS says to ….)

and we also believe that you should be running some marriage, fatherhood promotion, abstinence education, supervised visitation, mediation, counseling and parent education classes too, or other “access/visitation” programs — to reduce the overall divorce rate, which WE assert relates to the overall POVERTY RATE  for which we are (see?? ) giving your state $XX b/million per year — if you want it that is…”

— GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE STATES (AND COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF CONCILIATION COURTS) ARE GOING TO LISTEN.

AND JUDGES ARE LIKELY TO ORDER SERVICES — THAT’S HOW WE GET THE INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOME OF THESE NONPROFITS AND INDIVIDUAL JUDGES ON SPECIFIC CUSTODY CASES THEY ARE TO HELP PARENTS SETTLE THEIR “DISPUTES,” and this JUST — PERHAPS — MIGHT INVOLVE FORCING THAT COUPLE TO GO SIT IN FRONT OF A COUNTY-PAID COUNSELOR (OR MEDIATOR), OR TAKE CLASSES BY A JUDGE- LAWYER-RUN PROGRAM THAT QUALIFIES FOR SOME OF THE GRANTS. . .

.Which may explain why American Lawyer Media — (or quite a few others visiting the same site) are somewhat interested in my post on “Kids Turn” . . . or why the California Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts (perhaps) may be interested in my reporting on the A/V grants, or OCSE — or “AFCC” which includes personnel with a penchant for ordering a whole lot of these types of income-producing programs:

(CODE, continued — but in more normal print so it will wrap to the margins right):

  1815. (a) A person employed as a supervising counselor of conciliation or as an associate counselor of conciliation shall have all of the following minimum qualifications: {{NOTICE THE FIELDS}}

(1) A master’s degree in psychology, social work, marriage, family and child counseling, or other behavioral science substantially related to marriage and family interpersonal relationships.

(2) At least two years of experience in counseling or psychotherapy, or both, preferably in a setting related to the areas of responsibility of the family conciliation court and with the ethnic population to be served.

(3) Knowledge of the court system of California and the procedures used in family law cases. {{notice this is qualification #3, not #1}}

(4) Knowledge of other resources in the community that clients can be referred to for assistance.

(5) Knowledge of adult psychopathology and the psychology of families.

(6) Knowledge of child development, child abuse, clinical issues relating to children, the effects of divorce on children, the effects of domestic violence on children, and child custody research sufficient to enable a counselor to assess the mental health needs of children.

(7) Training in domestic violence issues as described in Section 1816. {{notice this is #7, not #2, although DV issues do result in disputed custody situations that come before this court!}}

(b) The family conciliation court may substitute additional experience for a portion of the education, or additional education for a portion of the experience, required under subdivision (a).

(c) This section does not apply to any supervising counselor of conciliation who was in office on March 27, 1980.

 

Does that explain why your life as a disputed custody parent (if that’s you) are now filled with these social science, behavioral modification, psychopathology & psychology of families & psychotherapist personnel?

NOW — a voice from 1977.  I notice that it was published in the National Council on Family Relations.  
Who are they?  Well not in this post, but this is the grant they got recently from our government (HHS) to keep marriages together or help persuade more people to marry
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS  MINNEAPOLIS MN 55421-3900 ANOKA 078679974
$ 1,286,457
(click on name to see what the grant 90FM0001 was about, from 2004-2008)(then click on the grant# and see that its 2011 continuation for only $785,612 was continued at Utah State U.  Utah appears to be a very marrying state, one might think, given the prevailing religion..
 

“CONCILIATION COUNSELING:  THE COURT’S EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR RESOLVING VISITATION AND CUSTODY DISPUTES“

(excerpt)
The Family Coordinator © 1977 National Council on Family Relations

Abstract

Counseling processes utilized by the Santa Clara County Conciliation Court in in resolving litigated visitation and custody disputes are described. The responsiveness of parents and their children is discussed as are the roles of both counselor and judge in these matters. A sample case reflecting a broad range of family dynamics is presented and the procedure by which cases are received and evaluated is reported. The practical and salutary features of this court-oriented program are set forth.
 
(Excerpt):  “It has been acknowledge for some time by judges and lawyers, as well as those inviduals affected (note order — judges & lawyers 1st, affected people, 2nd) that the process by which custody and visitation issues are decided is in need of change.  With that in mind, THE CONCILIATION SERVICE OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY (California) SUPERIOR COURT  IN 1972 LAUNCHED A PILOT PROGRAM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FULLY INTEGRATED INTO ITS FAMILY COURT PROCEDURES (caps & emphases= mine).  PROFESSIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM’S IMPLEMENTATION….
 
At the calling of the Family Court Calendar each morning and each afternoon, all those awaiting hearing on visitation matters are promptly and directly referred to the court’s Conciliation Service.  (etc.)
That’s how the counselors get in there. . . .  Note the date –1972.  The AFCC (which is an association of judges, lawyers, and exactly these types of counselors — must be coincidence!) didn’t actually finish getting caught and forced to incorporate (in IL) til around 1975.  No-fault divorce was here or near, and FEMINISM was on the Ascent in America….  This caused some marital issues, obviously. ….
 
 

WHAT I WAS NOT TOLD — EVER — BY ANY COURTHOUSE I ENTERED< ANYWHERE< OR ANY MEDIATOR:

WERE YOU?  WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?  

WHO HAS JURISDICTION IF YOU HAVE A CUSTODY DISPUTE?

THIS IS A 2009 blog from an attorney who works in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.  It’s not hard to understand, it’s fairly clear — but were you told?

L.A. Divorce Blog (Nov. 24, 2009)

When a controversy exists between spouses, or when a controversy relating to child custody or visitation exists between parents (regardless of their marital status), and the controversy might otherwise result in divorce, annulment, legal separation, or the disruption of the household, and there is a minor child of the spouses or parents whose welfare might be affected thereby, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, the parties to the controversy, and all persons having any relation to the controversy. Where the controversy involves domestic violence, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, whether or not the parties have a minor child.

The purpose of filing a Petition for Conciliation is to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to preserve the marriage, to effect a reconciliation of the parties, or to amicably settle the controversy to avoid further litigation over the issue.

While this is talking specifically about someone wishing to stop the divorce via a “petition of conciliation,” the existence of this code – has affected all “custody disputes” and also how domestic violence is adjudicated.  Cindy Ross (also of California, and who writes better) described:

(notice — this is an older post, 2/19/2003) and talks more about the impact.

AFCC was originally established in California as the means to enact Conciliation Court Law (CA Family Codes 1800-1852), an obscure set of codes used to prevent divorce in counties where the court itself deems it necessary to “promote the public welfare by preserving, promoting, and protecting family life and the institution of matrimony“. [15]  While the Conciliation Court identifies children’s rights to “both parents”, it is used only to assist fathers take custody away from mothers and/or to otherwise gain inappropriate or illegal “access” to children.

Enacting Conciliation Court Law gives the family court jurisdiction over domestic violence cases, in violation of appropriate family codes and “child’s best interests” laws. For example, in California, while Family Code §3044 establishes a presumption that sole or joint custody for a parent convicted of domestic violence is not in the best interests of children,  Conciliation Court codes are used not only to assist abusive men get custody, but to help them avoid criminal prosecution. [16] Because blame is shifted to mothers by concealing evidence of paternal crimes against women and children, in the Conciliation Court, victims of abuse (not perpetrators) get convicted in accordance with PAS “threat therapy”. [17]

PAS court-ordered threats include jail terms for mothers and institutionalization of children to convince them that the abuse never occurred, but their mothers are crazy. [18] PAS threats have been linked to the death of at least one child. When forced to “choose” between visiting his violent father in a positive frame of mind, or having his mother jailed for his refusal, Nathan Grieco chose suicide instead. [19]

The Conciliation Court uses PAS methodology to give abusive men the legal upper hand. However, “shared parenting” has become the rallying cry of the fathers’ rights movement, primarily because joint custody also means no child support obligations. When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get custody and get 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.

She hasn’t reported on a few others factors, but at least this explains why, when coming in for a divorce, the court seems more interested in assigning you a few (dozen) experts.  As also explained (again, long ago) on

Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral

practices in the court

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

Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. Corrupt practices abound. This website is dedicated to exposing the corruption in detail. Areas where corruption exists are identified below.

To which I’d add — and related federal programs, as they may be available.

To people who file civil restraining orders — this information is not shown them (last I heard), but if children are involved, they are then escorted (at least in my area) to a quick run by the local family mediator –who just happens to be in this conciliation court.  The place looks, acts, and sounds like a courthouse, but in fact it is a support service, under conciliation law, to a conciliation court.  Funny that, when divorce actions sometimes read “irreconciliable differences” — and yet someone is going to give it a try, for public benefit.  Or at least pretend to.  Heck, it’s a job, right?

I know many women who filed for safety and ended up in this court before they knew what hit.  Sometimes the actions are consolidated Ex Parte to get them into this venue.  Then we wonder why, when we talk about matters of law, due process, (particularly DV law), or even crimiinal matters, the judges, GALs, and evaluators jsut cannot hear — and talk a different language (as above, see the code).

 
The entity which lobbied for conciliation code to start with, in California, is known as the AFCC (association of family and CONCILIATION courts — get it?).  Their job is to extract as much wealth as possible for as long as possible (this may include from extended family, foster care situations, adoptive families, you name it) and try to convince — or force — you to believe that this is in the best interests of what you think are YOUR children, but they know (by knowing about this section of code) are actually NOT your children — not until you and the Dad can agree.
 
Your judge or lawyer is bad?  Your ex done you wrong?  Start a blog and unload there — but I am more interest in system change and reporting how systems have changed over time.  When I feel I’ve said this well enough (or as well as I can on this blog), then I’ll stop saying it.  Don’t hold your breath.
 
 

SO, ABOUT THIS BLOG:

Scroll down to “READ THIS FIRST” page for a history of family law starting from the consequences of it, back down to the shady beginnings, one generation after women got the vote and between the world wars. Yep, that’s when the first law was passed, which eventually morphed, evolved, or as one summary puts it, “metastasized” into what we have now. And, like Hollywood, and other exports, this one seems to have originated in Sunny California, Southern part…

  • This post doesn’t contain any porn, graphic violence, or disgusting images (as I recall), but it is going to include plain talk on what comes from papering over these things.
  • [2011 update]. I investigate and report on corporations and nonprofits taking business from the court system, and taking diversionary monies from needy families through the 1996 TANF welfare reform and OCSE loopholes.
  • Originally the blog was intended to develop and report on matters covered (since ab. 1993) at http://www.NAFCJ.net and others, which at least gave a sensible explanation for weird behaviors by family court officials. I continued researching, observing, and learning.
  • A good deal also covers the “Faith-Based Behaviors” which have been enabled to expand beyond even the “Fatherhood Factor Funding” of 1994 & 1995. In 2001, GWB began office with two executive orders, 13998 and 13999, which opened the door for these (crooks).
  • Recently, articles are hitting the press about the scandalous “take the money and run” grantees, the “steer the money to our friends” process exhibited by program managers at the state level, and more. Not to mention, the black hole of undistributed child support collections, which (as reported in part by Richard Fine in 1999) shows a system of bribery and kickbacks are steering custody results, and kicking too many kids into bad situations — or state care.

I also note that tools available to the public to study these things are indequate and limited; that there exists — both on database and (some indications) literally, a dual-docketing system, such that decisions made with a parent’s or child’s name on them — which bring federal program funding opportunities — can continue without that parent or child’s knowledge. Some of these do not seem to require a judge’s signature. Others may have such signature, but litigants somehow can’t get a copy of their own files.  The database TAGGS is not set up to produce truly flexible reports which would help track down who is doing what and for whom.  It is there for an appearance of transparency, as far as I am concerned.  Before I re-read NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’ site) and began my own research, I didn’t run into a single protective mother or DV advocate who even used this database, or told women — or men — about it.

Above all, it’s time to let the idols, the myths about justice hit the dust (which is where idols belong anyhow) and go roll up the sleeves and start looking things up.

My blog is dense to read, and shows affects of PTSD (many times) — BUT I’ll bet you will not find many others reporting what I do.

Fathers in custody battles need to know — it’s NOT about you, or your story, or a particular judge; it’s about the system. Fathers also need to know that SOME of us mothers, while we do not back up one inch on abuse is wrong, or buy your stories about how much false allegations of it exist, we do know that you, too, have been extorted by at least the OCSE system, and we will work along the non-rabid community of fathers to do something about the kickbacks and lack of accountability.

And I personally wish to tell leaders of domestic violence coalitions and certain other agencies receiving major HHS and/or DOJ funding that — we mothers exiting abuse do NOT appreciate our legitimate needs having been SOLD OUT by your groups, to take funding for speculative theories and PR/educational campaigns on what “prevents family violence” let alone “poverty.”

NOW –that’s the N.O.W. — has no excuse for basically dropping the ball, not when in 2002 an excellent Family Court Report laid out the roadmap, and 2005 your California Leader called for an investigation of HHS use of Fatherhood Funds.  (What she didn’t realize then is WE have to do this investigation, then bring it to legislators).  NOW is still active in matters of domestic violence, and has a Family Law Task Force — but other priorities. NOW has done a lot (and I think them), but here — for all to see — is a clear indication that (as with other DV groups) the “Family Law” issue is not seen as a Violence Against Women issue:

Key Issues

NOW’s Top Priority Issues: (the top 6, and the “other important issues”)

Other Important Issues:

Suffice it to say, I think a more singular focus is needed, and as NOW didn’t continue to report some of the material about Bush, Fatherhood, Welfare Reform, and other issues. I don’t even share 100% of those issues, or agree with all of them.  I want to stay alive and exercise my rights, and my kids to NEVER have to repeat what happened and what they witnessed, while growing up, half in violence, and half in a custody war with a basis in extortion from more than one sector, with them, their distress, their simply being minors, as the bait.  But we all need some NOW — because without a dose of them, it’d be The USA of Shari’a (Christian, Jewish, Muslim & Mormon versions, plus the same general themes among the agnostics and atheists).  It’d be off the deep end and in over our heads.  But they lost the focus on the HHS matters, which are also national matters because they involve the economy and systems change to push marriage and fatherhood programs (notice, I didn’t say to push marriage, or fatherhood — but to push the programs).

LIKEWISE:

The NCADV and Domestic Violence Statewide Coalitions have no excuse.  Stop SELLING stuff (including conference attendances, memberships) and start reporting — for free– on welfare reform and what it did to battered women who are also mothers’ chances of EVER getting completely free from such dangerous relationships.    You do NOT speak for mothers who have their lives or kids’ lives on their line.

Family Violence Prevention Fund is now “Futures Without Violence” (facelift, namechange, physical move to the SF Praesidio).  I went up down and around the SF Bay Area looking for help, only to find out (once I got regular internet access and knew to look) that you, too, believe that the real way to prevent violence by men against women is to take funding from wealthy foundations who believe that the way to stop violence against women is to make sure that there is a man in all their homes, and a father in every abused child’s life.  Then I learned you were a resource center for women like me, and I know lots of us in the area.

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5177 SAN FRANCISCO 618375687 $ 22,368,114
Family Violence Prevention Fund  SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5178 SAN FRANCISCO 618375687 $ 31,000
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2005 90XA0109  CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT 1 0 ACF 08-03-2005 618375687 $ 496,000 

That’s from Health and Human Services.  Overall (not that this site is usually complete) USASPENDING.GOV shows the OVW funding as well:

  • Total Dollars:$41,512,886
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 92

$34 million of this was straight grants, some was contracts…..

Somehow (when I check “Grants/HHS” at USASPENDING.gov — only $13 million shows up)

so often, “Discretionary”:

Program Office Recovery Act Indicator Award Number Award Title Budget Year Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
CB  90XA0109 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT 1 08/03/2005 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities DISCRETIONARY ESTA SOLER $ 496,000
Used to write up a report on yourself?
Title: International Center to End Violence: Addressing Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Neglect. Final Report to: DHHS/Administration on Children, Youth and Families under CAPTA. Grant Number 90-XA-0109. October 31, 2007.
Published: 2007
Available from: Children’s Bureau
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, Eighth Floor
Washington, DC 20024
Abstract: This final report discusses the activities and outcomes of the federally funded Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), an organization committed to building safer and stronger families by ending domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of abuse against women and children. Major activities and accomplishments of the FVPF are described, including: the development of an Interactive Learning and Exhibit Center, the development of the International Center to End Violence,** and the implementation of training programs and experiential learning for engaging everyday gatekeepers and young students. Activities of the FVPF’s Teacher Training Academy are also highlighted, as well as public educational and engagement activities and school-based programming.
Results 1 to 1 of 1 matches.

**

by Philip V. Scribano, Pediatrician

and here:

New International Center for Family Violence Prevention Fund

Quote from Ban Ki Moon

(in case graphic doesn’t show…)

“Violence against women is an issue that cannot wait . .. and we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women,
we empower our greatest resource fro development; mothers raising children; lawmakers in parliament;
chief executives; negotiators; teachers; doctors; policewomen; peacekeepers and more.”
..Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General, United Nations
And we were the first to engage men – as coaches, mentors, and positive role models to boys.

New Home, new name – in the SF Praesidio  (while – in this area — I know women who went homeless after custody-switch in the family courts; I almost did.  That’s partly a child support matter, and a child support motivation.  Where’s your blog — your website — your publication of how child support and the state of the OCSE/welfare reform affects custody decisions??  Which, in the case of women leaving violence — affects their and their kids’ safety and well-being?)

Montgomery Street Barracks

Built in the 1890s, the six red-brick Montgomery Street Barracks that frame the Main Parade have become Presidio icons. All will be rehabilitated and will feature activities and services for visitors, such as restaurants, galleries, and cultural institutions. Activities will spill out on to the Barracks’ expansive front porches and the Main Parade Ground. The Walt Disney Family Museum opened in one of the barracks in fall 2009 and the International Center to End Violence will open in another in spring 2011.

(OVW grant for this center includes a 2009 one of $2,000,000)

Yes you did engage boys and men — jumped on the bandwagon:  Fatherhood as a tool to stop domestic violence.

I saw the funding surge behind the change of tune, too:

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children.

 In partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women, we have trained practitioners from over 40 communities across the US, including: DV advocates, supervised visitation, batterers intervention and fatherhood programs, judges and other law enforcement, and child protection workers

Did you train whoever trained Scott McAlpin?  Scott DeKraii? Cody Beemer?

(yet — no mention, for the sake of the single, female-headed households in the State of Ohio, that it has a Fatherhood Commission, Fatherhood Practitioners, Fatherhood Summits, and that a Legislator is still running around strengthening fatherhood to stop child abuse (like that’s the solution); that it had an Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, that is ripping off the public – in a large way — in an effort to turn back the clocks to the 1950s, pre-feminism and pre-VAWA?

in 2011, it’s up to $3,000,000

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2011 90EV0401  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 2 0 ACF 08-04-2011 618375687 $ 250,000 
2011 90EV0414  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES 1 0 ACF 09-17-2011 618375687 $ 1,100,000 
2011 ASTWH110025  PROJECT CONNECT: A COORDINATED PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVE TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 1 00 DHHS/OS 08-26-2011 618375687 $ 1,650,000 
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 3,000,000

Never-Ending Education . . .

2010 ASTWH090016  FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1 03 DHHS/OS 11-17-2009 618375687 $ 1,500,000 

And taking money and direction from Annie E. Casey Foundation, which virtually ensures that NONE of your media campaigns are going to tell women such as myself the relevant facts about 1996 Welfare Form, of the existence of the National Fatherhood Initiative (from the start, 1994, same year as VAWA) or how these funds have been used in family court situations.  It sure has changed the tune — if, indeed, the tune ever was anything other than media campaign, technical assistance, and training since about 1997ff…   While I am very thankful to be informed that strangulation, for example, is a high indicator of lethality, as a mother experiencing it in the home, I had that figured out (particularly in contexts of the talk that went along with it). Or that my dentist should’ve reported or further questioned (he didn’t) a certain suspicious & bloody incident involving my teeth.

Sample Annie E. Casey Fatherhood program (this is a small one)

“On Thursday, October 20th, eighteen men graduated from the Newark Y Fatherhood Program. Funded through the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 167 men have participated in our workshops during the past year. …A major highlight of theFatherhood Graduation was the presentation of  awards from President Barack Obama to the Y’s CEO, Michael Bright and the Director of the Fatherhood Program, Daryl Brown. ThePresidential Award was given in recognition of their  “devotion to service and for doing all you can to shape a better tomorrow for our great Nation.”

FVPF Program purpose (from the tax return, the 2009 Form 990, below):

“1. TO PREVENT VIOLENCE WITHIN THE HOME, AND IN THE COMMUNITY,

TO HELP THOSE WHOSE LIVES ARE DEVASTATED BY VIOLENCE BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIVE FREE OF VIOLENCE.”

4.  Describe the exempt purpose achievements for each of the 3 largest program services by expenses:

  • INTERNATIONAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE – THE FVPF HAS HELPED CRAFT LANDMARK FEDERAL LEGISLATION, CO-FOUNDED A NATIONAL NETWORK TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST IMMIGRANT WOMEN , AND CONTINUES TO MUSTER THE FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE RESOURCES TO SAFEGUARD IMMIGRANT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN – AMONG THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. THE FVPF HAS FORMED PROGRAMMATIC PARTNERSHIPS AROUND THE WORLD IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINICS TO EXCHANGE WISDOM, IMPROVE HEALTHCARE, AND RAISE PUBLIC AWARENESS.
  • HEALTH – THE FVPF HAS HELPED EXPOSE A CONNECTION BETWEEN HISTORY OF ABUSE AND CURRENT HEALTH,** FURTHER SPOTLIGHTING THE CRITICAL NEED FOR SUSTAINING ASSESSMENT, INTERVENTION, AND ADVOCACY IN CLINICAL SETTINGS. THE ORGANIZATION PROMOTES A HEALTHCARE RESPONSE THAT CONSIDERS THE ENTIRE LIFESPAN AND THAT INCLUDES PREVENTION. THE FVPF OPERATES THE NATION’S HEALTH RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INFORMATION TO THOUSANDS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND OTHERS EACH YEAR. THE ORGANIZATION HAS ALSO DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED STATE-WIDE PLANS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

**astounding.  And this was figured out when? …..

  • (this is the “We Got Fatherhood Funding” segment)  PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS – THE ORGANIZATION LAUNCHED THE FIRST-EVER NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – IN 1994. {{yes, but this is 2009!}} NOW THE ORGANIZATION IS REACHING YOUNG MEN AND BOYS THROUGH THE COACHING BOYS INTO MEN CAMPAIGN, ENCOURAGING MEN TO TALK TO THE YOUNG MEN AND BOYS IN THEIR LIVES THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS WRONG. THROUGH MEDIA AND THROUGH WORK WITH ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS, COACHES, AND OTHERS WHO REACH MEN AND BOYS, THE FVPF IS DELIVERING THE MESSAGE THAT MEN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE ORGANIZATION’S RELATED FOUNDING FATHERS CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGES MEN TO STEP FORWARD ON FATHER’S DAY AND JOIN IN MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ENDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2009 $26,157,567 990 16 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2008 $22,018,363 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2007 $17,917,034 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2006 $13,612,574 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2005 $9,114,506 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2004 $7,045,197 990 24 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2002 $6,261,569 990 22 94-3110973
EIN# 94-3110973

Also described by them at

Grants — $11.5 million

Program income — $181K

Salaries this year — $4 million

One resource is ERI (Economic Research Institute or “http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com&#8221;) which runs comparisons on non-profit organizations salaries;

 the search I just did shows their assets about $22million — and their contributions and expenditures similar, at around $13 million.  It shows a nice chart (I searched by EIN#)and has nice summaries, bar chats, etc.

Salaries in 2009 — not that running a large non-profit shouldn’t be well-rewarded.  They have offices (it says) in Boston, Washington, D.C. & San Francisco.

Except that this group — in an area where women are still being stalked, robbed of (their children, among other things), having child support reduced to nothing or being forced to pay their former batterers (innumerable), finding next to no response with law enforcement when this occurs, women have been burnt and found hogtied around a road sign (2006, unidentified, Oakland-Temescal), kidnapped from their homes, stabbed repeatedly, then dropped off on the side of the road to bleed to death in front of motorists  (Oakland/Orinda Elnora Caldwell), shot at work while IN tollbooths (2009, Ross), shot in church parking lots on a weekday morning (2007, McCall, Oakland), doused with gas and burnt alive, murdered and put in car trunks, shot (along with 6  others in beauty salons (2011, Seal Beach, CA Fournier 8 killed, 2008 Torres, Martinez 3 killed including responding officer),. . .

killed at court-ordered weekend exchanges and buried in a shallow grave only to be found when the murderer father plea-bargained it down by agreeing to locate the body (Wife missing 2006, conviction 2008, Oakland Reiser).    Children have been also kidnapped galore, sometimes being murdered afterwards by overentitled fathers, while D.A.’s are soliciting campagns to standardize their Family Justice Center model in D.C. and in the California Legislature.    I haven’t even linked to children and bystanders in this list; nor is it complete — but  a LOT of it happened around divorce, separation and child custody — and yet where is even a mention of the AFCC, CRC, or the welfare reform that funds “increased noncustodial parenting time” and forces women to try to co-parent with their batterers under fatherhood theory — such as you also have??

Here is the California Charitable Registration results for their 2010 filing (as “Futures WIthout Violence”):

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

(For the record, it was incorporated as a nonprofit in California, in a simple filing with Esta Soler and a few others, in August 1989.  To get the VAWA passed in 5 years is indeed an accomplishment, or may reflect connections the women had initially, I do not know.)

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1648791 08/30/1989 ACTIVE FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE ESTA SOLER
  • September 10, 2010 notice from California Attorney General — they forgot their fee:
  • FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND CT FILE NUMBER: 077397 383 RHODE ISLAND STREET, NO. 304 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5133

RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

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

  • LETTER from California Attorney General, who handles charitable registrations:

RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT (August 26, 2011)

The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

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

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

Must’ve just forgot — I’m sure they can afford $225.

  • Another notice says they forgot to attach a list of contributors; also 8/26/2011.

FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE CT FILE NUMBER: 077397 100 MONTGOMERY STREET, PRESIDIO – MAIN POST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129

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

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

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

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

Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service. all correspondence to the undersigned.

I think that along with this many people earning over $100K per years, someone should’ve taken – I did — maybe an hour of their precious PR time to read some of the material put out by UNpaid mothers who have watched and documented what the family court systems is doing to their current safety levels.  It’s not as though we aren’t on the web and aren’t talking !!!

2009 SALARIES OF FVPF, or, currently the ICEV:  (Salary to left, “estimated other compensation from other organizations”) to the right of each name

$234,229 ESTA SOLER PRESIDENT + $71,069

$168,216 THOMAS FERGUSON CFO,CAO + $14,717

$ 166,265 DEBBIE LEE SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $34,928

(also a program director for a joint project with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “Start Strong, Building Healthy Teen Relationships”)

“Start Strong: Building Healthy Teen Relationships is a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in collaboration with Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Blue Shield of California Foundation* are investing $18 million in 11 Start Strong communities across the country to identify and evaluate best practices in prevention to stop dating violence and abuse before it starts.

Or — take a look at the assemblage of personnel on the campaign to end teen pregnancy, underneath this study of “What Research Tells Us about Latino Parenting Practices and their Relationship to Teen Pregnancy” starting with Thomas Kean, Chair of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (and former Governor of NJ). These are, basically, the rich studying and categorizing the poor — by ethnicity and about every other category — in order to better manage the population.  They are particularly interested in breeding habits, which I think is borne out of fear of being outbred (take a look at the U.S. Congress by ethnicity and gender, and make an educated guess why….)

$ 163,251 LENI MARIN SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $50,806.  (That would probably, with creativity, feed & house 3 families in the Bay Area on those benefits alone….)

$ 196,620 RACHAEL SMITH DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR + $21,418

$ 148,996, BRIAN O’CONNOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC COMMU + 13,426

$ 148,841 MICHAEL RUNNER DIRECTOR OF LEGAL PROGRA + $20,176

$ 136,681 KIERSTEN STEWART DIR OF PUBLIC POLICY PRO + $18,891

$ 125,685 LONNA DAVIS DIR OF CHILDREN’S PROGRA + $16,601

$ 112,139 COLLIN CASEY DIR OF ADMINISTRATION  + $29,491  (any relationship to the Annie E. Casey people?)

In addition, contractors over $100K included:

LAURA HOGAN,  PETER D. HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., (WASHINGTON, DC),  DEBORAH KARNOWSKY

@ $144,737. $143,855. $139,731. == for respectively:  Project Building, Project Building, and Campaign Building.

Other projects on the 990 — grandiose in scope — described on Schedule O:

FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4D, OTHER PROGRAM SERVICES:

WORKPLACE – THE NATIONAL WORKPLACE RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE FVPF, EMPLOYERS, AND UNIONS AROUND THE NATION THAT HAS REACHED MILLIONS OF AMERICANS. THIS PROJECT MAKES POSSIBLE EMPLOYER AND UNION DISSEMINATION OF HELPFUL, EASY-TO-FOLLOW INFORMATION TO EMPLOYEES AND UNION MEMBERS ON PREVENTING AND REDUCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DEVELOPMENT OF WORKPLACE POLICIES ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND WORKPLACE SUPPORT OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE VICTIMS. THE ORGANIZATION PROVIDES RESOURCES ONLINE THAT GIVE WORKPLACE LEADERS WHO WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE CLEAR AND IMMEDIATE EXPERT ASSISTANCE.

EXPENSES $ 110773.

and for   “CHILDREN / YOUTH / YOUNG FAMILIES:  EXPENSES $709,895 (no description) and “PUBLIC POLICY / NEW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT” exp. $80,900.

and the plan to end all plans:

  • INTERNATIONAL CENTER TO END VIOLENCE – THE ORGANIZATION IS CREATING AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER IN SAN FRANCISCO AS A HUB OF EDUCATIONAL AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TO ADVANCE US TOWARD A VIOLENCE-FREE SOCIETY. THE CENTER SEEKS TO PROMOTE THE VALUES OF RESPECT, EMPATHY, AND RESPONSIBILITY; EXPOSE THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON FAMILIES AND SOCIETIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD; ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN EXAMINING ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AND ITS INTERCONNECTIONS TO BIGOTRY AND HATE; AND ROUSE INDIVIDUALS EVERYWHERE TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST VIOLENCE, HATRED and BIGOTRY.   

EXPENSES $ 220,101

and of course:  another expense was “LEGAL  $501,366

Well, I’ll find some of the descendants, if any, of the women mentioned above and tell them they didn’t die in vain, the 

International Center to End Violence has a plan...

I believe a better use of time would for be for these directors to go hang out in homeless camps and at soup kitchens and ask the people how they came to be homeless, and in need of eating at soup kitchens.  In the years that FVPF funds were doubling and increasing, I have noticed more and more women in those lines.  Preach for hire  in an open marketplace– not at their expense!  While this group is not actually (that I can see) taking money direct from money dedicated to welfare, they ARE taking a helluva a lot from the HHS pot to forward the fund’s personal (shared by others, but it is personal to the fund) belief (or assertions) that more training will stop violence.  Really?   You just want my children and future grandchildren, currently this is in the USA, to fund your vision about fixing the WORLD?  While in the entire time of their childhoods here, I can’t identify ONE thing that this group did to stop the battering in my home, or the family court gauntlet that followed.  (And under what name is it doing business in San Francisco, anyhow?)

Incidentally (see TAGGS grants) — many of the grants which would otherwise go to shelters are going to this type of “training and technical support” activity – it’s lumped under the same labelThen.

To be fair, here is a 2010 statement with a California Assemblyperson naming FVPF (Futures without Violence) founder Esta Soler his 2010 Woman of the Year.  It also says the organization was started — with a federal fund — in 1980 30 years ago.  Perhaps in DC or Washington – the charitable and sec of state records in California both say about 21 years ago (as of 2010), i.e. 1989 – 1999 – 2009 -that’s 20 years.

Contact: Quintin Mecke @ (415) 557-3013

Sacramento, CA – Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) chose Esta Soler, the head of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, as his 2010 Woman of the Year.

“I am proud to announce Esta Soler, one of the world’s foremost experts on violence against women and children, to be Woman of the Year for Assembly District 13”, said Ammiano. “Esta is a pioneer who founded the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) nearly 30 years ago and made it one of the world’s leading violence prevention agencies.”

Under her direction, the FVPF was a driving force behind passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 – the nation’s first comprehensive federal response to the violence that plagues our families and communities. Congress reauthorized and expanded the law in 2000 and again in 2005.

“It’s a tremendous honor to receive this award from Assemblymember Ammiano, a wonderful friend to all of us working to end domestic, dating and sexual violence and help victims,” said Family Violence Prevention Fund President and Founder Esta Soler. “At a time when state funding for domestic violence programs is in peril, we especially appreciate champions like Tom Ammiano.”

Esta Soler first established the organization with a federal grant in 1980.

This 1980 is commonly cited — BUT unless it’s in Washington, D.C. (a corporations search page I can’t seem to sign into yet), the SF one was definitely 1989 — and thus the 1980 statement is an exaggeration.  If the grant was received in 1980, I’d like to know how much, from which department and under what name.  Most on-line databases don’t go back that far.  I hope to research this a little further perhaps to better understand this organization.

It has become the nation’s leading expert on violence against women and children, the source of numerous trailblazing prevention and intervention campaigns, and a major force in shaping public policies that prevent violence and help victims in the U.S. and worldwide.

Soler, along with the honorees, was recognized today in the 2010 Woman of the Year ceremony. Each year, members of the California State Assembly and California State Senate honor a woman from their district who has distinguished herself in service to her community.

MINNESOTA-STYLE DV ORGANIZATIONS

The Minnesoh-tans (DAIP, MPDI, BWJP, Praxis, et al.) have done heroic things — but that’s no excuse for ‘taxation without representation” and the early-on insistence that your model CCR and its institutional ethnography become a nationwide model, without proof it works.  And, it doesn’t.  I hit on this particular set of nonprofits pretty hard throughout this blog, s am giving them a break today, except to mention that it took me a long time to realize that what “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT INC.” was actually about — (and which its name says) — developing (and selling) programs, 

Not stopping domestic violence

and some pretty good grants behind that business, too….

STATEWIDE COALITIONS AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:  Standardized & co-opted, used as heat shields for marriage entitites, didn’t include enough mothers leaving violence in their plans.  DIDN’t PUBLICIZE FATHERHOOD COMMISSIONS, FAITH-BASED OPERATIONS, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.  Didn’t teach women the 1996 welfare reform information in its context.

This sounds harsh, so here’s an example:

Tim Carpenter reportedrecently some juicy details about a secret April meeting to design Brownback’s marriage agenda. The Topeka Capital-Journal uncovered some information on Brownback’s plans  through a Kansas Open Records request.

The Kansas government spent $13,000 to bring together 20 mostly far-right marriage “experts” for the closed door meeting.

Organizations represented included the Heritage Foundation, Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, National Center for Fathering, Stronger Families, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Marriage Savers, Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, and National Center for African American Marriages and Parenting.

Thanks to information from Carpenter and sources, we know something of what Brownback has in mind, even though the details of the meeting remain confidential.

And (from a link in this article to another one) — ALL of these characters should be knowledgeable, household names, to anyone sitting under CADV state teachings or in their meetings. They deserve to know how things got started, and where they are going now, above the din of same-sex marriage and abortion rights issues.  This affects mothers AND fathers:

Brownback program promotes marriage

July 2, 2011, Tim Carpenter, the Topeka-Journal

(listing attendees)

Wade Horn, who redefined President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, preached a gospel that encouraged poor women to marry their way out of poverty.

Marriage Savers creator Mike McManus said clergy members typically did a lousy job preparing couples for marriage and secular therapists were more likely to increase divorce among spouses in crisis.

This threesome was among 20 people who met behind closed doors in Topeka to share marriage program ideas with Brownback and executives at the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

…In his follow-up letter to Brownback obtained by The Topeka Capital-Journal, [[Mike]] McManus said Kansas should prohibit no-fault divorce unless there was proof of physical abuse or adultery. A Kansas law ought to be passed, he said, allowing judges to select a “responsible spouse,” which would always be the person opposed to divorce. The statute would allow the responsible adult to receive up to 66 percent of child visitation and 100 percent of family assets in the divorce.

Any idea what this exposes women to?   (read on).  They are already being used as disposable wombs in too many marriages; if the beatings or abuse or virtual slavery (it happens!) can be severe enough that SHE wants out, then in Kansas he doesn’t even have to go through the motions of fighting for most of the kids and ALL of the assets!  This does not protect women or children!

Horn, who resigned from HHS to take a job with Deloitte Consulting, departed the Bush administration amid reports of cronyism in awarding federal grants to the National Fatherhood Initiative he founded.

Helen Alvare, a member of the law faculty at George Mason who also was invited to Topeka, said she admired Sarah Palin’s devotion to family and professional achievement. In 2008, Alvare said Palin was “what a lot of women aspire to be on their best day.”

California writer Christelyn Karazin, who had a child out of wedlock before marrying, believed so strongly in the power of a man and woman to raise children she organized an event called “No Wedding, No Womb.”

This is portrayed as spontaneous blogging “NWNW” — so what was she doing in a secret meeting in Kansas?  Flown in at Kansans’ expense, and in the company of people such as David Blankenhorn and Wade Horn? !!   She saw the light (is now married) and so everyone else must see it the same way?  Listen to some ex-married women, girl!

It was primarily a call to the black community to take action against the birth of children without the “physical, financial and emotional protection” of a father and mother, she said.

Joyce Webb, who works with Catholic Charities’ Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, recommended SRS divert $1 million from federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to pay for a new marriage program. TANF money is earmarked for families living in poverty.

Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, who was included in one published list of participants but didn’t attend, said during a speech about the pro-marriage movement that Catholics and Christians had to be the “visible light” for people failing to grasp intricacies of the institution of marriage.

SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki, responsible for implementing the governor’s marriage initiative, said thousands of Kansans who divorce each year lacked the skills and knowledge to form sustainable relationships.* Brownback wants SRS to help fill that information gap, he said.

*that “lack the skills” phrase is a buzz word to bring on the marriage educators, which is also a growing HHS trend and probably public law by now.

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who voted against confirmation of Brownback’s choice of SRS secretary, said he was intrigued by the governor’s simultaneous talk about removing government from the lives of the average Kansan and creating a state marriage program drenched in faith-based advocacy.

Siedlecki hired Richard Marks, the Jacksonville, Fla., director of the Marriage for Life, to join SRS and be involved in the initiative

(A little QUICK research on my part here   See the URL above:  He’s Baptist, Regent University, a Minister, adapted the PAIRS (which I think got HHS funding) curriculum for Christians, and just changed the FLorida nonprofit’s name to “CONNECTUS4LIFE, INC.” in 2002 (per Florida corporations search page called “sunbiz.org.”     EIN#562283483.  This is specifically incorporated as a “faith-based organization” and talks about the preachers involved.  This one (I just looked) seems a tidy little income — $60K raised, he gets $16K as head of the nonprofit, and gets to write off $42 of expenses running marriage enrichment seminars.

“Believing that marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God,

we as pastors and ministers in the Greater Jacksonville area are committed

to ensure that these marriages (WHICH ones?) will endure til death.”

That’s a creed — not an incorporation!

“we are dedicated to strengthening marriages as we seek to”

I attended domestic violence support groups, being a Christian, towards the end of my “cohabitation” (with my spouse).  Getting there was not easy; they were night-times.  Want to know what % of the women there were pastor’s and deacon’s wives?  I can’t name names, but the answer is — PLENTY.  At least one had tried to kill his wife; the deacons knew, and it was a LONG time before he lost that position….

He also had a role in Florida Government:  Served “four years on FLorida’s Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.”  That commission name was a new one on me, so I just looked up, to find out, from “www.Floridafathers.org” that:

Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives

The 2003 Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 480, replacing the Florida Commission on Responsible Fatherhood with the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives as of July 1, 2003.

FamilyThe new commission will take a broader approach to strengthening families by detailing comprehensive statewide strategies for Florida to promote safe, violence-free, substance-abuse-free, respectful, nurturing and responsible parenting; including connection or reconnection of responsible parents, both mothers and fathers, with their children.

From the Kansas article, above, we now know what is meant by “responsible” parent.  It means the one that, if he resists divorce, will get 100% of the assets and (at least) 66% of the children.  Mom can struggle to enforce 34% of her visitation after she’s kicked out of the house with 0% of the assets, which has already been the case when women FLED the home for safety (with or without kids).  So, is this progress?  But the CADVs should’ve been monitoring and reporting on these things — although I know that FL CADV had their hands full with FL-AFCC on “parenting coordination” matters, around this time as I recall.

The Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives will each appoint six members to the commission by August 1, 2003, with at least half of the commissioners representing the private sector

The wording starts like this – and yes indeed, Florida did vote this Commission into existence in 2003:

383.0115 The Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.

(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT. The Legislature finds that:

(a) Families in this state deserve respect and support. Children need support and guidance from both mothers and fathers, and families need support and guidance from community systems to help them thrive.

(b) There are many problems facing families.

(and it gets even more brilliantly deductive from there.  I provided the link).

. . .

(e) Assisting states to end dependence of low-income parents by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage and assisting states in encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families are the two of four stated purposes of federal welfare reform enacted in 1996 which have been largely neglected by states and for which states are now urging Congress to designate 10 percent of all welfare funds, specifically for relationship education and skills development, responsible fatherhood programs, and community support as it seeks to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act in 2002.

. . .

(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

(a) There is created within the Department of Children and Family Services, for administrative purposes, a commission, as defined in s. 20.03(10), called the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives. The commission is independent of the head of the department. The commission is authorized to hire an executive director, a researcher, and an administrative assistant. The executive director shall report to, and serve at the pleasure of, the commission.

This “independence within a department” is key to steering grants to cronies.  I’ve seen it in Ohio and we’re (above) witnessing it in Kansas, 2011, as we speak.

To understand some of this subculture — and after I’d been looking at the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative website for a good long while I finally noticed who was pushing the statewide Marriage Initiative, starting with at GRAB of TANF funds, and this was held up to other states as an example . . . .

I noticed “Jerry Regier” — and, for an example, here is the Wikipedia Timeline of his Job Descriptions.  He came from OK in 2002, and by 2003, Florida is voting for a Commission on Marriage and Families within the Children and Family Services.  (Mr. Regier eventually had to quit this post in FL under some scandal about steering grants to his, as I say, cronies — but ended up, for our purposes, in yet a worse place — back at HHS as Assistant Secretary of the ASPE (evaluates things) where he presided over glowing reports about his former work in Oklahoma.  That’s how the Bush-based Babies Cookie-cutter commissions (etc.) generally crumbles.  Scandal, scoot to another state, repeat…  So look at this chart with some care, OK?

Jerry Regier
Florida Secretary of Children and Families
In office
2002–2007
Preceded by Kathleen A. Kearney
Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services
In office
April 6, 1997 – January 16, 2002
Governor Frank Keating
Preceded by Ken Lackey
Succeeded by Howard Hendrick
Executive Director of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs
In office
April 6, 1997 – January 16, 2002
Governor Frank Keating
Preceded by Ken Lackey
Succeeded by Robert E. Christian
President of the Family Research Council
In office
1984–1988
Preceded by Post created
Succeeded by Gary Bauer

So, Jim Marks’ “Marriage for Life” organization was formed (I just learned) in 2002 as a “faith-based” organization — i.e., in the wake of GWBush’s open door executive orders for faith-based organizations of 2001.  Many of these groups form to get the grants, spend the money, and then RUN, disbanding, or being dissolved for failure to file with the IRS (or their state).

In Kansas (this is yet another article on the same issue):

SRS says Faith-based initiatives are still around, just not getting as much attention**

Oct. 23, 2011 by Scott Rothschild in “LJworld.com”

**I have 1 or 2 comments on there on these matters.  You’ll recognize which ones (just submitted another).

In a pre-Memorial Day (2011) announcement, Siedlecki reorganized SRS, which included putting Anna Pilato in a new position called Deputy Secretary for Strategic Development and Faith-Based Community Initiatives.

Are you getting a feel for this yet?

Pilato had served for five years in the Bush administration, including as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But Pilato, who is making $97,500 per year, says that in her job she wears two hats — strategic development and faith-based initiatives — and that the strategic development part of her job, which includes overseeing the design and development of staff for SRS, is by far the larger of the two.

. . .

Recently, SRS applied for a $6.6 million grant to pay for either faith-based or secular counseling that encouraged unwed parents to marry. Under the proposal, if the couple completed counseling, the state would pay the $86.50 marriage license fee.

But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rejected the grant.

Kansas Health Initiative published the list of who attended.  Recommend Memorizing.  Coming to your state (or what’s left of it) soon.  What’s kind of funny — Occupy Wichita made an appearance in the middle of a speech by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation.   (Protestors Disrupt Governor’s Poverty Forum (apparently, today 11/16/2011, KHI News service.  I’m starting to like KHI…)):

A Wichita police officer tries to restrain a member of Occupy Wichita who protested at a town hall meeting on poverty Wednesday in Wichita.

Protesters interrupted the second of Gov. Sam Brownback’s town hall meetings on childhood poverty Wednesday, standing up during the keynote speech and reciting some of their objections to Brownback’s policies.

One of the 14 protesters was arrested and another was detained for a short period.

The protest began as Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation fellow invited to give the keynote speech, delivered his remarks advocating marriage as a key way to end poverty. Protesters, most of them members of Occupy Wichita, stood silently with their backs to Rector for about 10 minutes, then began chanting their grievances once he completed his speech.

Organizers stopped the meeting for about 15 minutes, resuming after the protesters had left the downtown hotel where it was held.

That Rector should’ve had the podium at this second town hall, or the first, is a dire sign for Kansas:  (article links to this):

By Jim McLean
KHI News Service
Nov. 14, 2011

KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Reducing the number of children born to single mothers is the most effective way to combat childhood poverty.

That’s according to Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation fellow picked by Gov. Sam Brownback to keynote the first of his administration’s three planned meetings on childhood poverty this week.

. . .

Strong reaction

Shortly after Rector finished his remarks, Kari Ann Rinker, Kansas coordinator for the National Organization for Women, left the meeting room in anger.

“I was offended in there,” Rinker said. “The things he said, the inferences he made about women and women’s worth were offensive. As I looked around the room, I saw many other people looking to each other in shock and amazement.”

Rinker said the steady increase in births to young, single women was a cause for concern. But she said making available low-cost birth control and improving the women’s self-esteem and education would more effectively address the problem.

“The silver bullet is not wedded bliss,” she said.

Ms Rinker (appears very young, no?) should — with Kansas NOW — have been on top of this situation, should be teaching women about welfare reform and how the fatherhood movement got its two bits in on the situation diverting programs to promote fatherhood and marriage.   (The information has been available on the web since 1993).  For example, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation (the article says) was instrumental in Welfare Reform.  The Congressional Record debates ON this welfare reform are framed in concern about too many women of color having babies !  (in other words, it has severely racist overtones).   To let him get up there and spout off, the same rhetoric — which is PAID FOR INFORMATION!

The number one factor behind poverty here in the state of Kansas is the death of marriage,” he said, noting that 38 percent of children in Kansas today were born to unmarried women, compared to about 5 percent in the 1960s. “This is the most dramatic social transformation in the 20th century.”

OH?  How about a few world wars (creating untold orphans) and women getting the vote, the creation of the personal income tax, taking currency off the gold standard, and the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr.?   How about the advent of the internet, the decline of public education,  — and how about the 2001 enablements of people like Robert Rector to get up and speak at government functions and expect faith-based organizations to drive the primary institutions around?

Kari Ann Rinker, President of the Kansas Chapter of NOW,

on how the Budget Cuts have Affected the Justice System

Kari Ann Rinker, President of the Kansas Chapter of NOW, on how the Budget Cuts have Affected the Justice System

Kari Ann Rinker is the President of the Kansas chapter of NOW and she joins us to talk about the budget problems in Topeka that led to end of prosecuting domestic violence cases.

Listen or Download Audio MP3

The protests illustrated how serious the issue of poverty is, said Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita.***

“These people are using this as an avenue to voice their opinion and exercise their freedom of speech,” she said.

(***search her name on my blog.  She supported the last round of fatherhood initiatives in Kansas….  I commented on this).

The Heritage Foundation in Kansas is neither surprising, nor to be ignored.  It explains a whole lotta backwards movement when it comes to safety for women and freedom for Americans — both genders, all ages.

I remember this site from a long time ago on the Heritage Foundation.

POWER ELITES: THE MERGER OF RIGHT AND LEFT

A. K. Chesterton once said: “The proper study of political mankind is the study of power elites, without which nothing that happens could be understood.”

He added: “These elites, preferring to work in private, are rarely found posed for photographers, and their influence upon events has therefore to be deduced from what is known of the agencies they employ.”

Chesterton described those agencies: “Their goal was to work through such agencies, and financial support received from one or other or all three big American foundations–Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford — provides an infallible means of recognizing them.”

The Rockefellers made $200,000,000.00 from World War I. Henry Kissinger’s brother Walter heads the Allen Group. The super-wealthy (with the exception of some Du Ponts and the Fords) have long supported the Republican Party — the party of plutocratic oligarchy. “If not kings themselves, they are king-makers.” They have quick access to the White House no matter who is President. Other super-rich, such as the Rockefellers, affiliate with the Democratic Party. Politics in the U.S., no matter what party, is under the control of the super-rich, large corporations and the international bankers.

A 1995 Wall Street Journal observed the formidable influence of the Heritage Foundation on government policies since the Reagan era:

“WASHINGTON — With the Republicans’ rise to control Congress, think-tank power in the nation’s capital has shifted to the right. And no policy shop has more clout than the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“When GOP congressional staffers met in June with conservative leaders to help map current legislative efforts to cut federal funding for left-leaning advocacy groups, the closed-door meeting took place at Heritage headquarters. The group’s involvement wasn’t unusual. ‘Heritage is without question the most far-reaching conservative organization in the country in the war of ideas.’ House Speaker Newt Gingrich said early this year.

“Think tanks have long churned out studies that have wound up in official policy proposals. During Democratic times of power, the more liberal Brookings Institution has been a leading player here. Now, the 21-year-old Heritage Foundation, which rose to prominence in the Reagan years, is taking academic involvement to a new level.

“Over the first 100 days of the current GOP Congress, Heritage scholars testified before lawmakers 40 times–more than any other organization, Hill staffers say. Its scholars are credited by congressional members and staff as key architects of the House-passed welfare-overhaul plan and with inspiring some provisions in the GOP balanced-budget plan. ‘They talk to me sometimes 12 times a week,’ said Heritage budget analyst Scott Hodge earlier this year, explaining his ties to the staff of the House Budget Committee. ‘We–I mean House members–are putting together a final list of cuts.'”(5)

FACIST CONNECTIONS
Paul Weyrich – considered the architect and mainstay of the conservative revolution – calls for “reclaiming the culture” and a “second American Revolution.” A look at the inflammatory, extremist rhetoric with racial and Inquisitorial overtones on the Free Congress Foundation web site should alarm Christians as to Weyrich’s real intent:

(etc.)

I encourage people to read this write-up on The Heritage Foundation from “SourceWatch.org” and understand (as I am beginning to)its relationship both financially and in purpose (ending TANF completely and eliminating the public education system in the United States) follows up on some serious international influence in the 1980s and 1990s.  It took me a while to keep running across the information and understand it — but the Heritage Foundation, The Unification Church and its leaders’ intent to establish  ONE world religion with him at the top (yep!) and the means by which the “faith-based operatives” (as I call them) move in and out of state-level, national-level posts and agencies, restructuring them IMMEDIATELY upon being hired (as happened with the Kansas SRS, above) – these are related.  The fight is on.  Read a segment — but don’t forget to go to the site and consider the international influence in covert wars by the US as well:

HERITAGE FOUNDATION – SOURCEWATCH

The Foundation also leaped to the defense of Ronald Reagan’s description of the former Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” a description that generated wide global rebuke as potentially inviting nuclear conflict and, at the very least, further poisoning East-West relations. But with strong support by Heritage and other influential conservatives, Reagan stood by the statement, refusing to retract it until the Soviet Union began to crumble.

In an attempt to build on its foreign policy influence, the Foundation also engages in domestic and social policy issues, but its effort in these two areas has never quite matched the influence it wielded (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) in altering the debate over American foreign policy. Yet, the Foundation continues to weigh in on these topics with varying levels of success. One of its undeniable successes has been serving as a breeding ground for many of the nation’s leading neo-conservative activists and intellectuals.

The following comments by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, published in the summer 1994 issue of the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review, exemplify the Heritage philosophy:

 (Dick Armey being a Texas Republican during the “Contract with America” years.   Below this quote…**)

Liberation is at hand…. A paradigm-shattering revolution has just taken place. In the signal events of the 1980s – from the collapse of communism to the Reagan economic boom to the rise of the computer – the idea of economic freedom has been overwhelmingly vindicated. The intellectual foundation of statism has turned to dust. This revolution has been so sudden and sweeping that few in Washington have yet grasped its full meaning…. But when the true significance of the 1980s freedom revolution sinks in, politics, culture – indeed, the entire human outlook – will change…. Once this shift takes place – by 1996, I predict – we will be able to advance a true Hayekian agenda, including…. radical spending cuts, the end of the public school monopoly, a free market health-care system, and the elimination of the family-destroying welfare dole. Unlike 1944, history is now on the side of freedom.”

(**Contract with America

In 1994, Armey, then House Republican Conference Chairman, joined Minority Whip Newt Gingrich in drafting the Contract with America. Republican members credited this election platform with the Republican takeover of Congress, rewarding Gingrich with the position of Speaker and Armey with the number two position of House Majority Leader. Gingrich delegated to Armey an unprecedented level of authority over scheduling legislation on the House floor, a power traditionally reserved to the Speaker. Armey has been accused of being involved in a 1997 attempt to oust Gingrich as Speaker,[7] something Armey has strongly denied. In 1995 Armey referred to openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, as “Barney Fag“. Armey said it was a slip of the tongue.[8] Armey and his staff, especially spokesman Jim Wilkinson, took the lead in spreading the idea that Al Gore claimed to have “invented the internet.”[9][10][11]

then-President CLINTON had to do something to respond to the Republican “Contract with America”  — and 1996 TANF (Welfare Reform) was what he did — or at least signed.  This 1996 TANF is a major topic of the post and has affected custody situations for years in “Conciliation Court.”  It is also affecting the economy, diverting welfare money to support needy families into more and more brutal and upfront declarations that women should marry their way out of poverty — when many women are poor and single because they fled domestic violence in the home, which might have resulted in their deaths (and sometimes still does, after separation) had they stayed, valuing “marriage” good enough to satisfy these people.    So, important to understand some of the context.  More on Armey from Wikipedia (as the above segment was):

Focus on the Family

According to Armey, he also sparred with Focus on the Family leader James Dobson while in office. Armey wrote, “As Majority Leader, I remember vividly a meeting with the House leadership where Dobson scolded us for having failed to ‘deliver’ for Christian conservatives, that we owed our majority to him, and that he had the power to take our jobs back. This offended me, and I told him so.” Armey states that Focus on the Family targeted him politically after the incident, writing, “Focus on the Family deliberately perpetuates the lie that I am a consultant to the ACLU.”[20]Armey has also said that “Dobson and his gang of thieves are real nasty bullies.“[21]

Yes they are!  Of course, here’s how they describe themselves:

Focus on the Familyhelping families thrive

They are just — and this whole divert welfare into marriage promotion and abstinence education and “responsible fatherhood” etc. — are just “helping families thrive.”

(The individual, especially not the individual female or mother,  does not exist.…)

Whereas the truth is a lot closer to this:

2009-02-2

God’s Batterers: When Religion Subordinates Women, Violence Follows

 The Washington Post | On Faith blog
by Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite

Evangelical Christian ministries such as those run by Rev. Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church or James Dobson of Focus on the Family all stress “submission” as the Christian family role for wives. At the same time, these Christian Evangelical ministries staunchly deny that submission is a cause of violence against wives.

Some Evangelicals strongly disagree and have explicitly charged that it is submission that is responsible for wife battering in the “Christian” home. James and Phyllis Alsdurf, in Battered Into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home, have noted that conservative Christian women can’t even get help because of this religious ideology of submission. “When she [the battered wife] musters up the courage to go public with ‘her’ problem (very likely to her pastor or a church member), what little human dignity she has retained can soon be ‘trampled underfoot’ with comments like: ‘What have you done to provoke him?’ ‘Well, you’ve got to understand that your husband is under a lot of pressure right now,’ or ‘How would Jesus want you to act: just submit and it won’t happen again.'”

In fact, Jesus gets invoked a lot to justify wife battering, especially as a model for suffering.

2006 Budget

In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.

While corporations provided only $1.5 million – 4% of Heritage’s contributions in 2006 – they none the less have significant interest in the foundations policy output. There’s defence contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson,GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil, software giantMicrosoft, and chipping in over $100,000 each, Alticor (Amway), Pfizer, PhRMA, and United Parcel Service (UPS). [2]

Historical funding

Between 1985 and 2003, Media Transparency reports that the following funders provided $57,497,537 (unadjusted for inflation) to the Heritage Foundation [4]:

It goes on — but these are foundations that are to be found behind (funding) so many fatherhood and responsible marriage studies, “Fragile-families” “Strengthening Families” etc. type projects.Whether or not these projects produce as they are supposed to, they continue getting funding and supporting Ph.D.s (Sarah McLanahan of Princeton? comes to mind) to justify more of the same.

When Dobson told Dick Armey that Focus on the Family (& friends, no doubt) “Delivered” the Christian conservatives, now they want something in return — he was probably telling the truth:  Look at the amounts:

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN
Focus On The Family CO 2006 $94,999,184 990 45 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2005 $97,414,767 990 59 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2004 $107,423,724 990 38 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2003 $102,442,464 990 35 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2002 $98,175,843 990 37 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2010 $79,825,383 990 53 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2009 $90,996,703 990 61 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2008 $93,072,558 990 45 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2007 $92,427,223 990 43 95-3188150
Focus On The Family Action CO 2008 $3,565,169 990O 23 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action CO 2007 $2,452,377 990O 20 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action CO 2006 $3,035,923 990O 21 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action Inc. CO 2009 $3,953,111 990O 39 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action Inc. CO 2005 $4,286,071 990O 19 20-0960855 

RIGHTWING WATCH partial bio of James Dobson gives an idea of the scope of influence and pull:

  • Dr. Dobson has been heavily involved with Republican administrations as an expert on the “family.” Dobson was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1982-84. From 1984-87 he was regularly invited to the White House to consult with President Reagan and his staff on family matters. He served as co-chairman of the Citizens Advisory Panel for Tax Reform, in consultation with President Reagan, and served as a member and later chairman of the United States Army’s Family Initiative, 1986-88. Dobson served on Attorney General Edwin Meese’s Commission on Pornography, 1985-86.
  • Dobson also consulted with former President George H.W. Bush on family related matters.
  • In December 1994, Dr. Dobson was appointed by Senator Robert Dole to the Commission on Child and Family Welfare, and in October, 1996, by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.
  • James Dobson also founded and helped establish another successful conservative group, Washington, DC’s Family Research Council. Established in 1981 by Dobson, the group was designed to be a conservative lobbying force on Capital Hill. In the late 1980’s the group officially became a division of FOF, but in 1992, IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an administrative separation.

  • James Dobson has a PhD in child development from the University of Southern California.
  • Read PFAW’s in-depth report on James Dobson.

The Family Research Council (nndb listing of who’s on the board.)

Erik Prince Business 6-Jun-1969   Founder of Blackwater Worldwide

Erik Prince

Military service: US Navy (SEAL Team Officer, 1993-96; Bosnia, Haiti)

Erik Prince is a multi-millionaire fundamentalist Christian, who co-founded the security and mercenary firm Blackwater Worldwide in 1997 with Gary Jackson, a former Navy SEAL. He is a major Republican campaign contributor, who interned in the White House of President George H.W. Bush and for conservative congressman Dana Rohrabacher, campaigned for Pat Buchanan in 1992.

His wealth came from his father, Edgar Prince, who headed Prince Automotive, an auto parts and machinery manufacturer. Prince’s sister Betsy DeVos is a powerful conservative in her own right — married to the son of Richard DeVos(Republican bankroller and co-founder of Amway), she served as chair of Michigan Republican Party in the 1990s.

Father: Edgar Prince (d. 1995, billionaire)

Dobson’s family background (He’s on the board too, obviously) included:

Dobson’s own family was a bit out of the ordinary. His father was a preacher who often told the story that he had tried to pray before he could even talk. His mother routinely beat their son with her shoes, her belt, and once, a 16-pound girdle. His parents somehow instilled so much guilt in young Dobson that he answered his father’s fervent altar-call, weeping at the front of a crowded church service and crying out for God’s forgiveness for all his sins, when he was three years old. “It makes no sense, but I know it happened,” Dobson still says of being born again as a toddler.

Families will fall apart, Dobson argues, if homosexuals have the right to marry, adopt, or raise children. For this reason, Dobson and FOTF support a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one women. Dobson and FOTF are also against abortion, against feminism, against pornography, against the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, against Oregon’s law allowing euthanasia, against Take Our Daughters to Work Day, etc.

(yes, women should stay home, that’s their business, really….)

He has proposed an innovative end run around “liberal” judges. The Republican-controlled Congress should, Dobson suggests, simply stop funding courts where judges make too many “liberal” rulings — stop paying salaries, stop sending security guards, stop paying the electric bills. “Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson says. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”

Well, he was raised with abuse at home, and bullying, and has grown up  basically the same, as Dick Armey said.

or ….

Kenneth Blackwell Government 28-Feb-1948   Ohio Secretary of State, 1999-2007
Elsa Prince Broekhuizen Relative c. 1932   Conservative financier, mother of Erik Prince
Kenneth Blackwell
Under Blackwell:

  State Treasurer Ohio (1994-98)

  Council on Foreign Relations
Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment
Federalist Society
Freemasonry  (!!!)
The Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow
(etc.)

Well, in case you want to know why I’m becoming more and more activitist — these are the stakes.  The principles of

  • LIFE
  • LIBERTY
  • PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Bear a slightly different tone when one is dealing with the corporate giants and conservatives complaining that the republican congress and presidency they’d helped deliver weren’t delivering their constituency enough of the “goods” they wanted.  While these people (most of the time) themselves have become unbelievably wealthy through corporations, foundations, or simply being born into it (Erik Prince, for example) — the society they are structuring is how to create “responsible fathers” who are willing (like them) to tweak the judicial AND legislative process, go get jobs — most likely low-paying ones — in (whose???) corporations and make sure they don’t let their females get too uppity.   When legislative restrictions get in the way, they figure out an end-run around them.  I have been seeing this in state after state (thanks to the internet, and networking with others).

I also witnessed this philosophy completely destroy 3 generations of my family line when I fought for the right not to be battered in the home AND the right to work independently to support what was left of this household in a profession of my choosing and for which both my own parents sacrificed to get the college training in.  Throughout the court craziness — that would put any normal business underground within a year, without being propped up artificially — I had situations where a 20 minute hearing, or a short rubberstamping by an official who didn’t know our family, obviously hadn’t read the court record, and didn’t respect the existing laws (or court orders), even ones in his own hand — would completely restructure my, and my children’s lives.

We should be aware that the act of going before a “Conciliation Court” is going to expose people — your family & friends — to this treatment.

We should be aware that the act of taking ANY form of welfare (whether for food, cash aid — or, Moms, child support) is also exposing you to the same thing.  I tried to get out – -and was pulled back in, as are others.  We need forms of living which enable us to fight back against the complete undermining NOT of “Family Values” but of the US Constitution (which is probably in suspension by now, but it should not be so easily forgotten).

The public pays — and I have blogged this, after becoming aware — for public employees to pay membership in private nonprofits designed to help them run the child support business.  At these meetings — in my state it calls itself a “COALITION OF EXPERTS COLLECTING BILLIONS FOR CALIFORNIA’S CHILDREN” — the collaborate and plan how to EXPAND the welfare state, not reduce it.  They look for ways to have more families become “Title IV-D” families, which brings on the programs, brings program funding to the counties, and etc.

It’s a ridiculous state of affairs — and as far as I can tell the groups in this chart below have not been reporting on it or doing anything about it:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  MONTGOMERY AL 36101 MONTGOMERY 004344078 $ 3,793,073
ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Phoenix AZ 85012-1263 MARICOPA 867401366 $ 3,204,336
CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  EAST HARTFORD CT 06108 HARTFORD 088978429 $ 3,204,334
D.C. COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  WASHINGTON DC 20013 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA $ 35,000
DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  WASHINGTON DC 20001 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 942435124 $ 3,204,341
DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  WILMINGTON DE 19899 NEW CASTLE 025256293 $ 5,391,930
FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  TALLAHASSEE FL 32301-2756 LEON 053274101 $ 7,878,370
HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HONOLULU HI 96819-2391 HONOLULU 160292587 $ 3,214,275
ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  BOISE ID 83712 ADA 129850590 $ 4,104,341
ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  SPRINGFIELD IL 62703-1716 SANGAMON 168547040 $ 3,204,337
INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC  INDIANAPOLIS IN 46202-1002 MARION 024387230 $ 1,184,809
INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC  INDIANAPOLIS IN 46205-2460 MARION 105913375 $ 2,019,532
IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Des Moines IA 50312-5259 POLK 942559469 $ 3,204,336
KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Topeka KS 66603-3706 SHAWNEE 179971957 $ 5,646,199
LOUISIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  BATON ROUGE LA 70879-7308 EAST BATON ROUGE 837763630 $ 3,204,339
MICHIGAN COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  OKEMOS MI 48864-4209 INGHAM 027986889 $ 7,025,767
MISSISSIPPI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  JACKSON MS 39296-4703 HINDS 927529420 $ 3,204,340
MISSOURI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Jefferson City MO 65101-7801 COLE 184477318 $ 2,438,927
MISSOURI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Jefferson City MO 65101-7801 COLE 868492646 $ 718,239
MONTANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HELENA MT 59624 LEWIS AND CLARK 036541035 $ 5,648,340
NEW MEXICO COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Albuquerque NM 87102-3842 BERNALILLO 847508405 $ 3,274,336
NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC  ALBANY NY 12206 ALBANY 009343934 $ 5,453,061
NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC  ALBANY NY 12206 ALBANY 790031702 $ 1,814,609
NH COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE  CONCORD NH 03303 MERRIMACK $ 35,000
NORTH CAROLINA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  DURHAM NC 27701 DURHAM 957020266 $ 5,926,704
Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc.  HEMPSTEAD NY 11550 NASSAU 947923397 $ 381,000
OREGON COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE  PORTLAND OR 97202 MULTNOMAH 790033500 $ 2,921,826
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 156527558 $ 39,965,461
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 166527558 $ 945,000
RHODE ISLAND COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  WARWICK RI 02888-1539 KENT 025869715 $ 5,688,523
SOUTH CAROLINA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  COLUMBIA SC 29202-7776 RICHLAND 035406367 $ 3,204,339
SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Sioux Falls SD 57103-7029 BROWN 556435980 $ 718,239
SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Sioux Falls SD 57103-7029 BROWN 614771058 $ 2,486,098
SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  PIERRE SD 57501 HUGHES $ 34,271
TENNESSEE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE  NASHVILLE TN 37212-0972 DAVIDSON 787712454 $ 3,204,339
WASHINGTON COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  OLYMPIA WA 98501 THURSTON 059534409 $ 3,254,000
WEST VA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  CHARLESTON WV 25302 KANAWHA 192491629 $ 3,204,338
WISCONSIN COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  MADISON WI 53703-3517 DANE 171537392 $ 6,931,703

(this has been rather an exhausting page to put up… but… it may prevent some detours in understanding the FAMILY courts specifically — which, after all, are really conciliation courts.)

Just a few words on the NCADV which is a Denver, Colorado-based nonprofit, and what they are marketing:

http://www.ncadv.org/membership/MembershipBenefits.php




  (http://shop.ncadv.org/)

It is a membership organization (you don’t see it on the above states list, right?).  It has sliding scale membership fees — but the public IS paying its dues, because the state organizations pay by % of their budget or   — well, as it goes:

State Coalitions and National Organizations—0.1% of your annual budget, ($500 minimum) . . .

I think you can deduce at least some things they are selling, along with memberships — and it’s information and conference attendance, plus some other perks:

Programs and Agencies:

Non-Profit DV, SA or Dual Program—0.1% of your annual budget, ($250 minimum)

  • 15% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
  • Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
  • NCADV electronic newsletters
  • Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
  • One National Directory of Domestic Violence Programs for $84.95 (reg: $99.95)
  • Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
  • Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
  • Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
  • Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website

Other Non-Profit* or Government Agency** (includes law enforcement and military)—$250*/$300**

  • 10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
  • Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings

(etc. etc.)  Great deals — if you’re in the business.  As you can see, they are marketing to DV PRACTITIONERS. .  They also do the conferences, where more speakers can also cross-market to attendees.  Here’s 2012:

NCADV’s 15th National Conference Domestic Violence
and
NOMAS’ 37th National Conference on Men and Masculinity

Preserving Our Roots While Looking to the Future

July 22-25, 2012
Denver, CO

Special Keynote Speaker: Ellen Pence 

The fact that Ellen Pence is speaking (who is a Duluth person) shows the similarity of approaches.

Denver Registration:  NCADV has been around since 1992 in Colorado (as a “foreign” corporation):

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# ID Number Document Number Name Click here to sort in ascending order. Event Status Form Formation Date
1 19921036251  19921036251 NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Application for Authority/
Entity Name		 Good Standing FNC 04/07/1992

and in 2008 picked up another trade name (good to check out where one can):

# ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
1 20081544805  20081544805 Domestic Violence Protection & Prevention Coalition Effective FNC 10/13/2008 03:53 PM

I found a group called “CFC” which lists (that new name) as “Best of the CFC” and links to an automated payroll deduction for contribution to it.

WHAT I WiSH TO SAY:

Our kids were not your kids to bargain their rights away for supervised visitation, batterers intervention, parent education classes, or for that matter the more recent “Family Justice Centers.” I personally am recommending a boycott of Verizon (which helps fund these) for that very reason, after a season of being unable to even obtain a single cell phone to help replace the last lost job through the “HelpLine” or anywhere locally that promised this.

I am not very hopeful for the USA, but I live here, so this is part of my contribution as a citizen to report, and part of the legacy I could NOT leave my daughters because they were taken overnight, illegally, and with no remedy: primarily to satisfy someone’s too-large ego, and enabled by what law enforcement, in our case, was not. What was the price? They don’t even have all the facts in their own case, yet, or why society wouldn’t let me simply live and let live after throwing out, or why pro bono legal services for women basically won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole; they are focused on the low-income noncustodial males, and their career tracks, while enabling the rich ones to torture insubordinate exes through the courts. (Note: not my situation, but I see the cases).

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

November 17, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, CRC Childrens Rights Council, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), Lethality Indicators - in News, Mandatory Mediation, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1996-2010: How “Ending welfare as we know it” morphed to [so far…] Statewide Marriage and Relationship Education –for Everyone

with one comment

Some of my friends scold me for showing too much and not just telling.  They’re right.    But as I like to SHOW (and then TELL, too) — posts run to triple-length size,  then I split them up with new — and long — titles.

(Those of you who know me — this is a “Conversational Public Data Dump.”  You are forewarned!)

(see also my comment — it has a major double-pasted section in it, too.  I will printout & purge the duplicates….  The value of this post is in the narrative, plus the links).

This post began as a TANF introduction to another one on a specific Healthy Marriage Grantee.

You may not think this information relevant — but, it has already landed in your back yard; it is restructuring the United States; it is a financial issue with global ramifications.  The story of HOW this happened (and through whom) will help us pay better attention in the future, and should rule out certain distractions — such as choosing which battle to fight, and which diversionary propaganda to ignore.

However, someone has to protest the incremental removal of civil liberties going along with incremental spending down of public dollars, diverted to . . .. for lack of a better word . .. Bush appointees, and Obama cronies.  And when it comes to THIS category, I don’t hear a lot of specific protests.

Want to Occupy Something?  Occupy This — your senators and representatives voted welfare infinite expansion, for private profit actually, into being through public laws.  How could that be?

Well, we have  public school systems that still (apparently) teach U.S. Mythology, not Accounting, that are places for Values & INdoctrination Wars.  Somehow, the importance of the House Ways and Means Appropriations Committee — let alone about how corporations and government actually interact, were not considered pre-requisites for graduation. Meanwhile,  people LIVE in neighborhoods where they can observe this discrepancy, know that the common explanations do not hold water, but may not have a coherent explanation of what does, of what happened (historically).

Moreover, there is a digital divide and closed-doors deliberations.   We are not [certainly anyone ever on welfare is typically not] given or pointed to the best tools to finding out how things work. The cult is of the experts — who teach the uninstructed and presumably not smart enough to “get it.”

The tools available to the unfunded public (like TAGGS) have been also tinkered with, obfuscated and otherwise screwed with, to beyond credibility (accuracy) – although they do reveal traits and patterns to a degree.  TAGGS cannot be reconciled with USASPENDING.gov (and isn’t) even when just looking up HHS grants only on the latter.  I have not made up my mind yet which is more in error, but USASPENDING.gov already has its accuracy critics –and so few people seem to ever USE TAGGS, that leaves me.

Name me ONE other blog or public website that began posting those HHS grantee & project charts before this blog did (earliest, 2009) and recommending their use.  Yet its data goes back to 1995.

Now a point has been made, by the structure AND content of this resource — well read, clearly understood — that this information is NOT reliable; moreover that it’s not reliable — or in really useable form — is no accident.

For example — a big stink since 2001 has been made about laying down the red carpet for (and building capacity for) the faith-based organizations to go help the poor hungry, under-educated slobs get some jobs and visit their sons and daughters, and be taught how to “relate” better to the other parent.

YET — TAGGS has no designation (or classification) for  Faith-based organization.  It’s been 10 years since Bush Executive Order, and the word “faith-based” is all over government (federal state, and nonprofit groups, such as CNCS), other sites — and yet no field has been added to the database to designate “Faith-based” or NOT Faith-based.    The same goes for the fine distinction between “Marriage” grantees and “Fatherhood Grantees.”  yet there is one CFDA (93086) for both — and, moreover, marriage and fatherhood activities could be in, literally, almost any category of federal domestic assistance, such as social welfare research and demonstration, which are NOT under “93086.”  Or in Head Start.  So what’s that about, eh?

Is this really about promoting responsible  “Fatherhood”?  I don’t think so.  Responsible Fathers (note:  this does not include Glenn Sacks or Nicholas Soppa!) like some accountability here and there, and deserve resources to get it, just like others do, and can come to a debate that is not predetermined, and occasionally lose a point or two (i.e. humility).  I don’t know any decent father who’d advocate stealing from the public under false pretenses, and attempting to cover one’s tracks, yet this IS what’s happening.  Or a responsible father helping set up any systems which, after about 53 failures, are still going full force, in the same manner – which many faith-based groups are.  Or which INTENTIONALLY undermines separation of church & state, OR the separation of powers in the federal government — and does so for personal sense of power, fame (or for profit).  Responsible fathers are willing to sacrifice, not specialists in sacrificing others, or what’s right.

this entire responsible fatherhood movement is, essentially (to quote Liz Richards/National Alliance for Family Court Justice, in testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee, Appropriations — in June 2010) – An Expensive Solution looking for a Legitimate Problem:

Protective Mother’s Response to Ways & Means Income Security & Family Support June 17, 2010 hearing for re- reauthorizataion of Responsible Fatherhood program funding.

AN EXPENSIVE REMEDY IN SEARCH OF A LEGITIMATE PROBLEM!

The June 17th 2010 “Responsible Fatherhood” hearing testimony supporting the administration’s reauthorization request for $150,000,000 for a program which has failed to offer any verifiable data on program implementation or specific outcomes, such as the easy to verify job skill training and improved child support compliance factors. Program promoters have become defensive, or hostile, when their operations or intent is questioned. They reject complaints from protective mother advocates who describe serious systemic problems occurring with divorcing and “absent” fathers. In short – the Responsible Fatherhood program advocates have never shown any interest toward the very people who they purport to be helping- divorced or separated mothers of the fathers enrolled in their programs..

Responsible Fatherhood programs have been funded since 1996, but have yet to offer any outcome data or analysis verifying positive impact on mothers and children. Instead they rely on vague claims of involvement of domestic violence specialists to claim [their] activities are not causing mothers any problems. HHS ACF officials confirm they do no requirement for collecting or reporting program enrollment or outcome data.

{Heck, HHS/OIG/OAS can’t even keep track of millions of undistributed child support already collected at the state level, and eschews responsibility for doing so — after all, isn’t it TANF blocks to the states, for flexible use? so long as federal incentives are met for their $2 of ours for $1 of yours, and they get some back, who’s going to rock that boat?  Yet in part it’s from child support enforcement funds that Fatherhood Promotion is done!}

Why should they be getting millions more if they won’t verify the millions already spent are producing positive results, or any other performance or outcome information? Why don’t the fatherhood promoters know anything about the protective mother movement, or show any interest in the concerns of divorcing and separated mothers?

(actually, some of these DO know about this movement and viciously attack it in print and on on-line forums — see Peter Jamison, SFWeekly earlier in 2011)

We believe their data omissions are done deliberately to cover up another agenda – which our members observe and are negatively affected by – which is recruiting dead-beat and abusive men into lucrative high-conflict litigation. I alone have over 2000 victim intake contacts from nearly all US states. NAFCJ has state leaders, in over 15 states collaborate with other protective mother leaders. I have been communicating with fathers’ rights and fatherhood leaders and activist since as early as 1992, have attended their conference and have determined the two movements are one [and] the same.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

LGH Note:   Since last June 2010, I have seem more influences than just the fathers’ rights upon these grant series, but still believe it a valid factor nevertheless at the “street” and HHS etc. level)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I note that this 2010 testimony (filed on-line) also refers to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005:

The US Senator who sponsored the earlier $150,000,000 Responsible Fatherhood earmark in the 2005 deficit Reduction Act has been a fathers rights supporter since he was a state legislator and has been collaborating with the fathers right leader and founder from his state from state since the start. This fathers’ right founder also has collaborated with Dr Richard Gardner on specific case litigation. Gardner’s writings included heinous remarks – such as ( in paraphrase): “mothers who complain about father’s sex abuse of children should be told to get a vibrator and become more sexually responsive to her husband so he won’t have to seek sex from his daughter.” This and other sick and deviant opinions from Gardner and other publish pro-incest men (e.g Ralph Underwager and Warren Farrell) are the reason why Responsible Fatherhood promoters conceal their relationship with the father rights people.

In order for the Responsible Fatherhood promoter to conceal their history of collaborating with the deviant fathers rights movement, they use domestic violence counselor as a “heat shield” to make themselves look pro-woman. But our movement of litigating protective mothers, many of whom have been in domestic violence shelters, have never observed any officially designated fathers representatives collaborating with domestic violence representative or producing and positive actions or outcomes for them. What we do hear from d.v. victim mothers who have gone from her home into shelter with her children – only to be arrested and put into jail a few days later for “kidnapping” the children. Most not allowed any contact with their children, because they are then deemed to be a flight risk. An ex- parte sole custody order is establish for the father is without any notification or hearing for the mother. The d.v. shelter people refuse to support them or testify for the mother and ignore her concerned about the father’s abuse of the children. Many of these falsely arrested mothers don’t see their children again for months {{or years…}} on grounds she is a flight risk. Unfortunately our movement is very dissatisfied with the d.v. movement and believe they also need reforming. However, some of their leaders are working with us to correct this part of the system failure

If I get the rest of the follow-up post out — there is a demonstration of this “heat shield” phenomena — at the “Domestic Violence Coalition” level, typically.

and she also wrote:

All the evidence I’ve observed indicates the Responsible Fatherhood programs are merely a cover for recruiting bad dads with offers of child support abatements into high-conflict litigation, giving sole custody of the children to the father and getting the mother out of picture and forcing her to pay excessive child support obligations to him

Then there are (I learned through the Kentucky example:  “Turning It Around”) the times fathers in arrears were, literally, extorted into participating in programs such as fatherhood classes, parenting skills, self-esteem, ABSTINENCE education (for a father?), and more — which have their promoters throughout the system, usually with a for-profit organization selling the materials behind any nonprofit group.   These are not so many or varied that they are hard to locate and recognize the presence of, any more…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _OK, enough of that particular angle . . . . . . .

Personal:

My interests and activism took another “sea change” after documenting (some, at least) of the Sea Changes at for example California Healthy Marriage Coalition, which boasted on outset of its programs of THE largest HHS marriage promotion grant yet ($11 million over 5 years).

Again, at the corporate level (California Secretary of State) a search of the words ‘Healthy Marriage” (singular) produces this chart:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2629035 11/08/2004 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE CHRIS GRIER
C2896098 06/01/2006 ACTIVE FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
C2271911 03/07/2001 DISSOLVED HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ELIZABETH LEHRER
C2884897 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER DENNIS J STOICA
C2884898 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION DENNIS J STOICA
C2955473 10/04/2006 SUSPENDED RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2650745 05/12/2004 ACTIVE SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
C3210304 05/29/2009 ACTIVE SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT REGINA GLASPIE
C2860238 03/02/2006 ACTIVE STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
C3013354 08/13/2007 ACTIVE YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT WILLIAM F JENS

and “Healthy Relationship,” this one:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3073670 01/16/2008 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2746528 05/13/2005 ACTIVE HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA PATTY HOWELL
C2790720 06/09/2006 ACTIVE OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS ** RESIGNED ON 06/20/2011
C2494811 01/06/2003 DISSOLVED THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. TAMARA ILICH

Meanwhile — as far as the 990 finder (which uses IRS filings) is concerned, the Sacramento Group has indeed changed its name by 2010, and there IS no “California Healthy Marriage” nonprofit around.

Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Dba Relationship Skills Center CA 2010 $64,938 990 31 13-4280316

Now, on TAGGS, this ONE EIN (13480316) pulls up a slightly smaller set of grants, but two different DUNS# — why? (I put these here for readers to click on)

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO CA 95821 SACRAMENTO 147288935 $ 2,446,593
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO CA 95821 SACRAMENTO 827612631 $ 1,148,512

  

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recipients


Searching by Principal Investigator “Curtis” (within California) we see some — not all — of the grants:

Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project NON Other Social Services Organization 90FE0015 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 93086 CAROLYN CURTIS $ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project NON Other Social Services Organization 90FE0015 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 93086 CAROLYN R CURTIS $ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Other Social Services Organization 90FE0015 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 93086 CAROLYN R CURTIS $ 1,647,768
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Other Social Services Organization 90IJ0205 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 93009 CAROLYN CURTIS $ 50,000

and of course the last one, a new award, goes to — “CAROLYN CAROLYN” (i.e., FN FN)

Grantee Name City Recovery Act Indicator Grantee Type Award Number Award Title CFDA Number Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project SACRAMENTO NON Other Social Services Organization 90FM0059 FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM 93086 CAROLYN CAROLYN $ 798,825

SO, this $3 million plus is going to an organization in Sacramento (California State Capitol) that is not maintaining is nonprofit status with the state of California — is this affecting our budget?  Please also note that of these 5 awards, two are “Recovery” (ARRA) awards — totaling $1,647,768.  In another OMB or GAO report, we found that ARRA awards specifically have been tagged as notoriously NOT paying their still-due payroll and other taxes (even were the nonprofit legitimate):

(posted July 14, 2011 at Patton Boggs, LLP, with the alert that this is general information — and not legal advice)

Federal grant award recipients should carefully review their own federal tax compliance and use vigilance when engaging subrecipients and contractors, based on recent Senate testimony from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

On May 24, 2011, a GAO representative testified before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that thousands of contract and grant recipients under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) owe hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid federal taxes. The testimony summarized GAO’s April 2011 report of its investigation of 15 entities that had collectively received some $35 million in ARRA funds despite federal tax delinquencies totaling roughly $40 million. GAO referred all 15 entities to the IRS for possible criminal investigation.

ARRA grant award recipients may face risks to their projects stemming from federal tax delinquencies even though, as the GAO acknowledged, federal law does not generally prohibit applicants with unpaid federal tax debts from receiving federal grant awards. With federal debt continuing to climb, and federal spending far outstripping tax revenues, Congress may at least examine changes to the law to impose new restrictions in this area. In addition, in many cases, the tax delinquencies stem from  unpaid payroll taxes, meaning that even entities exempt from federal income taxes may be affected.

The GAO accounts.  It has no teeth.  Congress has to act….  More from the GAO site indicates that groups such as these may be included, i.e., if they don’t includ amounts from groups that have not filed federal tax returns 

At least 3,700 Recovery Act contract and grant recipients–including prime recipients, subrecipients, and vendors–are estimated to owe more than $750 million in known unpaid federal taxes as of September 30, 2009, and received over $24 billion in Recovery Act funds. This represented nearly 5 percent of the approximately 80,000 contractors and grant recipients in the data from Recovery.gov as of July 2010 that we reviewed. The estimated amount of known unpaid federal taxes is likely understated because IRS databases do not include amounts owed by recipients who have not filed tax returns or understated their taxable income and for which IRS has not assessed tax amounts due. 

(Back to TAGGS and our HM grantees)

And the $15 million went to an organization incorporated by Dennis Stoica (in Leucadia) that had its corporate status suspended, as well as the OTHER two organizations he formed, around the same time.   Patty Howell’s nonprofit, who carried on the name — is still associated with the bad behavior (by association) with CHMC’s originals.

Yet the only one of the BUNCH that I can see actually filed (with California, where they are) with the OAG — as required to — was the Sacramento Healthy Marriage (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.)

The California Healthy Marriage (Stoica, Suspended) became, somehow “Healthy Relationships California” (Howell) — think Leucadia, San Diego Area.

Meanwhile, the SACRAMENTO HM group (Curtis) — not that its ‘charitable status is, er, current — at least created one with the OAG, which looks like this

(on the actual site, the headings background color would be BLUE).  I am coding it GREEN, to match the PATTY HOWELL group – and indeed, the letter on this site (From the OAG) saying’ hey whassup, is addressed to “Sacramento Healthy Marriage”

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA CT0149740 Charity Delinquent LEUCADIA CA Charity Registration Charity
1

TAGGS grant for This one, EIN# 6806790  (which I believe I’ve gone over before, at some length) shows:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA CA 92024-2215 SAN DIEGO 003664535 $ 7,883,475
California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA CA 92024-2215 SAN DIEGO 361795151 $ 7,142,080

Or, in the latest ACF announcement (just to make life a little harder for the novice in all this) as:

Healthy Relationships California

Leucadia

CA

$2,500,000

Which is it not called, any more — on the TAGGS  – – – OR, on the website itself, because Patty Howell’s  actual organization “healthy Relationships” apparently subsequently bought (or, at least claimed) the registered name “California Healthy Marrriage Coalition.”

Website — not that this group is current as a charity in California any more, but at least Ms. Howell’s nonprofit founded JUST a bit earlier than Mr. Stoica’s, saved the day and kept the name — it’s still showing up as:  California Healthy Marriages Coalition and (I see) features a “Dads & Kids” relationship education initiative, …

stating that this is funded in part by:  “Partial funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: 90FE0104. “

ward Number: 90FE0104
Award Title: HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1
OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Organization: OFFICE OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE (OFA)
Award Class: DISCRETIONARY

Award Abstract

Title Healthy Marriage Demonstration, Priority Area 1 
Project Start/End  /
Abstract Healthy Marriage Demonstration, Priority Area 1
PI Name/Title Howell, Patty   Vice President of Operations
Institution

There are 7 award actions (4 of which read “$0”) and the other three (discretionary) $2.3 million & $2.4 + $2.4 million from 2006, 2009 & 2010= $7,142,080.  The grant is labeled “healthy marriage” and “FE” and the use was for Dads & Kids relationship building — which just so happens to be another business Ms. Howell is in.

Quite honestly, I don’t remember now (or feel like checking) whether it was Howell, or Curtis — on both nonprofits, receiving $32K for work on the one, and $7K for work on the other.

HM/FR GRANTEE BEHAVIORS

I am now learning that their behavior is typical — not atypical– for the healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grantees.  As such, I am starting to comprehend that the entire system wasn’t even nominally set up to promote marriage, but to deconstruct the lines of authority between federal and state, to divert welfare funding SPECIFICALLY from single mothers (who, even when under attack are still a force to be reckoned with) towards fathers, and change language acknowledging us as both mothers and citizens (individuals) with equal rights under the law — which, by the way, we DO have.  But not safely enforceable.

The Child Support monster is just that — and as it feeds gas in to county & state agencies, and (diversionary programs) — it has been spilling, and some of these spills turn into conflagrations where people get hurt.  Men, women and children.   Other than that, it often drains an economy — but DRIVES the bureaucratic economy.  Whatever it may have been, it is now a monster.  It recruits, it solicits — but it does not produce and does not contain viable checks and balances.

WHO VOTED THIS AGENDA IN?  AND WHO PUT THEM IN OFFICE?

I am gradually understanding that it was THE United States Congressmen, and some (not many) women that voted for these laws, from TANF (1996/Clinton), through DRA (2005/Bush) through ARRA (2009/Obama) and through 2010 Claims Resolution Act (also Obama).  It took me a while to realize that these years paralleled the hell extended nightmare of a marriage, followed by what at this point, I’d call worse — because it destroys hope of an off-ramp, EVER, and has definitely altered my family line’s wellbeing — in EVERY measurable category — for the far worse, since we first met the courts.   And people who go through this marginalization tend to listen to others who have; mine is no isolated instance; it’s a systemic situation.

This is relevant history to current history, on its course.   Don’t we want to know who helped set what in motion, and how?  Particularly when history tends to run over the very families (and economy) it is pretending — or purporting — to help?

Normally, this subject matter wouldn’t be on my radar.  It only got there when I demanded a reasonable explanation for a clear double-standard based on gender in what I assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) to be courts of law, i.e., “family courts.”   Of course my opposite gender’s proponents have been saying for decades that these courts are biased against THEIR gender, and must be adjusted to compensate.  They have now (far’s I can tell) been saying this with impunity for FAR too long.

SO — in some detail, and FYI  —

PRWORA 1996, DRA  2005, ARRA 2009 and 2010 Claims Resolution Act.  Slippery slope to evolving definitions of welfare and child support enforcement – incremental tipping of the purposes of TANF from Purpose #1

(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives

towards Purpose #4 — and then expanding the application of Purpose #4 beyond anyone who might have actually needed the resources from Purpose #1.

(4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. . . .

We are in the new millennium, which kicked off (after surviving the Y2K scare) pretty much with a possibly stolen election, and a King in the form of a President.  Kings, as their manner is, like to rewrite laws, restrict civil liberties, protect their cronies, equate their causes with “godly” causes, and protect THEIR, not the People’s Interest.  Such was definitely true the moment G. W. Bush took office in 2001, being sworn in to office under the same oath as previous Presidents.

The way was paved before him with 1996 Welfare Reform, which granted to states, allegedly, some of the co-dependent power it took from them, by allowing them “flexibility” (Block grants to states for TANF / welfare) to better address the needs of their citizens and reduce the welfare caseload.  If you are not “up” on this then research it some.  Center on Budget & Policy Priorities gives a brief recap.  These are good basic readings if you are, say, living and working in the United States.  Even if you are not doing this as a legal resident, or permanently, it may potentially affect situations such as were found in Seal Beach, California, when the father of a little boy, having 56% custody (despite prior violence, threats, and significant issues that would otherwise alert a reasonable person to danger) — being an ex-Marine — walked into a beauty salon with guns (and a bulletproof vest) and “offed” 6 people in the room (starting with a man, then his wife, then everyone else in there — a 73 yr old mother I heard survived serious wounds — and, who knows why, another innocent man sitting in a parked vehicle outside.  The joint custody policy comes from a combination of groups such as AFCC/CRC AND policies such as set in welfare reform.   These are not isolated incidences; they are recurring incidents (with more or less victims depending on circumstances) and their occurrences has not modified either welfare reform, or AFCC/CRC policy and agenda one whit, that I can see.  So, as a US resident, you will at some level be both funding these policies — and paying for clean up.   This is what we get for not paying closer attention to our legislatures, and doing WHATEVER is necessary to make time to do so, where at all possible!

From the “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities” whose board includes a person from the Brookings Institute, the Urban Institute (and Marian Wright Edelman of Children’s Defense Fund).  This nonprofit was founded in 1981, it says, and focuses on policies regarding low-income families, among other things.  I may not agree with all the viewpoints, but this outlines some of the facts:

They are going to detail some points about 1996 PRWORA, 2005 DRA, 2009 ARRA, and (let’s not forget the most recent, although I don’t know if this details), 2010 Claims Resolution Act

Sooner or later, (I hope), the public is going to wake up and ask just WHAT is its Congress authorizing when it comes to promoting marriage and fatherhood, and taking away from the original purpose of “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), or even the original purpose of TANF (aid to needy families), let alone the original purpose of the Child SUpport Enforcement (which was, child support enforcement).  Whatever the original purposes were — it’s clear which direction things are heading — which expansion of purposes, programs, and applications, and undermining of the ORIGINAL concept to a more circuitous, theory-based concept of how to help feed hungry children, and adult caretakers (including, like, parents?!)  in the households where they live, in America.

Policy Basics — an Introduction to TANF

What Is TANF?

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a block grant created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as part of a federal effort to “end welfare as we know it.” The TANF block grant replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which had provided cash welfare to poor families with children since 1935.

Under the TANF structure, the federal government provides a block grant to the states, which use these funds to operate their own programs. States can use TANF dollars in ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” . . .

The law that created the TANF block grant initially authorized funding through the end of federal fiscal year 2002. After several short-term extensions, Congress reauthorized TANF in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and made some modifications to the program;**TANF is now authorized through the end of federal fiscal year 2011 (September 30, 2011).

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

States have broad discretion to determine who is eligible for various TANF and MOE-funded benefits and services. In general, states must use the funds to serve families with children, with the only exceptions related to efforts to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote marriage . .

. . .

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

The basic TANF block grant has been set at $16.6 billion since it was established in 1996. As a result, the real value of the block grant has already fallen by about 28 percent.

The 1996 law also created supplemental grants for 17 states with high population growth or low block grant allocations relative to their needy population, as well as a contingency fund to help states weather a recession.** Congress regularly extended these supplemental grants, but the most recent extension covered only three of the four quarters of federal fiscal year 2011, and these grants expired July 1, 2011. This year represents the first time since 1996 that Congress has not fully funded the supplemental grants.

As noted above, states must spend state funds on programs for needy families as a condition of receiving the federal TANF block grant.

(Notice the #1 goal.  However, in Oklahoma, Ohio, other states, the emphasis was on goals 4, 3, 2 & 1, in approximate order, as shown by their policies.  I have blogged on the “OMI” before.

Apparently the DRA (2005) allowed states to categorize “MOE” expenses to NON-needy families (this is a footnote to a 2007 CRS report by the same person, Mr. Gene Falk):

 FN 15 Prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) MOE funds used to achieve TANF’s family formation goals were restricted to expenditures on “needy” families with children. The DRA had a provision that allows a state’s total expenditure on activities to achieve these goals to be counted without regard to a family’s need. However, HHS regulations issued on February 5, 2008, limit MOE expenditures related to the family formation goals except for activities related to promoting healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. (See Appendix, “Families Considered “Engaged in Work” (the Numerator of the Participation Rate)” later in this report for a listing of these activities. For a discussion of this regulatory provision, see Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 24, p. 6517-6318.

THIS, friends, is how one can encounter divorce or custody cases in which one side is a millionaire, but still benefitting from the priorities these programs set up in the courtroom, i.e. promoting more noncustodial (meaning father) parenting time by means of — supervised visitation, counseling, mediation, parent education, etc.  Court-referrals..

Using Federal TANF Grants

Federal TANF grants may be used for a wide range of benefits and services for families with children. Grants may be used within a state TANF program or transferred to either the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF, the “child care block grant”) or the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Unused TANF funds can also be reserved (saved), without fiscal year limit.12

FN12 Before the enactment of the ARRA, reserved funds could only be used for the purpose of providing “assistance” (often, cash welfare). The ARRA eliminated this restriction to the use of reserve funds, so that reserve funds can be used to provide any allowed TANF benefit or service.

**what Oklahoma did with its contingency fund, and other states (or certain appointees in other states) seem to like this model.  The ACF/HHS site mentions Oklahoma Marriage Initiative  as a model of how to use MOE funds, after first asserting that:

Healthy marriages are vitally important to the long term well-being of children. Beyond the economic advantages important for supporting children, the experiences and examples shown to children being raised by parents who enjoy a loving and long-term commitment yields tremendous developmental benefits for children. Forming and sustaining a happy and healthy marriage requires, in part, good fortune and, in larger part, parents possessing the knowledge and commitment to exercise healthy relationship skills that form the basis of healthy marriages.

(From the Director of HHS’s Office of Family Assistance, year, 2004.)

Certainly inherited wealth, circumstances of birth including where and to whom — have little to do with this; really, it’s about skills moreso.  Therefore, forget those other factors, let’s focus on the “healthy relationship skills” Well said, from an organization that distributes, but apparently doesn’t track too well, the funds!

Since the inception of PRWORA, Oklahoma has capitalized on the flexibility of TANF funds by investing $10 million in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). OMI was established under the third and fourth statutory purposes of TANF. OMI currently delivers marriage and relationship training statewide through social service systems, educational systems and volunteer organizations. Participants access training in diverse settings such as workforce development classes, high schools, military bases, prisons, first time offender programs, churches, universities and many more. In 2003, Oklahoma reported{{who checked??}}  that 938 workshops were conducted, serving 1,250 participants and training 1,200 individuals to provide future workshops. For additional information on Oklahoma’s Marriage Initiative please visit:http://www.okmarriage.org/services/healthyrelationships.asp

As I blogged before, the Governor of Oklahoma pushed this one from the top, with help from “expert speakers” and the head of his HHS, who pointed out there was TANF money sitting around.

The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way [in Oklahoma!] for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

(Child abuse, of course doesn’t happen within marriages, and abuse of one’s kids is not a cause of divorce.) Then “Governor and First Lady’s (day-long) Conference on Marriage” with speaker..

(See, as recounted on a “smartmarriages.com” list-serv in 1999, how Gary Smalley & Wade Horn of the NFI were there…”Marriages must be strengthened for the sake of America’s children”

…

Theodora Ooms with the Family Impact Seminar in Washington
D.C. called the marriage conference historic. "You are pioneers here in
Oklahoma. I have been trying for ten years in Washington D.C. to get this
on the agenda and get some money to work on this issue and no one in
Washington will talk about it.

The Conference also included breakout sessions with attendees discussing
how the various sectors can work together and how government policy can
also impact the success of marriages. Among the items discussed:

Tax laws-possibly eliminating marriage penalty
Possible repeal of no fault divorce
Public education- emphasize the positive aspects of marriage to young people
  • Covenant marriages
  • Emphasis on premarital counseling, possibly even legally requiring it
  • Making laws more “family friendly”
  • e laws
  • The Governor and First Lady¼s Conference on Marriage was facilitated by
  • Jerry Regier, the Governor¼s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human
  • Services. It was privately funded by several groups and individuals,
including the Burbridge Foundation and the Baptist General Convention.

Good grief.   the Baptist General Convention got with the Governor and helped propose taking welfare funds to promote marriage,

since their own Sunday Sermons weren’t persuasive enough?  That’s “ripe.”

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 1:

Burbridge Foundation, I’m going to look up, obviously.  From “TheLostOgle.com” (apparently some Oklahomans having some fund poking fun at their state, although I note, “*.com”)  This foundation was #93 on the top 100 most embarrassing things about Oklahoma (from 2007, its centenary?):

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

Posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 under Best of OKC, Dean Blevins, OKC Music,Oklahoma City Alumni, Oklahoma City Media, Oklahoma City Radio, The Sports Animal,Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments by Tony

For the eight of you out there who didn’t realize it, 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the state of Oklahoma. To mark this, various publications around the state have been featuring all sorts of Top 100 lists that have provoked virtually no controversy and have not been talked about at the water cooler. In fact, we’ve heard so little discussion about these lists that we wonder if anyone is actually reading them. We sure don’t.

It does seem, though, that the focus has been on the more positive elements of Oklahoma. While we celebrate those things just like the rest of the world, it seems wrong to ignore the more humiliating aspects of the state of Oklahoma. Naturally, we’re here to fill that void, in this ten-part series that will run every Monday. Today, numbers 91 through 100 of Oklahoma’s Biggest Embarrassments..

. . .

93. Bobbie Burbridge Lane

Those commercials for the Burbridge foundation are possibly the most annoying thing on local radio, which is saying something. When listening to Burbridge Lane lecture us about pornography or religion being taken out of public schools or whatever the pet issue of the day is, we’re convinced that Burbridge Lane wants to return the United States to the 1950′s, which probably sucked really bad. 

There’s usually some truth on the heels of humor, and this one rings true:

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 2:  Could THIS be why The Burbridge Foundation is so big on Marriage (dates to 1974).

(read for comic relief): (from “law.justia.com”)

496 F.2d 326: The Burbridge Foundation, Inc., Appellant,

v. Reinholdt & Gardner et al., Appellees

Robert E. Hornberger, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.

G. Alan Wooten, Harper, Young & Smith, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. – 496 F.2d 326

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

. . .(The present suit is basically an action in rem seeking relinquishment of certain stocks held by the stakeholders, Reinholdt & Gardner. The Foundation’s memorandum in the trial court stated that ‘the relief specifically sought is the return and delivery to The Burbridge Foundation of its stock deposited with that defendant (Reinholdt & Gardner). …

Upon registry of a personal judgment arising from a divorce decree, Velma Jean Holloway, formerly Velma Jean Burbridge, obtained a writ of garnishment from the Chancery Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, against Reinholdt & Gardner, a stock brokerage firm, to attach any stocks belonging to her former husband, R. O. Burbridge. The brokerage firm denied holding any stock in Burbridge’s name, but admitted it had an account in the name of The Burbridge Foundation. The Burbridge Foundation intervened in the state court proceedings. Shortly thereafter, The Foundation brought suit in the federal district court against Reinholdt & Gardner, seeking recovery of the stocks. In its complaint, The Foundation made the same allegations it raised as intervenor in state court, i.e., that the stocks belonged to it and not R. O. Burbridge personally. In addition The Foundation for the first time asserted that the Arkansas garnishment statute was unconstitutional in that it sought to deprive The Foundation of its property without due process of law.1 Reinholdt & Gardner answered that it could not relinquish the stocks until ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Holloways2 intervened in the federal action and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Burbridge Foundation appeal.  (and apparently lost).

(SMILE): [2]Russell B. Holloway was the divorce attorney for Velma Jean Burbridge (now Holloway) and was awarded $12,000 in attorney’s fees. He was also a party to the state garnishment suit
So, Velma Jean divorced Mr. Burbridge, eventually married her divorce attorney, and seems to have gotten some of his stock, too, this being 1974;
So in 2000, here is this Burbridge Foundation sponsoring a let’s support marriage (and potentially institute covenant marriage / eliminate no-fault divorce, etc.) in Oklahoma.  Moral:  There is usually a back story to most public policy, somewhere . ..   and more than not, based in someone’s personal issues.  But wealth & power tends to think large (how do we think they got wealthy & powerful in the first place?), and the rest of the world should conform to their  theories…

BURBRIDGE INFO (Random, from internet) PART 3:   Self-description on website:

The Burbridge Foundation is a Christian foundation dedicated to working solutions to problems impacting our families and our culture. We do this by bringing public awareness to these problems, by working alongside other faiths and concerned citizens interested in strengthening the fabric of our community character, and by providing leadership support to organizations of like vision.

Is sponsoring a meeting/conference with the Governor which then results in him intentionally bypassing the Legislator to get this Marriage Promotion Process going — “Christian”??

From OMI site:

  • Governor Keating was aware that his support of a marriage promotion agenda was controversial and would not be immediately popular.
  • As evidence of his serious commitment to this issue, Keating put his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, in charge of developing a plan of action for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.  (after committing funds from HHS)  In addition, Public Strategies (PSI), a small public affairs/public relations firm, was awarded a project management bid and, from the beginning, national experts advised various aspects of the Initiative. {{We showed who some of these were, including Wade Horn of National Fatherhood Initiative}} This leadership outlined the main themes and components of the OMI. They deliberately decided not to appoint a Commission to “study” the issues, nor did they propose a legislative package of reforms. 

At the legislative level, they might have faced a fight, and been forced to justify — TO OKLAHOMA RESIDENTS — the diversion of TANF emergency funds to marriage promotion!

I looked up Jerry Regier, and Voice of Freedom (albeit a gay rights publication?) says “Gov. Bush’s Appointment Of Jerry Regier For The Dept Of Children & Families Is More Than A Right-Wing Extremist; He Leaves A Record Of Increased Child Abuse & Neglect” (apparently from OK he was going — courtesy of the brother of then-President George Bush — to FL).  Look at the commentary: (color:  TEAL)

And what we found is not good for the children and families of Florida. Here is what Oklahoma Governor did not tell Jeb:

August 24, 1999: Secretary for Health and Human Services Jerry Regier is violating both the spirit and the letter of a new state law in his zeal to hasten the downsizing of Eastern State Hospital in Vinita

Sept. 20, 2000: Health and Human Services Secretary Jerry Regier is trying to dodge responsibility for recent problems

April 11, 2001: Associate Press: State Office of Juvenile Affairs charged the state and federal government $1.2 million more than it was eligible to receive during a period of 19 months. Jerry Regier, secretary of HHS, said that once a program is in place, an acceptable error rate would probably be 5 percent or less. Last fiscal year, Oklahoma County had an error rate of 59.2 percent. Tulsa County’s error rate was 26 percent

April 12, 2001: Regier Skirts Competitive Bidding Laws – A controversial political consultant was awarded more than $1.2 million in state contracts without having to compete for the business, according to state records.

(this seems to be a hallmark of certain faith-based groups; I’m thinking of the Governor’s Office of Faith-Based (whatnots) in Ohio, re:  Krista Sisterhen.  It’s all over the web; she was there 2003-2006; eliminated otherwise qualified groups to get a contract to a group (formed only in 2000 and not in-state) called “WeCare” which then screwed up.  And — had ties to Bush Administration. )

Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Fact Book 2001:
     Reveals that 2 key benchmarks tracked worsened when compared to data from a dozen years ago:

  • Child abuse & neglect
  • More than fifteen thousand (15,518) are abused or neglected
  • More than two hundred thousand (210,470) Oklahoma children live in poverty an increase since 1998 (Regier took office in 1997)
    This brief synopsis points to an administrator whose track record is not favorable for the task at hand. Although he received honors as a good administrator, the fact that child neglect and abuse increased while he was HHS Director demonstrates a lack for a sense of priorities, in this case the welfare of our children. Florida does not need more scandal; downsizing or political mismanagement in the Department of Children and Families, Regier has got to go! 

By

  • Initial activities were funded with private foundation monies and discretionary state dollars. Howard Hendrick, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director, pointed out that using TANF monies to fund the initiative fit within the intent of the family formation goals of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. {{YES — as I said, of the four purposes, it as purpose #4 only}} The DHS Board set aside $10 million of undedicated TANF funds for OMI activities. The funds were earmarked primarily for developing marriage-related services, and leaders acknowledged that efforts should be made to make them available to low-income populations.

TANF was at this time FOR low-income populations.   FOR helping children be cared for in their own households, as much as possible.  For leaders to say “well TRY to offer them to low-income populations” while targeting the entire state of Oklahoma — NOT the needy populations  (not all of who is poor, but obviously many of who have been divorcing) is OFF-purpose.   $10 million is a LOT of money to set aside, to some families.  How many mouths would’ve been fed, for sacrifice of rhetoric?

  • Thus, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative was launched and has grown to become the broad-based social service prevention project that it is today.

More on REGIER — guess where he was in December 2006?  Sitting as “US Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC 20201

Jerry Regier, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation” {{ASPE == a Program Office or OpDiv of HHS }}and writing a glowing recommendation of the OMI.  In this brochure (which has his name on it), it says that Jerry Regier — as Cabinet Head of HHS — prodeed the Governotr to get this started, citing specifically 1996 TANF reform.  The economic studies were secondary…. 

Nearly eight years ago, Oklahoma’s then-Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, encouraged then-Governor Frank Keating to take action to strengthen Oklahoma’s families, in response to emerging research and the increased emphasis on two- parent families in the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation.

So the REAL question is — where was Regier before this, and how did he get to be in the Cabinet Position in Oklahoma?

This Brief is a good (short read) showing that when the TANF-Reformers come to town (carrying NFI-ideas), they are going to force system change.  For example, the system change in Oklahoma was definitely focused on pushing MARRIAGE to people from ALL sectors of life — not alleviating poverty and helping poor or needy families.  Moreover, there was a connection somehow, to the Denver Crowd (who produced PREP).

The brief comes right from ACF.HHS.GOV/healthy marriage site. In the flow chart, a central square reads ” PRIORITY 2:”  BUILD DEMAND FOR SERVICES”

and from that, arrows to 3 boxes, the top one of which reads:  “TRAIN AGENCIES (like child support!) TO MAKE REFERRALS”

OK (I think I have it).  First, Jerry Regier was formerly president of the ultraconservative “Family Research Council” prior to Oklahoma

But this report (2004) from Florida — where it seems he went next — is scathing, and — in short — read it.    I can’t say it more emphatically.

  • How could Bush not have seen this mess coming? Regier was a GOP party
    hack in Oklahoma with an undistinguished track record in the family
    services bureaucracy. An ultraconservative Christian, his byline had
    turned up on two published papers that espoused spanking kids, even if
    it caused “welts and bruises.”
A scalding report by the governor’s chief inspector general has
revealed that high-ranking DCF officials handed out fat and dubious
contracts to pals and political cronies, and accepted gifts, favors
and lodging from outside contractors.

As a result, three of Regier’s top administrators have quit, and
Regier himself has been reduced to defending his own outrageous
socializing with a DCF contractor.

It’s much more than the mere “appearance of impropriety.” It is the
greedy, rotten essence of impropriety — profiteering at the expense of
Florida’s neediest and most vulnerable children.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have been spent hiring
more caseworkers and investigators were instead doled out to
well-connected firms as part of Regier’s rush to “privatize”
child-welfare services.

In recent weeks, the Miami Herald’s Carol Marbin Miller has documented
the DCF gravy train in infuriating detail. A few of the lowlights:

  • —A $21 million contract to fix DCF’s computer system was awarded to
  • American Management Services, although another company had been ranked
  • first after the initial screening process.
  • The lobbyist for American Management happened to be Greg Coler, a
  • former chief of the state child-welfare agency and a close friend of
  • Regier. Sitting on American Management’s board of directors was former
  • Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating — the man who recommended Regier for the
  • DCF job in Florida.

—DCF Deputy Secretary Ben Harris gave out a $500,000 no-bid contract,
split between two of his friends, for computer ‘‘kiosks’’ that
dispense food stamps.

ACTUALLY — WIKIPEDIA pretty much lays it out.  Jerry Regier worked for the elder Bush administration.  Best read in sequence:  (and I now have a 20,000 word post, too….)

Includes this section:

Family Research Council

Regier, in cooperation with Dr. James Dobson, founded the Family Research Council, a conservative, Christian right group and lobbying organization, in 1983. Regier served as that organization’s first President from 1984 until 1988. Gary Bauer, a domestic policy advisor under President Ronald Reagan, succeeded Regier as President.

Federal government career

President Ronald Reagan appointed Regier in 1988 to the National Commission on Children, an advisory body in the United States Department of Health and Human Services on children’s issues. Reagan’s successor,George H.W. Bush, reappointed Regier in 1991. Regier continued to serve on the Commission until 1993.

(SIGH — I looked up “Family Research Council” and found among its board members, the mother of the man tied to Blackwater, and a board member of

The Council on National Policy among other things — here it goes, a 2008 “Muckety Site” (visual diagram of relationships).  This relates to tracking down a single person influential in starting

the “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative” (Jerry Regier), learning of his former Bush & FRC connections, and looking up FRC.  WHich just goes to show, when is it time to stop!?)

Story by Laura Bennett, Oct. 2008, posted at “Muckety” under “Erik Prince’s Mom gives $450,000 to stop same-sex marriage in California“

I’m less concerned about that than the Blackwater connection, who else this woman is funding.  See Diagram:

Focus on the Family (one of the followers) figured in my life personally, exacerbating already virulent abuse, to the point that I ended up quitting a FT night job, that had been supporting our family.  I’m talking WHILE I was married.  My husband loved James Dobson, and listened to his stuff also

Speaking as a heterosexual Christian — I don’t know WHO these guys are — they do not do a resemblance of what I see in the Bible; and in person, and in influence are virtually terroristic to women.  If I’d NOT been a Christian, I’d probably have bailed out of the marriage much faster — and this might (not sure, but MIGHT) have been better for our kids.  When I hear WHO is behind some of these groups (years later) it somewhat validates the personal experiences (not mine only) that they are essentially domestic terrorists — unless one submits willingly.

Two Voices from a while back warn us on this movement:  Patricia Ireland, (NOW) and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Both are responding to the Promise Keepers’ “Stand in the Gap” rally on the Washington Mall.  Listen to them!  ”

We are talking, 1997!….(I don’t have the date of Rev. Jesse Jackson’s speech).

Recently, hundreds of thousands of religious American males were on display at the Promise Keepers‘ “Stand In The Gap” rally in the nation’s capitol. What could possibly be wrong with men bonding, praying and pledging to be better Christians, with the goal of becoming better and more responsible husbands and fathers, and active in their local church? Nothing that I can see.

There is certainly nothing wrong with men exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to enjoy the freedoms of speech and religion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging that we have done wrong, we recognize our weaknesses,confess our sins before God and the public and vow, with God’s help, to change our ways, to do better and to be better men in the future. The genuineness and validity of the religious experience for any of the participants, and any long-range good that comes from it, must be affirmed and respected.

There is nothing wrong with any of that, if that’s all there is to it.

(and he goes to accurately characterize the group):

Women now want to be priests, pastors and preach in pulpits. These demands come from a feminist and womanist theology and biblical interpretation born of experiences of denial and oppression from conservative and non-liberating Christian men.

As Christians, we all read the same Bible, but our biblical interpretations are born of our varied life experiences. It was Martin Luther’s experiences with Roman Catholicism that led to a critique (95 Theses) that began the Protestant Reformation. Similar experiences have led to modern critiques and new interpretive contributions of scripture and theology that run all the way from the birth of our nation — a theology that gave us a liberal democratic and constitutionally-based government to replace a traditional, conservative and God-based Monarchy— to a Latin American-oriented liberation theology; to an African American-originated “Black” theology; to a female-led feminist and womanist theology; to a gay and lesbian theology; all of which respect all religions, advocate for human rights and equal protection under the law for all regardless of race, national origin, sex or sexual orientation, and all of which are liberation theologies reflecting a God of the oppressed.

The Promise Keepers deny the legitimacy of most, if not all, of these theological and biblical interpretations that have grown out of experiences of oppression, and resent our commitment to not go back –theologically, biblically, socially, politically or culturally.

QUITE FRANKLY — this is where a lot of “Christian Domestic Violence” (contradiction in terms – the false term there is “Christian”) comes from — it is an outraged insistence on previously inherent male dominance.  Enforced physically and all other kinds of ways, and acknowledged by the male bonding in surrounding institutions, and well-tamed females in them also.  This is why I no longer frequent — or even darken the door of — churches, if I can help it.  Maybe for a music event — not for worship, not for socializing, and not for any form of support.  Life is too short.

That which, in the past, has been identified as “religious” and “Christian” has not always been liberating and quite often has been oppressive. In South Africa it was the Dutch Reformed Christian Church that provided the religious foundation for apartheid. In the United States’ South it was the Southern Baptists and other mainline churches that practiced and theologically justified slavery and Jim Crow. The Ku Klux Klan identifies itself as a Christian organization. It was white Christian ministers who attacked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Birmingham, Alabama for fighting racism that brought forth his “Letter From A Birmingham Jail.” At our foundation, good Christian men owned slaves and defined African Americans as three-fifths human in our Constitution, they committed genocide against Native Americans and stole their land, and they denied women the right to vote. In Congress today,many who call themselves religious and Christian, vote against laws to provide food, health care, housing, jobs, education and an equalopportunity to millions of Americans. There’s an old Negro Spiritual that speaks to this point. It says, “Everybody talkin’ ’bout heaven ain’t goin’ there.”

The Promise Keepers’ answer to that very real problem is not to look to the future with hope and confidence, confronting the changes needed and reinterpreting male identity in terms of gender equality. Instead, Promise Keepers try to give men identity and, therefore, security, by returning to a familiar past. Their preaching and teaching, mostly subliminal, though not exclusively so, was to reveal a fear of that future. The Promise Keeper answer is to retreat and recapture this biblical past.

SO NOW HERE COMES THIS REVELATION — OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN FOCUS ON THE FAMILY (Types) and BLACKWATER.  I  can’t say I’m really surprised.

And I do believe — especially seeing the Bush/Regier/OMI/FRC (etc.) connections that when we are looking at any Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood grant, program, or initiative — even though there may be innocent and sincere participants — this is the essence of what we are seeing — which is the intent to dominate, control, force to submit, and (this being a necessary means to dominate in a country with a Bill of Rights — to force institutions to line up, removing the due process and civil rights, permanently.

(to be continued)

(ELSA PRINCE) Broekhuizen is the mother of Erik D. Prince, founder of Blackwater Worldwide, the controversial operation that provides security services to federal officials in Iraq and other countries. Her daughter, Betsy DeVos, is a former Michigan GOP chair and wife of failed gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos.

Broekhuizen’s first husband, Edgar, founded an auto parts company that was sold after his death for $1.4 billion. She later married her pastor, Ren Broekhuizen.

An assistant told the Grand Rapids Press that Broekhuizen gave to the campaign because the issue is “very important to her. It’s near and dear to her heart. She likes to give from her heart and not for public recognition.”

Broekhuizen heads the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, which had assets of more than $42 million in 2006 (the last year for which tax returns are publicly available). The foundation and Broekhuizen personally are longtime supporters of religious organizations and conservative political groups such as the Haggai Institute, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.

BURBRIDGE FOUNDATION — A CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION — helped this happen, then.  Make a note of it, because this was wrong!

We continue to work across the country with individuals and organizations combating the scourge of pornography – a deadly and often underestimated cancer assaulting the family. For information on the “WRAP Campaign” and other information on fighting porn go to www.moralityinmedia.org.

Our current effort focuses on Christian leadership development. In 2007, we reached out to several Oklahoma City Christian lay leaders with a vision for the creation of “salt and light leadership training” to leaders of this and other cities. This has now become the “SALLT Fellowship” which can be found at www.saltandlightleadership.com.

Soli Deo Gloria  (Latin: to God only be Glory; JS Bach used to sign his manuscripts with this, hear tell)

“We are not a direct grant-giving organization.”
Also at the same street address is “Character First”

Our Approach

Character First is a professional development and character education program that is delivered many ways—training seminars, books, magazines, curriculum, email—that focus on real-life issues at work, school, home, and the community.

Gee, then why might they NOT sponsor such a conference with the Governor on curriculum-based ways to strengthen marriages?

Communities & Character Councils

Character First works with government leaders and community organizations around the world who want to promote character on a local basis.

[[website says “Character First” began in 1992 at an Oil & Gas-servicing company called “Kimray”]]

To do this, many communities form a “Character Council” (often a non-profit, non-religious charitable organization) to promote character in all sectors of a community—including business, government, education, law enforcement, media, the faith community, and families.

The following communities have taken various steps toward promoting character, such as passing resolutions, forming character councils, implementing Character First, and organizing special events.

AND also at this address (3rd organization):
Strata Leadership, LLC is a small consulting firm located in Edmond, Oklahoma focused on helping individuals and organizations succeed.

Strata Leadership, LLC.

And here is where we see some Dispute Resolution background, familiar in the anti-divorce courtrooms around AFCC personnel as well:

hrough Strata’s partnerships with other organizations such as Character First!, our team consists of nearly 15 full-time employees.  Strata is led by our executive leadership team of Strata President, Dr. Nathan Mellor and Executive Vice-President, Wayne Whitesell.

[Photo of young-looking Caucasian guy]

Dr. Nathan Mellor is a co-owner and president of Strata.  He is a popular speaker who makes 125-175 presentations per year across America and around the globe.  He has spoken in over  states and in countries such as: Australia, Belize, Guyana, Jordan, Mexico, Russia and Rwanda.

Dr. Mellor holds the Bachelor of Arts (BA) and the Master of Science in Education (MSE) degrees fromHarding University. He earned the Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR) degree from the Pepperdine University School of Law – Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Doctor of Education (EDD) in Organizational Leadership degree from Pepperdine University.

STrata’s Partners (at least 2 at the same address):

Strata is proud to partner with and promote the work of the following friends:

Copyright © 2009 Strata Leadership, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Products — pricey!

The “other” sponsors of the Governor and First Lady’s year 2000 Conference are not mentioned, but I think we get the general idea…

Choice quote:

Even with a lack of comprehensive data about why the problem exists, the research information clearly demonstrates that something must be done. (: (:
OK -- just DO something -- and afterwards, maybe, look for actual cause & effect connections....  "Lack of Comprehensive Data"
* According to data provided by the CDC, Oklahoma has the 2nd highest
divorce rate in the nation, by state of residence.
   Only Arkansas has a worse divorce rate.
- Only 14% of white women who married in the early 1940's eventually
divorced, whereas almost half of white women who married in the late
1960's and early 1970's have already become divorced. For African-American
women, the figures are 18% and nearly 60%
Presumably some men, then, also divorced.  Any stats about them??  Go figures -- a NFI participatory event is going to
talk about the women! (behind their backs, too).

It’s Oklahoma!  Notice, the emphasis on divorce rate, by race.   …   Here, amazingly, is the 2002 Testimony of that Director of HHS for OK:

United State Senate Finance Committee Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:00 A.M.

Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families

Testimony of Howard H. Hendrick Oklahoma Cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services and Director, Oklahoma Deparment of Human Services

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing today to share the genesis and status of Oklahoma’s strategy to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce. In Oklahoma, we are spending TANF funds for this purpose because the research clearly shows that child well-being is enhanced when children are reared in two parent families where the parents have a low conflict marriage. …

(Governor Keating):   He hosted the nation’’s first ““Governor and First Lady’’s Conference on Marriage”” in March, of 1999. Based on the information learned there, Oklahoma’’s Marriage Initiative was launched. The Governor took key steps to ensure that the goal of reducing divorce and strengthening marriage was more than simply a political statement. Specifically the governor:

␣ Took the bold step of setting a specific, measurable goal – to reduce divorce in Oklahoma by 1/3 by the year 2010.

Question:  What right does any Governor have to even TRY and do this?  (Notice, by this time both houses of US Congress had already voted National Resolutions to Support Fatherhood:  1998, 1999).  By 2002, they had already chosen a curriculum, “PREP(r).”  This curriculum, well — as 2002 testimony says:

We selected PREP® (the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program) as the state’’s curriculum because of its research basis and its evaluation record. It is a curriculum that has been used in the military for many years. PREP can be tailored to a variety of constituencies and the long-term efficacy of the twelve hours of education has been validated in a variety of research settings.

We are presently in the training stage of implementing the service delivery system. These skills are beginning to be offered in workshops throughout Oklahoma. The training includes identifying substance abuse risks and presentations by the Oklahoma Coalition against Domestic Violence. . .

(Concluding statement):

Based on what we’’ve learned so far, we continue to support the use of TANF funds to fund activities that strengthen families by growing healthy marriages.

GROWING HEALTHY MARRIAGES?  Then, literally, they are farming their populace — which is objectionable!

The input of “Theodore Ooms” of “Family Impact Seminars” was noted.  Here is the “Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars (PINFIS).  “Surprisingly” it is funded by many of the responsible fatherhood grantees I have come to recognize over the years, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation:

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars aims to strengthen family policy by connecting state policymakers with research knowledge and researchers with policy knowledge. The Institute provides nonpartisan, solution-oriented research and a family impact perspective on issues being debated in state legislatures. We provide technical assistance to and facilitate dialogue among professionals conducting Family Impact Seminars in 28 sites across the country. If you are a PINFIS Affiliate, please click here to login.

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars is currently funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the William T. Grant Foundation. Past supporters include the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Copyright © 1993-2011. Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.

26 States + D.C. get seminars from this Wisconsin-based (presumably nonprofit) group based at UW-Madison/Extension.  “The Seminars target state policymakers, including legislators, legislative aides, governor’s office staff, legislative service agency staff, and agency representatives. The traditional format of the 2-hour seminars consists of three 20-minute presentations given by a panel of premier researchers, program directors, and policy analysts. For each seminar, discussion sessions are held and a background briefing report summarizes high-quality research on the issue in a succinct, easy-to-understand format.”

UMichigan reveals they’ve had 16 Family Impact Seminars since 2000— and that the Kellogg Foundation is helping them receive this also.  This 2000 report, on one page sites a survey of “9 barriers to employment that single mothers face” and doesn’t mention — domestic violence at all.  However, on page 17, in a page dedicated to Domestic Violence, the two authors note:

Background Data and Research

Families who experience domestic violence are often also victims of poverty. Studies examining the association between domestic violence and poverty have found:

• Of current welfare recipients in Michigan, 63% have experienced physical abuse and 51% have experienced severe physical abuse during their lifetimes[12].

• Physical abuse/being afraid of someone was cited as the primary cause of homelessness (in a survey of homeless adults in Michigan) [7].

• Half of homeless women and children report being victims of domestic violence [5,7].

AND,. . . . well, here is the rest of the page:

These barriers consist of:

• Psychological effects of domestic violence (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, or anxiety)

• Sabotage by the abuser (destroying homework assignments, disabling cars and alarm clocks, interference with child care efforts, or harassment at work)

• Manipulation by the abuser (leaving marks and/or bruises that prevent the woman from attending work or an interview, or undermining self-confidence

These employment barriers can lead to tardiness, absenteeism and lack of productivity. Research shows that between 23% and 42% affected by domestic violence report that the abuse had an impact on their work performance [4,5,12].

A study conducted by the University of Michigan suggests that domestic violence by itself is not a barrier to employment,** but that the more barriers one has, the more difficult it is to leave welfare for work [2]. Further research is needed on multiple barriers to employment resulting from domestic violence.

**personal.  True, it’s possible to work — at times, and as allowed by an abuser — with domestic violence.  I have done many things competently immediately after and immediately preceding devastating attacks, some physical, some threats, some involving threats to our children, and once even after they were removed illegally, overnight, and despite law enforcement having been alerted to the threat shortly (same season) before.  Yes it is possible, depending on the person and the relationship, to hold down a job or series of jobs and simply take the abuse at home going or coming.  But, over long-term, the violence does escalate, and a person has to take action on it.  And it DOES cut down on productivity.   It is also possible to work, and in a relationship, not be able to spend the proceeds from one’s own work on one’s kids’ welfare.  Also because work tends to empower women, with men threatened with that independence, it is sometimes a time of increased harm, as he’s torn between wanting the money from that work, but realizing that “his” woman is going to have some work relationships he may not be able to utterly control.

A recent study found that approximately 70% of domestic violence victims did not disclose the abuse to their TANF caseworkers [10]. The same study found that 75% of those that did reveal information about the violence did not receive the appropriate support or services. These results imply that without the proper services, many victims of domestic violence and their children are forced to return home to their abuser.

(from page “Domestic Violence and Poverty Deborah Satyanathan and Anna Pollack”)

In a climate (see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative) where the powers that be believe — or say they do — that it’s lack of marriage (and not really, violence in marriages or other forms of abuse impacting work & home life) causing poverty, the only alternative individuals have, who are caught up in that — is to request the state to honor its laws against such abuse.  If the state, based on ITS own decisions made with help from The National Fatherhood Initiative and others, based on their theories — chooses to overstep Executive Authority, as Governor Keating of OK specifically intended to, and did, do — then he just weakened the very state (as a member of states under the US Constitution — at least at some time in the past century or two, we were) in the name of “strengthening families.”

This Study quotes the “Center for Budget & Policy Priorities” I cite also for a TANF summary (above).  They cite 4 barriers to work, NONE of which applied to many of the women I knew in DV support groups in the 1990s and have known since (to this day) in custody battles for their children, in the 2000s, where judicial discretion wins the day, and judges sit on the boards of nonprofits taking business from access visitation and other TANF-funded activities!   This study from a group named in influencing the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, relates:

Four of the major barriers identified by analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities include [2]:

1. Little or no employment skills or education

2. Little or no prior work experience

3. Substandard housing conditions or lack of affordable housing

4. Having a child with special needs

I am sure these are relevant areas — but NOT for all families that are being driven ONTO (not helped OFF) TANF!  None of these applied to my case, nor many women I network with.  They are women (at least one, homeless), some have done jail time over failure to pay allotted child support (after being stay at home mothers, then forced to fight for custody), others have had to drop out of school; whatever it was they were doing in life — had to STOP to accommodate the machinery of the courts, and with activists and attorneys — neither of them — telling which end was up, until common sense said, those were poor answers (to the circumstances) and some began looking other places for rational explanations of the behavior of those making critical decisions about our lives and our kids.

It makes zero sense to at least acknowledge the role of DV in work sabotage, sometimes long-term, and not continue to insist that to receive help, someone absolutely needs coaching.  I had work experience AND degrees, and as it happens, many educated and/or professional women leaving abusive relationships, where part of this abuse was economic control under duress, did not need more “job skills.”  What we needed was quite different, namely a SAFETY ZONE with which to rebuild.   However, thanks to dynamics, and Governors like Governor Keating in OK, or any other Governor who is enabling some administrative or executive agency to undermine legal rights of the states’ citizens (regardless of race, gender but with regard to marital status), women like us, mothers innocent of child abuse or any criminal wrongdoing — have been literally destroyed and taken out of the work force, while the concept that somehow faith-based organizations give a damn, and deserve special-status red carpet in order to grab those grants and ram marriage & relationship education down peoples throats — and from a VERY narrow range of potential marketeers, several of who already receive federal funding to run demonstration studies on citizens in the military, in prison, on welfare, paying child support (or not, as case may be), in schools — and even in Head Start — to fine-tune how to produce THEIR desired result in society!

Public Strategies Inc. of Oklahoma continues to get its share — $2.5 million, this last round — of GRANTS (not just contracts) to do more of the same and expand it — as the situations in which TANF funds may be applied to form two-parent families continues to expand.  The OMI knew — from the start (Testimony in 2002 shows) that the curriculum of choice, PREP(r) was going to be used.

Notice who paid for that first “Governor and First Lady’s Conference.”

The phrase “low conflict” is typically an AFCC one.  Wonder what there input was here.

More — this is not a half-bad summary:

The amount states must spend is set at 80 percent of their 1994 contribution to AFDC-related programs. (In some cases this “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement can be reduced to 75 percent.) In 2009 states spent roughly $15 billion in state MOE funds. The amount states are required to spend (at the 80 percent level) in 2009 is about 45 percent below the amount they spent on AFDC-related programs in 1994, after adjusting for inflation.

* * *The Deficit Reduction Act also provided $100 million per year to support programs designed to promote healthy marriages.

When TANF was created in 1996, Congress provided $2 billion in a contingency fund; this fund was not used much until the current recession but a number of states have received contingency funds for one or more years between 2008 and 2011. The fund is now depleted and states only received partial allocations for 2010 and 2011. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act {{ARRA}} (sometimes referred to as the “stimulus” bill), Congress created a new and temporary Emergency Funddesigned to provide aid to states that see increases in assistance caseloads or certain program costs as they address the needs of families during the economic downturn. Congress appropriated $5 billion to this new Emergency Fund for 2009 and 2010 — by the time the fund expired in September 2010, the $5 billion had been fully used.

Another Summary, from CRS (Congressional Research Service), prepared in 2007 — this is an outline

However, money taken from the public, collected in the U.S. Treasury, and reallocated out from there, usually has strings attached.  The strings attached to the restructuring of the child support system (Title IV-D) were significant; i.e., states needed to centralize their child support distribution system, and they were blessed with access visitation grants from a $10 million/year pool, proportionate to some stipulations based on their population, by Congress somehow, and this could be maintained IF the states were GOOD boys and complied.

The states have NOT been complying, but they are still getting the money, so I am presuming that there is some mutual benefit involved between state and local government stakeholders.  By the way, the word “Stakeholder” never usually applies to the people most drastically affected by policies set by stakeholders — which is those not at the table when policies are set, and likely in need of the services being restructured, recirculated, reframed, and redirected.

We are in the new millennium, which kicked off (after surviving the Y2K scare) pretty much with a possibly stolen election, and a King in the form of a President.  Kings, as their manner is, like to rewrite laws, restrict civil liberties, protect their cronies, equate their causes with “godly” causes, and protect THEIR, not the People’s Interest.  Such was definitely true the moment G. W. Bush took office in 2001, being sworn in to office under the same oath as previous Presidents.

The way was paved before him with 1996 Welfare Reform, which granted to states, allegedly, some of the co-dependent power it took from them, by allowing them “flexibility” (Block grants to states for TANF / welfare) to better address the needs of their citizens and reduce the welfare caseload.  If you are not “up” on this then research it some.  Center on Budget & Policy Priorities gives a brief recap.  These are good basic readings if you are, say, living and working in the United States.  Even if you are not doing this as a legal resident, or permanently, it may potentially affect situations such as were found in Seal Beach, California, when the father of a little boy, having 56% custody (despite prior violence, threats, and significant issues that would otherwise alert a reasonable person to danger) — being an ex-Marine — walked into a beauty salon with guns (and a bulletproof vest) and “offed” 6 people in the room (starting with a man, then his wife, then everyone else in there — a 73 yr old mother I heard survived serious wounds — and, who knows why, another innocent man sitting in a parked vehicle outside.  The joint custody policy comes from a combination of groups such as AFCC/CRC AND policies such as set in welfare reform.   These are not isolated incidences; they are recurring incidents (with more or less victims depending on circumstances) and their occurrences has not modified either welfare reform, or AFCC/CRC policy and agenda one whit, that I can see.  So, as a US resident, you will at some level be both funding these policies — and paying for clean up.   This is what we get for not paying closer attention to our legislatures, and doing WHATEVER is necessary to make time to do so, where at all possible!

From the “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities” whose board includes a person from the Brookings Institute, the Urban Institute (and Marian Wright Edelman of Children’s Defense Fund).  This nonprofit was founded in 1981, it says, and focuses on policies regarding low-income families, among other things.  I may not agree with all the viewpoints, but this outlines some of the facts:

They are going to detail some points about 1996 PRWORA, 2005 DRA, 2009 ARRA, and (let’s not forget the most recent, although I don’t know if this details), 2010 Claims Resolution Act

Sooner or later, (I hope), the public is going to wake up and ask just WHAT is its Congress authorizing when it comes to promoting marriage and fatherhood, and taking away from the original purpose of “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), or even the original purpose of TANF (aid to needy families), let alone the original purpose of the Child SUpport Enforcement (which was, child support enforcement).  Whatever the original purposes were — it’s clear which direction things are heading — which expansion of purposes, programs, and applications, and undermining of the ORIGINAL concept to a more circuitous, theory-based concept of how to help feed hungry children, and adult caretakers (including, like, parents?!)  in the households where they live, in America.

Policy Basics — an Introduction to TANF

What Is TANF?

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a block grant created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as part of a federal effort to “end welfare as we know it.” The TANF block grant replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which had provided cash welfare to poor families with children since 1935.

Under the TANF structure, the federal government provides a block grant to the states, which use these funds to operate their own programs. States can use TANF dollars in ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” . . .

The law that created the TANF block grant initially authorized funding through the end of federal fiscal year 2002. After several short-term extensions, Congress reauthorized TANF in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and made some modifications to the program;**TANF is now authorized through the end of federal fiscal year 2011 (September 30, 2011).

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

States have broad discretion to determine who is eligible for various TANF and MOE-funded benefits and services. In general, states must use the funds to serve families with children, with the only exceptions related to efforts to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote marriage . .

. . .

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

The basic TANF block grant has been set at $16.6 billion since it was established in 1996. As a result, the real value of the block grant has already fallen by about 28 percent.

The 1996 law also created supplemental grants for 17 states with high population growth or low block grant allocations relative to their needy population, as well as a contingency fund to help states weather a recession.** Congress regularly extended these supplemental grants, but the most recent extension covered only three of the four quarters of federal fiscal year 2011, and these grants expired July 1, 2011. This year represents the first time since 1996 that Congress has not fully funded the supplemental grants.

As noted above, states must spend state funds on programs for needy families as a condition of receiving the federal TANF block grant.

(Notice the #1 goal.  However, in Oklahoma, Ohio, other states, the emphasis was on goals 4, 3, 2 & 1, in approximate order, as shown by their policies.  I have blogged on the “OMI” before.

Apparently the DRA (2005) allowed states to categorize “MOE” expenses to NON-needy families (this is a footnote to a 2007 CRS [Congressional Research Service — you see their bill summaries also at Thomas.loc.gov) report by the same person, Mr. Gene Falk, Social Policy Specialist):

 FN 15 Prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) MOE funds used to achieve TANF’s family formation goals were restricted to expenditures on “needy” families with children. The DRA had a provision that allows a state’s total expenditure on activities to achieve these goals to be counted without regard to a family’s need. However, HHS regulations issued on February 5, 2008, limit MOE expenditures related to the family formation goals except for activities related to promoting healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. (See Appendix, “Families Considered “Engaged in Work” (the Numerator of the Participation Rate)” later in this report for a listing of these activities. For a discussion of this regulatory provision, see Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 24, p. 6517-6318.

THIS, friends, is how one can encounter divorce or custody cases in which one side is a millionaire, but still benefitting from the priorities these programs set up in the courtroom, i.e. promoting more noncustodial (meaning father) parenting time by means of — supervised visitation, counseling, mediation, parent education, etc.  Court-referrals..

Using Federal TANF Grants

Federal TANF grants may be used for a wide range of benefits and services for families with children. Grants may be used within a state TANF program or transferred to either the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF, the “child care block grant”) or the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Unused TANF funds can also be reserved (saved), without fiscal year limit.12

FN12 Before the enactment of the ARRA, reserved funds could only be used for the purpose of providing “assistance” (often, cash welfare). The ARRA eliminated this restriction to the use of reserve funds, so that reserve funds can be used to provide any allowed TANF benefit or service.

**what Oklahoma did with its contingency fund, and other states (or certain appointees in other states) seem to like this model.  The ACF/HHS site mentions Oklahoma Marriage Initiative  as a model of how to use MOE funds, after first asserting that:

Healthy marriages are vitally important to the long term well-being of children. Beyond the economic advantages important for supporting children, the experiences and examples shown to children being raised by parents who enjoy a loving and long-term commitment yields tremendous developmental benefits for children. Forming and sustaining a happy and healthy marriage requires, in part, good fortune and, in larger part, parents possessing the knowledge and commitment to exercise healthy relationship skills that form the basis of healthy marriages.

(From the Director of HHS’s Office of Family Assistance, year, 2004.)

Certainly inherited wealth, circumstances of birth including where and to whom — have little to do with this; really, it’s about skills moreso.  Therefore, forget those other factors, let’s focus on the “healthy relationship skills” Well said, from an organization that distributes, but apparently doesn’t track too well, the funds!

Since the inception of PRWORA, Oklahoma has capitalized on the flexibility of TANF funds by investing $10 million in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). OMI was established under the third and fourth statutory purposes of TANF. OMI currently delivers marriage and relationship training statewide through social service systems, educational systems and volunteer organizations. Participants access training in diverse settings such as workforce development classes, high schools, military bases, prisons, first time offender programs, churches, universities and many more. In 2003, Oklahoma reported{{who checked??}}  that 938 workshops were conducted, serving 1,250 participants and training 1,200 individuals to provide future workshops. For additional information on Oklahoma’s Marriage Initiative please visit:http://www.okmarriage.org/services/healthyrelationships.asp

As I blogged before, the Governor of Oklahoma pushed this one from the top, with help from “expert speakers” and the head of his HHS, who pointed out there was TANF money sitting around.

The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way [in Oklahoma!] for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

(Child abuse, of course doesn’t happen within marriages, and abuse of one’s kids is not a cause of divorce.) Then “Governor and First Lady’s (day-long) Conference on Marriage” with speaker..

(See, as recounted on a “smartmarriages.com” list-serv in 1999, how Gary Smalley & Wade Horn of the NFI were there…”Marriages must be strengthened for the sake of America’s children”

…

Theodora Ooms with the Family Impact Seminar in Washington
D.C. called the marriage conference historic. "You are pioneers here in
Oklahoma. I have been trying for ten years in Washington D.C. to get this
on the agenda and get some money to work on this issue and no one in
Washington will talk about it.
The Conference also included breakout sessions with attendees discussing
how the various sectors can work together and how government policy can
also impact the success of marriages. Among the items discussed: 

Public education- emphasize the positive aspects of marriage to young
people
Covenant marriages
Emphasis on premarital counseling, possibly even legally requiring it
Making laws more "family friendly"
Tax laws-possibly eliminating marriage penalty
Possible repeal of no fault divorce laws 

The Governor and First Lady¼s Conference on Marriage was facilitated by
Jerry Regier, the Governor¼s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human
Services. It was privately funded by several groups and individuals,
including the Burbridge Foundation and the Baptist General Convention.

Good grief.   the Baptist General Convention got with the Governor and helped propose taking welfare funds to promote marriage,

since their own Sunday Sermons weren’t persuasive enough?  That’s “ripe.”

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 1:

Burbridge Foundation, I’m going to look up, obviously.  From “TheLostOgle.com” (apparently some Oklahomans having some fund poking fun at their state, although I note, “*.com”)  This foundation was #93 on the top 100 most embarrassing things about Oklahoma (from 2007, its centenary?):

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

Posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 under Best of OKC, Dean Blevins, OKC Music,Oklahoma City Alumni, Oklahoma City Media, Oklahoma City Radio, The Sports Animal,Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments by Tony

For the eight of you out there who didn’t realize it, 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the state of Oklahoma. To mark this, various publications around the state have been featuring all sorts of Top 100 lists that have provoked virtually no controversy and have not been talked about at the water cooler. In fact, we’ve heard so little discussion about these lists that we wonder if anyone is actually reading them. We sure don’t.

It does seem, though, that the focus has been on the more positive elements of Oklahoma. While we celebrate those things just like the rest of the world, it seems wrong to ignore the more humiliating aspects of the state of Oklahoma. Naturally, we’re here to fill that void, in this ten-part series that will run every Monday. Today, numbers 91 through 100 of Oklahoma’s Biggest Embarrassments..

. . .

93. Bobbie Burbridge Lane

Those commercials for the Burbridge foundation are possibly the most annoying thing on local radio, which is saying something. When listening to Burbridge Lane lecture us about pornography or religion being taken out of public schools or whatever the pet issue of the day is, we’re convinced that Burbridge Lane wants to return the United States to the 1950′s, which probably sucked really bad. 

There’s usually some truth on the heels of humor, and this one rings true:

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 2:  Could THIS be why The Burbridge Foundation is so big on Marriage (dates to 1974).

(read for comic relief): (from “law.justia.com”)

496 F.2d 326: The Burbridge Foundation, Inc., Appellant,

v. Reinholdt & Gardner et al., Appellees

Robert E. Hornberger, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.

G. Alan Wooten, Harper, Young & Smith, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. – 496 F.2d 326

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

. . .(The present suit is basically an action in rem seeking relinquishment of certain stocks held by the stakeholders, Reinholdt & Gardner. The Foundation’s memorandum in the trial court stated that ‘the relief specifically sought is the return and delivery to The Burbridge Foundation of its stock deposited with that defendant (Reinholdt & Gardner). …Upon registry of a personal judgment arising from a divorce decree, Velma Jean Holloway, formerly Velma Jean Burbridge, obtained a writ of garnishment from the Chancery Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, against Reinholdt & Gardner, a stock brokerage firm, to attach any stocks belonging to her former husband, R. O. Burbridge. The brokerage firm denied holding any stock in Burbridge’s name, but admitted it had an account in the name of The Burbridge Foundation. The Burbridge Foundation intervened in the state court proceedings. Shortly thereafter, The Foundation brought suit in the federal district court against Reinholdt & Gardner, seeking recovery of the stocks. In its complaint, The Foundation made the same allegations it raised as intervenor in state court, i.e., that the stocks belonged to it and not R. O. Burbridge personally. In addition The Foundation for the first time asserted that the Arkansas garnishment statute was unconstitutional in that it sought to deprive The Foundation of its property without due process of law.1 Reinholdt & Gardner answered that it could not relinquish the stocks until ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Holloways2 intervened in the federal action and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Burbridge Foundation appeal[ed].

(and apparently lost).

(SMILE): [2]”Russell B. Holloway was the divorce attorney for Velma Jean Burbridge (now Holloway) and was awarded $12,000 in attorney’s fees. He was also a party to the state garnishment suit”
So, Velma Jean divorced Mr. Burbridge, eventually married her divorce attorney, and seems to have gotten some of his stock, too.  This being 1974; so in 2000, here is this Burbridge Foundation sponsoring a let’s support marriage (and potentially institute covenant marriage / eliminate no-fault divorce, etc.) in Oklahoma.  Moral:  There is usually a back story to most public policy, somewhere . ..   and more than not, based in someone’s personal issues, but wealth & power tends to think large (how do we think they got wealthy & powerful in the first place?), and the rest of the world should conform to their  theories…
(Is this the same Burbridge Foundation as in Oklahoma, or that sponsored that Governor’s Leadership Conference?  Possibly.  I’m not going to stress over this today.)

BURBRIDGE INFO (Random, from internet) PART 3:   Self-description on website:

The Burbridge Foundation is a Christian foundation dedicated to working solutions to problems impacting our families and our culture. We do this by bringing public awareness to these problems, by working alongside other faiths {{REALLY?  I’d like to see that — because the  “SALT & LIGHT LEADERSHIP TRAINING” below indicates non-Christians need not apply, and the carefully balanced photo on there  (with middle-aged Caucasian an at the front of the pyramid) doesn’t even contain a single African-American woman — does Oklahoma not have any?  There is an African-American male, at the back of the triangle, too….}} and concerned citizens interested in strengthening the fabric of our community character, and by providing leadership support to organizations of like vision.

We continue to work across the country with individuals and organizations combating the scourge of pornography – a deadly and often underestimated cancer assaulting the family. For information on the “WRAP Campaign” and other information on fighting porn go to www.moralityinmedia.org.

Our current effort focuses on Christian leadership development. In 2007, we reached out to several Oklahoma City Christian lay leaders with a vision for the creation of “salt and light leadership training” to leaders of this and other cities. This has now become the “SALLT Fellowship” which can be found at www.saltandlightleadership.com.

Soli Deo Gloria  (Latin: to God only be Glory; JS Bach used to sign his manuscripts with this, hear tell)

“We are not a direct grant-giving organization.”
Also at the same street address is “Character First”

Our Approach

Character First is a professional development and character education program that is delivered many ways—training seminars, books, magazines, curriculum, email—that focus on real-life issues at work, school, home, and the community.

Gee, then why might they NOT sponsor such a conference with the Governor on curriculum-based ways to strengthen marriages?

Communities & Character Councils

Character First works with government leaders and community organizations around the world who want to promote character on a local basis.

[[website says “Character First” began in 1992 at an Oil & Gas-servicing company called “Kimray”]]

To do this, many communities form a “Character Council” (often a non-profit, non-religious charitable organization) to promote character in all sectors of a community—including business, government, education, law enforcement, media, the faith community, and families.

The following communities have taken various steps toward promoting character, such as passing resolutions, forming character councils, implementing Character First, and organizing special events.

AND also at this address (3rd organization):
Strata Leadership, LLC is a small consulting firm located in Edmond, Oklahoma focused on helping individuals and organizations succeed.

Strata Leadership, LLC.

And here is where we see some Dispute Resolution background, familiar in the anti-divorce courtrooms around AFCC personnel as well:

hrough Strata’s partnerships with other organizations such as Character First!, our team consists of nearly 15 full-time employees.  Strata is led by our executive leadership team of Strata President, Dr. Nathan Mellor and Executive Vice-President, Wayne Whitesell.

[Photo of young-looking Caucasian guy]

Dr. Nathan Mellor is a co-owner and president of Strata.  He is a popular speaker who makes 125-175 presentations per year across America and around the globe.  He has spoken in over  states and in countries such as: Australia, Belize, Guyana, Jordan, Mexico, Russia and Rwanda.

Dr. Mellor holds the Bachelor of Arts (BA) and the Master of Science in Education (MSE) degrees fromHarding University. He earned the Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR) degree from the Pepperdine University School of Law – Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Doctor of Education (EDD) in Organizational Leadership degree from Pepperdine University.

STrata’s Partners (at least 2 at the same address):

Strata is proud to partner with and promote the work of the following friends:

Copyright © 2009 Strata Leadership, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Products — pricey!

The “other” sponsors of the Governor and First Lady’s year 2000 Conference are not mentioned, but I think we get the general idea…

Choice quote:

Even with a lack of comprehensive data about why the problem exists, the research information clearly demonstrates that something must be done. (: (:
OK -- just DO something -- and afterwards, maybe, look for actual cause & effect connections....  "Lack of Comprehensive Data"
* According to data provided by the CDC, Oklahoma has the 2nd highest
divorce rate in the nation, by state of residence.
   Only Arkansas has a worse divorce rate.
- Only 14% of white women who married in the early 1940's eventually
divorced, whereas almost half of white women who married in the late
1960's and early 1970's have already become divorced. For African-American
women, the figures are 18% and nearly 60%
Presumably some men, then, also divorced.  Any stats about them??  Go figures -- a NFI participatory event is going to
talk about the women! (behind their backs, too).

It’s Oklahoma!  Notice, the emphasis on divorce rate, by race.   …   Here, amazingly, is the 2002 Testimony of that Director of HHS for OK:

United State Senate Finance Committee Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:00 A.M.

Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families

Testimony of Howard H. Hendrick Oklahoma Cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services and Director, Oklahoma Deparment of Human Services

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing today to share the genesis and status of Oklahoma’s strategy to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce. In Oklahoma, we are spending TANF funds for this purpose because the research clearly shows that child well-being is enhanced when children are reared in two parent families where the parents have a low conflict marriage. …

(Governor Keating):   He hosted the nation’’s first ““Governor and First Lady’’s Conference on Marriage”” in March, of 1999. Based on the information learned there, Oklahoma’’s Marriage Initiative was launched. The Governor took key steps to ensure that the goal of reducing divorce and strengthening marriage was more than simply a political statement. Specifically the governor:

␣ Took the bold step of setting a specific, measurable goal – to reduce divorce in Oklahoma by 1/3 by the year 2010.

Question:  What right does any Governor have to even TRY and do this?  (Notice, by this time both houses of US Congress had already voted National Resolutions to Support Fatherhood:  1998, 1999).  By 2002, they had already chosen a curriculum, “PREP(r).”  This curriculum, well — as 2002 testimony says:

We selected PREP® (the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program) as the state’’s curriculum because of its research basis and its evaluation record. It is a curriculum that has been used in the military for many years. PREP can be tailored to a variety of constituencies and the long-term efficacy of the twelve hours of education has been validated in a variety of research settings.

We are presently in the training stage of implementing the service delivery system. These skills are beginning to be offered in workshops throughout Oklahoma. The training includes identifying substance abuse risks and presentations by the Oklahoma Coalition against Domestic Violence. . .

(Concluding statement):

Based on what we’’ve learned so far, we continue to support the use of TANF funds to fund activities that strengthen families by growing healthy marriages.

GROWING HEALTHY MARRIAGES?  Then, literally, they are farming their populace — which is objectionable!

The input of “Theodore Ooms” of “Family Impact Seminars” was noted.  Here is the “Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars (PINFIS).  “Surprisingly” it is funded by many of the responsible fatherhood grantees I have come to recognize over the years, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation:

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars aims to strengthen family policy by connecting state policymakers with research knowledge and researchers with policy knowledge. The Institute provides nonpartisan, solution-oriented research and a family impact perspective on issues being debated in state legislatures. We provide technical assistance to and facilitate dialogue among professionals conducting Family Impact Seminars in 28 sites across the country. If you are a PINFIS Affiliate, please click here to login.

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars is currently funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the William T. Grant Foundation. Past supporters include the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Copyright © 1993-2011. Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.

26 States + D.C. get seminars from this Wisconsin-based (presumably nonprofit) group based at UW-Madison/Extension.  “The Seminars target state policymakers, including legislators, legislative aides, governor’s office staff, legislative service agency staff, and agency representatives. The traditional format of the 2-hour seminars consists of three 20-minute presentations given by a panel of premier researchers, program directors, and policy analysts. For each seminar, discussion sessions are held and a background briefing report summarizes high-quality research on the issue in a succinct, easy-to-understand format.”

UMichigan reveals they’ve had 16 Family Impact Seminars since 2000— and that the Kellogg Foundation is helping them receive this also.  This 2000 report, on one page sites a survey of “9 barriers to employment that single mothers face” and doesn’t mention — domestic violence at all.  However, on page 17, in a page dedicated to Domestic Violence, the two authors note:

Background Data and Research

Families who experience domestic violence are often also victims of poverty. Studies examining the association between domestic violence and poverty have found:

• Of current welfare recipients in Michigan, 63% have experienced physical abuse and 51% have experienced severe physical abuse during their lifetimes[12].

• Physical abuse/being afraid of someone was cited as the primary cause of homelessness (in a survey of homeless adults in Michigan) [7].

• Half of homeless women and children report being victims of domestic violence [5,7].

AND,. . . . well, here is the rest of the page:

These barriers consist of:

• Psychological effects of domestic violence (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, or anxiety)

• Sabotage by the abuser (destroying homework assignments, disabling cars and alarm clocks, interference with child care efforts, or harassment at work)

• Manipulation by the abuser (leaving marks and/or bruises that prevent the woman from attending work or an interview, or undermining self-confidence

These employment barriers can lead to tardiness, absenteeism and lack of productivity. Research shows that between 23% and 42% affected by domestic violence report that the abuse had an impact on their work performance [4,5,12].

A study conducted by the University of Michigan suggests that domestic violence by itself is not a barrier to employment,** but that the more barriers one has, the more difficult it is to leave welfare for work [2]. Further research is needed on multiple barriers to employment resulting from domestic violence.

**personal.  True, it’s possible to work — at times, and as allowed by an abuser — with domestic violence.  I have done many things competently immediately after and immediately preceding devastating attacks, some physical, some threats, some involving threats to our children, and once even after they were removed illegally, overnight, and despite law enforcement having been alerted to the threat shortly (same season) before.  Yes it is possible, depending on the person and the relationship, to hold down a job or series of jobs and simply take the abuse at home going or coming.  But, over long-term, the violence does escalate, and a person has to take action on it.  And it DOES cut down on productivity.   It is also possible to work, and in a relationship, not be able to spend the proceeds from one’s own work on one’s kids’ welfare.  Also because work tends to empower women, with men threatened with that independence, it is sometimes a time of increased harm, as he’s torn between wanting the money from that work, but realizing that “his” woman is going to have some work relationships he may not be able to utterly control.

A recent study found that approximately 70% of domestic violence victims did not disclose the abuse to their TANF caseworkers [10]. The same study found that 75% of those that did reveal information about the violence did not receive the appropriate support or services. These results imply that without the proper services, many victims of domestic violence and their children are forced to return home to their abuser.

(from page “Domestic Violence and Poverty Deborah Satyanathan and Anna Pollack”)

In a climate (see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative) where the powers that be believe — or say they do — that it’s lack of marriage (and not really, violence in marriages or other forms of abuse impacting work & home life) causing poverty, the only alternative individuals have, who are caught up in that — is to request the state to honor its laws against such abuse.  If the state, based on ITS own decisions made with help from The National Fatherhood Initiative and others, based on their theories — chooses to overstep Executive Authority, as Governor Keating of OK specifically intended to, and did, do — then he just weakened the very state (as a member of states under the US Constitution — at least at some time in the past century or two, we were) in the name of “strengthening families.”

This Study quotes the “Center for Budget & Policy Priorities” I cite also for a TANF summary (above).  They cite 4 barriers to work, NONE of which applied to many of the women I knew in DV support groups in the 1990s and have known since (to this day) in custody battles for their children, in the 2000s, where judicial discretion wins the day, and judges sit on the boards of nonprofits taking business from access visitation and other TANF-funded activities!   This study from a group named in influencing the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, relates:

Four of the major barriers identified by analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities include [2]:

1. Little or no employment skills or education

2. Little or no prior work experience

3. Substandard housing conditions or lack of affordable housing

4. Having a child with special needs

I am sure these are relevant areas — but NOT for all families that are being driven ONTO (not helped OFF) TANF!  None of these applied to my case, nor many women I network with.  They are women (at least one, homeless), some have done jail time over failure to pay allotted child support (after being stay at home mothers, then forced to fight for custody), others have had to drop out of school; whatever it was they were doing in life — had to STOP to accommodate the machinery of the courts, and with activists and attorneys — neither of them — telling which end was up, until common sense said, those were poor answers (to the circumstances) and some began looking other places for rational explanations of the behavior of those making critical decisions about our lives and our kids.

It makes zero sense to at least acknowledge the role of DV in work sabotage, sometimes long-term, and not continue to insist that to receive help, someone absolutely needs coaching.  I had work experience AND degrees, and as it happens, many educated and/or professional women leaving abusive relationships, where part of this abuse was economic control under duress, did not need more “job skills.”  What we needed was quite different, namely a SAFETY ZONE with which to rebuild.   However, thanks to dynamics, and Governors like Governor Keating in OK, or any other Governor who is enabling some administrative or executive agency to undermine legal rights of the states’ citizens (regardless of race, gender but with regard to marital status), women like us, mothers innocent of child abuse or any criminal wrongdoing — have been literally destroyed and taken out of the work force, while the concept that somehow faith-based organizations give a damn, and deserve special-status red carpet in order to grab those grants and ram marriage & relationship education down peoples throats — and from a VERY narrow range of potential marketeers, several of who already receive federal funding to run demonstration studies on citizens in the military, in prison, on welfare, paying child support (or not, as case may be), in schools — and even in Head Start — to fine-tune how to produce THEIR desired result in society!

Public Strategies Inc. of Oklahoma continues to get its share — $2.5 million, this last round — of GRANTS (not just contracts) to do more of the same and expand it — as the situations in which TANF funds may be applied to form two-parent families continues to expand.  The OMI knew — from the start (Testimony in 2002 shows) that the curriculum of choice, PREP(r) was going to be used.

Notice who paid for that first “Governor and First Lady’s Conference.”

The phrase “low conflict” is typically an AFCC one.  Wonder what there input was here.

More — this is not a half-bad summary:

The amount states must spend is set at 80 percent of their 1994 contribution to AFDC-related programs. (In some cases this “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement can be reduced to 75 percent.) In 2009 states spent roughly $15 billion in state MOE funds. The amount states are required to spend (at the 80 percent level) in 2009 is about 45 percent below the amount they spent on AFDC-related programs in 1994, after adjusting for inflation.

* * *The Deficit Reduction Act also provided $100 million per year to support programs designed to promote healthy marriages.

When TANF was created in 1996, Congress provided $2 billion in a contingency fund; this fund was not used much until the current recession but a number of states have received contingency funds for one or more years between 2008 and 2011. The fund is now depleted and states only received partial allocations for 2010 and 2011. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act {{ARRA}} (sometimes referred to as the “stimulus” bill), Congress created a new and temporary Emergency Funddesigned to provide aid to states that see increases in assistance caseloads or certain program costs as they address the needs of families during the economic downturn. Congress appropriated $5 billion to this new Emergency Fund for 2009 and 2010 — by the time the fund expired in September 2010, the $5 billion had been fully used.

Another Summary, from CRS (Congressional Research Service), prepared in 2007 — this is an outline

However, money taken from the public, collected in the U.S. Treasury, and reallocated out from there, usually has strings attached.  The strings attached to the restructuring of the child support system (Title IV-D) were significant; i.e., states needed to centralize their child support distribution system, and they were blessed with access visitation grants from a $10 million/year pool, proportionate to some stipulations based on their population, by Congress somehow, and this could be maintained IF the states were GOOD boys and complied.

The states have NOT been complying, but they are still getting the money, so I am presuming that there is some mutual benefit involved between state and local government stakeholders.  By the way, the word “Stakeholder” never usually applies to the people most drastically affected by policies set by stakeholders — which is those not at the table when policies are set, and likely in need of the services being restructured, recirculated, reframed, and redirected.

Here’s a 2010 (June 24, 2010, to be specific) Heritage Foundation article complaining about increasing entitlements Obama’s escalation of welfare roles (true) and how the “success” of TANF should be applied to other federal programs.

Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare Entitlements:

Principles of Reform and the Next Steps

June 24, 2010

  • Do you know who the Heritage Foundation is?
  • Do you know who funds them? or where to find out?
  • Do you know who they fund, or where to find out?
  • Could you participate pro or con in this argument, supporting it with any facts?
  • Do you agree or not?
  • Can you put those arguments in a different context than they do?

They proclaimed:

Abstract: The growth of welfare spending is unsustainable and will drive the United States into bankruptcy if allowed to continue. President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget request would increase total welfare spending to $953 billion—a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in FY 2008, the last full year of the Bush Administration. To bring welfare spending under control, Congress should reduce welfare spending to pre-recession levels after the recession ends and then limit future growth to the rate of inflation. Congress should also restore work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and apply them to other federal welfare programs.

They also said of TANF that it was a success.  Yet — in reality — it is the means by which expansion of the welfare state — particularly after faith-based organizations were invited in — was assured.   The track record is that MANY of these are not just incompetent — but chronically dishonest, and when caught (as I tend to stay) in one state, simply hop over to another.  I can name names and organizations and dates, sometimes States, of the “hops.”   They obtain web resources through HHS “compassion capital” or other grants, and this last season, our government just gave over $1 million GRANT to ICF International, LLC (or whatever it’s proper current name is) a group currently doing $1 BILLION business with the Feds, and with an agenda to transform communities through (basically, media domination).

Listen to this:

Reform should be based on five principles:

  1. Slowing the growth of the welfare state. Unending government deficits are pushing the United States toward bankruptcy. The U.S. simply cannot afford the massive increases in welfare spending planned by President Barack Obama. Welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.[1] Congress needs to establish reasonable fiscal constraints within the welfare system. Once the current recession ends, aggregate welfare spending should be rolled back to pre-recession levels. After this rollback has been completed, the growth of welfare spending should be capped at the rate of inflation.
  2. Promoting personal responsibility and work. Able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or to prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Food stamps and housing assistance, two of the largest programs for the needy, should be aligned with the TANF program to require able-bodied adults to work or to prepare for work for a minimum of 30 hours per week.  (see ## my footnote)
  3. Providing a portion of welfare assistance as loans rather than as grants. Welfare to able-bodied adults creates a potential moral hazard because providing assistance to those in need can lead to an increase in the behaviors that generate the need for aid in the first place. If welfare assistance rewards behaviors that lead to future dependence, costs can spiral out of control. A reformed welfare policy can provide temporary assistance to those in need while reducing the moral hazard associated with welfare by treating a portion of welfare aid as a loan to be repaid by able-bodied recipients rather than as an outright grant from the taxpayer.
  4. Ending the welfare marriage penalty and encouraging marriage in low-income communities. The collapse of marriage is the major cause of child poverty in the U.S. today. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of children in the U.S. were born out of wedlock; today, the figure is over 40 percent.[2] Most alarmingly, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among African–Americans is 72 percent. The outcomes for children raised in single, never-married homes are greatly diminished.Current means-tested welfare programs penalize low-income recipients who get married; these anti-marriage penalties should be reduced or eliminated. In addition, government should provide information on the importance of marriage to individuals in poor communities who have a high risk of having children out of wedlock. Particular emphasis should be placed on the benefits to children of a married two-parent family.***
  5. Limit low-skill immigration. Around 15 percent ($100 billion per year) of total means-tested welfare spending goes to households headed by immigrants with high school degrees or less.[3] One-third of all immigrants lack a high school degree.[4] Over the next 10 years, America will spend $1.5 trillion on welfare benefits for lower-skill immigrants. Government policy should limit future immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. The legal immigration system should not encourage immigration of low-skill immigrants who would increase poverty in the nation and impose vast new costs on already overburdened taxpayers.

**Never mind that this has been done now — for years — and at statewide level.  Can we reasonably assume that no one at the Heritage Foundation knows this?

##FN2 — how about requiring recipients of diversionary programs from child support and TANF to document that THEY worked at least 30 hours a week?  And have incorporated, and that their incorporations have actually been proper, are current, and if required to, filed a 990?  I’ve seen dropped loose ends of $50K a pop (SolidSource in Van Wert, OH comes to mind) or others have found dropped loose ends of $227,000.  MOreover, we have child support privatized to outside organizations, such as MAXIMUS — themselves caught in fraud and overbilling — and THEY continue to receive government benefits from the US in the form of renewed contracts, even after paying, for example $30 million in settlement fees over these matters.

So I say, let’s put the focus on the MACRO-ECONOMIC trends — namely allowing corporations and HHS / DOJ /DOE to get in bed with them to determine whether future employees of these corporations eat, have safe drinking water, and have access to decent educations (not just skills training for globally noncompetitive jobs in the same corporations!)

POINT 4, above:

. . .encouraging marriage in low-income families.   The Collapse of Marriage is the Major Factor in Child Poverty Today.

No it’s not.  That’s a single-source, single-interpretation of the causes of poverty.

Now, I could debate that at least logically, following the words “Sez who?” and “Who Sez those are the only experts?” and then poke some holes in the rhetoric.

Could You? Should You?  Or don’t you care about the use of taxes and public policy any more?

Go to the actual laws:

THE LAWS IN QUESTION:

PRWORA link:

PUBLIC LAW 104 – 193 – PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA,Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With Americaand was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it”.[2]

H. REPT. 109-276  – DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

Back to search results
(Wikipedia note — TANF Reauthorization was contained in this);  
 The reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program was also contained in the bill, as was the provision for the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. Part of the TANF reauthorization reduces the threshold for passport denial for child support arrearages under 42 USC 652(k)to $2,500.
 
 

Senate bill S. 1932 passed the Senate, with a tie-breaking vote cast by Vice PresidentDick Cheney, and House bill H.R. 4241 passed the House 217-215. The Senate bill was signed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush on February 8, 2006.[2]

[Dispute over legal status

A dispute arose over whether both houses of Congress had approved the same bill. Those contending that the bill is not a law argue there were different versions of the same bill, neither of which was approved by both the House and the Senate. They argue that the document signed by the President would not have the force of law, on the ground that the enacting process bypassed the Bicameral Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  (For what wikipedia is worth, find this interesting….)

 

P.L. 109–171, Approved February 8, 2006 (120 Stat. 4)

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

SECTION 1. [42 U.S.C. 1305 note]  SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005”.

Has sections on TANF & Child Support.

SEC. 7101. TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES AND RELATED PROGRAMS FUNDING THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2010.

(a) [None Assigned]  In General.—Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section 1108(b) of the Social Security Act (adjusted, as applicable, by or under this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005[275]) shall continue through September 30, 2010, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority on a quarterly basis through fiscal year 2010 at the level provided for such activities for the corresponding quarter of fiscal year 2004 (or, as applicable, at such greater level as may result from the application of this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005), except that in the case of section 403(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority only through fiscal year 2010[276] and in the case of section 403(a)(4) of the Social Security Act, no grants shall be made for any fiscal year occurring after fiscal year 2005.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

SEC. 7301. ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT.

 (etc.)

The Deficit Reduction Act also reauthorizes welfare reform for another 5 years. Welfare reform has proved a tremendous success over the past decade. By insisting on programs that require work and self-sufficiency in return for Federal aid, we’ve helped cut welfare cases by more than half since 1996. Now we’re building on that progress by renewing welfare reform with a billion-dollar increase in child care funding and new grants to support healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs.

One of the reasons for the success of welfare reform is a policy called charitable choice which allows faith-based groups that provide social services to receive Federal funding without changing the way they hire. Ten years ago, Congress made welfare the first Federal program to include charitable choice. The bill I sign today will extend charitable choice for another 5 years and expand it to the new healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs. Appreciate the hard work of all who supported the extension

of charitable choice—including the good- hearted men and women of the faith-based community who are here today. By reauthor- izing welfare reform with charitable choice, we will help millions more Americans move from welfare to work and find independence and dignity and hope.

The message of the bill I sign today is straightforward: By setting priorities and making sure tax dollars are spent wisely, America can be compassionate and respon- sible at the same time. Spending restraint de- mands difficult choices, yet making those choices is what the American people sent us to Washington to do. One of our most impor- tant responsibilities is to keep this economy strong and vibrant and secure for our chil- dren and our grandchildren. We can be proud that we’re helping to meet that respon- sibility today.

Now I ask the Members of the Congress to join me as I sign the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

NOTE: The President spoke at 3:31 p.m. in the East Room at the White House. S. 1932, approved February 8, was assigned Public Law No. 109– 171.

{{He also began by distinguishing between DISCRETIONARY and MANDATORY spending:

At the same time, my budget tightens the belt on Government spending. Every American family has to set priorities and live within a budget, and the American people expect us to do the same right here in Washington, DC.

The Federal budget has two types of spending, discretionary spending and manda- tory spending. Discretionary spending is the kind of spending Congress votes on every year. Last year, Congress met my request and passed bills that cut discretionary spending not related to defense or homeland security. And this year, my budget again proposes to cut this spending. My budget also proposes again to keep the growth in overall discre- tionary spending below the rate of inflation

AND ARRA:
Wikipedia:

 (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion ofunemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g., a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g., a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.

TEXT of the LAW:

(thomas.gov)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – (Sec. 5) Designates each amount in this Act as: (1) an emergency requirement, necessary to meet certain emergency needs in accordance with the FY2008-FY2009 congressional budget resolutions; and (2) an emergency for Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) principles.

TITLE II (Commerce, Justice, ….)

Makes supplemental appropriations for FY2009 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for: (1) the Office of Inspector General; (2) state and local law enforcement activities; (2) the Office on Violence Against Women; (3) the Office of Justice Programs; (4) state and local law enforcement assistance; and (5) community oriented policing services (COPS).

. . .

Subtitle B: Assistance for Vulnerable Individuals – (Sec. 2101) Amends part A of title IV (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) (TANF) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to establish in the Treasury an Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Programs (Emergency Fund). Makes appropriations to such Fund.

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make a grant from the Emergency Fund to each requesting state for any quarter of FY2009-FY2010 if the state’s average monthly assistance caseload for the quarter exceeds its average monthly assistance caseload for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year. Requires the amount of any such grant to be 80% of the excess of total state expenditures for basic assistance over total state expenditures for such assistance for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year.

. . . .

(Sec. 2102) Extends TANF supplemental grants through FY2010.

(Sec. 2103) Makes technical amendments to the authority of a state or Indian tribe to use a block grant for TANF for any fiscal year to provide, without fiscal year limitation, (carry over) any benefit or service that may be provided under the program funded under the block grant, including future contingencies.

(Sec. 2104) Amends SSA title IV part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) to suspend for FY2008-FY2010 the prohibition against payments to states with respect to their plans for child and spousal support collection on account of amounts expended by a state from support collection performance incentive payments received from the Secretary of HHS (thus allowing such additional payments during such period).

(just pointing out, from the CRS summary, that certain parts affect TANF & Child Support, I.e., TITLE IV-A, IV-D of Social Security Act. 
 
CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT OF 2010 (passed one year ago — 11/19/2010!)(you may need to re/search from Thomas.loc.gov)  111th Congress, H.R. 4783
Title VIII: General Provisions (AND YOU”LL SEE WHY FATHERHOOD ORGANIZATIONS, PLUS MARRIAGE EDUCATORS, WERE REJOICING OVER THIS ONE):

Sec. 802) Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act to require an employer to report to the state Directory of New Hires, in addition to other information, the date services for remuneration were first performed by a newly hired employee.

Subtitle B: TANF – (Sec. 811) Amends part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF]) of title IV of the Social Security Act to continue grants to states for temporary assistance for needy families programs through September 30, 2011.

(WONDER WHERE WE’RE AT ON THIS NOW …..)

Requires preference for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood grants to be given to entities that have previously: (1) been awarded funds; and (2) demonstrated the ability to carry out specified programs successfully.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES, DO YOU THINK, THAT (2) WILL BE MONITORED?

Directs an entity seeking funding for both healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood promotion to submit a combined application assuring that it will carry out such activities: (1) under separate programs; and (2) without combining funds awarded to carry out either such activities.

Revises the definition of “healthy marriage promotion activities” to include marriage education and other specified programs for individuals in addition to nonmarried pregnant women and nonmarried expectant fathers.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND FATHERHOOD ACTIVITIES DOES NOT REALLY EXIST.  FOR EXAMPLE, HEALTHY MARRIAGE GRANTEE (I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION” (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.) was characterized in a recent AZFFC.org publication as the “Sacramento affiliate” of this fathers and families coalition — although the title then said “Healthy Marriage” and recently reads something like (last I heard) “Relationship Education Institute” or such.

Appropriates (out of money not otherwise appropriated) for FY2011: (1) $75 million for healthy marriage promotion activities; and (2) $75 million for promotion of responsible fatherhood activities. (Current law authorized $150 million, combined, for both programs in specified fiscal years.) Limits appropriated funds awarded to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community entities, including religious organizations, for activities promoting responsible fatherhood to $75 million (current law has a $50 million limit). Requires amounts awarded to fund demonstration projects testing the effectiveness of tribal governments in coordinating the provision to tribal families at risk of child abuse or neglect of child welfare services, and other tribal programs, to be taken in equal proportion from such separate appropriations for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood activities.

Appropriates (out of money not otherwise appropriated) to the Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs such sums as necessary for payment to the Fund in a total not to exceed: (1) for FY2011, such sums as are necessary for amounts obligated on or after October 1, 2010, and before enactment of the this Act; and (2) for FY2012, $612 million. (Current law reduces such appropriations by specified amounts.)

Well, I may regret hitting “PUBLISH” on this one, but here goes. . . . .

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

November 9, 2011 at 5:15 PM

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Child Support, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…[First Published Oct. 20, 2011]

with 3 comments

….

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense… First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words

BLOGGER’s UPDATE MESSAGE Aug. 15, 2018: First published Oct. 20, 2011, not updated since except to add post title w/short-link label (a more recent admin. habit) and change the background color to white (necessitated when blog upgrade retroactively changed the default background color to “yuck pale green”), add a post border line and my now standard font: fairly routine changes.

Otherwise I’m not attempting to improve its curb appeal, not even for quotes (now I often add boxes around them), missing or expired images to logos (now I often take screenshots to avoid that happening), and especially not trying to correct TAGGS.HHS.Gov margins; TAGGs itself has had a major restructure since them).  My purpose is for quoting on Twitter.  I think the message is still relevant, still “missed” by too many, and worth repeating.

Some terms, individual and nonprofit or program names now much more mainstream as specific public policy models, I was questioning this far back; just over two years after the entire apparatus was cracked open on comprehending the basic concepts behind “Federal incentives to States” under Welfare Reform (two specific funding streams) + where groups like Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ cult-like, court-connected, nonprofit-spawning  group behaviors style=”(it being a membership association primarily of judges, family lawyers, mediators, custody evaluators, and such — people MOST likely to make a FINE living from family court referrals, if not already public civil servants in that capacity!) fit in.

Not including this message and above label, the post is still About 21,000 words (note: that includes all words within all TAGGS tables too)..

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…

First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words, by LGH (“LetUsGetHonest”)

(Today [Oct. 2011], I simply blogged, and continued — incorporating some discussion about our two main databases, about access/visitation grants, demonstrating the importance of doing trademark registration searches on groups (as in Colorado) and following up on a California-based group (influence found in Colorado by way of Washington) which, having been formed in 1970 as “Mothers Anonymous” and intended to help mothers involved in child abuse stop it, was within one year of incorporation changed to “Parents Anonymous,” got its stuff trademarked, was already, or got “in” with the HHS & DOJ — and is doing, currently about $18 million worth of business with HHS & DOJ combined.

The influence of fatherhood promotion is definitely showing in its materials, as well as the habit of marketing, marketin g, getting the trademark licensed, certifying accreditation to teach one’s own private curriculum brand — AND with close ties to Los Angeles County Judicial System among its board members.  This group was THE top grantee of a certain category (in the year 2002), and I hadn’t even heard of it before.

I did not finish with the El Paso County, Colorado information (at bottom), and connecting the work of CPR & PSI to actual Child Support Enforcement Groups (via a different, trademarked name), but although it’s LONGwinded — I guarantee you, taken in small installations, this IS a very informative post.

I also catch TAGGS omitting DUNS# (such that many, many grants will remain unseen) and usaspending.gov doing the exact same thing — with the DUNS#, $697K grants showed (for parents anonymous).  Omitting the DUNS$ the $18 million surfaced.  O Mi God . . . ..

I am publishing without apologies:  Read at your own risk!

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Oct. 21, 2011 update:

Concern #1:

March 9, 2009 letter from the Executive Office of the Massachusetts, Dept. of Environmental Protection, a 6-page letter to the US Office of Inspector General, expresses concern that ICF was used to evaluate.  Troubling 2009 protest of ICF assessment (topic:  drinking water contaminate perchlorate, as to cumulative effects on fetus, infants, and children’s neurodevelopment / hypothyroidism; article was “rushed out the door” (full of errors), potential conflict of interest, etc.) – – –

The letter is signed by:  Tzedash Zewdie, Ph.D./Toxicologist; Carol Rowan-West, MSPH/Director, Office of Research and Standards, and C.Mark Smith, Ph.D.,SM/Deputy Director of Office of Research and Standards, and Toxicologist.  Among other concerns were the dumping of the responsibility for protection from water contamination upon the most vulnerable sectors of the public (young children), to take iodide supplements, and not on the polluters.  The letter recommends the OIG make available the drafts from which the OIG (using ICF) got its conclusion.

[article abstract from link to Dr. Zewdie, above): Perchlorate inhibits (blocks, slows, lowers etc.) iodide-uptake in the thyroid.   Iodide is required to synthesize hormones critical to fetal and neonatal development. Many water supplies and foods are contaminated with perchlorate.  Massachusetts has stricter and more protective standards than other “regulatory agencies”].  

(If ICF fudges on something this basic to health of fetuses, infants, and young children, how are they going to be handling the more general, marriage & fatherhood factor?)

Concern #2:

A Wikipedia article (flagged by Wikipedia as probably less than objective) shows how many firms ICF began acquiring, and notes that its CEO is from MIT.  What I’m concerned about is why HHS lists this corporation as “City” and not a contractor…..  And its habit of acquiring company after company….  Reminds me of Maximus, the child support giant…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

We are still on this topic:  Who are the groups that got these grants?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 3, 2011
Contact: Kenneth J. Wolfe
(202) 401-9215

ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (OFA) today announced $119,393,729 in grant awards to 120 grantees to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Authorized by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA), the grant awards will help fathers and families build strong relationships to support the well-being of their children.

As ever, the missing noun, “mothers.”  Leaving it out is accurate, as these do NOT help mothers build strong relationships with their kids, rather, it helps completely eliminate contact with the children in some cases, in order to be more fair to fathers (supposedly) in the courts.  Once a family court has eliminated such contact, including by refusing to do anything about ongoing violations of existing court orders, or ongoing threats making attempts to re-establish broken contact a Russian Roulette for some mothers, many, many of the organizations set up to help “BUILD STRONG RELATIONSHIPS” for the kids, refuse to help mothers — at all — even contact them.  It is a win-win situation for any substandard father whose real goal is to hurt that mother through taking her kids.

It is a lose-lose situation for the taxpayers, who will have clean-up duty, or pay for ongoing monitoring procedures (supervised visitation centers) which themselves sometimes come up fraudulent.

“A strong and stable family is the greatest advantage any child can have,” said George Sheldon, HHS acting assistant secretary for children and families. “These grants support programs that promote responsible parenting, encourage healthy relationships and marriage, and help families move toward self-sufficiency and economic stability.”

The Healthy Marriage program awarded a total of $59,997,077 in grants, which include 60Community-Centered Healthy Marriage grants and a National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage grant. The Responsible Fatherhood program awarded a total of $59,396,652 in grants, which include 55 Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood grants and four Community-Centered Responsible Fatherhood Ex-Prisoner Reentry Pilot Project grants.

THE PRESS RELEASE LIST OF GRANTEES:

After painstakingly comparing the recent ACF announcement on how and to whom it scattered $119 million (more) of “healthy marriage  / responsible fatherhood” grants, in a press release which listed no contact, no grant award number, and did not even use the same Grantee names as the database on which one can look these up does (http://TAGGS.hhs.gov, which I keep promoting and quoting on this blog), I have found a 1:1 correspondence to my “90FM” series and the list — with 3 exceptions.

My comment to the last post, I named the few exceptions (including $1.2 million omitted, and about $800K under-reported as to ANTHEM, and this group “ICF” which I had found on-line, but nowhere in the TAGGS database.  Til just now.

I also started a new page on this blog (2011 Healthy Marriage Grantees . . . Speed- Dating), but its layout isn’t much better.

I uploaded my printout (which is horizontal and wont fit on this post).  Using the TAGGS list, instinctively having discovered the grants series, only to discover that someone had fudged entering the “principal investigator’s” last names – – I had only one group left to locate:  ICF, Incorporated out of Fairfax, Virginia, which got a $1.5 million grant to push marriage education, presumably.

Finally I googled the ridiculous set of initials “NRCSPHM” after speculating on their potential meaning (looks like I didn’t read the press release carefully enough, having just skipped to the list of grantees), and found a grants opportunity announcement from San Bernadino County, CA — leading to the interpretation:

NATIONAL

RESOURCE CENTER

for

STRATEGIES

to

PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE

= NRCSPHM, “obviously”

How grandiose.

Is it not enough to let corporations form, dissolve, and reform to make nonprofits (that don’t report properly to the IRS, or their local state registry of charitable trusts, as required to by law, from the same, fairly narrow set of marriage promoters with government contacts in HHS and/or to the National Fatherhood Intiative, plus those working in the child support and welfare  fields, plus anyone whose gut instinct leads them to join some of the right-wing, mega-churches that advertise their wares on-line and run off to Uganda and other sub-Saharan Africa countries to make sure the gays are not getting out of hand, and support leadership who recommend handling this by killing them?

Or groups that believe the best way to stop the spread of AIDS is by persuading hormone-ridden teenagers in school systems which do NOT challenge them adequately to refrain from sex (while failing to account for middle-aged or other adult males who cannot refrain from having sex with THEIR KIDS, or other kids). . . . ..

Just for the record, some marriages need to be broken up because they are just a little to close for comfort, either for the person being assaulted, or for the inappropriate sexual relationships with minors in the family.  And those of us who have gotten OUT of some of those situations, and family lines where this was occurring, do not appreciate standing by for the next decade and watching public funds to used to propagate ridiculous practices based on paid-for theory that doesn’t account for exceptions, doesn’t require grantees to really even be legal entities, doesn’t MONITOR the funds from start to finish, and can’t show any results more than accounts of warm bodies who ALLEGEDLY sat through their classes.

We are having ongoing murder/suicide around custody “disputes,” while the groups running the thing run off and meet in exotic or plush conferences, tax-deductible, to run mutual trainings, tax-deductible, and make up new themes to describe the “flawed parents” they are (sigh) forced to deal with in the process of rescuing children and eliminating the concept of crime as crime, to be replaced with new definitions they have (privately) agreed upon, and how to get these “solutions” voted into state laws.  If you’re lost, this paragraph was talking about the AFCC; any paragraph about the related CRC would have to talk about the practice of financing this through child support and welfare diversions.  That was called “Welfare Reform,” FYI.

There was already a “NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER” in California — Dennis Stoica, registered agent:

OK, I let off enough steam (don’t worry, I’m pissed, but not armed, except with information) to get to the point of this post.

I finally found the missing $1,500,000 grant, and grantee.

Do you know why earlier search hadn’t located “ICF, INC”??  Well, looks here like someone decided to put spaces inbetween the initials in the name, although in the ACF press release the acronym for the project award had no spaces:

ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM) Fairfax
VA
$1,500,000
Award Title Sum of Actions
2011 ACF I C F, INC NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE $ 1,500,000

Then I looked up the name, with its idiosyncratic TAGGS database entry, spacing between the letters of the name.  OH — there was about another $1 million of grants?

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
I C F, INC  FAIRFAX VA 22031-6050 FAIRFAX 072648579 $ 2,477,256

The company under which Healthy Marriage (a.k.a. “Responsible Fatherhood,” same diff…) shows as “ICF International” (see below).  But 

under ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.” in Bloomberg  (Businessweek/Investing), after noting “no key executives listed,” and a 1969 founding, shows why we should be giving this company a financial boost, with a $$5.5 million start-up grant, rather than an actual contract:

ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. Wins $107,631,975 Modified Federal Contract
02/1/2011

Office of Acquisition Management (Environmental Protection Agency), EPA/Headquarters, has awarded a $107,631,975.00 modified federal contract on Feb. 1 for professional, administrative, and management support services to ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.

ICF Inc Win $8,462,890 Federal Contract
12/25/2010

ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., announced that it has won a $8,462,890 federal contract from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Acquisition Management, Cincinnati, for technical and regulatory support for the development of criteria for water media.

ICF Inc. Wins $4.92 Million Federal Contract
09/30/2010

ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., won a $4,919,708 federal contract from the U.S. Department of Education’s Contracts and Acquisitions Management for race to the top technical assistance network under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  [“ARRA”]

Well, no, actually more like $3,656,370 million since 2007, and this organization is categorized as “City Government,” although it’s a private, for-profit corporation, from what I can tell in the real world outside TAGGS:

Recipient: I C F, INC
Address: 9300 LEE HIGHWAY
FAIRFAX, VA 22031-6050
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: FAIRFAX
HHS Region: 3
Type: Supplier Organizations ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipment )
Class: City Government

AWARD ACTIONS

Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2011 90FH0002  NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE 1 00 ACF 09-28-2011 072648579 $ 1,500,000 
2011 90PD0271  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARNINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-27-2011 072648579 $ 977,256 
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 2,477,256

 

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2010 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 2 0 ACF 09-17-2010 072648579 $ 500,000 
Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 500,000

 

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number @@##Amount This Action
2009 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 2 ACF 06-15-2009 072648579 $- 702,966 
2009 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-18-2009 072648579 $ 500,000 
{{LGH:  See FOOTNOTES}} Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $-202,966
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2007 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 0 ACF 09-21-2007 072648579 $ 882,080 
Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 882,080

 

Total of all award actions: $ 3,656,370

{{{FOOTNOTES:  These comments appeared in FY2009 Total “Amount” column.  Unclear whether they’re HHS’ or mine.  Probably mine, from 2011 post..quoting from ICF International website at that time}}

Also in 2005, ICF International acquired Caliber Associates, a Fairfax, Virginia, firm that provided high-end consulting services, primarily to U.S. federal clients.In 2007, ICF International acquired Energy and Environmental Analysis (EEA), Advanced Performance Consulting Group (APCG), Z-Tech Corporation, and SH&E.In 2008, ICF acquired Jones & Stokes.[3]In 2009, ICF International acquired Macro International Inc.[4] and Jacob & Sundstrom, Inc.[5]

In 2010, ICF acquired Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd.[6]

In 2011, ICF acquired AeroStrategy LLC

This is a major corporation doing major business with the US Govt and others; it was founded originally by a Tuskeegee airman, and has deep connections to the defense industry and technology.   (read up from its site).  It went public (Trading on NASDAQ) as of 2006 for $12.00 a share and is danged impressive!

This is the “SHORT” description.  AGAIN, I note that the TAGGS database did NOT give its accurate name (omitting the “INTERNATIONAL”) for some reason spaced out the letters of its name (which the company, obviously, does not do) and so forth.  Here is website description from the news release on its going public in 2006

ICF International (Nasdaq: ICFI) partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in the energy, environment, transportation, social programs, defense, and homeland security markets. The firm combines passion for its work with industry expertise and innovative analytics to produce compelling results throughout the entire program life cycle, from analysis and design through implementation and improvement. Since 1969, ICF has been serving government at all levels, major corporations, and multilateral institutions. More than 1,800 employees serve these clients worldwide. ICF’s Web site is http://www.icfi.com.

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS in Fairfax, VA

 

Here they are describing their “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD” work (no mention is made of “marriage” in the overview).  They are experienced in transforming communities, and no doubt, their work will indeed continue to give father(hood practitioners and promoters) the PR edge and corporate influence, plus public presence through social media, that mothers — who are losing their kids to these fatherhood programs in droves, now — do not have someone doing for our cause, although we give birth to these children, after 9 months (Usually) sometimes nurse them, alter our lives to take care of them, and have a President who has only expanded the programs that his Presidential forebears put in place, which cause this trouble to women leaving abuse while there is a family court system waiting, with open jaws, to direct traffic to one of their family-strengthening programs…

ICF helps U.S. federal and state agencies, grantees, nonprofit agencies, and service providers in reaching communities, fathers, and families with the message of how responsible fatherhood is critically linked to nearly every aspect of a thriving community.

Our experts bring skills from the fields of youth at risk, education, children and youth, poverty, and family strengthening and can see the links among these areas. Although the issue has been recently spotlighted in the media and in policy, ICF’s work in this area spans years.

ICF contributes toward finding ways to help providers implement programs that improve outcomes for children and families. We have helped service providers implement systemic changes to bring men into mentoring, civic life, and neighborhood stabilization efforts in ways that have wide-ranging impact.

We help organizations get the information that they need to develop programs that support fathers and families through a range of services including:  (See site for the list):

… CLIENTS (and we see it’s not the OCSE, but the OFA)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

  • Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
    • Office of Family Assistance (OFA)

The most recent one they are doing acknowledges — taking TANF monies and trying to direct traffic to a FBCO (Faith-based group) — which in the case of women trying to leave abuse, which SOMETIMES includes abuse by priests, preachers, or pastors, or at least coverups of this BY them, after being made aware of it (it’s part of the religious territory) will then have the same types of groups rooting for the men they are trying to keep a safe distance from.  I”m going to post the list of projects, current and past, done by this organization.  (No WONDER things are getting rough around the edges in family courts!)

PLEASE NOTE:  the ACF Press release mentions this $1.5 million grant going to the “healthy marriage” grantee portion (as if this wasn’t primarily promoting paternalism anyhow) — but as far as I can tell, ICF International considers the project to be filed under “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD.”  That is the program link.

http://www.icfi.com/markets/families-and-communities/responsible-fatherhood#tab-2-projects

{{Sev’l expired-link logos from 2011 were removed during 2018 quick-edit update//LGH}}

 

Now that I have a DUNS#, let’s see how much business other than HHS grants, they do with us, meaning the U.S.

ICF INTERNATIONAL INC.

Healthy Marriage Grantee does over $1 BILLION Of BUSINESS with the US Government.

(notice its name shows different here, too).

USASPENDING.GOV:

  • Total Dollars:$1,116,743,207
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 6,935

For example, this grant:

Transaction Number # 5

PIID: HHSP23320110015YC (Definitive Contract)
Recipient: ICF INTERNATIONAL INC.
9300 LEE HWY , FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code)
Product/Service Code: R408 : Program Management/Support Services
Description:
CHILDREN’S BUREAU CLEARINGHOUSE SERVICES
Date Signed:
September 30 , 2011Obligation Amount: 
$9,481,719

(NOTICE the other database {{USASPENDING.gov}} doesn’t add the spaces between initials of the group’s name). . . .HHS is a world unto itself, for sure…)

From the TIMELINE tab (on this DUNS# for ICF, INC) it shows that 2003 was a low, 2009, a substantial jump, and 2011 looks to be a banner year for the company.

Of the $1 billion plus of business, $32 million were received in 84 grants, the most (or, largest amount) in 2009.

  • Total Dollars:$32,702,456
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 84

NOT that you can rely on this database, either (i’ve found by experience, but here’s the other acknowledgement — it aint’ complete, or accurate, or reliable);

I checked “Health and Human Services” (5 grants) and came up with a smaller number than are on the TAGGS database, by about $1.5 million:   The last reward does not show yet.  (however in other searches, I’ve found grants in prior years, over $1 million, that didn’t make it onto USASpending ever, apparently.  I have typically thought of this as USASpending UNDER-reporting, and only recently (when associated with all the other “anomalies” of the TAGGS database) considered the possibility of HHS OVER-reporting, which would be consistent with the practices of some of their court-affiliated grantees, a few of who have been caught (I’m thinking particularly in the supervised visitation field:  Karen Anderson, Genia Shockome cases .. … )

  • Total Dollars:$2,156,370
  • Transactions:1 – 5 of 5

COMMENTARY on USASPENDING.GOV (various, random):

OMB falls short on USASpending.gov data, GAO says

OMB has not included subcontracting award data on USAspending.gov and has no specific plan for collecting such data.

The USASpending.gov Web site has been live for more than two years so the public can see where its tax dollars are going, but the site’s data has not been complete nor accurate, according to a new report.

USASpending.gov went live Dec.13, 2007–a month earlier than the legislated deadline. It’s a Web site compiling a comprehensive list of the more than $1 trillion in financial assistance awarded through contracts, loans and grants. Congress mandated such a site in its Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), which became law in September 2006.

Since the Office of Management and Budget launched the site, OMB has fallen short of several of program requirements, the Government Accountability Office [“GAO”] reported March 12.

Or, from 2011, from “SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION”:

House Oversight Subcommittee Discusses Problems with USASpending.gov Data

March 15, 2011, 4:46 p.m.

On Friday, Ellen testified in front of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Her testimony mostly focused on the findings from our Clearspending project, which assessed the data quality of the grant programs in USASpending.gov. It was heartening to see the committee taking the issue of data quality in USASpending.gov so seriously. While admittedly not a sexy topic, this issue has serious implications in decisions that the government makes about our federal spending. To quote Rep. Issa’s (CALIFORNIA) opening statement, “The failures to make the data right is the reason we’re not getting a responsible government”.

Clearspending found nearly $1.3 trillion dollars Clearspending logoin misreported spending in 2009. This includes spending reports that were late, incomplete or inconsistent with other information sources that track federal spending. In Ellen’s testimony, she discussed two specific examples of poor data quality in USASpending.gov: the Department of Education reported over $6 trillion in student loans for 2010 and the Department of Agriculture did not report any spending for the National School Lunch Program, which obligated $8 billion in grants last year. The CIOs from both these agencies also testified on the panel, and were given a chance to respond to our critiques during the committee Q&A.

Chris Smith, the CIO of the USDA, testified that the reason the grants were not reported was because they went to individuals, and the law governing grant reporting does not require reporting for grants to individuals. However, the actual program description describes these grants as formula grants to states. The entity receiving the grant is a state, not an individual, and therefore the grant is subject to the reporting requirements. Smith also mentioned that the transactions were under $25,000 and therefore not subject to the reporting requirement. While this may be the case, it seems unlikely. The program in question has a $10 billion bu

You Will Be Watched on USASpending.gov…Maybe Even Prosecuted

SUNDAY, JANUARY 13. 2008 AT 01:32 PM | BY COBY LOGEN IN BREAKIN’ THE LAW

I intended to write about how innovative and exciting USASpending.govis, because it opens up extensive government budget databases: you can search, browse, and even write programs to query the system.But, that changed when I read this on the home page:WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.
Wow.I guess Uncle Sam doesn’t really want to open up his budget for public review.

dget. Let’s say that each state gets an equal payment once a month. That would still be over $16 million dollars per transaction–not even close to the $25,000 minimum. It seems that the reporting guidelines have been misinterpreted in this case.

and, a rather frightening 2007 article on USASPENDING.gov from “DOTGOVWATCH.ORG” indicates, while we are flopping around hoping to get some sensible information, or doing so is likely to be watched, and that the home page contained this warning:

WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.  {link has moved since….}

GRANT ANNOUNCEMENT for this NRCSPHM:

National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage 
HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207

Summary

Funding Opportunity Title: National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage
Funding Opportunity Number (FON): HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207
Program Office: Office of Family Assistance
Funding Type: Discretionary
Funding Category: Cooperative Agreement  (WITH WHOM??)
Announcement Type: Initial
CFDA#: 93.086
Post Date: 06/28/2011
Application Due Date: 07/28/2011

Description

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance (OFA) is announcing the solicitation of applications to competitively award cooperative agreements for demonstration projects that support “healthy marriage promotion activities” as authorized by The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291).The cooperative agreement awarded under the Funding Opportunity Announcement will support the development, implementation, management of a National Resource Center for Marriage and Relationship Education (NRCMRE).The NRCMRE will support marriage and relationship education (MRE) program development, implementation, and integration. ACF is responsible for Federal programs that promote the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals, and communities.  The NRCMRE will provide MRE information, resources,and technical assistance designed to assist in the development of a broad approach to serving families and children by incorporating MRE into already existing services.

WHAT”S NEW?  Welfare Reform has always supported DHHS running social science experimentations on the American Public, and required states receiving assistance — access visitation assistance — to help the Secretary of HHS (NOTE:  Presidential appointee, not elected) — run them:

This SEpt. 1999 “ACTION TRANSMITTAL” (internal HHS document posted on-line) regarding 45 CFR 303.109 shows that there was not even a requirement to monitor what happened to the grants added until 2 years after they’d been in operation!  Nor was there a stipulation for protection procedures.  It provides a nice history of the Access Visitation procedures, which apparently started in 1988 with $4 million and have been at $10 million/year since 1996 or so.  Obama Administration likes to stay on the good side of the fatherhood movement and so has been promising to increase and expand this.

Recommended browsing for review, and for newcomers to the concept that the Federal Government is interested in your family court case, and tweaking the outcome of it through federal incentives to the states.

Apr 28, 1999 AT-99-007 Final Rule – Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

The intro gets a little technical, but read it anyhow:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children & Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement

AT-99-07

ISSUED: April 28, 1999

TO: STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PLANS UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS

SUBJECT: Final Rule 150 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

BACKGROUND: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs is a recent program to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parent’s access to and visitation of their children. $10 million per year has been granted to States since 1997; it is a continuing capped appropriation. Funds are granted to states based upon the number of children in single family households, a $50,000 minimum per state will be increased to $100,000 this year. The range of grants is from $100,000 to nearly $1 million per year. State programs are managed by agencies designated by the Governor; many states do not operate the program through the IV-D agency. Funds may be used for the following activities: mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

ATTACHMENT: Attached is the final rule published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15132-6). This is a new regulation mandated by Section 469B(e)(3) of the Social Security Act which was enacted by Section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This rule is consistent with the President’s Memorandum of March 4, 1995 to the heads of Department and Agencies which announced a government-wide Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to reduce or eliminate mandated burdens on States and others.

REGULATORY REFERENCE: 45 CFR Parts 303.109

DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 1999

INQUIRIES: ACF Regional Administrators

__________________________
David Gray Ross
Commissioner
Office of Child Support Enforcement

. . .

SUMMARY: This final rule implements provisions contained in section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and establishes the requirements for State monitoring, reporting and evaluation of Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs. Access and Visitation programs support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup) and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

In Trumbull, OHIO — very recently — a young girl (13 months old) was RAPED by both her parents in a supervised visitation facility; which was discovered not by the supervising facility (obviously) but by a relative who caught images on the cell phone. The same mother’s prior daughter, “Tiffany” had been snatched by the foster care system at birth, and — in a foster home with mother and father — had been in 2009, killed by ‘asphyxiation associated with blunt trauma.”  This was not a custody situation, but a CPS-type situation. . . . .

To show their appreciation for reporting something they had missed, the system ALSO took the two-year old son of the relative who did the right thing and reported — called the police, disowned the relative who had perpetrated this horror.  Ohio is up in arms about this, and I have a post in draft format exploring how the funding works in OHIO to enable this kind of “protection” of children.  I found out that (speaking of incentives to break up families — while HHS pays other people to strengthen them) the Ohio DJFS (Dept of Job & Family Services) or whatever it’s called, got $206 MILLION — in 2011 alone — for Adoption Incentives, and $191 MILION for Foster Care (or vice versa).  Maybe these were support payments to foster care families and not just incentives, but the amount clearly trounced other payments under the same DUNS# for this major department.

All the fatherhood fundings seem to come to this dept. as well as the access visitation fundings.  I found it tied into the Marriage Education stream as well, at the sate level, and linked to a TENNESSEE group selling curricula, a (nonprofit?) called FIRST THINGS FIRST.  The item in question was trying to encourage black families to get and stay married, specifically.  I think OHIO is a bit afraid of black people; they should move to East or West Coast (or Chicago) and “get real!” vs. trying to regulate breeding behaviors through selling marriage education!

Let me quote this 1999 HHS Action Transmittal (of a final rule regulating access/visitation grants) — because it’s not a half-bad summary, or birds-eye view of how some of these programs (including the healthy marriage system also) really got entrenched and became the norm:

AT-9907, Issued April 28, 1999

History of Federal Involvement in Access and Visitation

The Federal financial involvement in access and visitation began when the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485) authorized up to $4 million each year for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 for State demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.

Typically the process of encouraging someone to comply with a court order is contained right in the legal process.  You file a contempt order with the court, and the judge rules on this, or sanctions someone.  What necessity was there to develop programs to “encourage” U.S. citizens to comply with rule of law, or a court order?  I do not believe this could’ve been the genuine purpose, just the alleged purpose.  Designing programs to manipulate people’s behavior is manipulation, period. using public money to do so, I say, is wrong.  We EXPECT people to adhere to a common standard, and then use the existing state and local court systems, so all know what the standards are, and there can be a common expectation of ethics.  Alas, this system was much more distant from the people affected (i.e. voted on in washington; but some of us live on the other coast).

The legislation required an evaluation of these projects and a Report to Congress on the findings. In October 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services transmitted to Congress the report entitled, “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects”. The report indicated that requiring both parents to attend mediation sessions and developing parenting plans was successful for cases without extensive long-term problems.

In September, 1996, the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare submitted a report to the President and Congress which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren).

Finally, PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children. Activities funded by this program include mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision, neutral drop-off and pickup), development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. States may administer programs directly or through contracts or grants with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities; States are not required to operate such programs on a statewide basis. Under this provision, the amount of the grant to be made to the State shall be the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities just described or the allotment to the State for the fiscal year. The Federal government will pay for 90 percent of project costs, up to the amount of the grant allotment. In other words, States are required to provide for at least ten percent of project funding even if they do not spend their entire allotment. The allotment would be determined as follows: an amount which bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants as the number of children in the State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all States. Such allotments are to be adjusted so that no State is allotted less than $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year.

As you can see, Congress wants these programs in operation. As it says, they are directed towards fathers (admittedly then, and probably still (though less so now, about 15 years later) who are the main noncustodial parents and ones paying child support (although — is anyone keeping track??))  So right here, unknown to me (I was in a marriage, getting assaulted at the time, like many other women), my government was setting up programs to encourage INCREASING noncustodial parent time beyond whatever we would eventually decide ourselves, without these programs’ involvement.

Personal/Anecdotal re:  Mediation:

This also resulted — in my case — of going straight to mandated mediation upon a restraining order having been made permanent, and in that condition (while I was still in shock, and probably he was also) a court order was figured out in a VERY short time frame (one appointment), where I was not in shape to protect my boundaries, informed of the access visitation programs, or knowledgeable even about the rules of court for DV cases.  Our mediation almost completely defeated the prime stipulations of the restraining order.  Bad idea!   But because a restraining order was such a huge leap, at the time, our family didn’t know what it’d just been cheated out of, on the basis of anticipation that their father was going to bail out on child support (before any was really set, even!), and needed more policy to encourage him to pay.

Here is how this Action Transmittal responds to comments raised by DV advocates, or at least some, as to safety issues.  Please note that this is 1999, and only NOW has any provision whatsoever regarding safety to the custodial parent been raised:

Comment: There was a concern among commenters that the regulation contains no requirement to monitor whether States are screening potential clients for domestic violence (spousal or child abuse) to ensure that the battered spouse is not put at further risk.

In 2006 (10 years later) and in countless instances inbetween, a woman was murdered during an exchange of children.  However, as her husband had buried her, and no body was found, it was an unusual high-profile trial:  Two children (6 & 8) were there when she was murdered during the routine, court-ordered exchange.  Finally, the man was convicted, and as part of his plea-bargain, helped the police by leading them to the (shallow grave) 3 miles from his home:  Hans & Nina Reiser case.   DastardlyDads blogspot keeps count (I couldn’t handle doing this, have no idea how the person in question does):  see (February 2011 post)

175 Killer Dads: Fathers who ended their children’s lives in situations involving child custody, visitation, and/or child support (USA) An update to our previous 76 Killer Dads, 88 Killer Dads, and 138 Killer Dads lists.

“This is NOT a comprehensive list of all U.S. fathers who have killed their children in situations involving domestic violence and/or child abuse. This list is limited to articles I have found where there is an identifiable child custody, visitation, and/or child support angle in the children’s deaths. Even then, I can’t claim that this is a comprehensive list of child custody, visitation, and or child-support- related murders. Quite often, newspaper articles just don’t provide enough information to make a judgment call.”
This person was simply reading the newspaper accounts, and keeping a count.  Notice — PLENTY from 2008 – 2010.  There is no question that the presence of these access and visitation grants  enabled and encouraged some very bad behaviors, such as murder.  It has also made it nearly impossible for marriages which really should have been split up and NOT have continued involvement by a perpetrator of violence upon mother Or child(ren) — to become separate entitities.
 Why?  Because sometimes the child support arrears literally extorts the father into waging a custody battle he may not even want.
Recently (for Pete’s sake!) an assistant deputy attorney (I forget exact title), a mother working for the California Attorney General, had her little girl abducted on a court-ordered (?) visitation, and despite her frantic calls to get the baby back, FBI didn’t issue the Amber Alert (per procedures to WAIT LONGER when it’s parental involvement) and there was a murder -suicide.  GUESS WHAT:  THIS POLICY ENABLED THAT (Samaan/Fay).  If even someone working in this arm of government cannot save her own child’s life, what have we come to?
IF they do persuade/encourage/facilitate (or bribe) fathers to pay child support better, or GOOD Dads to be more involved with their children in cases where there were BAD, VISITATION-OBSTRUCTING MOMS (and NOT prior abuse, violence, or threats in the relatioship) —
ANYHOW, here was the 1999 response to what I’d call women’s rights organizations to this policy and these grants:

Response: We share the concerns for safety expressed by commentators who wrote about domestic violence.

No they don’t.  Not really.  I do not believe the people responding here were themselves in situations where a life was at risk, possibly theirs, possibly their offspring’s, around custody issues.  If it had been, the response would’ve been less “detached” and “handsoff” in nature:

Access and visitation by a non-custodial parent can lead to dangerous situations for some parents and their children. The safety of the custodial parents and their children must be addressed when it is a problem.

CAN?  It already had been; the wording should have been “has led.”  And “dangerous situations” doesn’t use the word “lethal” in any way, which it should’ve.

But — because of child suppport ,and because of child psychologist reports about continuing contact, there MUST be no complete separation from the criminally behaving parent.

It is our intent to encourage States to ensure safety when necessary in implementing grants under this program. States should develop procedures to assess the degree of danger, weighing sensitively the assertions of both parents.

“Weighing sensitively” replaces, evaluating the truth of . .. But the, we’re talking family courts…..

In response to the comments, we have added to the regulation a new requirement under Sec. 303.109(a) requiring States to monitor programs to safeguard against domestic violence, as follows: “(a) Monitoring. The State must monitor all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs to ensure that the programs * * * contain safeguards to ensure the safety of parents and children.”

Comment: Several commenters suggested that the regulation require specific approaches for addressing problems that may occur in activities funded by these grants. Concerns were noted regarding mandated mediation and supervised transfer and visitation of children.

Response: Since we wish to provide maximum flexibility to the States, we have not required specific approaches to dealing with issues of domestic violence. Consistent with our authority under the Statute to regulate what the States need to monitor, we require States to monitor their grantees to ensure that there are procedures in place and being used to ensure safety.

Regarding mandated mediation, we wish to make clear that the statute does not mandate mediation for any particular clients. Mediation mandated by the courts for contending parents is one service that the States may chose to fund. We recognize that in some cases, mediation may be dangerous for the victim of abuse. There is also evidence that in some cases involving partner abuse, mediation has been effective. This is a service that warrants careful monitoring by States to ensure that safety assessments are conducted. When it is determined not to be warranted, alternative forms of conflict resolution should be used.

Alternative forms of conflict resolution, most likely involving the same stable of family law mediation providers, i.e., AFCC personnel who tend to minimize DV and discredit it.

EVALUATION OF CHILD ACCESS PROJECTS 

This “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects,” I have read.  Highlights from this one, published by HHS, acknowledge that the purpose is SPECULATION that more access might mean more child support payments — however, also cites child psychology as it being better for the child to have contact with both children.  This being in 1996, and two short years after the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) passed, failure to mention it is notable.  Responding to “fathers’ rights groups” IS mentioned:

Purpose

As set forth in the Family Support Act of 1988, this evaluation explored the effect of two waves of Child Access Demonstration projects on the amount of time required to resolve access disputes; reductions in litigation related to access disputes; improvements in compliance with court-ordered child support amounts; and promotion of the emotional adjustment of children. It also assessed the extent and nature of child access disputes as well as parental satisfaction with the demonstrations.

Background

Recent research in child psychology shows generally that close, frequent, and positive contact with the father following divorce and separation is beneficial for the child.

Child access is also important for child support enforcement. Recent Census data and research studies have indicated that where noncustodial parents have visitation rights or joint custody they tend to be more compliant with child support orders, although it is difficult to show cause and effect since the parents wanting to see the child may also be the better payers. Desire for increased child contact may follow child support payment rather than vice versa. Moreover, denial of visitation is seen {{by _ _ _ _ _ _ _??}} as the major reason for nonpayment of child support for noncustodial parents who have money to pay child support.

Whatever the reason is, the person is noncompliant.  Trying to set up programs to “get inside their head” as to why is based on some philosophy, I guess, that it’s more important to please noncompliant parents (NB, at the time, primarily fathers) than to establish — for both parties and for stability for the kids — an expectation that a court order is a court order.  Same for visitation.

There has been considerable pressure {{from fathers and fathers’ groups}} for the system to give support to the needs of noncustodial as well as custodial parents.

In 1996, it’s obvious that then-President Clinton’s 1995 Executive Order to incorporate more ‘Fatherhood” in federal agencies was already out there.  No mention of this seems real odd.

Over 43 States authorize joint custody. There are currently over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs and over 280 fathers’ rights groups organized throughout the country to facilitate child access by noncustodial parents.

Of course there are!  The Children’s Rights Council (Maryland) had been around since the 1980s; and the HHS itself had just provided a tidy grant to start the National Fatherhood Initiative aslo.  Regarding “over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs”  — the organization most pushing mediation has been the AFCC.

A co-founder of AFCC includes Jessica Pearson (hear tell, see NAFCJ.net, also her name is on at least one of its earlier incorporations in California, from Denver; I’ve posted it more than once on-line here).  This report was done by

Congress responded to the continuing public debate about the problem of noninvolvement by noncustodial parents and resulting litigation by directing HHS to conduct State demonstration projects relating to a variety of means of facilitating continuing involvement by the noncustodial parent.

In 1996 a new Federal grant program for child access and visitation programs was established nationwide.  (etc.   . . . You can read it. . .. )

CHILD ACCESS AND VISITATION:  PROMISING PROCEDURES

This is a later (after 2002) summary bearing the typical evaluation credit:  Center for Policy Research / Policy Studies, Inc. (both in Denver).

Its writers (compilers, I gather) are Jessica Pearson and David Price, for the respective agencies.  I’ve profiled both these corporations plenty on the blog and associated Dr. Pearson clearly with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.  Its language is apparent here, in discussion A/V funding when it comes to “high-conflict families.”  I think this section pretty much Says it All — in describing the largest court system in the country (California’s) zero mention is made of the phrase “domestic violence.”  Notice the substitutionary words, applied to BOTH parents, not just one.  THey are viewed as a unit, and not as individuals:

The phrase “high-conflict” is used 40 times (approximately once every 4 pages on averate) and an entire chapter is devoted to how to deal with such, “parents.”

SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

“To investigate and provide long-term access assistance to families with entrenched disputes and/or serious allegations of parental misconduct, using a variety of court-ordered services.”

“serious allegations of parental misconduct” clearly puts said misconduct into the “behavioral” realm and not criminal.  Readers should understand that the authors, by association, would consider “parental alienation” serious misconduct, as well as alleging or reporting, or having allowed a child to report, any serious misconduct.  There are no moral values or standards outside the dispute resolution industry here, apparently:

INTRODUCTION

Brief investigations by trained court personnel when parents exhibit high conflict behavior, with recommendations to the court on needed services.

It is not necessary to conduct any extended investigation, or read reports of non-court personnel, such as police reports, or CPS reports.

Translation:  This is a “Catch-22.”  If there HAS been “serious parental misconduct” it is going to cause conflict — unless one parent can be extorted or intimidated into silence (which this system helps do). . . .  NO reference to ascertaining the cause of it shows up.  The knee-jerk solution is tell the court to “recommend needed services”

I will translate this formula for driving business to related professionals, or court-affiliated nonprofits another time here:

ANY CONFLICT is an excuse to INCREASE BILLABLE HOURS (whether to Title IV_D provided, or force the parent(s) to pay) to some “SERVICE.”

SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

INTRODUCTION

More approaches listed (on this page, anyhow):

  • Multi-session, psycho-educational interventions for parents for whom domestic violence has been an issue, with the objective of helping them parent apart and understand the dynamics of domestic violence.
  • Monthly meetings and/or telephone contact on a more frequent basis with mental health professionals to resolve ongoing issues and disputes about access
  • Explanatory materials on supervised visitation and exchange services for parents and providers in many languages.
  • Supervised exchange services for families who display conflict during drop-off and pick-up of the children
  • Supervised visitation services for families with allegations of domestic violence, abuse, and/or other forms of parental misconduct or conflict.
  • ␣␣ Teaching inexperienced parents how to interact with their children during supervised visits by providing instruction and feedback.**
  • ThedevelopmentofastandingorderofthePresidingJudgeoftheFresnoCountySuperior Court that police can invoke requiring parents to use supervised visitation services if the police are called out two or more times to assist with the exchange of the children.␣␣ Thedevelopmentofa12-weekcurriculumfornever-married,separated,ordivorcedparents where domestic violence has been an issue.

(**aka, do not rape, etc.)

A 12-week curriculum for domestic violence?  (There are 52-week batterers intervention programs, and they aren’t even proven effective…excepting getting out of a jail sentence for DV)

the word “mother” occurs 42 times and “father” more than 100 times.   The document is well worth reading to understand how the court “thinks” about parents walking into its doors, while providing services that the federal government (as of the late 1990s) pays 90% of the expenses for, and that any state paying less than $100K for statewide services will still get $100K for statewide services anyhow.

I have not tracked to what extent this program has been expanded, or the Administration hopes to expand payments for it as of 2012.  I have stomach issues and it’s early in the day, might need to keep any meals down  . . .

David A. Price is a very interesting professional: He publishes consistently opposite the CPR group, and/or with Jane Venohr, Ph.D. (who has been staff in both CPR & PSI), for example, in Colorado:

Multiple Initiatives Grant

Notice the authors.  (Thoennes is also CPR).   In the selection above, the piece citing David Price has credit like this:

Jane Venohr, Ph.D.

David Price, Ph.D.

Policy Studies Inc.

999 18th Street, Suite 1000

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 863-0900

(on the left — and on the right side, is CPR)

Esther Griswold, M.A., Center for Policy Research 1570 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218 (303) 837-1555

However, Jane Venohr has been (from the start?  Certainly for a long time) “CPR” — she is one of the 3 key leaders, out of 6 women listed in “About Us.”

Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate

jvenohr@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.

So for purposes of the study, Jane wore her PSI had with Mr. Price, and someone else wore the CPR had.  This is common among AFCC-personnel; if you don’t know the common association, you just don’t know.  Perhaps in all professions, but I sure notice it among the court’s.   ALSO, in Colorado, “David A. Price” is only associated with two corporations, one of which (he) voluntarily dissolved in 2008, apparently, namely, a law firm:

Found 2 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# Name Address Type Count
1 PRICE, DAVID A. 930 ACOMA ST., #415, DENVER, CO
80204, US		 Registered Agent 1
2 PRICE, DAVID A. 200 GRAND AVE STE 315, GRAND
JUNCTION, CO 81501, US		 Registered Agent 1

The first one was formed (note) in 1984, and he has been filing consistently — unlike many marriage grantees– even this past month! It’s also a nonprofit.

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# ID # Click here to sort in ascending order. Entity Name Entity Type Date Filed Entity Status
1 19871583603  CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES Nonprofit Corporation 08/15/1984 GOOD

I believe I have pointed this out before, but Policy Studies Inc. has 12 trade names, many of them relating to child support; (always) notice the dates of incorporation:

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# Name Click here to sort in ascending order. Address Type Count
1 POLICY STUDIES INC. 1515 WYNKOOP ST STE. 400, DENVER,
CO 80202, US		 Trade name Registrant 12 
[Next 2>]
  1   2
Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM

and the last two:

Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 2 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
11 20021223054  20021223054 BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
12 20021223055  20021223055 EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM

The “Parent Opportunity Programs” have been studied, noted as problemmatic for mothers, by National Alliance of Family Court Judges (Liz Richards).

The El Paso County Child Support Services site has a section on this, what appears to be an access-visitation-funded program, one would think from the description:

This would seem to be a government site, judging by the phrase “El Paso County” and how official it looks.  However the URL is clearly  a *.com:

http://www.elpasocountycss.com/services.html

By Contrast, for example, Jefferson County, CO child support site is clearly a government site (see url http://co.jefferson.co.us/cse/index.htm)  Notice, central to the site:

Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Home Page!

Fatherhood Program 

Learning to be the best dads we can be!

The purpose of the Fatherhood Program is to provide education and support for those individuals desiring to enrich their lives and their child(ren) while providing peer based engagement, motivation and indefinite support to individual fathers and families.  These fathers will be educated about practical parenting styles and skills.  Emphasis will be placed on the critical need for fathers to be active in parenting their children {{Access & Visitation…}} as well as serving as positive role models for other children in our communities.  The Fatherhood Program will assist dads to identify and overcome barriers they face in maintaining an active role in their children’s lives,{{also code for access and visitation, possibly including help modifying support or custody orders}} becoming and remaining current on financial obligations to their children, and finding on-going support in the community.
Through a case planning process, a dad’s strengths will be identified, opportunities evaluated and discussed, and a simple written plan formulated.  The plan will identify the responsiblity of the dad and the responsibility theFatherhood Case Manager in implementing the plan.

The  ‘Fatherhood Case Manager’ is listed as a DHHS employee:

“The Fatherhood Program of Jefferson County is a program initiative of The Jefferson County Child Support office and is funded by a grant from the State of Colorado Division of Colorado Works made possible by a grant from The Administration of Children and Families Office of Family Assistance.”  (ACF/OFA, meaning, probably, National).  “Colorado WOrks” is no doubt their welfare program).”  Suppose a noncustodial mother hits this page?  We do exist, even as the silent minority!)

SEE HOW THIS WoRKS, yet?  LInks to, for example:

WEBSITES

www.coloradodads.org
www.familiesfirstcolorado.org

. . .(I explored this site a bit, which includes a home for abused children, and “Circle of Parents(TR), which also turns out to be HHS/OFA funded:

Families First received a Partners for Kids: United Hands Make the Best Families Responsible Fatherhood sub- award grant from the national Circle of Parents® office, to provide training and technical assistance to these two sites. The project is funded by the U.S. DHHS, Office of Family Assistance.

http://www.circleofparents.org/about_us/fatherhood.html

 

“Mission Statement : Prevent child abuse and neglect and strengthen families through mutual self-help parent support groups.”

Anything HHS-funded and purporting to prevent child abuse is likely to do this by promoting father involvement . . .  It’s how the cookie crumbles:

About Circle of Parents: Fatherhoodphoto of dad and baby

FATHERHOOD.GOV
Checkout the new Fatherhood Newsletters
Webinar: Father Factor in Children’s Health
August 2011; Time: 1:19:29

In 2006 Circle of Parents received a grant from the Office of Family Assistance to implement a comprehensive training, technical assistance and community access project to aid local home visiting programs in the provision of support and education to new and expectant fathers. Parents as Teachers, Nurse-Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, Early Head Start and/or Healthy Start homed visiting programs in the states of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin received $50,000 each to begin services to expecting and new fathers. The project is being implemented in partnership with the Circle of Parents National Network, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Conscious Fathering Program™ of Parent Trust for Washington Children, PACT Law Center, Prevent Child Abuse America and Leslie Starsoneck, a domestic violence expert. **  

 CIRCLE OF PARENTS RECEIVED $4,800,000 IN “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program” funding from the OFA from 2006 through 2010, a five-year period.  The first two years, a flat $900K each, then each subsequent year $1,000,000.   Here it is, all = award 90FR0098.  (Found in 3 minutes — I didn’t think of it on first posting — taggs.hhs.gov / award search / selected Year 2011/cfda 93086, and scanned the (178) results).  This group shows no 2011 award, but its presence in the list shows prior awards.

Circle of Parents®   EIN 800106957

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
CIRCLE OF PARENTS  CHICAGO IL 60611-3777 COOK 623444994 $ 4,800,000

The “Chicago” connection makes me wonder whether Jeffrey Leving is involved.  (See FFCA conferences, a large part of which each year appears to be drooling over (and coordinating how to get) the next round of fatherhood funding from whichever HEAD representative from the HHS/ACF shows up to remind them, “Who’s Your Daddy?” when it comes to caring about them enough to donate public funding from US Taxpayers (of both genders).

Here’s the Tax Return signed 4/15/2011 by CEO Cynthia R. Savage, with a very moderate salary (for the field) of $73K.  Then again, most if it apparently comes from grants taken away from TANF to start with, or other HHS funds used to promote fatherhood, after setting up organization after organization with websites and other “technical assistance” to dominate the PR on a topic, and sell trainings or curricula, usually.

Revenue (that year):

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN
Circle of Parents IL 2010 $65,404 990 31 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2009 $68,336 990 25 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2008 $52,969 990 28 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2007 $26,843 990 25 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2006 $83,638 990 24 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2005 $16,914 990 18 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2004 $3,803 990 25 80-0106957

Here’s one project of the group (note the format, graphics, high-quality media) that directly states it was funded by the above grant #90FR0098):

http://issuu.com/dadsofdouglascounty/docs/dadsgroupflyers

it is from Douglas County, KANSAS and designed to make Dads feel more comfortable in toddler playgroups, including a section called “DADDY & ME.”

NOTE:  KANSAS was making news at a petition site recently:  Topeka has declared it cannot afford even its domestic violence laws any more, they are too expensive, it is decriminalizing domestic battery, expecting the county to pick up the slack.  I kid you not:

Suspected domestic abusers go free as Topeka city, county officials bicker over funds.  Oct 4, 2011, Liz Goodwin.

 For a perspective, Google “Claudine Dombrowski” on my site — I have posted some of her court docket on there, and related the time when she was arrested for not bleeding after a severe assault, in the right county.  Actually she wasn’t reporting, simply seeking treatment at the time.  One of the assaults involved a crowbar, and this particular case has made it (along with Jessica Gonzales Lenahan) to the IACHR, as human rights violation perpetrated by the United States on its citizens.  The handling of this type of violence throughout the land has been resulting in — eventually, and in many, many cases — simply switching custody to the offender and letting the victim go repeatedly to court to fight for contact, while trying to stay sane in knowledge of who is caring for her kids, and (sometimes unsuccessfully) alive.   Another article on this topic.    NOTE:   TOPEKA IS THE CAPITAL OF KANSAS.  NOTE #2 — the head of the HHS department came from Kansas.
{{An acquaintance of mine forwarded the article (which I knew about), and said she’d submitted a comment, responding to a petition on this matter, that funding be found to allow the Women and Children of the state of Kansas to leave the state, for their own safety.}}

This article from “The Nation” sites the recent “Seal Beach, California” shooting — around a custody dispute.  The ex-wife and 7 bystanders were murdered. Obviously, what’s needed is more promotion of “responsible” fatherhood to counter murderous fathers.  It is more important to let Dads know how to feel comfortable while pushing strollers and at parks, than to stop that insanity!

[Tagline:] Topeka, Kansas, decriminalized domestic violence to save money. It’s not the only city to cut services to survivors of abuse, just as the need escalates.

After Chad Taylor, the district attorney of Shawnee County in Topeka, Kansas, had his budget cut by the County Commission last month, he announced that he no longer had the financial resources to pursue misdemeanor domestic violence cases, essentially handing them off to the city. The City Council, in turn, voted last week to decriminalize domestic violence so that it didn’t have to pay up. This put the ball back in Taylor’s court; he now says he will review cases sent to him by Topeka police and pursue them on a case-by-case basis. During the game of hot potato, suspected abusers walked free—reports range from eighteen to thirty people. Happy Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Explained from “The Horse’s Mouth” — in yet another multi-color, logo-decorated newsletter (Date August, 2011):

PARTNERS FOR KIDS:  GETTING FATHER-READY

Karen Schrader, Training and TA manager for Circle of Parents:

In 2006, Circle of Parents applied for and received one of (only) Five “Responsible Fatherhood Community Access” grants from the HHS/OFA.  She specifically mentions connections to “FamiliesFirst” in Colorado, two Dads in particular being among their national leadership, but until this ($900K grant, probably part of a 4-year agreement) they weren’t “specifically focused on fatherhood.”  HOWEVER, “the grant provided the opportunity to move the ‘cultural norm’ of our Circle of Parents network, and the ‘cultural norm” of local community-based/faith-based home visitation programs  farther along the continuum of engaging and supporting fathers.”

Provided the opportunity?  Translation:  We took the grant, and so agreed to tailor it towards fathers…..  LIke they’d wanted to all along, but not having access to free HHS funds was hampering their ability to change the culture of the organization.  (How much “culture” and a 2-year old organization have, to start with? MORE LIKELY — the organization was formed with a view to this in mind, and very much with an awareness of the HHS funding streams available. Only the 990s would tell, most likely, though.

NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE INFLUENCE in a $4.8 million national networked nonprofit discovered with links directly to (at a minimum) Colorado Child Support Enforcement site.

One of our strategic objectives was focused on changing the organization’s cultural norms around embracing fathers. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), experts in the fatherhood field, joined forces with Circle of Parents to help show us the way. We needed to assess where each grantee was on the scale of father-friendliness.

is called fawning, obsequious pandering to whoever has the money, and probably conflict of interest, too.  It’s disgusting!   The sole purpose of this organization appears to be transforming LOCAL groups into so-called “father-friendliness.”   The Executive Order that endorsed this activity, in 1995, came from a philandering Democratic President with a history financial corruption preceding the PResidency (i.e., “Clintongate,”) and with need of a personal cleanup crew to handle that philandering.  This is the SAME LANGUAGE 15 years later.

Each local and state grantee completed a father-friendly check-up assessment and created an action plan to increase their abilities to engage fathers.

Knowing that organizational change was important when we wrote the grant, Circle of Parents created a multi-level training and technical assistance system to assist the Network state and local grantees in becoming more father-friendly. In addition to NFI, expert consultants such as a domestic violence professional with experience in working with males and Bernie Dorsey of the Con- scious Fathering Program of Parent Trust for Washington Children, were engaged to provide much-needed direction and guidance. By year 3 it became clear that we needed to be more intentional in our efforts. We added additional training events and technical assistance focused on not only organizational assessment, but also staff self-assessment. If organizations are going to change their cultural norms, the staff must make personal changes as well. Circle of Parents’ commitment to father outreach and engagement will continue long after the grant ends in September. In this issue, we’ve focused on North Carolina as one illustration of the far reaching impact of this grant both on the state and local levels.

Karen Schrader took $50,100 as Program Administrator from the over $1 million of government grants (i.e., money taken from poor households food stamps, cash aid, or children’s child support / enforcement) to act as a talking head for the NFI policy set up in 1994, when this group got a conflict-of-interest-type grant from HHS, having a co-founder that was then WORKING for the HHS.  (Wade Horn, to my recall).

The third employee was paid $34,000 — would support most single-parent families adequately most places in the US — if they were NOT constantly dragged into father-friendly high-conflict custody ligitation, thanks to programs like this — to support the talk and promotion of this one group.  Membership dues one year, $13,000.  That might go a long ways to supporting a family, or helping a family get some of its infrastructure in place (like transportation) to enable access to work. Or medical care, you name it.   $642K of this $1Million plus was given away to other organizations.  Father-friendly ones only, I”m sure . . .  $217K was, again, salaries and benefits to do this; $31K in travel (wouldn’t YOU like to have a $31K travel budget?) and in IRS form Part IX, “Statement of Functional Expenses” they have nothing under “Professional Fundraising” (who needs it, with this kind of a HHS grant backing!), but  $162K in “other program expenses,” meaning, expenses directly related to doing their program.  Of course, their “program” is to transform the culture of (whoever they interact with) to become more father-friendly to start with . . ..    

Their “Program Accomplishments” are generic, and out of $1,189,089 expenses for accomplishing them, $1,054,454, or over50%, were via government grant, and in the process, said “program accomplishments” produced around $5k revenue as well.  Details for this $1.1 million of expenses (note, the average Circle of Parents(tr) HHS grant was $1 million, so if I were the HHS (and thought anyone was watching), I would want some account of where it went.

990 reads:  “See Schedule O” (usually attached to the end of the tax return).   “

Did the organization complete Schedule O — is checked “No.”

AS SUCH — this is a TYPICAL GRANTEE . . . .  Incorporated shortly before some new uptick in fatherhood / marriage funding, sustained and set up almost entirely by it, and with the primary emphasison “Technical Assistance & Training” which I translated as “PR” and “Web site support.” plus conferences, training, membership fees to do it YOUR way (insert brand name  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  ).     990s are VERY interesting, and often tell a different story and the front face of the organization, although Karen Schrader was astonishingly honest about “just what” Circle of Parents(tr) really is.

Of course, I picked up on it immediately from their website, because they aren’t the only organization transformed into father-friendly by HHS infusions.

The newsletter – JUNE 2011 — was posted at the link “SMART START & NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, Inc.”

“What is Smart Start?

Smart Start was created in 1993 as an innovative solution to a problem: Children were coming to school unprepared to learn.”

Their FUNDERS page speaks loudly — it’s basically a laundry list of organizations that also do fatherhood promotion, plus a pharmaceutical, a tutoring program (Kaplan), a school supply, and (last year) over $1 million from W.K. Kellogg Foundation.  Oh yes — and the Z.Smith Reynolds Foundation which Domestic Violence advocate & public policy influencer Ms. Starosek worked for, above . . ..

CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr)

   USASPENDING.GOV — as I have to say, seems habitual — is not reporting one of these $900K grants (the 2006 one, even though USASPENDING.gov has time slots back to 2000 for its data), and only 4 out of 5 awards, resulting in:

  • Total Dollars:$3,900,000
  • Transactions:1 – 4 of 4
 However, if one takes the DUNS# above and looks, it’s clear that the source of some of this is definitely TANF funding, i.e., welfare.
The office (reported on USASPENDING.gov) being “500 North Michigan, Chicago, IL” right downtown Chicago, on “The Magnificent Mile,” I’m going to look this up further, right now.  (That address also contains a virtual office, including some consulates, etc.)
ILLINOIS says, it’s in good standing, and incorporated, as a nonprofit, on April 20 2004.

Its listed as a partner on this group:  “FRIENDS,” or “NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION” out of Chapel Hill, NC:   (800 Eastowne Dr., Ste. 105, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, to be precise).  I am thinking this is another nonprofit formed to accommodate or appropriate another HHS-originated policy & grant to go with it.

FRIENDS is an acronym for Family Resource Information, Education, and Network Development Service.

FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) is a service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. We are a federally mandated Training and Technical Assistance Provider for CBCAP lead agencies.

How is FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP funded?

FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP (FRIENDS) is funded under a cooperative agreement with the Children’s Bureau to provide training and technical assistance to designated CBCAP Lead Agencies and Set-Aside Grantees. For more information about the Children’s Bureau, please see their web site.

SO, certain groups (probably including “circle of Parents” with its $4.8 Million “Promote Responsible Fatherhood” grant) are “SET-ASIDE GRANTEES” and the rest of you, good luck getting a foot in the door.   What is CBCAP?  Another acronym leading back to “CAPTA” which appears to lead back to welfare reform, or at least matches the time frame — 2006.   It was reauthorized in 2010, and I bet there are mothers all across the country, in these custody wars, still wondering “what happened?” and why are abusers getting access to children STILL, even when the visitation happens in a supervised visitation center (Trumbull County, OHIO recent:  Convicted juvenile sex offender Dad & Mom take “parenting classes” and get access to their 2nd baby (first one, removed at birth, was beaten to death in foster care before she turned 2), and the facility this happens in “just happens” to be a fairly direct (and statewide) project of — guess what — “OHIO.FATHERHOOD.GOV.”   Gives a whole new meaning to “access and visitation,” not to mention “Parental involvement.”

What is CBCAP?

CBCAP stands for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention. It refers to specific types of child abuse prevention programs that exist in every state in the U.S.

What legislation supports CBCAP?

The key Federal legislation addressing prevention in child abuse and neglect is the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which was originally enacted in 1974. This Act has been amended several times in the last 37 years and was most recently amended and reauthorized on December 10th, 2010, by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320).

Why were CBCAP programs created?

CBCAP programs were established by Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 and most recently reauthorized in December of 2010.

 

 

 ** For “expert” read “heat shield.”  I linked to her LinkedIn — Ms. Starsonek hails from North Carolina and lists herself as working on this Circle of Parents(tr) “Fatherhood Initiative,” and formerly as a consultant for the NC Administrative Office of the Courts, although it’s clear her public policy experience has focused on “domestic violence/ intimate partner abuse.”   The business is “nonprofit organization management” not “domestic violence advocate.”  A 107 page article on-line here comments on how judges feel about “judicial sensitivity taining” re: domestic violence, i.e., it insults their intelligence to sit through propaganda.  

A very good summary of her approach in a 2004 article from “Philanthropy Journal,” called “A Voice for Victims,” recommends the usual “integrated approach” and helping agencies get along with each other, gives her personal philosophy and background, and seems a typical system approach:  It does not mention the existence of the AFCC, and attributes failure to protect women & children from getting murdered around custody disputes, plus the suicides apparently to lack of understanding and coordination — rather than any corruption or undue influence within the system.  As such, the solutions are going to be more training and more interagency cooperation.    

 Based in part on recommendations made by a task force coordinated by Starsoneck, a select committee of the N.C. House this year passed what she characterizes as “landmark” domestic-violence legislation. With nearly two-dozen provisions, the law addresses a broad range of topics. It expands legal services for victims of domestic violence, provides for treatment for offenders, addresses the role of schools, and directs the state Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a plan for dealing with victims of domestic violence who have substance-abuse or mental-health problems. The law also bars discrimination by employers against victims of domestic violence who are seeking relief from the courts, ensures safer and more consistent handling of child custody and visitation in domestic violence cases (I’d like to see that!)

Note:  North Carolina DHS has a “Fatherhood Project” — I don’t suppose any discussion of this comes up in public policy matters affecting child visitation and custody around domestic violence, does it?  For example, informing victims that the field of “Fatherhood” exists?

WHILE these reports, task forces, and discussions are ongoing, North Carolina — like very other state — continues to have its Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood projects going on (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse) and their Access/Visitation Programs as well — run from the Department of Human Resources — (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse, and sometimes fathers with children attempting to leave domestic violence (Referring to the physical abuse in particular) as well).  The access/visitation grants ARE the answer to women & children attempting to leave domestic violence, which sometimes casts them upon welfare.  And historically the DV groups rarely report on this, either.  SOMETIMES they do, but never to the point of protesting the expansion of those two policies, which would be like cutting off the hand that feeds the same groups!

I found 43 grants under two (there are more, but I only searched two) fatherhood-centric grants systems, in NC (all years).  Obviously, from the chart below, the OCSE is administering the Access Visitation (“SAVP”) grants.   (OCSE comes under HHS).  OBVIOUSLY, marriage/fatherhood is being pushed  — or at least “promoted” — through:  Welfare Office, University Level, Community Action Organizations.  I am curious why a “Voice for the Victims” may not be mentioning this consistently throughout a professional development resulting in 127 contacts (in this case).  Without meaning to minimize Ms. Starosek’s career concern about DV issues, she has a educational background of psychology and social science, plus government involvement (contracting and consulting).   She has been active also (per article) in Massachusetts, where AFCC is even listed right on the family court site — twice.  Somehow, this has not caught her attention, and I suspect this is probably because of the associations more with policy-makers and government councils, that people going through the custody-child-removal system enabled by the grants, and the policies behind them.  It is simply an entirely different point of view, and results in an entirely different voice.

FYI — we can speak.  Victims, unless their larynxes have been injured in an assault — CAN speak.  most I’ve met are articulate (discounting some for the PTSD), and don’t need ongoing interpretation.  They are often adults, and are eyewitnesses of their own experience, and often networked well enough to know others’ common experience. They are often the best voice of what they have consistently experienced, and this voice has been lost.  Federal Policymakers are not INTERESTED in the roadkill to their rhetoric as applied at the state level.  They are interested in maintaining political viability by continuing to get grants for their associates, knowing FULL WELL that there is no adequate oversight, and no real document results in the objectives under which these programs were (improperly) sold to Congress to start with (Welfare Reform 1996).

(NORTH CAROLINA:  Years, All   CFDAs 93597 (A/V) and 93086 (HM/RF) series).  Circle of Parents, in taking on this DV expert made sure NOt to hear “the voice of the victims” of family court coverup of DV.. . …  ….. , meanwhile complying with federal regulation 45 CFR 303.109 (as to these grants), or at least its sentiment, in taking on a token DV person to lend legitimacy . . . .

Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
ACF CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/21/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
ACF CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/14/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
ACF CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/17/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
ACF CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/14/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
ACF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/20/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 405,528
ACF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/26/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 525,161
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/20/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 490,465
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 06/06/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 0
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/22/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 530,482
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0001NCSAVP SAVP 2000 08/22/2000 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0101NCSAVP SAVP 2001 08/23/2001 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0201NCSAVP 2002 SAVP 08/06/2002 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 248,098
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0201NCSAVP 2002 SAVP 09/14/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 23,880
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0301NCSAVP 2003 SAVP 09/11/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 248,098
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0301NCSAVP 2003 SAVP 09/14/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 30,070
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0401NCSAVP 2004 SAVP 09/15/2004 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,566
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0501NCSAVP 2005 SAVP 09/14/2005 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,566
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0601NCSAVP 2006 SAVP 09/19/2006 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 268,587
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0701NCSAVP 2007 SAVP 07/20/2007 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 278,157
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0801NCSAVP 2008 SAVP 01/30/2008 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 271,792
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0901NCSAVP FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 12/23/2008 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,258
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 1001NCSAVP FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 11/25/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 279,933
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 1101NCSAVP FY 2011 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 10/08/2010 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 286,100
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 05/31/1998 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 12/02/1999 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 216,494
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 01/04/2000 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 205
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9801NCSAVP 09/01/1998 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9801NCSAVP 02/24/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9901NCSAVP 08/16/1999 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9901NCSAVP 02/25/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 132,019
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 08/24/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/25/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/18/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR LINDA ROBINSON $ 514,308
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/18/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 519,625
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ELIZABETH CARROLL $ 548,181
OFA Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc. Other Social Services Organization 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 09/27/2011 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY $ 725,000
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 375,685
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/16/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 538,524
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 550,000
Results 1 to 43 of 43 matches.

(THAT was just for effect, and you could find a similar chart in any other state). 

 

“PARENT TRUST FOR WASHINGTON CHILDREN” logo alerts me to, probably another grant behind this one:  There are only so many icons available showing human figures looped together by a heart, or heart-type logo! . .  Besides, the leading page is “BUILDING STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES” which is a government theme.  When it comes to REAL families, somone is a father, someone a mother, someone gives birth (possibly more than once, creating siblings) and the term is “RAISING” my/our children, not BUILDING them!  An entirely different mindset is involved in “BUILDING a family.”  Builders are not the house, they are outside the house!   The house is made out of material they manipulate, according to some master plan, or at least SOME plan.  However, life comeso after childbirth, and from the perspective of the individuals, people GROW, and hopefully good values are instilled, safe places,future hopes, associations — and real, living connections.  The life force from within is the verb “GROW” and the artificial, social-science-focused (i.e., focusing on the theory, policy, or others involved) results in terms like “BUILDING FAMILIES,” (Plural).  Particularly as many of these policies are resulting in partially dead, or wholly dead families (i.e., murder/suicides), wasted years, wasted tax dollars, and time taken out of building their own futures, according to their OWN plans which just may happen to fit their own reality better than an “almost one size fits all” policy from above  . . . . . . (well, you can tell what kind of mood I”m in today on all this mess!) (it’s reall organized, but in practice, it’s messing with other, important realities, like due process in the courts, and the ability to make independent choices, by MOTHERS!)(and, many FATHERS, too!).  

This one, apparently, is marketing “Professional Trainings” especially “Conscious Fathering”(tr).  Contact your local affiliate to buy it:

“

“Conscious Fathering’s Creating Parental Balance Trainings:”


with “DONATE” “WEB STORE” “CONTACT US” (in that order)

 (It took a while to locate, but it’s a project of the Seattle Foundation, self-described as the largest  funder in King’s County) or at least helped by them):  

Parent Trust for Washington Children 9/10/2010 $15,000.00 support general operating expenses. 

EIN# 911036940, I’ll check TAGGS (yes, they have been filing, at least):  recorded here under a different name (and no DUNS#)…

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE  SEATTLE WA 98101 KING $ 50,000

(“Mutual Support” programs?  How about put some of that to tracking down that “undistributable child support collections” held at the state level, no doubt in Washington, like other states!)

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
1998 90CA1648  DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 0 ACF 09-14-1998 $ 50,000 

There are thousands of “90CA” awards.  To narrow it, I picked 1998, and only WA, D.C. & CA (most projects get tested in CA, why not?) — narrowing it down to 18 awards.  Parents Anonymous apparently got started in California anyhow, and the washington group eventually changed its name:  Here we go, from TAGGS:

Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
1998  CB  CAL ST LA UNIV AUXILIARY SERVICES, INC CA 90CA1589 PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – FIELD INITIATED RESEARCH ON CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW MITCHELL EISEN, PH.D. $ 9,750
1998 CB CENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION & FAMILY SUPPORT DC 90CA1614 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JOYCE N THOMAS $ 100,000
1998 CB D.C. CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND DC 90CA1645 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW CAROLYN S ABDULLAH $ 50,000
1998 CB EDGEWOOD THE SF PROTESTANT ORPHANAGE CA 90CA1599 PRIORITY AREA 1.03 – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KINSHIP CARE OF CHILDREN IN WELFARE SYSTEM 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION LILLIAN JOHNSON $ 199,464
1998 CB FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO, INC CA 90CA1608 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ASCENCION HERNANDEZ $ 100,000
1998 CB FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES OF THE BAY AREA CA 90CA1587 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION PATRICIA CHAMBERS, PH.D $ 150,000
1998 CB KITSAP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WA 90CA1609 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ELIZABETH S BOSCH $ 100,000
1998 CB LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DEPT OF CHILDREN’S SRVS CA 90CA1594 PRIORITY AREA 1.03 – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KINSHIP CARE OF CHILDREN IN WELFAR 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION SHARYN L LOGAN $ 200,000
1998 CB MARY’S CENTER OF MATERNAL & CHILD CARE DC 90CA1586 PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – HEALTHY FAMILIES DC 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JOAN YENGO $ 150,000
1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS  CA 90CA1592 PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – NATIONAL NETWORK OF MUTUAL SUPPORT/SELF HELP PROGRAMS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION TERESA RAFAEL $ 350,000
1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS CA 90CA1646 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW LISA PION-BERLIN $ 50,000
1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE  WA 90CA1648 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW SYLVIA MEYER $ 50,000
1998 CB SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA CA 90CA1630 PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW TANYA PHAM $ 100,000
1998 CB SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA CA 90CA1630 PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION TANYA PHAM $ 100,000
1998 CB SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, FOUNDATION CA 90CA1566 PRIORITY AREA 1.02R – CONSOR- TIUM FOR LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF CHILD MALTREATMENT PROJECTS 4 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION ALAN LITROWNIK $ 250,000
1998 CB STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CA 90CA1601 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW HAROLD R DEARMOND $ 54,725
1998 CB WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE WA 90CA1590 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW SHERRY C BRUMMEL $ 197,471
1998 CB WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE WA 90CA1590 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS 2 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION SHERRY C BRUMMEL $ 195,092

I just looked up “Parents Anonymous” and behold — only CA & AZ show any DUNS#s . . . . the umbrella organizations?  Are they ALL running “Conscious Fathering(tr)” professional training classes, and if so, for how much?  Notice, CA gets the biggest grants…

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PARENTS ANONYMOUS  (earliest grant shown 1995, Budget Year, 2) CLAREMONT CA 91711 LOS ANGELES 090749326 $ 2,828,196
PARENTS ANONYMOUS   (THIS GRANT IS 2010….) PHOENIX AZ 85014 MARICOPA 119833135 $ 792,550
PARENTS ANONYMOUS  (THIS GRANT, 1999) PHOENIX AZ 85014 MARICOPA $ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF BUFFALO & ERIE COUNTY  BUFFALO NY 14206 ERIE $ 750,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF NEW JERSEY, INC.  PRINCETON NJ 08540 MERCER $ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF PENNSYLVANIA  HARRISBURG PA 17102 DAUPHIN $ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.  CHARLESTON SC 29416 CHARLESTON $ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS ORG. OF MASS., INC.  BOSTON MA 02116 SUFFOLK $ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE  SEATTLE WA 98101 KING $ 50,000

 

Showing: 1 – 9 of 9

TAKING the DUNS# “090749326” to USASPENDING.gov, we see they have “only” missed over $2 million of grants here:

  • Total Dollars:$697,225
  • Transactions:1 – 2 of 2
One grant was “discretionary” — and is the National Child Abuse HelpLine (call your local Parenting Anonymous(tr) group  leader???) – 2010
and the 2007 one was actually even named after this group:
Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
675 W FOOTHILL BLVD STAT 220 , CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
CFDA Program : 93.670 : Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities
Description:
NATIONAL PARENT HELPLINE
Date Signed:
August 22 , 2010Obligation Amount: 
$500,000
and

Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: U81CE001039: 000 (Grants)
Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
675 W FOOTHILL BLVD STAT 220 , CLAREMONT
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CFDA Program : 93.136 : Injury Prevention and Control Research and State and Community Based Programs
Description:
ENHANCING CHILD MALTREATMENT PREV INITIATIVES THROUGH PARENTS ANONYMOUSA INC.
Date Signed:
July 02 , 2007 

Obligation Amount: 
$197,225

“parents anonymousa inc.”??  This is supposedly an extension of an earlier grant we don’t see there:

Obligation / Action Date  07/02/2007
Starting Date  09/30/2006
Ending Date  09/29/2008
R

BUT, when I omit the DUNS# and just search on the name (in quotes, Prime Award search) I see this — and have to say, just go look yourself:

  • Total Dollars:$18,936,970
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 25

This includes more from the Arizona group, and Buffalo and Erie County (NY, PA, I guess).  There are grants or contracts from the Justice Department, and under the term “DRUG-FREE”, as well as (now we know where the term “Strengthening Families” comes from:

Transaction Number # 1

Federal Award ID: 98JSFX0001: 03 (Grants)
Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS
CLAREMONT
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs
Description:
STRENGTHENING AT-RISK FAMILIES ALL ACROSS AMERICA
Date Signed:
August 17 , 2000Obligation Amount: 
$3,000,000

Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: 98JSFX000104 (Grants)
Recipient: PARENT ANONYMOUS
CLAREMONT
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs
Description:
STRENGTHENING AT-RISK FAMILIES ALL ACROSS AMERICA
Date Signed:
September 30 , 2001Obligation Amount: 
$2,993,400

They are basically THROWING money at this group, and the Arizona branch (again, looking at transaction details, DUNS# is often missing).

In 2002 (this is from “USASPending.gov”), same program:  they got $2.7 million

cfda 16;541 comes under ”

CFDA Program Title  JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION_SPECIAL EMPHASIS AND T/A

(OK, I finally looked up the project title).   The DOJ awarded a $16 million grant to Parents Anonymous — to try out and assess its own programs!  This is the AUdit Report saying their evaluation was “adequate”!!

Here they are seeking donations:  Be a Circle of Friends ($500), Patron ($1,000), Hero ($1,500), Champion ($5,000 and get to speak at national conference), or Benefactor ($10,000).  They havent figured out privileges for $10,000 and above yet . . . ..    Contact “Meryl Levine.”  I have a feeling it MAY be this Meryl Levine (from NJ, actually, but look at the details and compare to what Parents ANonymous is doing).  The pay for Parents Anonymous VP was over $100K/year.)

DO THESE CONNECTIONS have anything to do with getting THOSE grants?

CALSWEC Standing Committee

Return to Home  

Let’s take a look at who “CALSWEC” is, with HQ at UCBerkeley:

Created in 1990, the California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC) is a consortium of the state’s 21 accredited social work graduate schools, the 58 county departments of social service and mental health, the California Departments of Social Services (CDSS) and Mental Health (CDMH), the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, professional associations, and foundations.

CalSWEC is the nation’s largest coalition of its kind working to provide professional education, student financial aid, in-service training, and workforce research–all directed toward developing effective, culturally competent public service delivery to the people of California.CalSWEC’s main office is at the University of California, Berkeley.Download a copy of the CalSWEC Fact Sheet (October 2011).

Ms. Levine is on the “CHILD WELFARE STANDING COMMITTEE” (representing PARENTS ANONYMOUS(tr):
Child Welfare CommitteeThe Child Welfare Committee is responsible for leading and overseeing curriculum, stipend, and other issues of social work education pertaining to public child welfare. It includes members of the Board and community volunteers interested in child welfare social work. Committee members are listed below.
 
Committee Chair
Charlene Reid, Director
Division of Social Services
Tehama County Department of Social ServicesStaff
Barrett Johnson, Director, Child Welfare In-Service Training Project, CalSWEC
Meryl Levine, Vice President of Development
Parents Anonymous Inc.Viola W. Lindsey
Department of Social Work and Social Ecology
Loma Linda UniversityKristina Lavato-Hermann
School of Social Welfare
San Francisco State UniversityChristine Mattos
F&E Steering Committee
California Department of Social ServicesDavid Meyers, Sr. Attorney
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts/Judicial Council of CaliforniaMark Miller, Training Director
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family ServicesKate Mortimer, Project Coordinator, Title IV-E Program
Department of Social Work
California State University, Northridge
SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE ASSOCIATING WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO GET CHOSEN FOR MAJOR GRANTS . . . . 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General Seal and Site Header

http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous Incorporated, Grant Number 1998-JS-FX-0001, Claremont, California

Report No. GR-90-04-013
August 2004
Office of the Inspector General

Executive Summary
The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, has completed an audit of a Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to Parents Anonymous located in Claremont, California. The purpose of this grant was to build and support strong, safe families in partnership with local communities by utilizing the Parents Anonymous model that helps break the cycle of abuse and delinquency. As of August 20, 2003, Parents Anonymous was awarded a total of $16,673,900 to assess strengths and needs of Parents Anonymous programs. The grant supported national training, technical assistance, outreach, referrals, and program materials and publications. In addition, the grant funded Parents Anonymous’ efforts to design a children’s program model, and a national database system for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information about Parents Anonymous.Our audit revealed that controls over the accounting process and records related to the grant were adequate. We found Parents Anonymous to be in compliance with OJP’s grant requirements. We reviewed Parents Anonymous’ compliance with essential grant conditions and found no weaknesses in the accounting records.These items are discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Our audit objectives, scope, and methodology appear in Appendix I.

(WELL, here are two of those reports from the OIG):

Sort by date/ Sort by relevance

DOJ/OIG OJP External Audit Reports
… At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous
Incorporated, Audit Report GR–90–04–013, August 2004. …
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/_ojp.htm-69k- Cached

Audit Report
… Claremont, California. Report No. GR–90–04–013 August 2004 Office of
the Inspector General Executive Summary. The Office …
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm-3k- Cached

Guess I’ll have to write for it:Prior to 2010, only the Audit Executive Summaries have been posted. All the Executive Summaries have been cleared and are arranged within the appropriate state directory for convenience. States not represented in this distribution do not have Executive Summaries available for inclusion at this time.

AS WITH THE HEALTHY MARRIAGES CURRICULA — it seems the JUSTICE DEPT. is helping a specific organization disseminate its own, specialty, program material.  There is ONE little minor detail with this grant going to this organization:  . . .. and that’s called CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  (whether it’s above, or below, I looked at the founding documents and find that a long-time L.A. County Judge (haven’t checked out whether other mental health professionals in the employee of the County, or working FOR the Justice Department) (or, as to HHS, in the family court system or around it) – – – were, at the time the grant was awarded.

Note:  California board had an L.A. County Judge (eventually became a judge ) on the group since 1973, and it might be worthwhile to see who else those board members represent.  Meanwhile, I want to know about this Justice Program “strengthening families all across america” program.  It’s probably a bunch a hooey, based on how frequent there are these family-court-related massacres, one state or another.

In the year 2002, the DOJ gave away $52 million (grants) in “Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Programs.”  The top Ten Recipients included:  #1, Parents Anonymous (the City of Los Angeles itself being #7)”

Top 10 Assistance Recipients FY 2002

2. DARE AMERICA$2,475,000

Do their state registrations show?

AZ as charity,- yes:

ID NAME DBA
12810 *PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ARIZONA, INC

(at the same street address, as a “dba” also)

ID NAME DBA
24105 CPLC SOUTHWEST, INC. PARENTING ARIZONA

in 2003 (* 2008) it also picked up the trade name:  “PARENTING ARIZONA:  SAFE CHILDREN, STRONG FAMILIES” (Search will probably expire, but file ID 300792 may help on the corporations search website).

Pennsylvania (per corporate website) has plenty of these by county.

CALIFORNIA HAS ITS USUAL ASSEMBLY OF:  Formed, dissolved, suspended, with one survivor:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1239568 02/22/1984 DISSOLVED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY CARRIE PUGH
C0896252 08/30/1978 SUSPENDED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY
C1023786 04/13/1981 SUSPENDED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC. PETER A BUCK
C1259155 10/18/1984 SUSPENDED PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC. BARBARA RAYNARD
C0606551 09/03/1970 ACTIVE PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. LISA PION BERLIN
C0816640 05/27/1977 DISSOLVED PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST SHELLY TAYLOR

Lisa Pion Berlin, Ph.D. apparently influenced the CAPTA legislation, and here is the main site, Los Angeles area:  Every other term is trademarkeed…

http://www.parentsanonymous.org/pahtml/pressExpert.html

Dr. Pion-Berlin is a renowned expert in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. She has authored legislation to strengthen the prevention focus of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and is frequently called upon by national and state policymakers along with the media to share unique solutions for implementing effective community-based child abuse prevention programs, achieving meaningful Parent Leadership and Shared Leadership, and creating child welfare system reform to ensure safe and strong families. Dr. Pion-Berlin also speaks on a variety of parenting topics such as: (see site).

Her son? husband? relative? (It’s an unusual last name) is a filmmaker; this one is about hazing

The ” National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council, helps promote Parents Anonymous(r) Inc.

With a unique blend of highly respected public figures and experts in the child abuse field, the National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council focuses on increasing public awareness about Parents Anonymous® Inc. and its effectiveness in strengthening families and preventing abuse and neglect.    

(in fact, I can only see one person, maybe two, on the list that is not some celebrity from a TV show….)

(Heavy emphasis on trademarked classes and training parents to teach them, as a means to prevent child abuse.  In other words,parenting classes. Guess where I am gong next…..)  The theme is having Parents (not just social staff employees) involved.  This (next) says that in 1994, they got funding to form the NPLT (tr) concept:

Parent Leadership and Parent Leaders

Parents who are committed to helping to create change in their homes and their communities are called Parent Leaders. They may be parents, grandparents, kinship care providers, foster parents or anyone in a parenting role who speaks from his/her own perspective – – and not in a staff role for an organization. Those who are most effective, however, are Parent Leaders who have personal experience in the systems they are working to change.   

In other words, we’d rather you be an insider, but speak as a parent.  

Parents Anonymous® Inc. took Parent Leadership to a new level in 1994 when it received funding to create the first National Parent Leadership Team® (NPLT), thereby ensuring Shared Leadership on a national scale. The creation, development and study of this first NPLT, initiated the Parents Anonymous® Inc. Parent Leadership research agenda. We brought 12 members from across the country on board. Over the years the Team has continued to grow and members work in partnership with Parents Anonymous® Inc. in all matters related to programs and policies.

OK, this is probably the Grants we just saw above (Taggs) for the California group — the time frame matches, as well as the name of teh grant.  TIHS is probably why the fatherhood emphasis gets in there — because of the HHS funding…  The above quote was from a newsletter put out by a Childrens Center associated with Harvard? or at least with a harvard.edu address:   ©2011 Judge Baker Children’s Center

I don’t know how common this last name is, but here is a David S. Pion-Berlin  teaching at Univ. of California/Riverside, showing a Ph.D. from International Studies in 1984, Univ. of Denver 

 

 

Yes, Dr. (in what?) Lisa Pion-Berlin takes credit for her husband, David S. (Political Science, Latin Americanist) and having been raised by her wonderful father (Nazi Refuge) — no mention whatsoever is made of any mother.  IN context, I can understand why, but again — this site is emphasizing Dads, on father’s day.

Value The Importance Of Your Fathers Daily

Celebrating Father’s Day this Sunday is essential to focusing on their critical role in our children’s lives. We all need to make sure we embrace fathers daily and value their importance! I have experienced first hand two extraordinary Fathers: my own dad, Kurt Berlin and my husband, David Pion-Berlin.

I was raised by an extraordinary Dad who has challenged me to be a caring, responsible and contributing member of our society. He still practices law in DC at 85 years old and provides me with valuable input and support (even when I don’t ask) in my role as Mom and as President and CEO of Parents Anonymous® Inc.

(OBVIOUSLY this is a very website-oriented, and heavily trademarked group, with frequent new programs and initiatives, every single one (that I’ve seen) with a slick website.  I noticed heavy First 5 (California) group, which is a red flag to me; there were questions regarding their funding in the news, including conflicts of interest between someone on its board directing moneys to another charity he was on).

“The Shared Leadership”  plan would seem to be incorporating parent-input, and thus good.  But (see my notes), the type of parent input preferred is someone IN the system, and the influence could readily go both way.   Again, I simply found this group (at all) by pegging (yet another) fatherhood training certification affecting Jefferson County CO, from Washington State, and as it happens, originated in Southern California. http://www.nationalparenthelpline.org/what-we-do/mission-history.  

As a domestic violence survivor become a custodial mother become a custody-challenged custodial mother (fatherhood funding influence is clear, in hindsight), become a NONcustodial mother and from there increasingly impoverished (i.e., repeatedly losing work), I know FIRSThand the feeling of a fantastic website full of empathetic terms and hotlines, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE or something), which refers people to local agencies that (in the situation I just described) do not help anyhow.  They can be good listeners, however — just not provide actual help.  The same goes for other similarly high-web-profile groups like NCADV, DVLEAP, etc. — they are on the policy side, and not on the actual help side.  Those who don’t have personal referrals to real sources of help will be sorry on calling the official numbers and hoping for real, tangible, in-time, valid resources — as opposed to the appearance of resources.

Here is the “Charitable Trusts” record of the Parents Anonymous satellite groups.  Only the main one survives, as we can see:

 

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY 056591 Charity Dissolved SAN RAFAEL CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY Charity Not Registered MISSION VIEJO CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC. Charity Not Registered SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC. 057939 Charity Inactive REDDING CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. 015477 Charity Current CLAREMONT CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST Charity Not Registered CULVER CITY CA Charity Registration Charity
As1

 

AS early as 2001, we can see their revenues and assets are JUST FINE; even in these hard times, they are not suffering too bad:  EIN# 23-7278097, and the founding articles filing is 47pp long on-line here  

Fiscal Begin:
Fiscal End: 30-SEP-01
Total Assets: $502,908.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $4,312,507.00
RRF Received: 21-FEB-02
Returned Date:
990 Attached:
Status: Accepted

2009:

Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-09
Fiscal End: 30-SEP-10
Total Assets: $1,775,724.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $1,584,661.00
RRF Received: 12-AUG-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

 As I said, they are selling classes and have copyrighted material (plus their websites have the “Donate” buttons, legal as they are a charity).  Unlike many of the fatherhood group organzations, this SMART bunch (original board, or early board, included a woman who later became a judge) have (to this date) a lot of grants and a lot of program service revenue, the proportion is closer to half.  (2009:  $

667,716 contributions/grants — $902,923 program service revenue (what they are DOING as a nonprofit is actually bringing in revenue). Plus about $1K investment, and $8K “Other” revenue.”  (which their tax form will explain).  The nonprofit purpose has become technical assistance to spread the gospel about their (copyrighted) concept, and presumably write off expenses, like $940K salaries, etc.  (in other words, they more than wrote off the program service income earnings).

  • “Parents, children and youth transform their attitudes, learn new behaviors, build on their strengths, and create long-term positive changes in their lives through proven effective, quality Parents Anonymous Programs implemented by our accredited network organizations”

Got this business model yet?   . .. by our accredited network organizations.    What do they do?

  • Parents Anonymous Inc provides training and technical assistance,develops publications and conducts research on meaningful Parent and Shared Leadership, systems reform and effective community-based strategies to strengthen families.  Expenses $1,302,041

This work – promoting one’s own work and business model — earns Dr. Pion-Berlin $195K per year, VP Meryl Levine $111K, and  another VP Sandra Williams $122K, for 40 hour weeks.

Other earnings (revenue)  660K Government GRANTS, plus $863K Government CONTRACTS, and like I mention, $39,194 (or about a good secretary’s annual salary), accreditation fees.   No royalties show up …. 

 

And, of the original 10 (1972) members of the Board, including one just labeled “Betty L., Los Angeles” (no address — guess that was one of the anonymous parents), the top 4 (except Secretary) are two J.D.s, an M.D., and what looks like a social worker, an ACSW and an MD/MPMH (mental health practitioner):

  • Pres Jean Matusinka, J.D. 3401 Club Drive Los Angeles, CA. 90064
  • VP Roland Summit, M.D. 1000 W. Carson Street D-5 Torrance, CA. 90509
  • Sec  Margot Fritz 7373W. 83rd Street Los Angeles, CA. 90045
  • Treas. Gerald Tarlow, J.D. 3812 Sepulveda Blvd. Torrance, CA. 90505
  • Helen Boardman, ACSW 2115 Fargo Los Angeles, CA. 90039
  • Leigh Colitre 8035 S. Vermont Los Angeles, CA. 90047
  • Garold Faber M.D.,M.P.H. 13543 S. Hawthorne Boulevard Hawthorne, CA.
  • Norman Fleishman 6063 Hargis Street Los Angeles CA. 90034
  • Betty L. Los Angeles, CA.
  • Ed. Welz 13106 Glenfield Detroit, Michigan 48201

 In 1996, Amendment stated that any remaining assets would be distributed by the Superior Court where the principal office is (which just so happens, I believe, to be Los Angeles…)

If this corporation holds any assets on trust, such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as may be directed by decree of the Superior Court of the County in which the corporation’s principal office is located, upon petition therefor by the Attorney General or by any person concerned in the liquidation.

Hopefully, none of those on the board will have any inappropriate relationships with said Superior Court, or, if a judge is involved in said distribution (which looks like a sizeable amount), he/she will have been REAL honest on the “conflicts of interest” filling.

THEN AGAIN, common sense tells us, this is Los ANGELES COUNTY (see Richard Fine, etc.) and that is a little much to expect.

 Some of the incorporators:  Jean Matusinka, J.D. became (or was) a judge and a prosecutor of sex and DV crimes; this is her 2006 Obit (LA times), she died at 66, from lung cancer, unfortunately: 

Judge Jean Matusinka, 66; Professor, Former Sex Crimes Prosecutor

Obituaries | PASSINGS

April 02, 2006|From Times Staff and Wire Reports

Judge Jean E. Matusinka, 66, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge and former deputy district attorney, died Monday of lung cancer at Torrance Memorial Hospital. Since 1990, she had been handling a civil calendar at the Torrance courthouse and was hearing cases until a week before her death.

Born in New York City, Matusinka graduated from Hunter College with a degree in history and earned her law degree at Brooklyn Law School in 1966. Admitted to the State Bar of California in 1970, she joined the district attorney’s office in L.A. as a deputy district attorney. She specialized in sex crimes, child abuse and domestic violence cases. She was instrumental in forming the child abuse and domestic violence section and the sexual crimes program of the central trials division.  Matusinka was one of the prosecutors in the early days of the McMartin Pre-School molestation case in the mid-1980s.

{{tis case keeps cropping up in association with judges, or nonprofits (incl. one in Brooklyn), and deals with hysteria, ruined the preschool operators, and etc.  “The longest and most expensive criminal trial in United States history had a modest beginning. On May 12, 1983, 40-year-old Judy Johnson dropped her two-and-one-half-year-old son off at the front of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California without notice and drove away. The school’s teachers cared for the unknown “pre-verbal” boy in the hopes that his mother would return for him at the day’s end. ” The link I gave details Matusinka’sinvolvement.}}

She was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by then-Gov. George Deukmejian in 1985. One of her first jobs was presiding over the calendar in the downtown criminal courts building. As a judge handling criminal and civil cases, she gained a reputation for toughness, fairness and decisiveness.   She was also a clinical professor at the USC Keck School of Medicine’s Institute of Psychiatry, Law and Behavioral Science.

 

 THIS USED TO BE “MOTHERS ANONYMOUS, INC.” and @ SEPT. 1970, had the stated purpose of:  “

  • The specific and primary purposes are to perpetuate .an organized program for mothers who fear they might or are actively engaged in any form of physical or emotional abuse towards a ch1ld.
  • To help and rehab1l1tate mothers who do engage in physical or emotional abuse towards a child
  • • To have and to exercise all the rights and powers that are now or mayay thereafter be granted by law.

 By 1971, the name had been changed to “Parents Anonymous.”   

(Back to Jefferson County Colorado’s Fatherhood Program’s “Famlies First” link to “Circle of Parents” where, naturally, one is going to find a fatherhood program paid for by yours truly, the US HHS.) 

Through March 2011, 2,280 expecting or fathers of infants, 1,546 fathers of children between 1 and 5 years, 1,057 mothers and 153 other caregivers were served through 710 Conscious Fathering classes and 1,103 Circle of Parents’ groups for fathers.

Funding for this project was made possible through a 5-year Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program grant received by the Circle of Parents national office in 2006. This grant is funded through the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Families Assistance – Grant No. 90FR0098, CFDA #93.086.
www.thefamilytree.org
www.proudtoparent.org
www.uptoparents.org

For additional information, on this program choose an option below.

What services we offer!View our classes! Contacts!Your resources!Find out what you need to know!

However, my question was — is what appears to be the EL PASO

Parent Opportunity Program

In an attempt to nurture and grow the relationships between non-custodial parents and their children, El Paso County Child Support Services has developed the El Paso County Parent Opportunity Program (POP). Through individualized case management, POP works with non-custodial parents to achieve personal family and career-oriented goals. By achieving these goals, parents can both bond with their children and learn to become better providers for their families.

(the ‘evolving nature of child support,” you’re in it…..)

POP also offers various legal and community services to eligible parents. POP case managers are able to find legal help and mental health counseling for parents in need of them. POP provides services through a community partnership comprised of El Paso County Department of Human Services, Center on Fathering, Goodwill Industries, and Child Support Services of Colorado.

To be eligible to receive POP services, applicants must be non-custodial parents who are residents of El Paso or Teller Counties and have an income of not more than 185% of the federal poverty level.

Obviously, they are targeting IV-D cases, and will be able to get some funding for them from the government.

(An aside, but looking up “El Paso County” we find that in Oct. 2011, it discovered that the state had shorted it $1.3 million from sales tax collected, but not sent back to the county.  An additional $830,000 is apparently still under discussion:

El Paso County Recoups $1.3 Million from State

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – Colorado has shortchanged El Paso County in the amount of sales tax revenue collected by the state but not sent back to the county. . . . The discrepancy follows a years-long investigation into the money that’s collected by Colorado and remitted back to the county monthly . . .Such discrepancies may not be unique to El Paso County. Douglas County officials say the state’s been off about $200,000 a year since a 1 percent capital improvement tax was passed there in 1996…

Colorado officials sent letters to the county’s 14,000 vendors, advising them of potential reporting errors.

Part-time employees researched the discrepancy and found errors in which collections were posted to other entities, vendors provided wrong information and data was incorrectly keyed in.

That resulted in the $1.3 million going back to the county from the state. Twenty-seven additional audits totaling $830,000 are pending with the state.

“We’re happy to hear it’s working out well for the county. We think this is a good partnership for everyone,” said Mark Couch, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revnue. The state has upgraded its computer system and has converted paper files and manual data entry to a new electronic system, Couch said.

ANYHOW, MY POINT BEING — remember to research trademark names and registrants.  In this case, Policy Studies, Inc. IS “El Paso County Parenting Opportunity Project” which is described (below) as a unit within the child support department.   Knowing, as you do now, that CPR and PSI (dba in this case El Paso County POP) have personnel in common, at least did have Jane Venohr, Ph.D. in common (and they pubish together), being the nonprofit and for-profit prongs of evaluation — here is a 2007 “Colorado Parenting Time Project”

The evaluation is, this time, conducted by 3 CPR people — but NOT Jane Venohr; instead, by Pearson Thoennes and instead of Venohr, “Lanae Davis.”

They speak of the El Paso POP as though objectively and not associated with it, in this report:

Cover page: (formatting appears differently in the original)

Submitted to:  Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement 1575 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80218*

Submitted by:  Center for POLICY RESEARCH 1570 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303.837.1555 http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org

(the offices are 0.5 miles, or a 3 minute drive, away from each other)….PSI (or, El PasoPOP) as of 2002 was 1 mile, or a 6 min drive away)

 

September 2007

[Authors} Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. ~ Lanae Davis, M.A. ~ Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D.

CPR has three Ph.D.’s — Venohr is the 3rd — but only used two for this report.

Prepared under grant number 90FD0096 from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to the State of Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement (DHS).

Points of view expressed in the document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of OCSE or DHS.

Here is the HHS grant that paid for it (the study):

This $125,000 award was made in 2004 (El Paso POP having become a trade name shortly before, in 2002).

Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Address Grantee Type Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
OCSE CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 1575 SHERMAN STREET Welfare Department 90FD0096 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 93564 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 125,000

I imagine that the “F” stands for Fatherhood (or possibly “Family”) and “D” Demonstration….

Here’s a “9wantstoknow” 2009 investigation complaining about what people used food stamps for.  Pauline BUrton, this time, stood up for their right to choose (understanding there are limits):   Interesting!  At this time (2009, shortly after the report) at least, her office was:   “. . . . Pauline Burton, Colorado Department of Human Services director of the office of self sufficiency, whose office runs the food and cash assistance program”   If the people concerned about what people used their food stamps for actually knew what their government was using TANF & OCSE funds for (diversionary projects), they might feel differently!    Her knowledge of who was on Food Stamps obviously would provide some links to people (like the noncustodial parent/father involved) who might want to be in the POP demonstration project….

(I say “Father” because so many women I know have never been able to receive help from any A/V program, including after requesting it and when visitation orders were being ignored.  I was in this position, but knew nothing about the A/V system and so didn’t know I could ask).

Executive Summary

The Colorado Parenting Time Project was designed to assess whether identifying parents with visitation problems in the child support caseload and providing services aimed at resolving them improves parent-child contact and the subsequent payment of child support. Conducted in child support agencies in El Paso and Jefferson Counties, the project ultimately involved the identification of a total of 716 cases with visitation problems during May 2005 to December 2006, and their assignment to different groups for treatments of varying intensity:

␣ In both counties, a high-level treatment group was offered informal facilitation by the child access specialist (CAS), a specially trained worker at the child support agency retained with grant funds;

␣ In Jefferson County, a low-level treatment group was handed or mailed printed information about parenting time problems and various community resources to help parents with access problems, including free mediation and parent education services; and

␣ In El Paso County, an established unit within the child support agency (Parent Opportunity Project, or POP) offered noncustodial parents assistance with employment and parenting time using both facilitation and mediation techniques.

I am curious, and selected TAGGS search “90FD to find over 400 projects nationwide.  Limiting it to Colorado it was (I forget, but fewer than 50).  I then reduced it to “NEW” grants and came up with these 11, stretching from the year 1999 through 2010.  There is only one other principal investigator, and I am going to talk about some fo the “abstracts” which reveal the purposes.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many of these “research” type OCSE grants went to the same organization(s)?

Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Budget Year Action Issue Date CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0004 PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN 1 09/16/1997 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 72,500 Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0028 NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES  1 09/14/1999 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 75,000
View Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0069 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 4 1 09/15/2002 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 100,000 Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0080 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 1 09/10/2003 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 55,023 Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0096 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 1 09/14/2004 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 125,000 Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0111 SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PA 2 1 07/12/2005 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 114,741
View Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0126 AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1) 1 09/20/2008 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 99,815
View Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0132 SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 2 1 09/20/2008 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 30,000
View Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0166 PROJECTS TO ADDRESS CHILD SUPPORT NEEDS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS 1 09/27/2010 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY OTHER NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 52,443
View Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 90FD0168 TRIPLE PLAY, THREE PATHS TO SUCCESS 1 09/25/2010 Child Support Enforcement Research DISCRETIONARY OTHER NEW JOHN BERNHART $ 84,783
View Abstract
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 90FD0033 COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT FROM INCARCERATED & PAROLED OBLIGORS 1 09/14/1999 Child Support Enforcement (CSE) DISCRETIONARY DEMONSTRATION NEW PAULINE BURTON $ 80,000 Abstract Not Available
Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

Abstracts include:

Grant 90FD0111:  “early intervention in all cases with NEW ORDERS, NEW delinquencies, high orders, and/or TANF involvement.” (year, 2005)

In targeting New Orders, this is about to become standard practice now — requiring ALL child support orders to entail diversionary funds to “access visitation” activities.   Going after delinquencies gives the facilitator an edge to highly suggest the parent participate (too much delinquency could result in jail), etc., etc.

JOHN BERNHART is apparently Division Director of Colorado Department of Child Support Services.

I also (searching) found him on a 2007 “Colorado Family Support Council” website, and felt it relevant to describe:  They are like other states’ child support training agency, and run conferences to train each other, being a nonprofit:

History

The Colorado Family Support Council was organized in 1974 under the umbrella of the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC). Seed money in the amount of $500.00 was provided to the Family Support Council by CDAC.

The purpose of the Colorado Family Support Council was to promote understanding of family support issues and to provide a forum for child support workers to discuss problems, solutions and further the direction of the program.

Since training has always been perceived as an important element in the effectiveness of the IV-D program, the council began sponsoring an annual training conference for those working in the field of child support. In addition to the annual conferences, the council has sponsored numerous regional training sessions on topics of interest. In 1985, CFSC merged its annual conference with, and became host of, the national conference in Snowmass.

In 1991 the Council incorporated as a 501(c)3 charitable organization. The purpose of the council had to change slightly to drop lobbying efforts to keep its educational tax preference status. Donations made to CFSC are now tax deductible for many tax filers.

In 2005, the Council started its website at http://www.cfscinc.org to keep its membership informed of pertinent information and assist its board of directors in conducting the business of the organization.

And this past 2010, one of the conference VENDOR/EXHIBITORS happened to be PSI, which, again runs an access/visitation grant right from El Paso County Child Support Services as “El Paso County POP” At least, I believe that’s what “PSI” below represents:

Thank You, Vendors

Thanks to our 2010 sponsors and exhibitors. Their contributions help us to host an outstanding conference with affordable registration fees.


LabCorp
Orchid Cellmark
PSI

Systems & Methods Inc
WICSEC		 –

(upper right).  (Orchid Cellmark probably gives DNA printing or paternity tests;it looks familiar).

IRS filings (go back to 2001, here):

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN
Colorado Family Support Council CO 2010 $44,401 990EZ 8 84-1180995

 

This post could go on indefinitely.  I will summarize some of my own recent finds, and hope it has provided some tools:

My recent finds (as a consequence of doing this post):

Organizations/COrporations:

  • ICF INTERNATIONAL, INC.  — an organization to be watched, and of concern that a company with such roots in the defense industry is producing dubious or potentially conflict of interest reports about water safety (Percholate contamination, which apparently does, in excess, affect the neurology of children, infants and fetuses, among others).  The Massachusetts EPA, after reading a report to which ICF contributed, still chose to set stricter standards.
  • Why are groups getting multi-million federal contracts already also getting any GRANT as well?
  • Why does the HHS call this organization “CITY” but it appears to look like a corporation to me?  Who are they, really?
  • where the ACF called the grant “Healthy Marriage” (as supposedly contrasted with “Responsible Fatherhood”)? while the ICF website is quite clear which it is?
  • This group is doing over $1 billion of business in various fields with the US, AND is in on the fatherhood business too, perhaps it bears a closer look.
  • PARENTS ANONYMOUS is ap”parently” a favorite of both HHS & DOJ departments, which concerns me as one of its original board members was involved in the judicial department of Los Angeles County.  Again, $18 million is a lot of business.  Almost every times PARENTS ANONYMOUS moves, it trademarks something.
  • CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr) (inc. 2004) got $4.8 million of grants from HHS 2006-2010 (so far identified), and is an NFI front, obviously, with connections to (at a minimum) the Colorado Child Support Enforcement System.  This represents what HHS is promoting – -a policy of organizing corporations around the internet, and co-opting their language.
  • (though I knew this already)  REMEMBER TO CHECK  — always — “dba’s” and Registered Trademarks of any organizations being looked at.  Example:  PSI (aka El Paso County Child Support, aka (ALSO), “El Paso County Child Support Parent Opportunity Program”) — and, then (as “PSI” itself) reviewing the Access Visitation programs run by, itself (under the POP registered name) — in association with another nonprofit it shares personnel with, CPR.  Knowing that the founder of Center for Policy Research (Jessica Pearson, being an original) also co-founded AFCC, from my understanding (and there is a California Corporation entity under the name) . . . .. . I’d have to say the “CIRCLE OF (fatherhood-friendly, custodial-Mom-antagonistic) is fairly complete, and drawing in the drawstrings . . . .
  •  
  •  
  • ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO LOCATE AND EXAMINE A TAX RETURN OR TWO, SEARCH THE STREET ADDRESS, AND WHERE LIKELY TO BE PRODUCTIVE, SEARCH THE CEOs or other Board of Directors’ associates and affiliates.
  •  
  • LAST, but not least — it’s becoming more and more clear that BOTH the public access databases TAGGS and USASPENDING.GOV (which was required by law) — are deceitful and inaccurate.  I have begun to question, moreover, whether rather than USASpending.gov UNDER-reporting, possibly HHS is OVER-REPORTING, and directing funds towards groups that will cooperate with it in programs that are not properly monitored, and a ripe breeding ground for kickbacks and money laundering.
Prior to looking at this last ground of grantees, and a bit more at the CHMC, I would’ve been less prone to saying this, but the evidence is accumulating quickly.  I believe its possible that the entire programming is designed simply around high-emotion terminology (families, Dads, Kids) to enable hiding federal funds disbursed to, for lack of a better word, cronies.  This is not “taxation with representation” but taxation without it.

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

October 20, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Posted in Business Enterprise, Child Support, CPR Center for Policy Research, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Mandatory Mediation, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parent Education promotion, PSI Policy Studies Inc, Vocabulary Lessons, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

70 New Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood Grantees for 2011, series “90FM” (And Why Let’s Get Honest is NOT amused….)

with 2 comments

 

After an exhausting, bloodhound-trail-following attempt to get the “REAL” California Healthy Marriage Coalition” (complete with whoever is running it) to Please Stand Up (on-line, in the form of a historically coherent, traceable set of incorporations, nonprofit registrations, and if I”m lucky, even 990s filed on-line), I determined to post the entire list, and talk about some of them.  Which is below.  I am also starting a new Page here to start profiling these BUSINESSES, AGENCIES or DEPARTMENTS (see grantee types) one by one.  I disclaim all responsibility for any actions readers may take on what’s below before fact-checking themselves; I think the dizzying re-incarnations of a certain two (basic) California groups may have resulted in cross-referencing one with the other at times,

For my birthday, I would also like to see the articles of incorporation of EVERY SINGLE one of the Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood Grantees, so the public can know which of them used to be (or still are) working for:

(1) The Department of HHS/ACF (who it seems would be approving the grants), &/or :

(2) Local Court system or other County Public Employment, with potential influence on who steers the contracts that these nonprofits are going to take advantage other, in the booming business of “parent education” “marriage education” ‘Fatherhood promotion” and what’s apparently another one, “RELATIONSHIP SKILLS DEVELOPMENT.”

I also would like a chart (it’d need to be 3D at this point) cross-referencing Board of Directors in common.  As most normal people are not this anal-retentive, or “could care less,” I’ll likely produce that birthday gift myself.

Any of those terms can be used to suck money out of the Title IV-A (welfare) and Title IV-D (Child Support Enforcement) funds, plus some others, like child welfare, which is synonymous with a child going to sleep with a biological father in the home, apparently (judging by some of the programs being promoted around the term “child welfare.”

Moreover, when scrutinized, the financial — business – profit is actually going to any company that has developed a marketable curriculum.  This is not only in the form of money, but also in the form of reputation, and anything that would help them keep their place in line for more federally-sponsored business promotion.  Meanwhile, one or both of the parties being forced or induced to consume their material — or divorce in front of judges who believe they should, and have some stake in some of those nonprofits or for-profits — are most likely losing finances and reputation.

In that regard, these guys put AFCC to shame. AFCC markets quit a bit of its own material, including the usual Conference CDS, DVDs) including BOOKS — and does this through mandated participation via family law system.  But I think they have to work a little harder at keeping it going — in other words, it takes a court order to force someone in front of a parent educator, parent coordinator (unless they can be induced to do so voluntarily under duress) and into a parent education classes aimed at a 5th grade mentality and taking up one’s dwindling resource of TIME.

But it does NOT take a court order for the manufacturers of a marriage curriculum to get their local pastors, priests, and the occasional rabbi or imam,* to (1) form a corporation with profits anticipated and grants to set it up and (2) set up a website soliciting business, after they understand of course that step one is to join a coalition and then buy into being trained to market membership in the same corporation.  Brilliant.  Of course, AFCC’s preparatory work in wearing down couples and pushing for legislation, and forming associations to endorse each other’s policies while pretending independence, is going to be helpful overall publicity….

(no relation, but interesting reference:  I.M.A.M. organization, incl points 1& 2 out of 5:)

  1. To be a central resource for the Shia Muslims in North America and their religious and spiritual leadership (Marja’iyyah) in all that pertains to matters of their religion and beliefs away from any political or party influence.
  2. To organize matters of the Shia Muslims in North America in relevant areas such as worship, marriage, divorce, wills, inheritance, or other religious legal matters.

No, if we want to eradicate poverty in this country we should teach someone to set up a corporation selling healthy marriage curriculum, and trying to persuade teenagers not to have sex.  We are not likely to run out of sexually active teens (or for that matter, mature adults) and I don’t think divorce is going anywhere — so there is definitely a market niche.  Too bad some us didn’t get in on it in the 1980s, but judging by the 1990s and 2000s, there’s hope for newcomers if they buy in, imitate the business model, and don’t rock the boat.

Ideally, this curriculum should be completely self-promoting and self-executing by internet download.  That way, more is left over from the grants gotten to promote it — not including whatever is lost in the black hole of “No accountability,” several of which are showing up, the closer one looks.

The names of this curriculum tend to run in cutesy-sounding acronyms, one summary of which shows up here:

MML, LoveU2(tr), PREP, PREPARE/ENRICH, “PAIRS” (and so forth), plus a whole variety of BootCamps

MML — “Mastering the Mysteries of Love”; PAIRS – “Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills, PREP – “Prevention and Relation Education Program”

(link shows that PREP is hoping to adapt a version for Muslim Couples, working with a group in Qatar).

Some of these hearken back to University Institutes and research/demonstration grants previously funded by the US Government. One of these days, if they get enough TANF participants (and others) forced through these classes, they may come up with the right formula to create the perfect human relationship.  Alternately, they can continue working on producing the perfect human being through Early Headstart, the K-12 public education system, and whatever other sources are around.

Officer/RA Name Entity Name Entity Number
EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614
EISENBERG, SETH D 411-KIDS, INC. N04000002485
EISENBERG, SETH D UST INTERNATIONAL, INC. P96000094023
EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614

 

  Award Number = 90FM

Showing: 1 – 50 of 70 Award Actions

Page: « Previous 1 2 Next »

Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 36849

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0006 ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,489,548 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,489,548

Recipient: AVANCE, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 77092

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0041 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages
Recipient ZIP Code: 75246-1754

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0018 ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,514,359 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,514,359

Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership
Recipient ZIP Code: 85741-2259

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0030 BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA. 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 634,536 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 634,536

Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 45230-2907

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0029 BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 49501-0294

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0011 BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,996 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,996

Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 90806-2708

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0034 MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 570,000 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 570,000

Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES
Recipient ZIP Code: 67214-3504

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0042 PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,445,587 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,445,587

Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON
Recipient ZIP Code: 08618-5705

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0016 EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 555,300 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 555,300

Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 16830-3323

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0003 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 354,714 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 354,714

Recipient: COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 19601-3303

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0044 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 787,665 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 787,665

Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER
Recipient ZIP Code: 85004

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0021 TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 359,796 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 359,796

Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Recipient ZIP Code: 92024-2215

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0019 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,500,000 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

  LGH notes on this group:   (Needs to be a separate post, but here’s a teaser):

SEARCHED THIS GROUP BY ITS EIN# (Simple “Recipient” search on TAGGS”) — there are two series, note DUNS#s….

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA CA 92024-2215 SAN DIEGO 003664535 $ 7,883,475
California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA CA 92024-2215 SAN DIEGO 361795151 $ 7,142,080

The heading (when you click on the title, above) shows the street address.  Note:  LEUCADIA, and in SAN DIEGO area.     

Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Address: 1045 PASSIFLORA AVE
LEUCADIA, CA 92024-2215
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: SAN DIEGO
HHS Region: 9
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

 

However, from the official HHS/ACF Grantee award announcement, HERE, there is no entry for “California Healthy Marriages Coalition.”  How could there be, in 2011, as the outfit no longer exists.  Instead, it’s called (latest corporate name incarnation I could find, may not be the most current):

(From the ACF site, not TAGGS:  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2011/Grantawards2011.html.  As TAGGS information is supplied by the agency in question (see description on the site) the information should match, and public should be able to sort by an identification number.  That’s basic common sense — IF the intent was transparency).

Healthy Relationships California Leucadia
CA
$2,500,000

What on TAGGS (and on the public website) is “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” is now called, “Healthy Relationships California.”

This is why the TAGGS database, which possesses EIN# and DUNS#, could easily have put that field in any report generated, but chose to omit EIN (would probably show up a lot of grantees who never bothered to get one) so we could follow the career & grants-allocations track of a nonprofit that keeps changing its corporate name, something that only checking at the State (not federal) level would otherwise show.    And Healthy Marriage Grantees are notoriously (when examined) shape-shifters.

So I check out this nonprofit name on the Charitable Trusts registration, California STate Office of Attorney General:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA CT0149740 Charity Delinquent LEUCADIA CA Charity Registration Charity
1

 

 This is the detail.  For some reason no “Address Line1” is entered (matching the Secretary of State entry for this name)
Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected.
You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information
Full Name: HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA FEIN: 680606790
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2746528
Registration Number: CT0149740
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 3/3/2009 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/2011
Registration Status: Delinquent Date This Status: 3/17/2011
Date of Last Renewal: 3/17/2011
Address Information
Address Line 1: (SAME AS ABOVE) Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: LEUCADIA CA 92024
Annual Renewal Information
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-05
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-05
Total Assets: $48,225.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $60,606.00
RRF Received: 23-MAR-09
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

NOTE:  The $48,225.00 was probably a “Compassion Capacity-Building Grant” to start with.   Google “990 finder” and search by EIN to get the Federal Fillings:

Here, the amount $48,225 shows under “CHMC.”

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN
California Healthy Marriages Coal CA 2005 $48,225 990EZ 10 68-0606790
California Healthy Marriages Coalition CA 2008 $328,871 990 24 68-0606790
California Healthy Marriages Coalition CA 2007 $340,894 990 19 68-0606790
California Healthy Marriages Coalition CA 2006 $148,062 990 21 68-0606790
California Healty Marriages Coaltion CA 2009 $334,155 990 22 68-0606790

Looking at the 2005 EIN, one reads purpose:  “CHMC has begun (in 2005) a 17-month federally-funded project

to offer training and technical assistance

to marriage-support organizations (including coalitions) throughout California.”  EXPENSES:   $41,709.

Two Directors (only) are listed:  Dennis Stoica (at a PO Box in Cerritos, CA), and Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D., at a street address in Sacramento.  Remember the names;

they will show up in several other related organizations / associations, including with another name-changing organization (getting millions) in Colorado.

Modest salaries are only $10K (Stoica) and $7K (Curtis).   Curtis seems to have better luck staying incorporated than STOICA:

(Secretary of State)

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2629035 11/08/2004 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE  ((Oakland addresss) CHRIS GRIER
C2896098 06/01/2006 ACTIVE FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
C2271911 03/07/2001 DISSOLVED HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ELIZABETH LEHRER
C2884897 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER DENNIS J STOICA
C2884898 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION DENNIS J STOICA
C2955473 10/04/2006 SUSPENDED RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2650745 05/12/2004 ACTIVE SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
C3210304 05/29/2009 ACTIVE SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT REGINA GLASPIE
C2860238 03/02/2006 ACTIVE STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
C3013354 08/13/2007 ACTIVE YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT WILLIAM F JENS

“ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION” (Stoica, see above) never bothered to register with the Attorney General as a Nonprofit:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION Charity Not Registered SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
1

which may have something to do with why it got suspended.  Alas, because that makes the EIN# harder to get at.  Mr. Stoica flew off (at least via internet) to Florida

and has started (as of 2010) an association of Marriage Educators, nevertheless, called “NARME.”  Moreover, for how many people refer to the Orange County Marriage group, one would think it’s still legitimate.  But I’m focusing on the other ones, today.

2011 News Release, announcement by Calif. Congressman Doris Matsui features Dr. Curtis and the “Relationship Skills Center,” from Matsui.house.gov:

Congresswoman Matsui Announces Nearly $800,000 for Local Family Development Services

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Doris Matsui (CA-5) announced that the Relationship Skills Center, a Sacramento-based relationship education non-profit, has been awarded $798,825 through the United States Department of Health and Human Services to provide relationship and family stability educational services.

Awarded through the Administration for Children and Families-Healthy Marriage Initiative, this funding will be used by the Relationship Skills Center to provide evidence based relationship education classes and case management services to help families improve their marriage and relationship skills, achieve career and economic stability, and connect families with a variety of community resources.

“We are thrilled to receive this grant.  In the last five years we have helped 735 couples form healthy, stable, safe families,” said Carolyn CurtisHISTORY OF THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT

The Healthy Marriage Project was founded in 2004 by lifetime therapist and college professor Dr. Carolyn Curtis. She discovered that communities across the nation were organizing and reducing their divorce rate by up to 50%. After a successful career as a therapist helping one couple at a time, Curtis envisioned an organization that would be capable of changing the lives of thousands of couples and their children across our community. In 2005 HMP obtained its 501 (c) (3) designation and began providing relationship skills classes through community and faith-based organizations in the Sacramento Region. HMP received its first significant funding in the form of a $50,000 grant from the Compassion Capital Fund

Ph.D., Executive Director of the Relationship Skills Center.

The “Relationship Skills Center” (per Curtis’ LinkedIn profile) was “Formerly Healthy Marriage Project” and Dr. Curtis has worked there since 2004, “7 years 8 months”   OK….  Looking at the list of ACF grantees, this organization name does not appear.  However it has the same street address as “Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project,” including the suite#.

RELATIONSHIP SKILLS PAGE “CONTACT  US,”  URL:  “http://www.skills4us.org/Contact%20Us“

Address
9719 Lincoln Village Drive, Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95827

CHARITABLE TRUSTS:  “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT.”

Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected.
You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information
Full Name: SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT FEIN: 134280316
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2650745
Registration Number: 130981
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/2005 Renewal Due Date: 2/15/2011
Registration Status: Current Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal: 8/10/2010
Address Information
Address Line 1: 9719 LINCOLN VILLAGE DR, SUITE 205 Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: SACRAMENTO CA 95827
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT 130981 Charity Current SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
1

Moreover, if one looks at the details, it’s clear that “EIN# 134280316” has been a going concern (both assets and income) from Day 1 (2005-06 year), but has not provided the annual required RRF forms, or iRS reports, regularly, as required by law.  Finally in 2010, they got a slap on the wrist from the Attorney General:

(in the chart here, below the words “Fee Notice” are several entries indicating professional fundraising for the organization by “EXPRESSIONS.”  Professional Fundraisers also are required to register, and hand over evidence that their profits were received by an officer of the nonprofit they are raising funds for….  I’ll quote from the Fee Notice, which is a red flag for the public of something out of order for a nonprofit).

Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-08
Fiscal End: 30-SEP-09
Total Assets: $37,781.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $670,305.00
RRF Received: 20-JUL-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-09
Fiscal End: 30-SEP-10
Total Assets: $64,938.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $598,785.00
RRF Received: 08-AUG-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Rejected
Related Documents
1045737 RRF-1 2008
1045738 IRS Form 990 2008
59107 RRF-1 2009
59108 IRS Form 990-EZ 2009
130981441796 Fee Notice
Prerequisite Information  {{LINES BELOW HERE REFER TO FUNDRAISING EVENTS..}} {{EXPRESSIONS is the PROFESSIONAL FUNDRAISER}}
Prereq Type: Prerequisite Relationship: Charity
Registrant: EXPRESSIONS
Registration No: E0005532 Registration Type: Fundraising Event Registration Status: Complete
Date Established: 6/30/2009 Association Date: 6/22/2009 Expiration Date: 7/31/2009
Prereq Type: Prerequisite Relationship: Charity
Registrant: EXPRESSIONS
Registration No: E0007825 Registration Type: Fundraising Event Registration Status: Complete
Date Established: 5/12/2010 Association Date: 4/24/2010 Expiration Date: 12/31/2010
Prereq Type: Prerequisite Relationship: Charity
Registrant: EXPRESSIONS
Registration No: E0011403 Registration Type: Fundraising Event Registration Status: Complete
Date Established: 7/13/2011 Association Date: 6/30/2011 Expiration Date: 7/31/2011

The FEE NOTICE, dated Sept. 20, 2011, “NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT,  reads,

1. Explanation/Information not provided for “YES” answer to Part B , Question No. 6.

Part B of an RRF is “PART B – STATEMENTS REGARDING ORGANIZATION DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS REPORT” and question 6 is:  

During this reporting period, did the organization receive any governmental funding? If so, provide an attachment listing the name of the agency, mailing address, contact person, and telephone number.  Incidentally, question 2 is:  During this reporting period, was there any theft, embezzlement, diversion or misuse of the organization’s charitable property or funds?  Question 5, for which (on the 2009 RRF, available to see on-line), “During this reporting period, were the services of a commercial fundraiser or fundraising counsel for charitable purposes used? If “yes,” provide an attachment listing the name, address, and telephone number of the service provider.

was checked “No,” and (right around Father’s Day 2009) they were using a commercial fundraiser, a sole proprietorship called “EXPRESSIONS.”

And (on 9/20/2011) the group was also reminded:

2. The $75 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

I look forward to finding out by October 20th whether this nonprofit which exists primarily as a recipient of a Federal Grants program directing funds from welfare and child support enforcement (as I understand it) into marriage education classes, will get its act together.  I’d also really like to read the articles of incorporation, which it would make sense to post, and some groups actually do, on-line.

On this ‘RELATIONSHIP SKILLS CENTER” (boasted about recently by Congressman Doris Matsui), we clearly have a SACRAMENTO emphasis, and address — yet, given that Carolyn Curtis shows as one of two incorporators of not the SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE but “CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGE” (corporate registration showing a SAN DIEGO area, not SACRAMENT) (now called “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS” on the charitable site . . )  it appears that Relationship Skills Center (formerly Healthy Relationships — which IS “California Healthy Marriages” but shares a street address & jurisdiction with the Sacramento Healthy Marriage….) sees itself as the original organization, per its “About Us/ History Page”:

HISTORY OF THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT

The Healthy Marriage Project was founded in 2004 by lifetime therapist and college professor Dr. Carolyn Curtis. … Curtis envisioned an organization that would be capable of changing the lives of thousands of couples and their children across our community. In 2005 HMP obtained its 501 (c) (3) designation and began providing relationship skills classes through community and faith-based organizations in the Sacramento Region.

…HMP received its first significant funding in the form of a $50,000 grant from the Compassion Capital Fund,   …

In 2006, HMP applied for and was awarded $2.5 million from the Administration for Children and Families to provide relationship skills classes to low income pregnant unwed couples or couples with an infant. The resulting Flourishing Families Program, now in its fourth year, has served over 500 families, and its success has been nationally recognized. In 2009 HMP was chosen as one of three from a total of 120 healthy marriage demonstration grantees to provide peer to peer training. HMP was selected to lead four workshops at the National Healthy Marriage – Responsible Fatherhood Grantee Conference.

OK, here are the 2 relevant ACF Grantees again, for 2011, per the Oct 3 news release. interesting that October is also “Domestic Violence Awareness Month”:

.Healthy Marriage Grantees (top of two charts; the bottom, of almost equal amount (total) is “Fatherhood.”

Legal Name Organization City
State
Award Amount
Healthy Relationships California Leucadia
CA
$2,500,000

Secretary of State shows Incorporator Patty Howell (and if one clicks, the Leucadia Address)   SOS site does not allow EXACT search, so we got others, too (it really is an inferior search site, and very unwieldy)

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3073670 01/16/2008 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2746528 05/13/2005 ACTIVE HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA PATTY HOWELL
C2790720 06/09/2006 ACTIVE OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS DARRYL HARRISON
C2494811 01/06/2003 DISSOLVED THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. TAMARA ILICH
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Sacramento
CA
$798,825

Secretary of State Registration shows it’s still active:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2650745 05/12/2004 ACTIVE SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT CAROLYN RICH CURTIS

The EIN# 680606790 (federal level — posted above) belongs to “CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION” (per IRS 990s) which “IS” “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” as to (state-level) Charitable Registrations.  Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D. (along with Stoica) was indeed apparently a founder — at least an incorporator.  Somehwere, CHMC became “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” — however (inexplicably) that corporation was also formed in 2005 by another person, Patty Howell.  Adding to the confusion,

The EIN# 134280316 belongs to “CHMC” — which is Leucadia (=San Diego Area).  KEY that EIN# into the OAG site and you’ll get a listing called

“Sacramento Healthy Marriages Project “

ONE is in Southern CA — the other in Northern CA, and we’re a very lengthy state.
Try it now (takes a few seconds) — Please!   Then, from “foundationfinder” look at their 2006 IRS 990 form:  Executive Director Carolyn Curtis drew a moderate salary of $32,731,”  plus obviously also the $7K she got with Mr. Stoica under the other group.    
{{I believe this link shows clearly the HHS connection, or at least one of them, to STOICA and HHS:  Bill Coffin promoting a Stoica Webinar on how to get ACF grants.  Bill self-describes as “
  • Bill Coffin
  • Working with NARME and CA Healthy Marriages Coalition on a part-time basis.
    Was Exec Dir of IDEALS (Jan-Aug 2011) [[Has links to these groups, too, based in PA & Kentucky]]
  • From 2002-10 I was the Special Assistant for Marriage Education at ACF/HHS
BILL also, in “MARRIAGE.GOV” summarizes the Healthy Marriage Movement with glowing descriptions of Wade Horn & George Bush
It should hardly surprise us that Mr. Coffin is also found presenting at AFCC (Washington, D.C.) in 2007:

14. Marriage Skills Education and the Courts

Saving marriages was once a goal of family courts, but was de- emphasized amid all the other problems courts address. Recent developments in relationship skills education offer new hope for improving marriages. Meanwhile, there are increasing demands to do something to reduce the damage to parents and children in fam- ily separation. Can courts not just mitigate the effects of family breakdown, but also help reduce it? First, they must study what works, and carefully adapt programs to the people they serve and to other real-world constraints.

Bill Coffin M.Ed., Special Assistant for Marriage Education, Administration for Children and Families, Washington, D.C.

John Crouch, J.D., Arlington, VA Fred J. DeJong, Ph.D., Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI

Dennis Stoica teaching a webinar on ACF grant announcements June 17 for NARME members

On Friday June 17 from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm (ET), NARME Board Member Dennis Stoica (President of California Healthy Marriages Coalition) will conduct a 90-minute webinar – for NARME Members only – comparing and contrasting the six different grant announcements which are scheduled to be released earlier that week.

GOOD GRIEF:  This is Fathers Day, 2011, and STOICA is, despite website, I’d lay a bet, NOT President of “California Healthy Marriages Coalition,” however if he by some stretch of the imagination still is involved with Patty Howell’s “Healthy Relationships California” group (which now owns the CHMC Fictitious Business Name), THAT group appears to be evading taxes.  They didn’t even send in $75 with their last registration, and failed to report contact information for which government grants they were getting!”   This 2011 announcement indicates that someone who claims to have been working for ACF from 2002-2010 is using (inside information?) to help this faith-based group get a headsup on grants applications before they are announced.
the group NARME was formed in Florida (under STOICA) only in 2010; it is a membership group rejoicing at the diversion of TANF funds for abstinence education, etc.
 
Hundreds of organizations participated in a similar teleconference that Dennis conducted back in 2006 when the original Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Grants were released; and many of those participants attributed their subsequent success in being awarded grants to a combination of that teleconference and the subsequent grant-writing tele-trainings that Dennis conducted during that year’s grant-writing period.  Since this webinar will only be offered to NARME members, if you have not yet joined NARME you should do that right away by going tohttp://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=881238.
ANOTHER WEBSITE (don’t start bringing out the tomatoes to throw!  Just tell me why this site lists Stoica as “co-founder” of “EPISCOPAL CHURCH-OUR SAVIOR” (in Placerville, CA) and the employees just happen to match the CHMC employees!:  From SPOKE.com

Dennis Stoica

Title and Company:

Company Address:

Po Box 447
Placerville, Ca 96114

Carolyn Curtis

Director

Presenter

Ralph Jones

Master Trainer of…

Dennis Stoica

Co-Founder

K Krafsky

Community Mobiliz…

Bento Leal

Implementation Sp…

Kerri Norbut

Special Projects …

Alison Doucette

Special Projects …

Jakki Penn

GOOD GRIEF!

The “Church OF Our Savior” at this address, is Episcopal, and is a historic landmark (it was not founded by Stoica!), around since the 1800s.

Church of Our Saviour, “Serving God for over 150 years“

2979 Coloma St. // PO Box 447

Placerville, CA 95667-0447
office@oursaviourpv.org

 

  However, among the many ministries it operates IS, indeed, a MARRIAGE EDUCATION ministry:    

Marriage Education Fr. Craig Kuehn Our Saviour offers several, research based, courses designed to enhance relationships, generically called marriage education. Every couple can benefit by attending at least one marriage education program per year. For more inforamtion, see www.edhealthymarriages.org.

Coalition history

We began under the intiation of the California Healthy Marriages Coalition and we received our initial funding from them (www.camarriage.com). Fr. Craig Kuehn of the Episcopal Church of Our Saviour, Placerville and Meredith Koch of Marshall Hospital, Placerville attended a workshop about grant opportunities promoting healthy marriages. Ever since then, the project snowballed into a coalition of faith-based and community-based organizations interested in and offering marriage and related programs to the people of El Dorado County, California.

We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization as recognized by the Internal Revenue Service.

YES THEY ARE — and one of the few who seems to have kept it up, better than their leaders.  As such they are helping market classes and products put out by

some truly conservative groups, who are doing QUITE well and remain close to the government faucet.  how nice to know that religious organizations can profit from this also. They can collect their tithes AND their grants, from people who pay taxes towards the grants also, no doubt.   SEE THE LINKS LIST: including one I definitely recognize as being marketed through the welfare system, too:   PREPARE/ENRICH (a  research project out of Minnesota, FOR-profit formed in 1980); “SMARTMARRIAGES.COM” (a FOR-profit) organized by Diane Sollee, with this logo:

SmartMarriages

(ALSO quite well-informed about the marriage grants system, while shamelessly marketing classes, DVDs, train-the trainers, certifications, and holding conferences to keep this up),

and “Institute for American Values,” PResident, David Blankenhorn (also of National Fatherhood Initiative)

WIKIPEDIA on Blankenhorn confirms this and highlights his “expert-witness” testimony against Prop 8 (anti-Gay, California) as heard in the Supreme Court:

Blankenhorn founded the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank whose stated mission is to “study and strengthen key American values”, in 1987.[1][3] 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.[1][2][6] As of 2007, Blankenhorn has written “scores of op-ed pieces and essays, co-edited eight books and written two.”[1] Blankenhorn identifies as a liberal Democrat.[7][1]   “In his decision filed on August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Blankenhorn was not qualified as an expert witness, and that his testimony was “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.”[10]

BLANKENHORN is a Harvard Grad, (BA Social Studies 1977), and a masters in Comparative Social Science from a British University. He was raised Presbyterian in Mississippi.

ANYHOW, as we can see, Fr. (or “Rev.”) KUEHN, above, Incorporated in time to get the grants, and has stayed incorporated:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2856112 03/03/2006 ACTIVE EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION CRAIG KUEHN
… if not current on the Charitable Registration, for “EIN# 204384330
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION 130730 Charity Delinquent PLACERVILLE CA Charity Registration Charity
1
The annual report was filed ONCE, and it appears that no IRS forms were provided  to notate who gave it the gov’t grants.  TAGGS search on this EIN
comes up:

RECIPIENT SEARCH RESULTS

Recipient EIN = 204384330 No matching awards found.

Obviously the corporation is operating right out of the church building:
Entity Name: EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION
Entity Number: C2856112
Date Filed: 03/03/2006
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: PO BOX 447
Entity City, State, Zip: PLACERVILLE CA 95667
Agent for Service of Process: CRAIG KUEHN
Agent Address: 2979 COLOMA ST
Agent City, State, Zip: PLACERVILLE CA 95667
But without government funding, it actually went into the hole:
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-09
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
Total Assets: $1,248.00
Gross Annual Revenue: ($583.00)
RRF Received: 12-JAN-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached: N
Status: Accepted
And finally it appears that it filed income taxes ONCE — in 2006 only — as here:

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN
El Dorado Healthy Marriages Coal CA 2006 $2,476 990EZ 10 20-4384330

(This form has no signature on Tax Preparers’ line).  Line 1 -Revenue — Gifts, contributions, grants — shows $20,500.  Salaries, other comp & employee benefits come to $7,428:   $3,384 for Pres:  Rev. Kuehn + $2,006 for VP: Meredith Koch = $5,390.

By my basic math, $7,428-$5,390 = $1,038 in some form of “comp” (no benefits listed) which I don’t see on the form.

However, we do see $11,144 in “Conference fees & travel, supplies, & organization fees.”   There’s likely a membership going to CHMC, they buy material to vend? and they get tax-deductive travel & conference times.  Think AmWay….     The tax-exempt purpose is:  “PROMOTE AND TEACH MARRIAGE PROGRAMS.”

Somehow, $20,655 (of $20,500 received) was spent to:

Start-up and organizational expenses, capacity building to include six faith-based and community-based organizations teaching marriaged (sic) education.  This included training as (“at”) the Smart Marriages Conference and from California Healthy Marriages Coalition, 64 couples received marriage education.  (that’s a pretty high overhead….  How much did the marriage education for those couples cost?)

Meredith Koch (retired nurse in the area) is found also teaching “PAIRS” classes.  PAIRS Foundation ends up being Federally Funded, too, in South Florida:

Large, Multi-Year, Federally-Funded Study
Finds Enduring Impact of Marriage Education

Findings from a large, federally funded, multi-year study of South Florida couples participating in nine hours of marriage and relationship education found statistically significant improvements in consensus, satisfaction, affection, and cohesion for both distressed and non-distressed participants…

Another way of seeing this — PAIRS is another nonprofit out of Florida helping the US Government run a multi-level marketing setup.  It could’ve been cars, toys, or

any other service which would come under Consumer Protection laws; but it just instead happens to be relationship education.  One can Be a “Leader,” a “CPAIRS” (Christian — Perhaps later, Jews Muslims, Buddhists, Ba’hai, Hindi, etc. might make it on the radar — but so for those populations haven’t really caught the “marriage education is free money” bug yet, to the extent these religious Christian (churches) have.)   One can also be a PTP, MT, or TRAINER.  Buy into the system.  Might as well – -your taxes have already paid for it, and others like it.  See “UNDERSTANDING PAIRS LEVELS” at the site, telling title, “consumer.PAIRS.COM”

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PAIRS FOUNDATION  Weston FL 33331-3642 BROWARD 839942422 $ 4,950,000

(that’s roughly $1 million/year from 2006-2010)

(SIGH.  As usual, a combo of for-profit, and not-for-profits under similar names show up.   Seth D. Eisenberg of Florida — or is it Virginia? — has got it together now,

and the PAIRS FOUNDATION (Inc.), which merged with PAIRS, Ltd. (his corp from VA) are now in business under EIN# 650629670.  With these cohorts, which are visualized (and listed) in CORPORATIONWIKI.Com.  This time, the FOR-PROFIT LLC is “Partnership Skills, LLC”

As of March, 2011, a list of (mostly churches) with “COURSE PROVIDER” column mostly blank, included Seth & PAIRS International, LLC,” right after “Okeechobee Missionary Baptist Church” and listed these potential under “COUNSELOR” column:   ”  I notice the URL shows the Clerk of Records for the local Circuit court for Okeechobee County.

EISENBERG, SETH KOSS, PHYLLIS FARBER, AURORA MINZER- BRYANT,SHARON FARBER, RHETT PARKER, DANA GARFIELD, ANNIE SALYERS, JANET GORDON, LORI SPINOSA, WILLIAM HERRINGTON, PEGGY VALDEZ, SCOTT.  

The merger was in May, 2006, and possibly helped getting this, which I am sure also helped: (fromTAGGS).

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2006 90FE0029  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANTS: PRIORITY AREA 2 1 0 ACF 09-24-2006 839942422 $ 990,000 
Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 990,000

If I go to USASPENDING.gov and type in the DUNS# and check “GRANTS” only (not “Contracts, Loans,” etc.), and check the tab “TIMELINE” it’s very clear that the above 2006 grant was NOT reported to usaspending.gov, although 2007, 08, 09 & 10 were.  In other words, usaspending.gov ain’t reliable.

Also clear (looking at details) from this is that the CFDA is 93086 (marriage/fatherhood ) AND that the source is “75-

Also, (I took the DUNS# and went to “USASPENDING.gov” Prime Award, checked every category except grants, and got 15 transactions:

  • Total Dollars:$227,754
  • Transactions:1 – 15 of 15

Recommended to do (est. time — 4 minutes max) — well over $100K of this is contracts from 2011 only.  The map above (interactive) shows that half its business (contracts) are from California & Indiana (strong fatherhood state) combined, but also Georgia, Virginia, NOrth Carolina and Florida.  Not bad, eh?

And (same search, showing “Timeline” of increase in contracts (by graph/bars) shows about a 5-fold increase from 2009.  If you’re IN, you’re IN, in this field.

Nonprofit + related For-PRofit means wider coverage and probably more profits.  Simply design a product to match the HHS Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood grants stream!   THere’s also a “4-1-1 Kids, Inc.” with his name on it.  Seth appears to be 2nd Generation “MARRIAGE EDUCATION” — as it says on “FATHERHOODCHANNEL.com“:

Seth Eisenberg, the youngest son of PAIRS Founder Lori Heyman Gordon,  grew up with a front row seat to the birth of marriage and relationship education. He joined PAIRS Foundation in 1995 to help improve business and organizational systems, began teaching classes in 1999, training instructors in 2000, and was elected President/CEO in 2008. Over the past 12 years, Seth spearheaded development of PAIRS’ evidence-based, brief, multi-lingual courses and technologies to make marriage and relationship education widely accessibile to diverse communities worldwide. He has taught classes to thousands of young people, adults and trained more than 1,000 PAIRS instructors who deliver services to tens of thousands. In 2006, Seth’s “PAIRS Relationship Skills for Strong South Florida Families,” proposal was awarded a multi-year, multi-million dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. The grant program has allowed thousands of people throughout South Florida to participate in free classes, including many low-income, formerly homeless, recovering addicts, special needs populations, immigrants, and veterans who could not have otherwise benefited, while also conducting extensive, rigorous research activities to better understand and validate the impact of marriage and relationship education.

It is “free” to low-income because most likely it was taken from more direct social services to these populations, such as food, housing help, cash aid, or child support enforcement where applicable.  Reminder:  The Florida “PAIRS” first started (out of several incorporations) as for-profit, and it started in 1994.

I look it up at http://www.sunbiz.org, which is where FL corporations go to register.  California needs a site like this.

Officer/RA Name Entity Name Entity Number
EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614
EISENBERG, SETH D 411-KIDS, INC. N04000002485
EISENBERG, SETH D UST INTERNATIONAL, INC. P96000094023
EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614

From the (top) filing I get an EIN#  521327867

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN
PAIRS Foundation FL 2009 $313,681 990 25 52-1327867
PAIRS Foundation FL 2008 $353,339 990 26 52-1327867
PAIRS Foundation FL 2007 $0 990R 2 52-1327867
PAIRS Foundation FL 2007 $414,952 990 17 52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd FL 2006 $252,096 990 22 52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd VA 2005 $306,643 990 16 52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd FL 2004 $300,853 990 14 52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd VA 2003 $242,249 990 15 52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd VA 2002 $63,906 990 14 52-1327867

EIN Watchdog.net describes it as having begun in 1984 c/o “Lori H. Gordon” (which matches his description, above) and last filed in 2007, and with a street address of 2771 Executive Park, #1 Weston, FL.  This worries me, because that’s one of the operating addresses of this organization (per USAspending.gov) and was also found in a SEC complaint on REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FRAUD (but no overlap of persons involved that I can see, just the street address).  To be clerar, this is a criminal complaint, date-stamped Nov. 15, 2007, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Southern District vs. (various redevelopment agencies)

(COMPLAINT):

SUMMARY

1. Since at least 2002, Webb, individually and through certain entities he owns and controls, -has defrauded numerous investors through a real estate-based investment scheme. During the relevant period, the Defendants have raised at least $8.4 million from more than 80 investors by offering and selling securities in the form of investment contracts to investors in several states, including Florida, California and North Carolina.

(PAIRS had contracts in those states, plus Georgia, Virginia? & Indiana).

The PAIRS Foundation, Ltd. (per watchdog.net) address figures in paragraphs 15 & 30

15. CitiRise NC is a North Carolina limited liability company with its original principal office at 901 Barmouth Ct., Raleigh, North Carolina 27614. At least by November 2005, Citifise NC was reporting on its North Carolina State filings’that its principal office address was at 2771 Executive Park Drive, Suite 1, Weston, Florida 33331-3643, the same address used by CitiRise FL

30. Webb and the Webb Companies solicited investment offers in various ways, including through word-of-mouth generated by other investors and through Webb’s personal contact with local church groups, including meeting with local.pastors of such churches. In addition, Webb supervised the preparation of promotional materials advertising alliances with faith-based groups, such as a “partnership” between CitiRise and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Webb and the Webb Companies also, on occasion, used independent sales associates who solicited investors through their personal or professional contacts in exchange for commissions. Webb and the Webb Companies also manufactured publicity in other ways, including favorable newspaper profiles in The Triangle Tribune and Triangle

Business Journal in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina and an appearance by Webb on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes program in December 2005. In addition, one of Webb’s entities, CitiRise, maintained a website (at http://www.citirise.com) fiom at least 2005 to approximately October 2007 that described Webb’s professional biography, the CitiRise business “model,” and reflected theCitiRise “Corporate Headquarters” address at 2771 Executive Park Drive, Suite 1, Weston, Florida 33331-an address CitiRise no longer occupied from around the Summer of 2006

 PAIRS FOUNDATION, Inc. changed FROM that address (per FL filings) on 1/20/2009, to 1675 Market Street #207, Weston, FL, but didn’t report this until 9/20/2010.  In other words, 5 days after filing the 2009 report, it moved.  09/20/2010 — ADDRESS CHANGE

USAspending.gov contracts (15 records from 2009 forward) reflect for some reason both addresses.

  • She didn’t provide original signatures, or addresses (although did mail a check).
  • The term “Ltd.” is not acceptable.   
  • They apparently then fixed this and changed it to “inc.”

  I thought it was common knowledge that “Ltd.” was not a USA corporate suffix; Corporation or “Inc.” (etc.) are.  I guess not.    The purpose of the nonprofit

“Research, development and training of relationship skills for youth and families and communities.  Development of materials and programs to reduce anger, conflict and violence.”

Here is Lori Gordon giving a rave review to (Helping sell)  a book by D. Stosney, called “Love without Hurt” in which he explains how abused women can help their men stop abusing them.   Rave reviewers also included Dianne Sollee of “Smartmarriages.com”

This is an important book for everyone in every stage of a relationship, to heal and make whole the love we begin with. Give it as a wedding gift, birthday present, parenting gift. This is knowledge and understanding we all need to be able to heal ourselves and preserve our most cherished relationships. — Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D. founder of PAIRS.

(Here’s the book, described):   Reviews of Love without Hurt: Turn Your Resentful, Angry, or Emotionally Abusive Relationship into a Compassionate, Loving One

Library Journal
Stosny has put into words the techniques used in his successful Compassion-Power and Boot Camp programs, which help women who have been subjected to criticism, put-downs, or cold shoulders from their husbands or boyfriends. Complete with checklists, case studies, and well-researched information, his program not only shows the damage that verbally and emotionally abusive relationships do to spouses and children but also demonstrates how to change them, with guidance for both parties. For their part, women are directed to practice self-healing skills. Clear, timely, and on the mark; recommended for all libraries. Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.

(Usually verbally and emotionally abusive are on their way to physically abusive which, unchecked, goes all the way to “lethal” unless stopped, although not all go the full range.  Somehow this is being missed. …  And it absolutely the church theme, for the most part, that women are to stop the abuse, somehow, by changing themselves.  That’s another reason I protest these programs….)

Looking up “Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D.” I found (yet another) Christian Marriage Association, as they advertised PAIRS training.

Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills(PAIRS)
2771 Executive Park Drive Suite #1
Weston, FL 33331
USA
Website: http://www.pairs.com/
Contact(s)
Seth Eisenberg
Phone: 877-PAIRS-4U
Fax: 954-337-2981
Purpose
Sustain healthy relationships
Description
The PAIRS programs, developed by Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D., provide a comprehensive system to enhance self-knowledge and to develop the ability to sustain pleasurable intimate relationships. PAIRS is located in Reston, Virginia but is a nationally known program

“The Association of Marriage & Family Ministries” ( photo to right appears to be its founders, out of Scottsdale, AZ) reveals that marriage education is a great  tool for church growth.  So I suppose there’s no harm in having non-believers fund church growth because, what’s good for the Kingdom is surely good for the rest of America?

The Association of Marriage and Family Ministries (AMFM) and its members are committed to you, the local Church, the pastor and all those called to this vital area of ministry. There has never been a greater time in history to show the love of Christ than today in serving those marriages and families that God has given us.

Today, there is no greater growth tool for the church than to have strong marriages and healthy families walking out of the church on Sunday (when ever you worship) and walking into the culture on Monday. What a great opportunity to impact our culture for the Kingdom.

…

Blessings,

Eric and Jennifer Garcia
Co-Founders

(Sunday worship post-dated Jesus Christ by a few centuries, last I heard.  See Emperor Constantine    🙂    )

 

 LIKe NCADV,NARME, and AFCC, there is a sliding scale of membership.  THe more you can afford, the more you will pay.

“Resource Vendors” pay the highest:

Student Membership – $35

Individual Membership – $75

Church Organization Membership – $125 – $450

Resource Membership (Vendors) – $225 – $550

(I.E. SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR SPECIAL PAYMENTS )

 

 FORGIVE ME FOR NOT RESISTING THE TEMPTATION TO POINT OUT THAT THE BIBLE SAYS AND RECOMMENDS THE OPPOSITE:

BY CONTRAST, THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HAVING “RESPECT OF PERSONS” AND DECLARE THAT GOD DOESN’T.

JAMES 2:

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

NOT TO MENTION (WHILE I”M IN “JAMES”) A SCATHING COMMENTARY ON RICH MEN, AND FAWNING OVER THEM IN THE CHURCHES:

”

26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

 INSTEAD, THESE PROGRAMS ARE ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY FROM THE FATHERLESS AND THE WIDOWS, BY TAKING TANF FUNDS TO PROMOTE MARRIAGE EDUCATION TO HELP EXPAND THEIR CHURCHES! . . .    IF THEY WERE PREACHING RIGHT TO START WITH, WOULDN’T THEIR MARRIAGES BE IN BETTER SHAPE?  SEEMS TO ME THERE’S ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE BIBLE ON LOVING ONE ANOTHER, AND A GOOD BIT ON MARRIAGE ALSO (I COR 13, EPHESIANS – – IT’S THROUGHOUT).

 

SOMEBODY HAD TO DO THIS — why not me? — I looked up their corporate status in Scottsdale.   For one, someone from Scottsdale is following my site:

 

 

Click on ID number to see the full detail.
ID Type Name
12163487 CORPORATION THE ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY MINISTRIES, INC.

©Copyright 2000 by Arizona Secretary of State – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

 

 

 

Here we go:  (date — today, 10/11/11)

 

Corporate Status Inquiry
File Number:  -1216348-7
Corp. Name: THE ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY MINISTRIES, INC.
This Corporation is NOT in Good Standing for the following reasons:
DELINQUENT ANNUAL REPORT 09/13/2011
2011 ANNUAL REPORT WAS DUE ON 05/19/2011

 

Next Annual Report Due: 05/19/2011

 Surprise, surprise, lots of Delinquent Reports, and two Dissolved/Reinstated.  I can’t paste too much from the AZ corporations site; it positions funny.

 

Somehow, being delinquent, or even suspended status rarely seems to slow down these groups.  I recently ran across another one (with California links) called “ABOVE THE LINE”  — they run retreats, and marriage enrichment seminars, and (as I recall) the Tonkins were proud of their association with Dr. Phil.

There is “ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION, INC.” at the same (residential) address the Garcia’s (of AMFM), which ALSO appears to be not filing, but not yet IRS_suspended.  Here are the 990 reports:

EIN# 460496745 

 

 

ID Type Name
10418500 CORPORATION ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION, INC.


  It got warnings about dissolution in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.  It WAS dissolved the year after it formed — 2003, and reinstated.  What a mess — and these people are teaching us how NOT to get divorced?

On 9/27/2005, they provided (finally!  Forms are available in a single click on-line, too!) the “Annual Report” for years 2003, 2004 & 2005, and were reinstated.

By 12/11/2006, their status was pending again, but they managed to file a report by the following April, for the year 2006.  Three months later, they are again “status pending” and apparently didn’t respond.  Another 12 months, another notice, and still they didn’t respond.  So in 9/2008 they were dissolved – but got reinstated two months later (11/17/2008) probably by forking over the annual reports for 2007 and 2008.

Is that the type of behavior (even for tiny grants) we want of an organization getting $103,000 of help/grants from the Government?

Administrative Dissolution Date Administrative Dissolution Reason Reinstatement Date
AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R  
AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R 11/17/2008
AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R 09/27/2005

(But as of 7/2005, the same couple had already formed AMFM, above).

Your query: ( Organization Name: None Chosen , State: None Chosen , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: 460496745 , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
4 matching documents retrieved (4 displayed) 

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN
Above The Line Association Inc. AZ 2007 $5,464 990EZ 15 46-0496745
Above The Line Association Inc. AZ 2006 $2,498 990EZ 12 46-0496745
Above The Line Association Inc. AZ 2005 $800 990 17 46-0496745
Above The Line Association Inc. AZ 2002 $0 990 12 46-0496745

 

 And their 2005 filing explains WHY it pays to look at the IRS 990 filings!

Government Grant (doesn’t show under this EIN via TAGGS) — $103,500

Program Expenses:    (neat, eh?)  $102,845.

Eric and Jennifer Garcia (husband/wife) are the unpaid directors of “ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION INC.”

“Part II line 43” expenses are explained, among other things as (statement 3):

STATEMENT 3 SCHEDULE A, PART II,LINE 2 TRANSACTIONS WITH TRUSTEES ,DIRECTORS, ETC.

THE ORGANIZATION PAID $100,000 TO A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, GARCIA-TOOKER LLC, WHICH IS OWNED BY ERIC AND JENNIFER GARCIA. THE PAYMENT WAS FOR THE SPONSORSHIP OF TWO MARRIAGE AND FAMILY CONFERENCES DURING THE YEAR 2005.    

I find the multiple corporate names in a few short years, and the shoddy incorporation history to be a little suspicious.  Where did the initial $103K come from and why is it not listed in TAGGS that I can see (I tried the EIN#)?

Roughly translated, they paid themselves $100K (which is “Expenses”) to sponsor two marriage conferences (not named).  Because this is not a major amount, who is about to look it up, or go request the information?  But multiply this by how many such organizations are lining up to do exactly the same thing, and there goes our social services funding, nationwide, poured down the gullet of religious tax evaders and delinquent filers.

Garcia-Tooker LLC DID exist, possibly in order to shift money to or from Above the Line  . . . and/or AMFM (the 2005forward version).  While I think Rev. Craig Kuehn of El Dorado Healthy Marriage (duration, one tax filing in 2006) simply wasn’t up to the corporate filings (he’s a Rev!) — this looks like more deliberate planning to move names and money around — and less honest.

I looked this up.  From what I can tell, “GARCIA-TOOKER LLC” (these two) INCORPORATED  in JAN. 2004. One month later they changed their name to “ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY & MARRIAGE MINISTRIES, LLC.”  (may load microfilm image)….  In other words, by the time they’d published their incorporation, it was under a different name.  8 months later an agent resigned:  

 

 THIS LINKS TO THE GRAPHICS OF “ABOVE THE LINE” — what they are selling:  “http://marriagehelpcenters.com”  (see “Dr. Phil” connection).

Their lnks are familiar by now — and some we know federally funded:  (photo is “Ron & Tina Konkin”)

 

 Ron & Tina Konkin

 Throughout the years that we’ve been providing our seminar and bootcamp services, we’ve aligned ourselves with many organizations and partners who share our commitment to helping people just like you. The following are just some of our affiliations, partnerships, and camaraderie.

 Among other things being sold is an “Exclusive Couples Retreat” (only $4,995) where one can learn to play games designed by Dr. Phil….Intensive Relationship Boot Camp is only $1,225. . (not including hotel, ca $109 group rate). . . . Don’t miss two upcoming in California . . . . . 

 

 

GUIDESTAR regarding “Above the Line, Inc.,” a red-font alert to left of the listing, writes:  “This organization does not appear in the IRS’s most recent list of tax-exempt organizations. IRS records do not, however, indicate that the organization’s tax-exempt status has been revoked. Contact the organization for more information.”

 

 THERE”S MORE TO THIS MAZE:

 Apparently, Patty Howell (of “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS as incorporated in 2005) noticed that the “California Healthy Marriage” name was vacant, and registered as the owner of what is now a Fictitious Business name.  Or, they were working together, and notified each other, I don’t know.  I would never have found this without having gotten irritated enough to continue looking at the county level, where this is registered:  

   

 

THESE CHANGES happened in 2009 & 2011:  http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca/us/services/fbn/search.aspx if the image doesn’t show below:
San Diego “Fictitious Business” registration shows 3 trademarks of this group:
But they want to sell me further details (forget it!)
Records 1 – 3 of 3
Select Filing Number Business Name Owner Name Document Type Filing Date
  …  Certified  Non-Certified 2009-019747 CALIFONIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION STATEMENT 7/7/2009
  …  Certified  Non-Certified 2008-033480 CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION STATEMENT 10/22/2008
  …  Certified  Non-Certified 2009-019745 CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PROJECT CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION STATEMENT 7/7/2009
Notice that the “Coalition” is the “OWNER NAME.”  However, I happen to know that in the OAG site, it has a different name.  SEarching that, I found (notice dates),
Select Filing Number Business Name Owner Name Document Type Filing Date
  …  Certified  Non-Certified 2011-002009 CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA STATEMENT 1/21/2011
TO SUMMARiZE:  “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” as a BUSINESS was incorporated by Patty Howell in 2005.  Think location “SAN DIEGO” (Leucadia).
   
But as to being a (delinquent) charity, “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” actually resides in SACRAMENTO and is associated with (and credit is taken for it) by Carolyn Curtis.
     
Yet the HHS/ACF appears to think that it’s still in Leucadia when reporting the 2011 grantees as “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS” and “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION” (associated with Curtis) – as a separate group.       
   
And I haven’t even gotten into “WorldClassMarriage.com” which is also Howell-Jones (who appear together on I forget which Board of Directors…..).
   
    
Carolyn Curtis’ LinkedIn profile, however, relates Healthy Relationships (San Diego) with “Relationship Skills Center” (Sacramento), which is getting good press right now.
   
   (FROM LINKEDIN  page)
   

Carolyn Curtis

Executive Director and Founder, Healthy Marriage Project

Sacramento, California Area 
Nonprofit Organization Management
Current
Past
Education
  • Alliant University
  • California State University-Sacramento
  • University of California, Davis
Connections

437 connections

Websites
  • Personal Website
     
     
 
 
 
Looking further at this detail, towards the bottom, its clear this organization is prosperous — both assets and revenues are increasing.  However, it is not filing RRFs or IRS forms with the
Office of Attorney General, and FINALLY gets a mild slap on the wrist, dated April 2010 (Four years after it was awarded, and boasted that it was awarded, the largest EVER
Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Grant.  I blogged it, too!    See this post (scroll down past the large chart):    
 
“LETS HAVE FUN ANALYZING THE ANALYSTS” and learn that the largest-ever grant went to a faith-based organization collaborating with 23 other faith-based organizations.
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.  Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California (from http://www.camarriage.com/about/index.ashx?nv=3)
Their team includes (per website), Dennis Stoica, Patty Howell, and Ralph Jones, among others, such as Bento Leal (LinkedIN lists only this organization) despite college degree in 1973;
Oh dear, it looks (see this) like he may have some connection with the Unification Church (see URL)?
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Leal/leal-marriage.htm
“Bento Leal is the California Regional Coordinator of the American Leadership Conference, a project of the American Constitution Committee.”
 OH DEAR, YES.    Interrupting our “regularly scheduled program material,” let me speak to my (money trail / family court reform / blogging mothers) who don’t want to touch this
topic with a 10-foot pole — that the incredible push for forcing marriage education on us DOES have a strong Unification Church origin (see also the CRC history page, website CRCKids.org, which actknowledges involvement).  THe phrase TRUE PARENTS” — refers to Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his wife.  I am sorry people don’t wish to touch this with at 10-foot pole, but I wish to nail it to that pole.  Does this perhaps answer why so many of these grantees smack of money-laundering traits, like it’s known the UC does?  ??
 
this 2001 Excerpt from Bento Leal (never heard of the guy before) shows how they are going after inner city urban churches.  FOr more, go see Rick Ross sites, or others:   
   
UNIFICATION TRAINER IN CHMC . . ..  

Today Was A Very Special Day In California

Bento Leal
November 30, 2001

Today was a very special day in California:

Tonight (Thursday, Nov. 29) 800 people heard True Mother speak at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Oakland, CA.

Program: Delicious dinner, songs by the Redeemed Convicts for Christ, then Rev. Jenkins greeted everyone, later he introduced Arhbishop Stallings who gave an uplifting introduction of True Mother, who read her speech with warmth and grace. Afterwards flowers and plaques were given to Mother. Mother then presented 3 of the gold watches to leading ministers and she also presented 8 framed Ambassador for Peace certificates to selected leaders. The program went very well and the audience was very appreciative of the entire event. Afterward, there was a lively victory celebration with hookup to True Father at East Garden for singing and testimony.

Earlier in the day was an afternoon ILC that featured 70 people (40 guests and 30 UC members). Several Ambassadors for Peace attended the ILC. Northern California has awarded 90 Ambassadors for Peace representing clergy, educators, community organization leaders, journalists, and others. Dr. Frank Kaufman presented the IIFWP material very eloquently and professionally and was followed by Imam Qasmi of the Muslim community of Sacramento who strongly praised TPs for their work to promote strong marriages and families, and bring unity among the faiths. Though he is fasting for Ramadan, he drove the 2 hours from Sacramento just to present his 15 minute talk to our group. He immediately drove back to officiate services in his mosque.

We then had a presentation by our local WFWP chairwoman. After the break, a sister read the HDH material on Marriage for our AFC session, which was followed by Rev. Lawrence Van Hook speaking strongly about the importance of a God-centered marriage.

One special feature of the day was a visit by Archbishop Stallings and a few of us with Mayor Jerry Brown of Oakland. We presented him with a nicely framed Ambassador for Peace certificate in his office. He was impressed with our work and has fond memories of working with us over the years. He asked us to help him with tutors for struggling students in a military academy for 7th graders that he set up in Oakland. We said that we would help him.

Archbishop Stallings was also able to bring Rev. Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Sr., Pastor of Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland. Rev. Smith is a foremost leader among the clergy in Oakland. This was the first time he had attended a speech with TPs, {{TRUE PARENTS, get it?}} so this was a HUGE breakthrough. Mother presented him with a watch for all of the wonderful work he is doing for the city of Oakland. The door is now open for us to work more closely with him.

CHMC site describes Bento Leal’s background including working with a different set of federal grants in SF:  HERE IT IS:

Bento Leal
Implementation Specialist
Bento@CaMarriage.com
510.333.3478

Bento has worked in the field of marriage- and family-strengthening for the past 20 years. Before joining CHMC staff, he worked with Federal grants in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area to provide life skills mentoring to ex-offenders and to help build family-strengthening capacity of small or emerging faith-based and community organizations.  Bento is a trainer in several Marriage Education curricula, including Mastering the Mysteries of Love (MML).  Bento’s primary assignments with CHMC are to teach MML leadership workshops and provide technical assistance to newly-trained MML facilitators so they are successful in organizing and conducting MML classes.  Bento and his wife, Kimiko, have been married for 25 years.

  
Fiscal Begin:
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
Total Assets: $334,155.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $3,232,190.00
RRF Received: 15-MAR-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: N
Status: Accepted
Related Documents
00000550 CT-550  **{{THIS IS THE LETTER OF DELINQUENCY.  CHECK IT OUT!}}
1056740 IRS Form 990 2008
1056741 RRF-1 2007
57272 RRF-1 2008
Prerequisite Information
No Prerequisite Information
IRS Return Data
This letter, citing the same CTFILE# you see above, is dated APRIL 2010, and says only, Please, if you would, pay the $150 annual fee (and is silent about the missing material from 2006-2010)

CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION

1045 PASSIFLORA AVE. ENCINITAS CA 92024

RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

April 5, 2010

The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

1. The $150 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587

WHY was there no interest in the previous year’s filings?   Hmmmm??
Regarding Dennis Stoica (first listed as CHMC staff), here is the corporate business search results on “California Healthy Marriage” (singular):
I realize the “Agent” column may not display and suggest readers do their own search at http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2629035 11/08/2004 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE CHRIS GRIER
C2896098 06/01/2006 ACTIVE FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
C2271911 03/07/2001 DISSOLVED HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ELIZABETH LEHRER
C2884897 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER DENNIS J STOICA
C2884898 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION DENNIS J STOICA
C2955473 10/04/2006 SUSPENDED RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2650745 05/12/2004 ACTIVE SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
C3210304 05/29/2009 ACTIVE SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT REGINA GLASPIE
C2860238 03/02/2006 ACTIVE STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
C3013354 08/13/2007 ACTIVE YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT WILLIAM F JENS
NOW — understanding that “CHMC” doesn’t exist (as an entity, at least), and HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS does, although not legally, here’s the
business search on “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS.”  Keeping it straight:  for incorporation — go to secretary of state site.  For Charitable Registry (nonprofits) —
go to the Attorney General’s (OAG) site.  Because Californians deserve to know whether people knocking at their doors, soliciting by email, through their churches,
or the YMCA, or anywhere else, when claiming to be a charitable organization, actually are, and are not just ‘take the money and run” outfits.
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3073670 01/16/2008 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2746528 05/13/2005 ACTIVE HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA PATTY HOWELL
C2790720 06/09/2006 ACTIVE OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS DARRYL HARRISON
C2494811 01/06/2003 DISSOLVED THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. TAMARA ILICH
Notice the dates (also, the Oakland Berkeley Initiative is not current on its charitable registration, I think).
Patty Howell is listed as staff at CHMC (nonexistant).  The address for “healthy relationships california” is listed — actually NOT listed if you mean street address also, and matches what the US, TAGGS database calls “California Healthy Marriage Coalition.”
Entity Name: HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA
Entity Number: C2746528
Date Filed: 05/13/2005
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: (SAME AS ABOVE)
Entity City, State, Zip: LEUCADIA CA 92024
Agent for Service of Process: PATTY HOWELL
Agent Address: 1045 PASSIFLORA AVE
Agent City, State, Zip: LEUCADIA CA 92024
Let’s move on.  I hope you are sufficiently alarmed by now, but if not, “I’ll be back!”

   Recipient: Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 53211

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0043 CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,779,393 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,779,393

Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 47714-1863

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0005 SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,999 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN
Recipient ZIP Code: 79930

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0045 HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,945 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,945

Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 45405

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0046 MARRIAGE WORKS! OHIO COLLABORATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

{{NOTE:  I look at this one below, simply because $2.5 million is a definite vote of confidence from HHS.  For the record, the total HHS grants recorded for this group show as: $17 million.  It’s pulling in Abstinence Funding, and is the lead agency in the multi-county “Marriage Works!” above.  Something tells me our HHS doesn’t want too much fertility among the TANF recipients; it will starve them out I guess by diverting funds into

get-rich-quick grants on anyone producing abstinence is best curricula.}}

 

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER  DAYTON OH 45405 MONTGOMERY 101653447 $ 17,272,584



 

           Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST
Recipient ZIP Code: 37403-3433

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0048 CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,070,834 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,070,834

Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 15143-9554

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0047 TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,163,684 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,163,684

Recipient: Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 27601-1947

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 725,000 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 725,000

Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County
Recipient ZIP Code: 77006

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0017 HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 698,102 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 698,102

Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center
Recipient ZIP Code: 46208-4705

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0027 STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,780,000 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,780,000

Recipient: Future Foundation
Recipient ZIP Code: 30344-4137

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0013 REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 685,000 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 685,000

Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 22182

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0024 FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,599 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,599

Recipient: Healthy You, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 363031997

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0020 JUST THE FACTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 681,956 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 681,956

Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC
Recipient ZIP Code: 82001-2758

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0049 STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 535,082 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 535,082

Recipient: IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
Recipient ZIP Code: 97220

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0015 REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 492,000 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 492,000

Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program
Recipient ZIP Code: 92243-2943

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0061 PROJECT JUNTOS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,000 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,000

Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 72761

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0023 HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 724,428 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 724,428

Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee,
Recipient ZIP Code: 34237-5223

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0060 HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,993 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,993

Recipient: KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 96819

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0012 KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 798,752 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,752

Recipient: Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 40475-2457

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0050 KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,999 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

Recipient: MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 45503-4175

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0004 THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 798,380 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,380

Recipient: MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 40066

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0036 MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 344,904 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 344,904

Recipient: Meier Clinics Foundation
Recipient ZIP Code: 60187-4579

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0051 MEIER CLINICS, FAMILY BRIDGES, HEALTY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

Recipient: Mission West Virginia, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 25526

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0052 N/A 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 683,935 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 683,935

Recipient: More Than Conquerors Inc
Recipient ZIP Code: 300835318

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0053 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 798,798 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,798

Recipient: NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS
Recipient ZIP Code: 90746

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0055 NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHOP) HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 685,308 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 685,308

Recipient: NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 88003

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0037 NEW MEXICO BORDER REGION HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 799,999 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

Recipient: NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 97213-2933

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0002 GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 1,395,000 
2011 90FM0002 GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 0 
Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,395,000

Recipient: OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 73125

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0032 THRIVING MARRIAGES: RETREATS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 776,304 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 776,304

Recipient: OPERATION KEEPSAKE
Recipient ZIP Code: 44087-1654

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0056 MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 798,054 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,054

Recipient: PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 10023

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0025 PHOENIX HOUSE CONNECTIONS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 618,768 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 618,768

Recipient: PROJECT S.O.S., INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 32216-6241

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0033 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 672,703 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 672,703

Recipient: PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 73116-7909

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0026 FAMILY EXPECTATIONS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

Recipient: Parenting Center (The)
Recipient ZIP Code: 76107

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0031 EMPOWERING FAMILIES PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 797,093 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 797,093

Recipient: RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 33157-5372

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0028 RECAPTURING THE VISION INTERNATIONAL: THE MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP PROJECT TARGETING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS 18-25. 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 799,230 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,230

Recipient: STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Recipient ZIP Code: 39759-2803

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0035 BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 699,874 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 699,874

Recipient: Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project
Recipient ZIP Code: 95821

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2011 90FM0059 FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 798,825 
Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 798,825
Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 48,511,440
Total of 70 Award Actions for 60 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 60,296,527

(NEXT PAGE of the SAME SERIES):

Unfortunately, the next page will not display on this simple search allowing me to find the remaining 10 grantees.  I managed to get 68 awards to show

under “Advanced Search,” keying in nothing but the same “90FM” under awards — and got basically the rest, but without the HTML links.  Here are those 68, and I’ll highlight where the above listing.  I”m glad I did — because notice that the Principal INvestigator field has a strange showing, i.e., someone possibly didn’t type in the {Principal Investigator’s) last name — but the first name twice, meaning if you searched the database by that field, you’d miss the Public Strategies, Inc. $2.5 million (new) grant, and several others.  There is a LOT of this type of inexplicable typo or other screwup activity (like failing to enter a DUNS# where there is one) in TAGGS, sometimes I wonder why:

Note that “DIBBLE FUND” here shows up alpha under “The” (such a database, eh?) towards the end.  I am going to publish this post, and take a personal Time Out” to cool off, after having learned more than the public was intended to know about, for example, the California Healthy Marriages Act” and how it’s apparently gone through a few incorporations and name changes.  Or how there is one person on three of the grantees’ boards below, and the website (she) is listed as “founding” is under about a fourth business name ,not shown below and whose corporation status, trademark registration, or listing of “we changed the company name” I haven’t caught up with.  One address (including suite#) seems to match two of the organizations below.     Notice also that the Colorado-based “WAIT Training” (near bottom of the list) — which appears to be its legitimate corporate name, although its website claims to have said the “new” name is Center for Relationship Education (but no namechange was filed) shows up under the ACF/HHS listing of “2011 grantees” not under “WAIT training” but instead under “Center for Relationship Education.”

All in all, it seems that many obstacles are in place to non-federal grantee recipients, like a person actually just wanting to know!, in tracking single organizations.

I have already mocked the grandiose schemes and language of both this California Healthy Marriage Coalition (and warned us about it) before, along with the Dibble Fund, whose goal is to educate EVERYONE over the age of 14 who has, may have, or is in some other way potentially fertile male or female — existed in the State of California, and educate them (at public expense) on marriage.  Search “Leucadia” on my blog to find it.

They are connected at the hip with WAIT Training (or at least Joneen MacKenzie) which is basically a religious — VERY religious — abstinence education group out of Colorado.  And a brand-new association (that they’re advertising) called “NARME” which I looked up, it’s in Tallahassee, Florida, and on the board are some of the groups below.    I’m getting tired of all this nonsense, as well as alarmed at what appears to be overt tolerance of federal grantees that form shell front groups, take the money, and either pull a chameleon or simply disappear (and I have one of those to show, also — not on this list, because they disappeared back in 2006).

///

ADVANCED SEARCH RESULTS

Results 1 to 68 of 68 matches.
 Excel Icon
Page 1 of 1
   1 
Grantee Name State County Award Number Award Title Budget Year Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
AUBURN UNIVERSITY AL LEE 90FM0006 ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI) 1 NEW FRANCESCA M FRANCESCA $ 2,489,548
AVANCE, INC TX HARRIS 90FM0041 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 NEW MARTHA MARTHA $ 799,999
Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages TX DALLAS 90FM0018 ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT. 1 NEW COSETTE COSETTE $ 1,514,359
Arizona Youth Partnership AZ PIMA 90FM0030 BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA. 1 NEW DANIEL DANIEL $ 634,536
BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER OH HAMILTON 90FM0029 BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS 1 NEW NATHANIEL NATHANIEL $ 799,999
BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES MI KENT 90FM0011 BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”) 1 NEW NONYEM A NONYEM $ 799,996
CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC CA LOS ANGELES 90FM0034 MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT 1 NEW KIMTHAI KIMTHAI $ 570,000
CATHOLIC CHARITIES KS SEDGWICK 90FM0042 PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 NEW MARTHA L MARTHA $ 1,445,587
CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON NJ MERCER 90FM0016 EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 NEW RONALD RONALD $ 555,300
CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY PA CLEARFIELD 90FM0003 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V) 1 NEW BONNIE BONNIE $ 354,714
COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY PA BERKS 90FM0044 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 NEW CHERYL CHERYL $ 787,665
CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER AZ MARICOPA 90FM0021 TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ 1 NEW GUILLE GUILLE $ 359,796
California Healthy Marriages Coalition CA SAN DIEGO 90FM0019 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 NEW PATTY PATTY{{probably Patty Howell”}} $ 2,500,000
Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc. WI MILWAUKEE 90FM0043 CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED 1 NEW JEANETTE JEANETTE $ 1,779,393
Community Marriage Builders, Inc. IN VANDERBURGH 90FM0005 SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS. 1 NEW JOHN JOHN $ 799,999
EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN TX EL PASO 90FM0045 HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT 1 NEW LEONARD LEONARD $ 799,945
ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER{{Abortion Alternatives}}** OH MONTGOMERY 90FM0046 MARRIAGE WORKS!OHIO COLLABORATIVE{{known fatherhood collaboration: see below 1 NEW GREG GREG $ 2,500,000
FIRST THINGS FIRST TN HAMILTON 90FM0048 CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY 1 NEW DEBORAH DEBORAH $ 1,070,834
Family Guidance, Inc.{{evangelistic– see 10/9/2011 post}} PA ALLEGHENY 90FM0047 TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH**PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION(**LLP formed in 2009 to do this) 1 NEW ROBERT L ROBERT $ 1,163,684 
Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc. NC WAKE 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 1 NEW KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY $ 725,000
Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County TX HARRIS 90FM0017 HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT 1 NEW TIM TIM $ 698,102
Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center  IN MARION 90FM0027 STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS  1 NEW ROBERT ROBERT $ 1,780,000
Future Foundation GA FULTON 90FM0013 REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS 1 NEW QAADIRAH QAADIRAH $ 685,000
GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES VA FAIRFAX 90FM0024 FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS 1 NEW LAURA A LAURA $ 799,599
Healthy You, Inc. AL HOUSTON 90FM0020 JUST THE FACTS 1 NEW MARY A MARY $ 681,956
High Country Consulting LLC WY LARAMIE 90FM0049 STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY 1 NEW KATHLEEN KATHLEEN $ 535,082
IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION OR MULTNOMAH 90FM0015 REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT 1 NEW LEE P LEE $ 492,000
Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program CA IMPERIAL 90FM0061 PROJECT JUNTOS 1 NEW MARY MARY $ 799,000
JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY AR BENTON 90FM0023 HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE 1 NEW APRIL APRIL $ 724,428
Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee, FL SARASOTA 90FM0060 HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN 1 NEW ROSE ROSE $ 799,993
KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC. HI HONOLULU 90FM0012 KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES 1 NEW MOMI MOMI $ 798,752
Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc. KY MADISON 90FM0050 KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 NEW VICKI VICKI $ 799,999
MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY  OH CLARK 90FM0004 THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. 1 NEW RONDA M RONDA $ 798,380
MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC KY SHELBY 90FM0036 MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM 1 NEW PAT PAT $ 344,904
Meier Clinics Foundation IL DU PAGE 90FM0051 MEIER CLINICS, FAMILY BRIDGES, HEALTY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE 1 NEW NANCY NANCY $ 2,500,000
Mission West Virginia, Inc. WV PUTNAM 90FM0052 N/A 1 NEW TORRI TORRI $ 683,935
More Than Conquerors Inc GA DE KALB 90FM0053 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 NEW PHILLIPIA PHILLIPIA $ 798,798
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS  MN ANOKA 90FM0001 HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER 1 NEW MICHAEL L BENJAMIN $ 899,694
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS  MN ANOKA 90FM0001 HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER 2 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) MICHAEL L BENJAMIN $ 200,000
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS MN ANOKA 90FM0001 HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER 2 EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS MICHAEL L BENJAMIN $- 962,992
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS  MN ANOKA 90FM0001 HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER 2 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL L BENJAMIN $ 699,755
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS  MN ANOKA 90FM0001 SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH  2 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) MICHAEL L BENJAMIN $ 450,000
NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS CA LOS ANGELES 90FM0055 NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHOP) HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 NEW JUNE JUNE $ 685,308
NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY NM DONA ANA 90FM0037 NEW MEXICO BORDER REGION HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 NEW ESTHER ESTHER $ 799,999
NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES OR MULTNOMAH 90FM0002 GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) ROSE ROSE $ 0
NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES OR MULTNOMAH 90FM0002 GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT. 1 NEW ROSE ROSE $ 1,395,000
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OK OKLAHOMA 90FM0032 THRIVING MARRIAGES: RETREATS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS 1 NEW MARY JO MARY JO $ 776,304
OPERATION KEEPSAKE OH SUMMIT 90FM0056 MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS 1 NEW PEGGY S PEGGY $ 798,054
PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC NY NEW YORK 90FM0025 PHOENIX HOUSE CONNECTIONS 1 NEW NAOMI NAOMI $ 618,768
PROJECT S.O.S., INC. FL DUVAL 90FM0033 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP GRANTS 1 NEW PAM PAM $ 672,703
PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC  OK OKLAHOMA 90FM0026 FAMILY EXPECTATIONS 1 NEW SAMMYE SAMMYE $ 2,500,000 
Parenting Center (The) TX TARRANT 90FM0031 EMPOWERING FAMILIES PROJECT 1 NEW JENNIFER JENNIFER $ 797,093
RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC. FL 90FM0028 RECAPTURING THE VISION INTERNATIONAL: THE MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP PROJECT TARGETING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS 18-25. 1 NEW JACQUELINE JACQUELINE $ 799,230
STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT MS OKTIBBEHA 90FM0035 BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES 1 NEW JOAN JOAN $ 699,874
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  CA SACRAMENTO 90FM0059 FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM 1 NEW CAROLYN CAROLYN $ 798,825
Scholarship and Guidance Association IL COOK 90FM0038 FAMILY LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM 1 NEW MARTHA MARTHA $ 794,180
Shalom Task Force NY NEW YORK 90FM0008 COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION IN THE ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN NYC AREA 1 NEW DANIEL DANIEL $ 541,633
TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN MARCOS TX HAYS 90FM0007 STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS/STRENGTHENING FAMILIES (SR/SF) 1 NEW W. SCOTT W. SCOTT $ 617,280
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY TX LUBBOCK 90FM0002 NATIONAL HEALTHLY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER  1 NEW JAMES D MITCHELL $ 512,993
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION  CA ALAMEDA 90FM0010 BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURES 1 NEW CATHERINE M CATHERINE $ 794,846
TOLEDO AREA MINISTRIES OH LUCAS 90FM0040 KEEPING IT TOGETHER 1 NEW DONNA DONNA $ 799,999
UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES NY BRONX 90FM0057 UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES MARRIAGE & RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROGRAM 1 NEW SCOTT SCOTT $ 799,999
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA  FL ORANGE 90FM0039 PROJECT TOGETHER  1 NEW ANDREW ANDREW $ 2,184,508
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE TN KNOX 90FM0022 RELATIONSHIP RX: INTEGRATING A COUPLES INTERVENTION PROGRAM INTO A PRIMARY CARE SETTING 1 NEW DEBBIE DEBBIE $ 723,508
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY UT CACHE 90FM0001 SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) BRAIN J BRAIN $ 0
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY UT CACHE 90FM0001 SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH 1 NEW BRAIN J BRAIN $ 785,612
WAIT Training  CO DENVER  90FM0054 THE COLORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT  1 NEW JONEEN JONEEN $ 1,605,705
YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES OF CANADIAN COUNTY, INC OK CANADIAN 90FM0058 SAFE AND LOVING RELATIONSHIPS FOR AT-RISK YOUTH 1 NEW TRACY TRACY $ 338,367

**”Elizabeth’s New Life Center has a logo:  the Elizabeth in question was the mother of John the Baptist, (per Bible), the cousin of Jesus and prophet heralding his coming.  Another overtly Christian group, million$$ grant.  This one looks pretty Roman Catholic….

http://www.elizabethnewlife.org/

In 1989, Steve and Vivian Koob, along with their church, founded Elizabeth’s New Life Center (ENLC) as a compassionate response and option to the abortion clinic operating in their neighborhood. ENLC opened its first office in the Five Oaks neighborhood of the city of Dayton to serve pregnant women facing unexpected pregnancies.

I am glad that Steve and Vivian Koob founded an organization to follow their vision (I suppose).  However, according to the State of Ohio, it was founded as a nonprofit, at least, in 1992, not 1989.  The evidence is here: (because of “paste” function, business name doesn’t display.  LINK to search is here; remember to include the “S” in “ELIZABETHS”)   [Jon Husted Ohio Secretary of State Business Name Search]

832233 CORPORATION FOR NON-PROFIT 11/30/1992 11/01/2012 Active DAYTON MONTGOMERY OHIO

ELIZABETH’s NEW LIFE CENTER BUSINESS FILING — see dates.

1994-1NorthMain_web

In 1994, Elizabeth’s New Life Center purchased a vacant building beside the abortion clinic and renovated it into a women’s center with medical capabilities. The following year ENLC opened its first Mother and Baby Boutique to provide needy clients with material assistance to establish family life, and in 1999 began providing abstinence education services to schools in an effort to expand efforts to prevent teen pregnancy.

Not mentioned:  Abstinence education not proven to reduce teen pregnancies, in fact it’s been an abysmal failure from what I hear.

About that same time, Elizabeth’s New Life Center purchased and renovated a medical building on Forest Avenue in front of Grandview Hospital’s emergency room. That facility currently houses administrative offices, Women’s Center-Dayton, Holy Family Prenatal Care, classrooms, a nutrition center, and a chapel accessible to both clients and staff.

ENLC continued its growth as the youth development department was awarded highly competitive federal grants to provide abstinence education to area schools in 2002, 2005, and 2008. In 2006, Elizabeth’s New Life Center also was awarded one of the largest federal healthy marriage demonstration grants in the country to establish Marriage Works! Ohio and offer marriage education across Southwestern Ohio.

COngress shall make no law establishing a religion.  They don’t have to any more.  All that’s needed is to fund corporations that did.  No Thank You, George Bush!)

“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 two executive 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.”[1]

Government by Executive Order, it’s definitely problemmatic.  We’re in it. 

I should get this ebook, published 2008, in anticipation of Presidential Election:  The Court and the Cross, by Frederick Lane

Front Cover

Today Elizabeth’s New Life Center operates from six women’s centers, three in Dayton and ones in Warren, Hamilton, and Shelby counties. The Dayton boutique (??) continues to operate from the Five Oaks building, and Marriage Works! Ohio operates from a facility on Main Street in Dayton.

TO CLARIFY MY POSITION:  My viewpoint on abortion changed considerably after (1) I became a mother, and (2) I had to deal with a jealous relative who’d opted for abortion, then went after my kids.   Before then I was far more liberal and neutral.  However I STILL do not think we should allow religious groups to take government funding for abstinence education.  Then again I don’t think the Federal Government should be in so deep into education either– first of all, because their model is antiquated and based on authoritarianism and designed to slow down children from learning, and to keep the lower castes in place.  YES, I believe that.  A lot more arts (etc.) education would go further to dealing with literacy and math (not to mention probably violence) issues in the schools, but as fate? would have it, the opposite approach is taken.  I see the schools as a caste-sorter, by economics and race, and so do statistics.  Be that as it may, this organization has prospered because of then-President George Bush, and his decision to break down church/state.

This organization has several trade names, had a merger or so, and the original incorporator (registered agent) was from a law firm out of “10 Courthouse Plaza” in Dayton.  I can’t upload the articles of incorporation (at this point).   And I don’t see they are filing in my 990-finder, an E perhaps TAGGS will give me a nice DUNS#, but usually duns# only show on TAGGS if you can search by EIN, which I (haven’t found yet).  THey are most definitely soliciting donations on the web. The board of 12 has 3 women on it (only) one of who is the Warren County (OH) Prosecutor  Another board member is the County Auditor.

Vivian Koob (one of the two founders) has a bio also showing a connection with State Government (and pro-life activism):

Vivian Koob
Executive Director

Vivian Koob founded Elizabeth’s New Life Center with her husband Steve in 1989. Vivian holds a Master of Education degree as well as a Master in Rehabilitative Counseling. Before founding Elizabeth’s New Life Center she taught high school and spent 12 years working for the State of Ohio Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. She also spent years as a stay-at-home mom for her large family of natural, adopted and foster children. The Koobs’ blended family includes 12 living children and 16 grandchildren.

One of their programs listed, “Marriage Works!” (a trade name of this group, its Ohio SOS records say) includes “FE grants,” i.e. clear Fatherhood emphasis:

Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant:  90FE0035.  Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Participation in all Marriage Works! Ohio programs is voluntary.

View Our Privacy Notice
Copyright 2008, Marriage Works! Ohio.  

While MARRIAGE WORKS! is a collaboration, This ELIZABETH NEW LIFE center is the “Lead Agency,” according to the website, which is soliciting donations.  WHO HOLDS THE EIN#?

Marriage Works! Ohio - About Us

Marriage Works! Ohio is a collaborative effort of diverse organizations united to help build healthy families and healthy communities throughout the Miami Valley of Ohio by providing marriage and relationship education for couples.   


SIX Counties are involved in “Marriage Works!”  Among the other agencies is a “Family Violence Prevention Center.”

I experienced the religious-based marriage counseling as a response to domestic violence in the home (long ago).  I assure the general public (speaking for at least my Northern California urban area), the religious groups are not one iota better addressed to handle DV (or interested in doing so if it’s going to reduce warm bodies in the pews, or tithes by evicting a batterer) than they were last decade.  Nor do the religious leaders seem any more inclined to treat it as a reportable crime which it is (and child abuse absolutely is for pastors).   So here is what to the outsider looks like a “Family Violence Prevention Center.” and when a person comes in, she will be receiving services provided by a lead agency pro-life Catholic group, whose web and public presence has been funded by fatherhood education.  I notice that this FVPC also leads to a “DIVERT” Violence program.

Family Violence Prevention Center of Greene County

The focus will be on family preservation through treatment, and stopping battering through training the batterer.  People get killed that way, but this is how the field of DV has been altered (a sea-change) to accommodate the Marriage/Fatherhood agenda.  And as I will be showing NEXT post, the groups doing this are many times chronically dishonest, and sometimes crooks, when characterizing WHO THEY ARE as an organization.

  • DIVERT:  Xenia and County DIVERT crisis response in collaborative partnerships with law enforcement jurisdictions throughout Greene County to offer home and community based services to families experiencing domestic disputes or domestic violence
    Jackie Weckesser, DIVERT Crisis Response Specialist, 937-376-8526 ext. 26
    Jennifer Henderson, DIVERT Crisis Response Specialist, 937-376-8526 ext. 27
  • Domestic Violence Intervention Program: (DVIP) , therapeutic and educational group counseling for batterers working to prevent future cycles of violence. Fee for service
    Cherie Dixon, DV Intervention Counselor, 937-376-8526 ext. 31

At the bottom of this “DIVERT” page are the links showing possibly origins or technical support in setting up the web.  I notice NCADV is one.  Upcoming post on them, too:

Privacy Policy | Donate | Contact | Apply for a Job | Apply to Volunteer
NCADV.org | NRCDV.org | NDVH.org | ODVN.org

This brochure shows how one organization, when it added considerable funding, became more and more entrenched in the County Government, got a spanking new building in 2000, named after the donor (what takes place in it, who knows) and probably have not YET told any women coming for help, or totally traumatized that in the same approximate year, the Ohio Legislature created a “Fatherhood Commission” and required that it targeted counties with a lot of single-mother households (probably to get access to the TANF funds that go with them).

It began as a shelter, before VAWA and probably many laws against domestic violence had even been passed.

The Greene County Domestic Violence Project began as a two-bedroom apartment in Yellow Springs in 1979 as a project of the Greene County Welfare Department. In 1980, the agency incorporated as a private, not for profit corporation and the shelter moved to its first house in Xenia, which had one staff and several students. The project relocated twice more until 1984 when it settled into its long-term site in a large Victorian House in the Water Street District of Xenia where it remained until 2001.

It morphed into a mental health agency and a new facility:

And, in 1995 the Xenia Police Division and GCDVP collaborated to form a nationally recognized program entitled DIVERT that partners law enforcement with domestic violence crisis workers for home based follow-up. Today, DIVERT services are being made available throughout Greene County and the agency has been able to operate satellite educational programs in Fairborn.

Violence Free Futures….

In 1997 the agency began to set a goal to secure a new facility and requested the help of the community. Seventeen community leaders formed the Shelter Facility Task Force and began to search for a site for the new facility. The Board decided to mortgage the aging property and invest the loan to begin a capital campaign which would require that the agency hire a Development Officer. The Shelter Facility Task force located a potential site, the Xenia Grace Chapel which was up for sale

(“Violence-Free Futures” is echoes of the wording from one of the major resource centers, formerly the Family Violence Prevention Fund, now “Futures without Violence.”  As such, it focuses on prevention through education [[which has NOT been shown to work]] — which of course it will help provide.)

(reading this brochure, and recognizing what it represents, I am feeling a little sick….)

Or that there was an Ohio Task Force on “Changing the Culture of Custody” which was basically AFCC-central, and even flew membership out to Arizona to take input from such membership, including prominent “Parental Alienation” promoter (and published author marketing books through the courts also), Philip Stahl Ph.D.

It was named after one of the County Commissioners, in fact the President of the County Commissioners:

The Greene County Commissioners The Hon. Kathryn K. Hagler, Pres. 61 Greene Street Xenia, Ohio 45385 (name at bottom of link having been served of a certain notice on a civic project):

Hon. Hagler has been involved with the Governor’s Child Support Task Force.  As Child Support — at this point — has been re-tooled and adjusted to accommodate “Fatherhood” (see Clinton 1995 Executive Memo, etc.) — and child support offices throughout the nation, it seems (Indiana comes esp. to mind) to solicit participation in fatherhood programs (see above grantees) under — extortion, at times — in exchange for participating in prolonged custody battles they may not even want — etc. – – – – – This would seem to me a mild conflict of interest, at a minimum.

Here’s the blurb on the woman the building is named after:

KATHRYN K. HAGLER 

Kathryn K. Hagler began her 19th year (third year of a fifth term) as a Greene County Commissioner with the start of the year 2001. Prior to her service to Greene County, Mrs. Hagler was a school teacher for 35 years. In 1982, she began a new phase in her life when she became Greene County’s first female County Commissioner. During her time as a Commissioner, Mrs. Hagler helped initiate a program in which retired teachers volunteer their time to assist Greene County jail inmates work toward their general (high school) equivalency diplomas. Awards and recognitions Mrs. Hagler has received include: the Paula J. Macilwaine Award (for her GED program), the Ervin J. Nutter Award (for her service to the community), the Senior Citizen of the Year Award from the Golden Age Senior Citizens Center, and recognition from the Ohio Senior Citizens Hall of Fame and the Women’s Hall of Fame. Over the years she has been involved with Greene County United Way, American Business Women’s Association, the Governor’s Child Support Task Force, the Altrusa Club, and Greene County Domestic Violence. Mrs. Hagler is very committed to families and children of domestic violence. Because of that commitment, Mrs. Hagler and her family were the largest donors to the capital campaign for victims of domestic violence. On June 1, 2000, the Greene County Domestic Violence Project named their new facility after Mrs. Hagler for her commitment. The Kathryn K. Hagler Family Violence Prevention Center is scheduled to officially open on June 12, 2001.

Fathers and Families is very active in Ohio, it says here, and rejoices about advances it has won in the Child Support arena.  The article following this one rejoices at a nonpaying mother being thrown in jail for nonpayment, as it encourages the opposite for fathers:

F & F’s Hubin Praises Ohio Child Support Changes in Columbus Dispatch

Monday, September 26th, 2011 by FAF Staff

columbus-dispatch-icon

Donald Hubin, Ph.D., Chairman of Fathers and Families of Ohio’s Executive Committee, was quoted in Child- support changes arrive: New provisions give struggling parents leniency(9/25/11) in the Columbus Dispatch, a 200,000 circulation newspaper in Ohio’s capital.

Under the new Ohio policies, for which Fathers and Families has advocated and supports, child support enforcement agencies will not be able to seize the driver’s licenses or professional licenses of any obligors who are paying at least half of their child support obligations. Given the terrible economy, and the fact that many obligors’ obligations are not being modified downward to accommodate for their lower wages and/or job losses, this is an important measure.

Kimberly C. Newsom, executive director of the Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agencies Directors’ Association, (OCDA) said the laws have been flexible and enforcement efforts have changed as the sinking economy made it harder for many parents to pay support.

“As Ohio started going into an economic recession, counties weren’t suspending licenses as much. They were working with parents and trying to assist them with employment or getting them into work programs to try and get them employed,” Newsom said.

In Franklin County, parents are often referred to job training or co-parenting classes, said Susan Brown, director of the county’s Child Support Enforcement Agency.

I’ll bet they ARE being referred to co-parenting classes which will definitely help feed hungry children and increase the income in whoever is raising them. (sure, yeah).  I’m sure a single mother whose Dad is behind in child support would rather have a co-parenting class (mothers are solicited to attend too, you know!) than the child support.  Particularly if there was domestic violence in the marriage or partnership previously.    .

My Prior Post with some research on Franklin County, OPNFF, OHIO fatherhood initiative, and more of these matters  (Scroll down).

Link at “Columbus Urban League” — A.A.M.I. (African-American Males Initiative) shows some of the partners and funders — and referrers to classes.  This is Franklin County:

Father 2 Father

Columbus Urban League
African-American Male Initiatives

Black Father

Mission
To assist men in becoming the instinctive, responsible, & nurturing fathers they desire to be. While also, educating the general public on the unique, important, & essential role that Fathers play in the development of their children.

Scope of Services
Provide a classroom curriculum that develops the attitudes and skills needed for responsible fatherhood and helping men discover and cultivate their nurturing potential. Assistance with issues regarding child support, visitation, and family law matters, ultimately advocating for policy change/implementation that make these very areas more father friendly.

Partners
Columbus Urban League’s (CUL) – African-American Male Initiatives (A.A.M.I.)
Columbus Urban League’s Head Start
Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (OFC)
Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (FCSEA)
Ohio Practitioners Network of Fathers & Families (OPNFF)
Nationwide Children’s Hospital (Family & Volunteer Services)

Target Audience
Class Curriculum – ‘Nurturing Father’
African-American fathers between the ages of 16-35 referred by CUL Head Start, Franklin County Child Enforcement Agency & Juvenile Court System. There will be a dual class format (One AM – One PM) on 3 month cycles. Each class will consist of 12-15 fathers giving us the ability to serve 100 fathers per calendar year.

Kathryn K. Hagler Family Violence Center, or No Family Violence Center — GREENE COUNTY is highly involved (and vice versa) with the “National Fatherhood Initiative” (NFI started in 1994 with a cronyism-based grant from Wade Horn before he quit HHS, like JUST before), with the Greene County Child SUpport system, and with Green County Commissioners.

Here’s a recent link to their 2011 goings-on, which was apparently prepared in part with another PR firm who has made it big by going with the Fatherhood Flow:  “PUBLIC STRATEGIES, INC.” (see my post on PSI in Denver vs. PSI in Denver), which runs (I think) the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, in large part.

A Rapid Ethnographic Assessment of Programs & Services (REAPS)

for Fathers in Greene County, Ohio

Prepared By:

With Contributions From:

Public Strategies, Inc. Ohio State University Extension—Greene County

An Initiative of the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood

April 2011

In part, it reads:

Introduction

The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (OCF) has partnered with National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) in 2011 to assist 12 Ohio counties mobilize around responsible fatherhood. Greene County was one of the 12 counties selected to participate in this Community Mobilization Initiative.

Of course, this is going to start out with the usual blather blaming society’s ills (by omission, by deduction) on single mother households.  Not being honest enough to call it this — they call it “father absence”  Women exist, as nouns, in this dialogue, implicitly, primarily as the brood mares.

Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.1

As of April 2011, and based on my reading of what these grants are doing (and how they have changed the courts) that poverty could be attributable about as much to the war on single mothers which this rhetoric has waged, as much as  not having a Daddy in the home, per se.  Some Daddys need to get OUT of the home, because they are violent; others refuse to work while they are living WITH their kids, preferring instead to let mothers do it.  There are varieties of families and varieties of Daddy-in-the-home scenarios, as well as a huge variety of Daddy NOT in the home scenarios.

None of this centralization and collaboration (taxation WITHOUT appropriate representation, or informed public consent) accounts for OR allows the true diversity of ways there are to earn a living, raise (and educate) a child, or escape poverty WITHOUT being forced into high-stakes, high-conflict custody litigation, and paying heavily into the system that — by its own words, and I can see plainly by state on-line databases — doesn’t even account for money it takes from children, while diverting child support enforcement monies (that pesky $4 billion) away from actually distributing child support they have collected.  I truly do believe that our country would be better off — ENTIRELY — without this whole agency, based on its track record.

If I as an employer had a track record that lousy, I’d definitely be fired.  Instead, I was taken repeatedly out of paying jobs where my work was needed and appreciated (as a single mother) to answer frivolous lawsuits in a process where no cause of action was ever proved, let alone most of the time even alleged.

Children who grow up without their fathers are at greatest risk for child abuse. In fact, the presence of a child’s father in the home lowers the likelihood that a child will be abused. Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect.9 There were 1,436 new allegations of child abuse/neglect in Greene County in 2009.1

Any allegation is OK when it comest o justifying more county-absed or state-based “interventions” in private lives.  The fact is, Dads do abuse children — where in this statement is such an acknowledgment?  And where, in the group of “single-parent home” where child abuse was alleged — is the separation of ten these into cases where the child abuse was by the custodial mother (or her boyfriend) — versus the child abuse and/or MURDER (after which child abuse ceases because the child is dead, sometimes along with the father/abuser)   — and those where the child abuse happened on a court-ordered weekend enabled by the access/visitation (or other father-involvement) program.  Although these children were “living” in single-parent homes, the abuse happened from ONE parent, and the other one complying with court orders — again, at times.

I have been talking here about a Marriage/Fatherhood County grantee — they got $2.5 million in 2011 alone — based in Warren County OHIO, who turns out to e a pro-life, Catholic-based group (adamantly so) that has targeted abortion clinics and hospitals to get their message out.  IT turns out that two on the board of this organization work for Warren County, and then the Executive Director has worked for the state.  I think that any group getting $2.5 million (or over $1 million) in this economic climate should not only be watched but scrutinized — because that amount indicates the Secretary of HHS and public policy has another “brainstorm” of some idea, and is throwing money behind it.

While this one appears to have stayed legitimate and above-board, many (on the list above here, the TAGGS chart) absolutely have not.  We have GOT to stop this ongoing trotting out of fatherhood rhetoric to enable more grants — which are not tracked.  EVERY SINGLE EIN# should be posted and public be enabled to find out whether their websites are telling the truth about an organization.  FAILURE TO FILE is a red flag  I can’t talk about this group yet, until I see an IRS form (even if they have been a church to start with, as an organization taking federal grants, they should have an EIN — and they really should also have a DUNS#, enabling us to look for contracts, too, and outside the HHS).

This one also appears to be heavily networked with a group that believes domestic violence can be stopped through marriage and relationship education (that’s the model).  This education is often going to happen through the web, therefore once set up, it will be having a low overhead, and turn profits for someone.  We deserve to know WHO, as they go about solving the problems of poor people!

For the record, then, and in light of “Elizabeth’s New Life Center” (Inc. 1992, not 1989, and having several registered trade names also) being the lead agency of “Marriage Works!” a multi-county collaborative, and every single one of their websites (almost) soliciting donations, here is who in Greene County Ohio (where a Commissioner got a building named after her, by donating so much to it), was ALSO collaborating to RAPIDLY MOBILIZE more fatherhood STUFF:

Greene County Leader Focus Group Results

The Greene County focus group on fatherhood was attended by nineteen individuals representing a diverse cross section of the community and included representatives from the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood.

The following community sectors/organizations/individuals participated in the discussion (Note: some organizations had more than one representative and some people represented several sectors).

Adult Probation Anderson Williamson Insurance Child Support Children’s Service Board County Commissioner Drug & Alcohol Initiative Family and Children First Council Fairborn City Schools Greene County Career Center Greene County Combined Health District Greene County Community Foundation Greene County Fatherhood Initiative Grant Greene County Public Transit System Greene Leaf Therapeutic Community Program Juvenile Court Parent Education and Support Xenia Association of Churches & Ministries

No one representing the mothers, or custodial parents’ interests when there has been violence — was probably even aware of this meeting, much less present.

The ideas they came up with were predictable, and please note that FATHERHOOD PROGRAMMING was to be incorporated into the FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION CENTER (named after a County Commissioner).  Also marriage promotion….

When asked what assets or resources existed in Greene County that could be mobilized, expanded or used to promote responsible fatherhood the following were mentioned:

24/7 Dad Breakfast for Dads Churches – particularly if they opened their gyms and facilities for activities Daddy and Me Carnival (Early Childhood Collaborative Coalition) Family Violence Prevention Center programming Graduation Reality and Dual Role Skills – Family & Consumer Science program for pregnant and parenting teens Green County College Success Program The Marriage Resource Center Money Management Classes Urban Light Ministries – InsideOut Dad and other programs, Visitation Center.

The link is here, notice that “fatherhood” is a *.gov proposition:

http://fatherhood.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yxKCPn6VuPA%3d&tabid=93

This action plan — and the meeting involving it — was straight out of the mouth of the National Fatherhood Initiative;  It is a marketing plan.  If you do not understand THIS GROUP (and its origins) — you do not understand why $119 million is needed for programming and how that is just to set up an infrastructure to transfer a lot MORE money from child support to programs that reduce, compromise or eliminate child support for our kids — and direct monies instead to those who support and design programs.

MARRIAGE PROMOTION = FATHERHOOD PROMOTION = USUALLY PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.

EXAMPLE:  PUBLIC STRATEGIES, INC.  (a PR Firm in Oklahoma).

I have JUST now showed you that Public Strategies is working directly with National Fatherhood Initiative to “Rapidly MObilize” more fatherhood (stuff & programs).  See the “REAPS” link, the “Fatherhod.ohio.gov” link — right above here.  Now, I probably know Public Strategies a little better than you do, unless you study this topic, live in Oklahoma, or work for them.  You can also see them, bolded in maroon font, in the chart above, of grantees of the new “90FM” grant series to promote — what else, marriage and fatherhood.

In fact, they just got another $2.5 million, alongside Elizabeth’s New Life Center, alongside also California Healthy Marriages Coalition, which I am going to flat-out SAY I believe is a fraud (a front group), so I will now have to prove this in subsequent post).

But here is the “OKMARRIAGE.COM” link telling the origins of this Oklahoma Marriage Project (from top-down, Governor, and Department of HHS), choosing the PR Firm Public Strategies Inc. (WHY might be  a very good question) and explaining an intention to bypass Commissions to Study, and passing Legislation, but through a “multi-sector” approach to (Ramrod it through).  which, as you can see, they are also recommending in Ohio.  When the word “mobilize” is used, the idea is obviously that an emergency exists.  It is a MILITARY term, that’s what it calls to mind.  The intention is to bypass the slower (but more due-process, and more public-input-wanted!) processes designed into state and federal constitutions and instead, get the thing going FAST.

Here’s what they say about their origins and how they GRABBED $10 Million of TANF funding (intended for welfare:  Food stamps, cash aid, helping poor families) to set up the infrastructure to funnel more grants to anyone who was of the same belief system (as to the causes of poverty and child abuse), and away from those who didn’t, including families on welfare that probably needed the help.  Moreover, the double-whammy is, money is ALSO diverted from Child Support Enforcement at times for similar purposes. Here we go:

Oklahoma Marriage Initiative logo

OKLAHOMA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE “ABOUT US“

OMI History

In 1998, University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University economists produced a joint study on what Oklahoma needed to do to become a more prosperous state.

And  someone probably funded that joint project.  Coincidentally, in 1998, the US Congress was passing Fatherhood Resolutions (as in 1999), Welfare Reform had just happened, and nationwide a condition of receiving welfare funding to states mandated that every state create a centralized state distribution unit (SDU), or forfeit their TANF funding.  TANF was the welfare reform that changed program funding to block grants to states….It figures in here. Maybe that was coincidental, but I doubt it.

National Fatherhood Initative DOES have congressional and senate contacts / “Task Forces” and has from shortly after its (1994) founding.  As it says, here:

(NFI’s) TASK FORCES ON RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

Shortly after its founding, NFI formed Task Forces in the U.S. House and Senate to identify elected leaders who were supportive of the goals of the responsible fatherhood movement. 15 years later, the Task Forces continue to serve as a vehicle to mobilize support for NFI events on Capitol Hill and to generate support for legislation that impacts responsible fatherhood.

(Back to the OMI About us Page)

Their conclusions included the usual economic analysis relating to tax issues and regulatory reform issues, as well as some surprising results. The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

As evidence of his serious commitment to this [DIvorce leads to poverty and child abuse] issue, [Governor] Keating put his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, in charge of developing a plan of action for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. In addition, Public Strategies (PSI), a small public affairs/public relations firm, was awarded a project management bid and, from the beginning, national experts {{GEE — I wonder which ones! }}  advised various aspects of the Initiative. This leadership outlined the main themes and components of the OMI. They deliberately decided not to appoint a Commission to “study” the issues, nor did they propose a legislative package of reforms. Instead, they decided on a multi-sector approach with both a secular track and a faith-based track. The OMI was to be a public/private partnership, guided by high-level leadership and strong operational, day-to-day management. Its major focus at this initial stage was delivering education services to the public, conducting research, and working with the faith sector to develop marriage-strengthening services.

I would have to characterize this as a State Governor (who is head of the State EXECUTIVE branch) intentionally overstepping his bounds, deliberately avoiding the legislative branch, to push through his own plan, using federal funds that WERE supplied to the state of Oklahoma through legislation.  Intentionally NOT having a commission study the issues is suspect.   Now read the next part carefully

Initial activities were funded with private foundation monies and discretionary state dollars. Howard Hendrick, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director, pointed out that using TANF monies to fund the initiative fit within the intent of the family formation goals of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. The DHS Board set aside $10 million of undedicated TANF funds for OMI activities. The funds were earmarked primarily for developing marriage-related services, and leaders acknowledged that efforts should be made to make them available to low-income populations.

FORMERLY, AFDC (pre-1996) would have made sure this was to low-income families.  But the sea-change to TANF BLOCK_GRANTS TO STATES intentionally freed up the possibility of states doing more creative things with these funds.  This was great if you’re into promoting marriage and fatherhood, and probably no accident.  Look at who was pushing the 1996 reform, and you have a lot of answers….

Right there you can see it was not restricted to low-income population, but efforts should be made to let poor people know their option to take marriage education (etc.) classes, for their own good, of course.

I just saw on-line an advertisement for a psychologist at Public Strategies firm (Glassdoor.com)  The pay was $72K.

Thus, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative was launched and has grown to become the broad-based social service prevention project that it is today. The OMI has made sound decisions-by both policy and political standards-to build on the best [paid-for] research available, to invest in research to learn about marriage and divorce in Oklahoma, and to assess, to the extent possible, the effects of its activities and programs.

From “http://www.okmarriage.org/ProgramHighlights/MarriageProblems.asp” = the “OMI – ABOUT US page”

“PUBLIC STRATEGIES” started in 1990 (site says):

Clients are primarily HHS/ACF and other corporations.  Listed under “Corporate” clients is “PREP” which is itself a company that feeds off marriage education policy.  Two professors from Denver (also on the advisory board to Public Strategies) co-founded a Colorado Business to produce/sell this product, itself clearly focusing off Marriage Education grants  See “PREPinc.com.”  Nonprofit clients include The Dibble FUnd (itself also a corporation feeding off Healthy Marriage education policy.

about us
Established in 1990, Public Strategies (PSI) began as a public relations and event planning firm with only two staff members with a client base that included the Oklahoma City Cavalry professional basketball team. In a matter of years, PSI became the only firm in the United States to develop and maintain a state-run healthy marriage initiative, which has since become the longest-running and most in-depth endeavor of its kind in the country.PSI has grown into a culturally and professionally diverse firm with 150 staff members, and offices in Oklahoma, Colorado and Washington, D.C. We have a solid success record of client-centered project management and strategic planning services for a variety of clients in the public and private sectors.

Public Strategies is committed to helping organizations and individuals reach their full potential while maximizing their impact on the public good. Our clients represent the impact that PSI has had on an array of fields including education, business, faith, criminal justice, child welfare and human services.

http://www.publicstrategies.com/default1.asp?ID=2

WELL, enough for one day, eh?

////

///


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

October 9, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parent Education promotion, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The amazing Suspended, Dissolved, Terminated, Forfeited, Delinquent, perchance Active-Status (re)Incarnations Family Court Stakeholders (Phew!)

with one comment

Well, I’m breathless keeping up with them.  Someone very, very tech-savvy should design a 3D chart.

The X-axis could be years, the Y axis perhaps States of incorporation.  A 3rd dimension could be either $$, or Board of Directors Personnel in common Profit/Nonprofit or perhaps %/# of public law & court-related employees among incorporating personnel.

Actually no matter how I look at it, the human mind can’t keep up with such level of detail, and I don’t see any databases that are, although there are plenty of databases that track almost every other level of detail, including books signed out from local public libraries by users.

My cursor / fingers are so trained they can get on auto-pilot, or otherwise just about effortlessly over to the state (usually my state’s) “Business Corporations” search page, and then the “Registry of Charitable Trusts” search page – in approximately 5 seconds or less, without bookmarks.  The computer is trained to go there also.

Business Entities (BE)

To spice it up a bit, I took a little detour to the link underneath “Business Search” — and to “Disclosures.”  (California Secretary of State link)

No, this isn’t the judges’ statements about their financial holdings (Form 700s in my state — what about in yours?) — but Public Traded Stock corporations doing business in (my state).   This is another angle of the child support enforcement (and other) businesses we tend to overlook.

There are shareholders – not just employees — invested, literally, in the success (profit) of for-profit organizations whose business is to put liens on your assets and garnish your wages if you’re a delinquent in support payments person.  Or, sometimes, when you aren’t.  Or sometimes, as it comes to certain groups, when you don’t even have a minor child by the name they are putting into the system.  Or paid already (and so forth).

So, before posting Maximus’s disclosures (speaking of which) my Secretary of State site very helpfully posts the relevant business codes for anyone – meaning any foreign (out of state) corporation doing business “intra” (within) the state.  These are for the protection of the stockholders, and us.

For example:

2105. (a) A foreign corporation shall not transact intrastate business without having first obtained from the Secretary of State a certificate of qualification. To obtain that certificate it shall file, on a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, a statement and designation signed by a corporate officer stating:
(1) Its name and the state or place of its incorporation or organization.
(2) The address of its principal executive office.
(3) The address of its principal office within this state, if any.
(4) The name of an agent upon whom process directed to the corporation may be served within this state. The designation shall comply with the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 1502.
(5) (A) Its irrevocable consent to service of process directed to it upon the agent designated and to service of process on the Secretary of State if the agent so designated or the agent’s successor is no longer authorized to act or cannot be found at the address given.
(B) Consent under this paragraph extends to service of process directed to the foreign corporation’s agent in California for a search warrant issued pursuant to Section 1524.2 of the Penal Code, or for any other validly issued and properly served search warrant, for records or documents that are in the possession of the foreign corporation and are located inside or outside of this state. This subparagraph shall apply to a foreign corporation that is a party or a nonparty to the matter for which the search warrant is sought. For purposes of this subparagraph, “properly served” means delivered by hand, or in a manner reasonably allowing for proof of delivery if delivered by United States mail, overnight delivery service, or facsimile to a person or entity listed in Section 2110 of the Corporations Code.
(6) {{[(a)??}} If it is a corporation which will be subject to the Insurance Code as an insurer, it shall so state that fact. (b) Annexed to that statement and designation shall be a certificate by an authorized public official of the state or place of incorporation of the corporation to the effect that the corporation is an existing corporation in good standing in that state or place or, in the case of an association, an officers’ certificate stating that it is a validly organized and existing business association under the laws of a specified foreign jurisdiction. (c) Before it may be designated by any foreign corporation as its agent for service of process, any corporate agent must comply with Section 1505.
 

This is going to become VERY interesting when it comes to nonprofits with the word “COURT” anywhere in their name.  The ethereal re-incarnations and multi-state addresses are really hard to keep up with.

But, thankfully, MAXIMUS was forthcoming and disclosed, twice, in California (remind me to check EVERY state):

Corporation Number
Corporation Name
Disclosure Filing Date
C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 07/17/2006
C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 03/05/2004

Sorry to give it that ugly format, but the more picturesque versions (which drag an image) tend to not show in different browers.  So you get the warhorse version, with live links (I hope).

I then went right back to the “Business Search” (as in yesterday’s post) and typed in “C1618100” (easier than the whole name), remembering to check “Entity#” and got this:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1618100 06/30/1988 ACTIVE MAXIMUS, INC. CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

Well perhaps THAT’s why we can’t keep up with all these stakeholders in the mediation (etc) and businesses of law — they have a faster than light incorporating service. . . . . .

CSC LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

8040 EXCELSIOR DR, STE 400
MADISON,  WI  53717-2915

Also at that address:

VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, 8040 EXCELSIOR DR, MADISON, Wisconsin …

 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC. 8040 EXCELSIOR DR, STE 400. MADISON, WI 53717-2915 …
Maximus (see narrow bar, above) has been doing in business in california since before welfare reform, and was in fact involved in it.  I think that a contract with Los Angeles was one of the earliest one’s in the company’s history in this business.

Benefit from our Child Support Expertise

MAXIMUS professionals manage 40 percent of the privatized child support caseload in the United States and Canada today. All our services are supported through a team of CSE experts, which includes former state and local IV-D directors and others with significant child support legal, policy and operations experience. Our more than 660 CSE specialists have a shared passion and dedication for helping children and families obtain the resources they need.

As the local IV-D directors also (through fatherhood grants, etc.) have some say in child CUSTODY matters, this can get fairly interesting . . . ..

Child Welfare

MAXIMUS is committed to improving the welfare of the nation’s most vulnerable children by providing SSI Advocacy Services for children in foster care and providing Title IV-E, TANF, and Adoption Assistance Eligibility services for our government partners.

We partner with government clients and tailor our services to meet child welfare program goals. We are passionate about advocating for vulnerable populations, and our team brings a unique blend of knowledge, skills, and experience, which is unmatched by any other firm.

And partnerships with various regional nonprofit child support directors associations (see my recent posts for who is paying for that . . . . . )

Extending our reach through our valued partners (Affiliated Associations)

As a corporate member of several civic associations across the nation, MAXIMUS is dedicated to the business areas and communities in which we operate.

Child Support

Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association   (ERICSA)
National Child Support Enforcement Association   (NCSEA)
Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council  (WICSEC) (active in California also, although our state one is “CSDA”)

About that 1988 incorporation date in California:

From wikipedia (just a reminder), Maximus started in 1975, in a garage in McLean Virginia:

History

MAXIMUS was founded by David Mastran, a Vietnam veteran and former government worker, in 1975 and was first incorporated as a privately held company in 1975. Mastran founded the company from his garage in McLean, Virginia.[10]The company eventually went public on June 13, 1997.

So, it incorporated in California probably in order to do this:

Employment services

MAXIMUS began providing welfare-to-work services in 1988 with Los Angeles County’s decision to award the first welfare-to-work privatization contract in the nation. Today[when?]MAXIMUS operates TANF programs in Los Angeles County; Alaska; San Diego; Orange County, California; Wisconsin; Maricopa County, Arizona; Nashville, Tennessee; and Cleveland, Ohio.

The company also runs One Stop Employment Centers, Veterans Employment Programs, and WIA Summer Youth Programs.[14]\


Public obviously meaning it trades its stock, “MMS,” openly, and not just restricted to shareholders.  Right now, that’s worth about . . . .

Last Price $37.69  Day Change (up) 0.89|2.42 %  that’s literally 8/23/2011 1:19pm, thank you “Quote.morningstar.com/stock/s.aspx?t=MMS“

(. . No, I don’t know stocks either, just looking)

However, in 2007, it apparently was doing better, until it had to pay that $30 million in settling a whistleblower lawsuit from one of its own employees.  This is a whistleblower law blog:

Maximus, Inc. pays $30.5 Million to settle False Claims Act Case

“Helping the Government serve the People” is the tagline of Virginia based Maximus, Inc., latest corporate citizen entangled in a Medicaid fraud scam.

Unfortunately, this company needs a new tagline. The DOJ announced today that Maximus has agreed to pay $30.5 Million to settle qui tam lawsuit. The company admitted to their part in submitting fraudulent Medicaid claims for children who may not have received foster care services. Last September, at the end of their fiscal year the company reported earning $700 million in revenueand predicted a rosy forecast for 2007. Today the Maximus stock closed at $42.05, only down a slight 5% from earlier trading.  I wonder, how they will project next year’s forecast, in wake of this scandal.  It is a scandal, because the good name of this organization has been tarnished due to a few “greedy” and “unscrupulous” workers.

Thanks to the brave whistleblower, Benjamin Turner, a former division manager at Maximus, the acts and deeds of the corporate wrongdoers, did not go unpunished. In recognition for his efforts, Mr. Turner will receive $4.93 million as a result of filing a qui tam or whistleblower lawsuit under the provisions of the False Claims Act. There are times when a whistleblower gets compensated for his brave actions. And there are times when the whistleblower gets nothing, even after going to the Supreme Court, as in the case of Rockwell v. United States, as mentioned here previously on the Whistleblower Law Blog.

I’m just putting that in for reference, before posting this Disclosure from my state.  I was talking about what it takes (financially, salaries) to run the SF Superior court a post or so ago.  Well, here are some of the profits — including in both salary and “options” (that’s stock options, which have higher leverage and potential profits than plain stocks) for the executive directors.

California Secretary of State site shows:

Corporation Number
Corporation Name
Disclosure Filing Date
C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 07/17/2006
C1618100 MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC. 03/05/2004

The first filing showed one set of Executive Directors:

CORPORATION
Corporation Name: MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC.
Corporation Number: C1618100
Document Number: 0990969
Disclosure Filing Date: 07/17/2006
Bankruptcy: NO
Legal Proceedings: Material pending legal proceeding(s) – YES
Legally liable in any material legal proceeding(s) – NO
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
Prepared most recent auditor’s report: ERNST & YOUNG
Employed by the corporation as of the date of the statement: ERNST & YOUNG
DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Name Title Compensation Shares Options Bankruptcy Fraud
BELIVEAU, RUSSELL A. DIRECTOR $ 37,500.00 0.00 16,823.00 NO NO
HALEY, JOHN J. DIRECTOR $ 45,000.00 0.00 16,823.00 NO NO
LEDERER, PAUL R. DIRECTOR $ 55,500.00 0.00 1,823.00 NO NO
MONTONI, RICHARD A. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
POND, PETER B. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 12,570.00 NO NO
RUDDY, RAYMOND B. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 8,519.00 NO NO
SEYMANN, MARILYN R. DIRECTOR $ 56,500.00 0.00 16,823.00 NO NO
THOMPSON, JAMES R. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 4,954.00 NO NO
WEBB, WELLINGTON E. DIRECTOR $ 43,500.00 0.00 2,141.00 NO NO
FRANCIS, DAVID R. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 425,120.00 2,413.00 80,000.00 NO NO
MONTONI, RICHARD A. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 565,000.00 6,500.00 15,000.00 NO NO
WALKER, DAVID N. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 218,500.00 0.00 280.00 NO NO
LOANS TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Name: NONE

and the next filing, a bit earlier, a different set, with the exception of Mr. Montoni is still there, showing the increase in salary in just a few years.

CORPORATION
Corporation Name: MAXIMUS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS VIRGINIA MAXIMUS, INC.
Corporation Number: C1618100
Document Number: 0655844
Disclosure Filing Date: 03/05/2004
Bankruptcy: NO
Legal Proceedings: Federal security law violations – NO
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
Prepared most recent auditor’s report: ERNST & YOUNG
Date of last report: 12/16/2003
DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Name Title Compensation Shares Options Bankruptcy Fraud
BELIVEAU, RUSSELL A. DIRECTOR $ 101,612.00 0.00 15,000.00 NO NO
DAVENPORT, LYNN P. DIRECTOR $ 426,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 NO NO
HALEY, JOHN J. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 3,899.00 NO NO
LEDERER, PAUL R. DIRECTOR $ 30,000.00 0.00 5,656.00 NO NO
MASTRAN, DAVID V. DIRECTOR $ 395,155.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
POND, PETER B. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 9,083.00 NO NO
SEYMANN, MARILYN R. DIRECTOR $ 30,000.00 0.00 2,068.00 NO NO
THOMPSON, JAMES R. JR DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 3,475.00 NO NO
WEBB, WELLINGTON E. DIRECTOR $ 0.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
BOYER, JOHN F. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 350,000.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
FALLON, ROBERT J. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 390,000.00 0.00 0.00 NO NO
GRISSEN, THOMAS A. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 414,500.00 0.00 5,000.00 NO NO
JOHNSON, DAVID M. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 511,523.00 0.00 100,000.00 NO NO
MONTONI, RICHARD A. EXECUTIVE OFFICER $ 374,333.00 0.00 15,000.00 NO NO
LOANS TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Name: NONE

I may have posted this before, but a brief bio of Mr. Montani is here from people.forbes.com

Richard A. Montoni

Chief Executive Officer, President and Director

Maximus, Inc.

Reston ,  VA

Sector: SERVICES  /  Business Services

Officer since March 2002
59 Years Old
Richard A. Montoni has served as Chief Executive Officer, President and a director of MAXIMUS since 2006. Previously, Mr. Montoni served as our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer from 2002 to 2006. Mr. Montoni served as Chief Financial Officer for Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, during April 2006 before rejoining MAXIMUS and his appointment as Chief Executive Officer and President. Before his employment with MAXIMUS, he served as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President for Managed Storage International, Inc. in Broomfield, Colorado from 2000 to 2001. From 1996 to 2000, he was Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President for CIBER, Inc., a NYSE-listed company in Englewood, Colorado where he also served as a director until 2002. Before joining CIBER, he was an audit partner with KPMG, LLP, where he worked for nearly 20 years. Mr. Montoni holds a Masters Degree in Accounting from Northeastern University and a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from Boston University.
(notice, steadily increasing, and the stock awards also.)
Compensation for 2010
Salary $700,000.00
Bonus $0.00
Restricted stock awards $1,800,000.00
All other compensation $58,409.00
Option awards $ $0.00
Non-equity incentive plan compensation $700,000.00
Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings $0.00
Total Compensation $3,258,409.00
Just for a point of reference.

Faster than thought:  AFCC, in Illinois, Los Angeles, and Colorado (simultaneously):

NOW IT’S A LITTLE LATE IN THE DAY, BUT JUST FOR REFERENCE:  At the end of the last post, I was re-posting some comments about what (the heck) is going on at 111 Hill Street in Los Angeles, and what has been — regarding the history of the AFCC.
If someone would like some proof or what is said at “Beware AFCC” (google it) and that Jessica Pearson, of Center for Policy Research, has organizational connections to the AFCC, which itself has direct connections of SOME sort, to the Los Angeles County Courthouse (at least the one at 111 Hill Street), I’ll give you this one:
Entity Name: ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS 
Entity Number: C1091990
Date Filed: 10/01/1981
Status: SURRENDER
Jurisdiction: ILLINOIS
Entity Address: 1720 EMERSON ST
Entity City, State, Zip: DENVER CO 80218
Agent for Service of Process: MARGARET LITTLE
Agent Address: 111 N HILL ST
Agent City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90012
Margaret Little (Ph.D.) in 2006 shows up on a Judicial Council Task force report (about abuses in probate conservatorships!) as this title:

Dr. Margaret Little

Family Law and Probate Administrator Superior Court of California,

County of Los Angeles

Topic of the report (which I just linked to), dated 9/18/2007 about how the courts responded to  not internal controls, or complaints from litigants, but an expository (series?) from the Los Angeles Times!  May there be a similar one on these topics in my lifetime!  . . .   Notice how “lack of resources” (rather than, say, corruption and inappropriate alliances between probate judges and public guardians) is cited as a cause of the troubles.  I hope that by quoting this you don’t lose sight of the tri-state corporate identity of (AFCC), above, or its significance:

Final Report of the Probate Conservatorship Task Force (Action Required)

Issue Statement

The administration and management of probate conservatorship cases in the state of California was recently placed under scrutiny through a series of Los Angeles Times articles that raised concerns that some conservatees were being subjected to abusive practices. Of particular concern were the inappropriate granting of temporary conservatorships on ex parte petitions, lack of proper oversight of accountings, abusive practices of private professional conservators including improper billings, lack of sufficient notice to conservatees and their families, and inadequate protections of the rights of conservatees. Although there are courts and counties with exemplary programs, many others do not appear to be able to provide the services and oversight necessary to ensure that conservatees are protected and receive proper care and treatment. This inability is often due to a lack of resources and, in some cases, gaps in existing statutes, rules, and guidelines.

Recognizing these challenges, in January 2006 the Chief Justice established the Probate Conservatorship Task Force and charged it with conducting a top-to- bottom review of the probate conservatorship system in California

Dr. Margaret Little is involved in Family and Probate Courts, and was the registered agent (if anyone had started a lawsuit, she’d have received the paperwork) for ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS with ILLINOIS jurisdiction and DENVER place of business, probably while back then also on the public payroll for the County of Los Angeles.   Makes you think, huh?  Since then (2010) she was a member of the “Elkins Family Law Task Force” as Senior Administrator (in the same area), and was cited by a 2001-licensed Child Forensic Psychologist (Marlene Valter, Psy.D.) as having conducted the following training (it’s a “vita,” I searched for “Margaret Little”).  Note the following seminar listed, same year and who sponsored it!:

2003 Domestic Violence Training for Child Custody Evaluators and Mediators; Los Angeles, CA; January 23; Coordinator: Margaret Little, Ph.D.; Sponsored by Los Angeles County Family Court Services. (4 hours)

2003 Managing Parent-child Reunification in Alienation and Abduction Cases. Burbank, CA; September 25; presenters: various; Sponsored by Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts. (3 hours)

If we look at this Pepperdine-trained person, it’s clear a lot of her work life has been in the los Angeles County System, not to mention around AFCC, heavily so:

CHILD CUSTODY FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALTY TRAINING:

2008 AFCC-CA Annual Conference: Abduction, Risk, and Response; Ethical and

Effective Coaching of One Parent During a Child Custody Evaluation; Domestic Violence;

MARLENE W. VALTER, PSY.D.

PAGE 2Private Life, Public Parenting-Is a Parent’s Sexual Behavior Relevant?; The Impact of Celebrity

on the lives of Children; Therapeutic Interventions. Santa Monica, CA; Sponsored by AFCC and Los Angeles County Superior Court. (12 hours)

2008 Domestic Violence Training for Child Custody Evaluators; Santa Monica, CA; In collaboration with AFCC/CA Chapter. (4 hours)

2007 Annual Update for Custody Evaluators: The Steve Frankel Group, June 19. Online Presenter: Philip Stahl, Ph.D., ABPP. (8 hours)

(Philip Stahl is straight PAS-promoter, and quite AFCC, currently in Arizona…)
As far back also as 1991, here is an article by Margaret A. Little, funded in part (it says) by a grant from the “California Judicial Council” (too bad the TAGGS.hhs.gov database doesn’t go  back that far), published in the “FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEW.”  Other than giving a background history of Hofstra University in NY which helps publish this with AFCC, I don’t know how much more plainly I could point to who is running the family court services basically around the country..
The Impact of the Custody Plan on a Family:   A Five-Year Follow-up
(for what Trish Wilson has to say on this, in 2002 (the 11-year followup?) see HERE at “The Liz Library” it appears to be commenting on the same article, in re: joint custody.)
1991 – 5 = 1986 – 5  = when the above-listed California “foreign” corporation, predecessor of AFCC, had to surrender its business license.  I imagine these people know exactly what they are doing corporately in moving fro in-state to out of state.  I can’t say the same for every young proselyte that graduates into the system, whether through Fuller Theological Seminary,** in the area, or Pepperdine, also in the general area (Malibu) or wherever
(** this mini-section added 8/25, and I am posting some material on Fuller today as well.  Both are Christian-oriented groups who have really pushed into the business realm surrounding the courts, through graduate psychology, marital studies, and as to Pepperdine University School of Law’s emphasis on Dispute Resolution, churning out professionals at a high rate that my research keeps running into as I chase down nonprofits, delinquent and active both).
Think of the ramifications if AFCC is indeed the shape-shifting, tax-evading, court-controlling group it certainly appears to be!

SO WHEN MARV BRYER RAVED ABOUT AFCC’S ROAMING INCORPORATION HISTORY . . .

So when Marv Bryer, raving almost, states “incredulous” things (like, over a decade ago) like this (quoted from Liz Richards NAFCJ site this time) . . . .

In 1981 – I presume their bank account was still open and they created a new identity called the Association of Family Conciliation Courts. This time – Margaret Little – FAMILY COURT SERVICES for LOS ANGELES, and a Colorado individual named Jessica Pearson orchestrated yet another version of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE SCHEME. Pearson borrowed the EIN of the WISCONSIN AFCC and claimed her office was in Colorado as an ILLINOIS corporation. The LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE became PEARSON’S and Dr MARGARET LITTLE’S California – FOREIGN – CORPORATION.

. . . He’s not nuts.  I just showed you.

Also, looks like they had to give it up.
NB:  i showed you the Los Angeles County Judges’ Association last post.  Wasn’t it still out of 111 Hill?
Jurisdiction, Illinois (OK . . . . . )

  1. Endnotes – The Future of Children –

    futureofchildren.org › Home › Publications › Journals – Cached

    by JR Johnston – 1994 – Related articles
    May 17, 2011 – … is presently under research in a multisite national study (J. Pearson, Center for Policy Research, 1720 Emerson St., Denver, CO 90218). …

  2. Colorado Model Office Project EVALUATION OF COLORADO’S DRIVER’S …

    ancpr.com/myth.htm

    Center for Policy Research 1720 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303/837- 1555. Quotes from this study indicate clearly that so called “Deadbeat Dads” …

  3. Evidence in child abuse and neglect cases – Google Books Result

    books.google.com/books?isbn=0471167525…John E. B. Myers – 1997 – Family & Relationships – 600 pages
    Center for Policy Research, 1720 Emerson Street, Denver, CO 80218. Phone: (303) 837-1555) [hereinafter Tjaden & Anhalt]. 332 Tjaden & Anhalt at 1. …

  4. 2309 Emerson St, Denver, CO 80205 Directions, Location and Map …

    http://www.mapquest.com/maps?…2309%20Emerson%20St…Denver…C… – Cached

    Our interactive map lets you view, print, or send to your phone directions to and from 2309 Emerson St, Denver, CO 80205, and view the location as a …

  5. CHILD SUPPORT IN THE UNITED STATES: THE EXPERIENCE IN COLORADO …

    lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/2/321.abstract

    by J PEARSON – 1992 – Cited by 2 – Related articles
    Center for Policy Research, 1720 Emerson Street, Denver, Colorado 80218, USA. The research reported in this article was developed under grants from Hunt …

  6. Child Support Improvement Project: Paternity Establishment; Final …

    by J Pearson – 1995
    Sponsoring Agency: Colorado Dept of Social Services United States. Sale: Ctr for Policy Research 1720 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218. United States …

Of course it’s now moved — and shows up at 1570 Emerson Street:
Center For Policy Research
1570 Emerson Street  (google maps view)
Denver, CO  80218
Phone: 303-837-1555
Fax: 303-837-1557
And legally registered as a trade name and nonprofit at http://www.SOS.state.CO.us:
Found 2 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# Name Address Type Count
1 PEARSON, JESSICA 1570 EMERSON, DENVER, CO
80218-1450, US		 Trade name Registrant 1
2 PEARSON, JESSICA S. 1570 EMERSON, DENVER, CO 80218, US Registered Agent 1
Also in Denver, NCADV Main Headquarters (the other office listed being in Washington, D.C.) which apparently just moved here, no kidding, on April 1, 2011:
NCADV’s Main Office (as of April 1, 2011)
One Broadway, Suite B210
Denver, CO 80203
and

1899 Wynkoop Street # 300

Denver, CO 80202-1092 map

(personnel in common, and often publishes under HHS grants with CPR).
Also (note address):

COLORADO CHILD HEALTH PLAN PLUS-ANTHEM

1899 Wynkoop #300
Denver, CO 80202
(800) 234-5147
Company Website: www.chpplusproviders.com

In fact, trade names for PSI, I should probably just list here — there are plenty for this 1984-incorporated organization, several of which relate to this blog:
Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2.
# ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM
and the last two, Parent Opportunity Programs, you “know” are going to show up fatherhood-hhs-sponsored:
Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 2 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
11 20021223054  20021223054 BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
12 20021223055  20021223055 EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
From fatherhood.hhs.gov, the descriptions:

Colorado

Noncustodial Parent Programs

  • Boulder County Parent Opportunity Program (POP) Policy Studies Inc. has operated a Welfare-To-Work (WtW) program for non-custodial parents (NCP) in Boulder County since 2002. The program helps NCPs who are unemployed, underemployed, or having trouble meeting their child support obligations. The POP helps these parents overcome barriers to employment by linking them with services in the community or through allowable WtW funds. The program has been instrumental in helping clients increase their wages, child support payments, and visitation with their children. Primary Contact: John Mahaney, .
  • El Paso County Parent Opportunity Program (POP) This program is in its seventh year of operation. During the first three years, it operated under a federal grant to develop an innovative approach to create a strong community effort serving noncustodial parents who lacked the means to support their children. The POP now operates as a partnership between the El Paso County Department of Social Services, Policy Studies Inc. (PSI), the Center on Fathering and Goodwill Industries. These partners work in coordination with other community agencies to provide services including employment and training, mediation, parent education, child support assistance and community referrals to unemployed and under-employed non-custodial parents and their families. Recently, POP has partnered with the Pikes Peak Workforce Center to help them serve noncustodial parents eligible for WtW services. An evaluation of the first three years of the program is available upon request. Primary contact:Chad Eddinger, Project lead, El Paso Department of Human Services .
Guess who was probably paying (now that I’m on that web page, which comes generally speaking under HHS == tax distribution agent of the U.S. Government) for these:

Faith-Based and Community Organization Activities

  • On October 1st and 2nd, 2004, The Colorado Collaborative for FatherHood and Families, and the Fatherhood Coalition of Metro Denver co-sponsored a kick-off training conference called Journey to Manhood, attended by nearly 30 local fatherhood providers and fathers interested in training. Presenters included James Rodriguez of the Arizona Fatherhood Collaborative and ACF staff. This was the opening session of a one-year certificate program in Fatherhood to be offered by Red Rocks Community College.
  • Also on October 1st, 2004, the Fatherhood Steering Committee of the Colorado Department of Human Services, with support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, held a Stakeholders Forum. Many excellent presentations were offered by local fatherhood experts on how to make organizations more father-friendly, and how to address barriers that keep fathers from full participation in child welfare organizations.
  • The 14th Annual Expanding the Visions Conference was held on March 20, 2004. This event, sponsored by the Denver African-American Leadership Conference, was attended by approximately 1,000 boys and their dads. Several hundred packets of ACF-related information were distributed to attendees. This information focused on how to be a great dad and strategies for avoiding divorce.
  • Colorado Springs, Colorado: Approximately 200 dads and daughters participate annually in the Father-Daughter Purity Ball. The centerpiece of this evening of formal dinner and dancing is always the reading of a pledge by the dads to model purity and integrity for their daughters and to do all they can to protect their purity.
  • In Douglas County, Colorado, Extension Agent Rich Batten has established a monthly e-mail letter for those interested in fatherhood advocacy and committed to increasing the probability of every child being intimately connected to an involved, responsible and loving father or father figure.
  • The Denver Indian Family Resource Center has begun a Young Men’s Sweat Lodge project, which includes fathers and male mentors. Seven sweats have been held so far.

For a REAL eye-opener, go to the SOS Colorado business search page, click on “Advanced Search” and then type in “Fatherhood”!

Sorry, this post was less about the title’s Suspended, etc. — but bet it was informative.  Namely, the appearance of detachment and belonging to separate entities (when one awards and compliments the other) dissipates when the connections between associations are traced at the corporate level.
Since then, AFCC has straighted up and incorporated in a California Chapter.  At least the “incorporated in California Chapter” part I can vouch for:
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1587819 05/15/1987 ACTIVE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER LULU L WONG
C1091990 10/01/1981 SURRENDER ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS MARGARET LITTLE
Entity Name: ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER
Entity Number: C1587819
Date Filed: 05/15/1987
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 1336 N MOORPARK RD #185
Entity City, State, Zip: THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360
Agent for Service of Process: LULU L WONG
Agent Address: 1303 JEFFERSON ST STE 710B
Agent City, State, Zip: NAPA CA 94559
NAPA is wine country, just north of San Francisco.  Remember Karen Anderson’s grants money was used to host an art & wine seminar up there? (see johnnypumphandle’s account, I DNR exact details…..).
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER 068671 Charity Current THOUSAND OAKS CA Charity Registration Charity
1
Too bad I wasn’t checking here in 2010 and earlier; looks like they got their 2011 warning letter too!  if it doesn’t show here, go to the site and read it, bottom document under “first delinquency notice.”     Cute!

It got slapped up on the site crooked.  Looks like someone was in a hurry!
Just a reminder:  They are addressing an organization comprised of judges and attorneys, etc.  Isn’t that sweet, reminding them of the law?
You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information
Full Name: ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER FEIN: 770238347
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1587819
Registration Number: 068671
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/2012
Registration Status: Current Date This Status: 2/7/2011
Date of Last Renewal: 3/3/2011
Address Information
Address Line 1: 1336 N MOORPARK RD #185 Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360
Annual Renewal Information
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-04
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-04
Total Assets: $23,332.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $59,598.00
RRF Received: 01-FEB-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-05
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-05
Total Assets: $28,259.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $62,923.00
RRF Received: 10-FEB-09
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-06
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-06
Total Assets: $25,101.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $66,748.00
RRF Received: 10-FEB-09
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-07
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-07
Total Assets: $31,241.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $106,426.00
RRF Received: 16-MAY-08
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-08
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-08
Total Assets: $76,048.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $135,317.00
RRF Received: 13-MAY-09
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-09
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
Total Assets: $73,765.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $120,592.00
RRF Received: 26-FEB-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-10
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-10
Total Assets: $80,200.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $103,725.00
RRF Received: 11-FEB-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Related Documents
00003B29 Founding Documents
00003B2A RRF-1 2009
00003B2B IRS Form 990 2009
00003B2C RRF-1 2008
00003B2D IRS Form 990 2008
00003B2E RRF-1 2007
00003B2F IRS Form 990 2007
00003B30 RRF-1 2006
00003B31 IRS Form 990 2006
00003B32 RRF-1 2005
00003B33 IRS Form 990 2005
15310 1st Delinquency Notice
Prerequisite Information
No Prerequisite Information
IRS Return Data
Founding documents, 1987 (AFCC began apparently in Los Angeles somewhere around 1962?) are full of love and appreciation for children and conciliation, etc.
Notice the inclusion of “BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTS.”   Got to get them in there.
Notice (below) the span of the state (in fact, west coast) represented in directors, starting with a LA County Judge at 111 Hill Street, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and up north, our beloved San Francisco:
\

HAVE A SWEET DAY….

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

August 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, CPR Center for Policy Research, History of Family Court, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, PhDs in Psychology-Psychiatry etc (& AFCC), PSI Policy Studies Inc, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with , , ,

Tea Party Hypocrisy — Illinois’ Rep. Joe Walsh Caught in Arrears; but the Real Hypocrite is OCSE.

leave a comment »

RE:  My last post, Footloose in Tuscaloosa:

I am still sorting out which judges, legislators, and government employees  are on which “Help the Children” or “Fatherhood” nonprofits in Alabama; more to come.  Meanwhile, I’m hardly going to pass up an opportunity like this:

Lawrence O’Donnell bans ‘deadbeat Dad’ Rep. Joe Walsh 

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell has banned tea party Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) from ever appearing on his show again.

Walsh has refused to vote for raising the nation’s debt ceiling, saying he would not place “one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids.” But it turns out that Walsh actually owes more than $100,000 in child support.

“It is time to deny deadbeat dad Joe Walsh some advantages,” O’Donnell said Friday.

“In order to teach deadbeat dad Joe Walsh a lesson about family values, yes, the very same family values that so many Republicans try to exploit politically while failing to come close to living up to them in their own lives, deadbeat dad Joe Walsh is hereby banned from this program. He can go tell his lies about his family values and his sense of fiscal responsibility elsewhere.”

Watch this video from MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast July 29, 2011. (on-site).    

As the video points out, using the “my kids and grandkids” rhetoric / exhibits in campaign speech is not obligatory.   He chose to do so.  Others chose to do some look-ups!

ProjectVoteSmart on Rep. Walsh shows his affiliations, and background:

Representative Joe Walsh (IL)
Current Office: U.S. House
Current District: 8
First Elected: 11/02/2010
Next Election: 2012
Party: Republican

Background Information
Gender: Male
Family: Wife: Helene*
5 Children*Birth Date:
Birthplace: Barrington, IL
Home City: Barrington, IL
Religion:Education:
MPP, University of Chicago
BA, English, University of IowaProfessional Experience:
Director, Daniel Murphy Scholarship Fund
Instructor, Hebrew Theological Institute
Instructor, Jobs for Youth
Instructor, Oakton Community College
Heartland Institute  {Instructor, student, speaker — what capacity?}Political Experience:
Representative, United States House of Representatives, 2011-present
Candidate, United States Congress, 1996
Candidate, Illinois State House of Representatives, 1998

Organizations:
Member, Americans for Limited Government
Member, Fabretto Children’s Foundation
Member, Legislative Education Action Drive
Member, Milton & Rose Friedman Foundation

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
Member, American Education Reform Council
Member, Congressional Hockey Caucus
Member, House Republican Israel Caucus
Member, Republican Study Committee
Member, Tea Party Caucus
Member, United Republican Fund

* * re  Wife & Children, make that “Current wife” and “5 children, split among two women…”

ProjectVoteSmart asks where they stand on issues:

Representative Joe Walsh refused to tell citizens where he/she stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.

This candidate has demonstrated 0% courage during the test.

Voting record — against Planned Parenthood and Taxpayer funded Abortion (goes with the territory).  And of course FOR Patriot Act extensions.  (File where under “Small Government” label?)

But he voted in April 2011 FOR  the budget:

04/15/2011 2011-2012 Budget
H Con Res 34		 Y Resolution Passed – House
(235 – 193)

THAT MEANS he voted for the $4 billion child support collection industry (obviously it’s not too good at catching up with him….), and for siphoning parts of this off into fatherhood promotion.

The Heartland Institute:

The Heartland Institute: Free Market Solutions

Heartland Institute is a $6.1 million privately-funded nonprofit:

The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organization with offices in Chicago and Washington DC. Founded in 1984, it is tax exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation.

Illinois congressman Joe Walsh, a Tea Party rising star, sued for $100,000 in unpaid child support

(The Associated Press,published Friday 7/29/2011 in Syracuse.com)

Congressman Child Support.JPG

In this Nov. 17, 2010 file photo, then-Rep.-elect Joe Walsh, R-Ill., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Chicago Sun-Times reports Thursday, July 28, 2011, that Walsh’s ex-wife, Layra Walsh has sued her ex-husband for more than $117,000 in what she says is unpaid child support and interest. Laura Walsh filed the claim in December in their divorce case.

CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, a rising star in the Tea Party movement best known for his blistering lectures of President Barack Obama for “spending like a drunken sailor,” is now being peppered with questions about his own financial responsibility after reports surfaced that he’s being sued for more than $100,000 in unpaid child support.

Experts say whatever political star power the 49-year-old Republican previously emanated has been dimmed, if not extinguished, because for at least the immediate future it will be impossible for him to talk about anything other than his personal problems.

As is appropriate.  Most of us would rather see a sermon than hear one any time.

“Whenever he wants to go out and talk about the debt limit, they are going to want to talk about whether (he) is a deadbeat dad,” said Kent Redfield, a professor emeritus of politics at the University of Illinois-Springfield. “His individual problems become the story and he never gets to another issue.”

…

Redfield and others say it is all but impossible for politician to shake questions about whether or not they’ve provided for their families once a story like the one in Thursday’s Chicago Sun-Times is published.

Well, why should they be able to shake such questions?  Would you want a representative who was dishonest with his own family, or have we come to view that as acceptable if it’s a charismatic enough leader?    Particularly when it’s a Family Values type political party, let’em practice what they preach!

“Child support is always devastating to politicians when it (such a story) comes out, because the public says, ‘How can you manage our finances when you can’t manage your own?'” said Larry Sabato, a political scientist and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

This reporter could’ve affirmed that a person who cannot manage his own finances (honestly, that is) should hardly be entrusted with others’.  How devastating might it be to children to have their well-known father simply ditch child support payments?   But instead, the reporter distances him/herself from that point of view and describes the poor (in arrears) politician’s prospects, should word of this get out…  Why don’t citizens just move beyond such petty issues as, whether the politician is a liar or not? including to the mother of three of his children?

No, that question raises  a very good point, and any religious conservatives should (but often don’t) know this verse:

I Timothy 5. 8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.   

I suppose one way to handle that is divorce one’s wife and go start a new family, meaning the old ones are no longer in his “house,” and neglecting them, which this person did….

But this won’t phase Tea Partiers much, says the author — they’ll just chalk it up to a “politically motivated” attack, projecting a psychological motive for reporting facts and requesting action on them.  Reminds me of how family court, when faced with allegations of abuse, has a tendency to attribute it instead to “parental alienation” and imply the (mother, FYI), just made it up to get an advantage in the divorce.

But Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said that Walsh was paying about $1,000 less than he was ordered to between November 2005 and March 2008, and then stopped paying the entire $2,135 he owed every month from April 2008 until December 2010.

He said once Walsh began serving in Congress, earning $175,000 a year, he started making payments of $2,164 a month — after Coladarci contacted the congressional office to advise the office of a court order to withhold that amount from his paycheck.

Maybe we should draft legislation that ALL Congressional New Hires have a child support background check, followed by wage garnishment if it meets certain criteria.  After all, the rest of the nation is being subjected to this type of invasive reporting, why not the home boys as well?

AGAIN — NOTICE — this wasn’t a father TRYING to pay and then failing due to unemployment — zero payments from 4/2008 – 12/2010.   I know even very poor fathers who can cough up SOMETHING each month (particularly as doing so exonerates them in the OCSE’s eyes)– even a third, a tenth of the order.    But this is over two and a half years of nonpayment.

How this all plays out when Walsh runs for re-election remains to be seen. Despite disclosures about a 2008 home foreclosure, his divorce, traffic citations for not having car insurance, bounced checks and a lawsuit by a former campaign manager who alleged Walsh owed him $,20,000, Walsh was elected to Congress.

More than one friend emailed me about Congressman Joe Walsh’s Preaches but doesn’t Practice behavior as to child support; but one made a particularly good point:  Where was the OCSE, and why did his ex-wife have to go after child support on her own?  Does the OCSE not catch up when child support arrears is over $100K and the deadbeat is an employee of the U.S. Government?

They do this for women who go on welfare — but of course then there is the matter of that extra % that goes back to the Feds if it’s a Title IV case.

The Chicago Sun-Times Article (by Abdon M. Pallisch, political reporter, 7/27/22)

Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.

“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation’s finances in order.

Was that his first family’s kids, or his second family’s kids he’s referring to here?  Because he apparently skipped over two and a half years of child support payments (2008 – 2010) to 3 kids (two of who are now adults) while vacationing (with girlfriend),  and details have emerged that he wasn’t exactly on the street during that time (see below, or articles).

Walsh starts the video by saying, “President Obama, quit lying. Have you no shame, sir? In three short years, you’ve bankrupted this country.”

It’s hard to add much to the article  – — read on:

No compromise’

An intense, silver-haired firebrand, Walsh, 49, has taken cable TV by storm in recent weeks, becoming the unofficial spokesman for the “No compromise” faction of the Republican majority in the U.S. House — refusing to consider any debt crisis solution that includes raising taxes on the wealthy.

Walsh admits he is not wealthy. Some of his financial problems — including losing his Evanston condo to foreclosure — were documented before his out-of-nowhere victory last fall in the 8th Congressional District in Chicago’s north and northwest suburbs.

FYI President Obama (or, at least, his meteoric political career) came out of Chicago’s South Side.   Joe Walsh apparently is out of the North/Northwest Side.   Evanston is home to Northwestern University (which actually pre-dates the city), two seminaries and many private schools.  It’s per-capita median income in 2000 was about $56K, not too shabby.  It’s north of Chicago, and right on Lake Michigan.

racial composition, 2000 census

…

But court documents examined this week by the Chicago Sun-Times during research for a profile on the increasingly visible congressman showed his financial issues also included a nine-year child support battle with his ex-wife.

Newspapers and individuals SHOULD do this and know who we are dealing with in politics….

Trying to work out a settlement’

Both sides in the Walsh case have been negotiating Walsh’s overdue child support since he filed his response in February.

“Out of respect for his being in Washington, we haven’t been pushing it. We have been trying to work out a settlement,” Coladarci said.

After Laura Walsh filed for divorce in 2002, Joe Walsh counter-filed for divorce and sought custody of the children, saying he worked from home and Laura Walsh “suffers from psychological and other conditions.” He has not repeated that charge in written motions since 2003. The couple had three children, then ages 15, 12 and 8. They are now 23, 20 and 16.

That’s interesting.  Article says she’s an attorney and was working for Eli Lilli.

Before getting elected, he had told Laura Walsh that because he was out of work or between jobs, he could not make child support payments. So she was surprised to read in his congressional campaign disclosures that he was earning enough money to loan his campaign $35,000.

 Sounds here like he was lying to his ex-wife; hardly a unique situation.  Sounds like she wasn’t exactly hiring private investigators — but was reading his campaign disclosures. 

“Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he ‘had no money’ is surprising,” Laura Walsh’s attorneys wrote in a motion filed in December seeking $117,437 in back child support and interest. “Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself.”

“Thanks, Dad” . . . would be appropriate for the three children he left behind in that matter.  Message to them:  “If you’re not living with me, I’m not paying for you.  I’ll just go get some more kids with another woman….”

This is not the typical type of case the Office of Child Support Enforcement would track easily.  Heck, they can’t even keep track of their own interest income and undistributed collections.  The OCSE system is set up to work BEST when some (poor slob) works a job where the wages can be garnished.  Certain classes of people are serial entrepreneurs, or, like this one, politically active, or businessmen.  Imagine trying to track the income from venture capitalists each time there is a divorce!

Walsh’s attorneys responded in court filings: “Respondent admits that funds were loaned to his campaign fund. . . . Respondent admits that the campaign fund has repaid certain loans.”

He personally wrote in court filings that he thought he and his ex-wife were coming to an agreement on the money he owes. He noted that the children have lived with him for part of the last nine years.

“Part” is a real  vague term, both as to % and as to for which years.

Walsh lives with his new wife and children in McHenry. He has not paid any of the $117,437 yet, Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said Wednesday.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE OCSE’s ROLE:

My one friend commented, in essence, on behalf of others and :

..certain congressional officers—whom have authoritative oversight of HHS— believe they are exempt from following the same laws they enact and require us to follow. Representative Walsh’s wages were supposed to be garnished from his US Government congressional paycheck—but i[weren’t]. Please do not get distracted by the amounts, . . . the child support agency refused to enforce the court orders and allowed this jerk to run up a $100,000 tab, then required the mother to file her own motion with her own money to get the job done.  At the same time, he has voted to DOUBLE the budget to $4 billion for the same untracable and unaccountable IV-D enforcement programs allegedly to enforce support orders. Right.

How this might’ve played out with a different class of person —

your ass would be in jail * and your kids would be caught in a federally funded custody battle. Instead of spending more time with the children during a tough divorce, he took the money he stole from the kids hired a lawyer to battle against them, then went on vacations.
In this case, either the judge is in cahoots with the father, or the judge has lost control of his courtroom because the HHS child support enforcement administrative agency will not enforce the orders.  This means that the HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement has modified/set aside/ and created court orders without the constitutionally required authority of the judicial branch.
{{**Or I’d like to add, sitting in a court-mandated parenting class on “How to be a father” and other abstinence-style funding that could draw some federal program $$ to whoever is offering the class }}
The comment may not make sense unless one has been a custodial parent seeking to enforce child support.  The agency is frequently secretive about its dealings with the opposing party.  With good reason, as we found out afterwards that Title IV-D incentives to continue the litigation exist…   IF there is a contested custody matter, that’s another “reason” to suspend disbursement of COLLECTED child support funds — I learned, recently (like, in 2011).
Also, as I have shown in part, in some posts on that undistributed collected child support — the “OIG” (Office of Inspector General) is not auditing all states — or all counties in all states — nor do they affirm their audits of selected counties are even accurate — nor are these audits done even YEARLY, although states are required to report quarterloy.  Nor, when serious offences (against generally accepted accounting procedures, or for that matter common sense) have occurred in the states — does the audit even have any teeth.  It only “recommends” that these states get their act together.  THe OCSE doesn’t have enough “resources” to figure out how many millions, really, are sitting collecting (UNreported!) interest in some state or local county funds.  That’s not including those amounts that were co-mingled with the general funds, and no trail of amounts left behind:
They are taking our money, collecting the interest, not forwarding it to our children, then not claiming the interest. Our children starve while [Bank of America] profits off our undisbursed support.
YEP.   See this March 2004 “Highlights” of a GAO report.  GAO = “Government Accountability Office.”  REPORT GAO=04-377.  This is not from some heretical, unthankful critic of government practices; it is a government report.

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections are Needed

OCSE reported that the amount of undistributed collections for fiscal year 1999 was $545 million and $657 million for fiscal year 2002; however, these amounts may not be accurate. State agencies had different interpretations of what comprised undistributed collections and data reported by several state agencies were found to be unreliable throughout this time period. OCSE revised the reporting form, but data accuracy concerns remain, in part, because OCSE does not have a process to ensure the accuracy of undistributed collections data.

Federal law, some state policies, and inaccurate or missing information were the underlying causes of nearly all types of undistributed collections. State agencies determined how long they held collections from joint tax refunds and if they held collections received before they were due. Federal law allows collections intercepted from joint tax refunds to be held for up to

180 days and in response to GAO’s survey, 34 state agencies reported holding them for 180 days. Missing or inaccurate information, such as invalid addresses, also leads to undistributed collections. Based on state agencies’ survey responses, GAO determined the median value of the undistributed collections from joint tax refunds was about $1.8 million and the median value of four other types of undistributed collections exceeded $350,000.

Money can be held for up to 6 months (180 days) — which 34 agencies were doing, according to a survey.

That is, long ago, almost a decade ago.   They visited ONLY 6 state agencies — out of all 50 states X (counties per state).

OCSE has provided some assistance to help state agencies reduce their undistributed collections. However, the Department of the Treasury has not provided OCSE information that would allow state agencies to distribute collections from joint tax refunds to families sooner. Further, OCSE’s efforts to obtain this information have been minimal.

(Highlight/Left column Inset:

Congress established the child support enforcement program in 1975 to ensure that parents financially supported their children. State agencies administer the program and the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in the Department of Health and Human Services oversees it. In 2002, state agencies collected over $20 billion in child support, but $657 million in collections from 2002 and previous years were undistributed—funds that were delayed or never reached families.

State agencies DO administer the program, but they are required to “do it the OCSE” way if they want their welfare funds next year.  OCSE DOES oversee it — sort of.
From the cover letter to this  GAO-04-377 Child Support Enforcement
report, which is addressed to the Hon. Charles Grassley (IOWA, right?)

March 19, 2004

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Committee on Finance United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In 2002, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), in the Department of Health and Human Services, reported that billions of dollars in child support were collected but that payments totaling $657 million were delayed or never reached the families for whom they were intended. These undistributed child support payments are a concern because child support is an important source of income for many families. According to a 2003 report, for 36 percent of poor children living in families headed by single mothers, child support payments comprised almost one-third of the family’s income in 2001. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)1 generally requires state child support enforcement agencies to disburse child support collections within 2 business days, if sufficient information identifying the recipient is provided. In addition, portions of child support collections must be distributed to state government programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), to reimburse them for cash assistance provided to families.

Although state child support enforcement agencies administer the child support program, the federal government plays a major role.2

OCSE funds two-thirds of the program’s administrative costs; establishes policies and guidance; provides technical assistance, such as designing curricula and providing support for staff training; and oversees and monitors state agencies. Additionally, OCSE is responsible for taking the necessary steps to help resolve issues at the federal level that affect the child support program such as processes that prevent child support payments from reaching families in a timely manner. OCSE and state agencies collect child support through various methods, such as intercepting the federal tax refunds of noncustodial parents—parents who do not have primary care, custody, or control of their children—who are delinquent in paying their child support.3 If the noncustodial parent has a new spouse and files a joint tax return, generally, only the portion of the refund due to the noncustodial parent should be intercepted.

1Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 312(b) (Aug. 22, 1996).

2In this report we will refer to the state child support enforcement agencies as state agencies.

HOW ODD that the OCSE couldn’t locate the noncustodial in-arrears parent when the parent came to Congress with an open and in arrears? child support case!   Is this a matter of principle, or do only welfare cases really count?  Would welfare Dads get such an easy slide?
There was a Supreme Court case recently (within my last 5 posts) where a man whose child support was about $60/month was incarcerated for contempt.  Respect of persons, much, when Joe Walsh can get along and not pay for over 2 years..
Page 8 of this report:

OCSE Reported Millions in Undistributed Collections, but Data Were Unreliable

Page 11 of this report:

Some State Agencies Reported Inaccurate Amounts of Undistributed Collections

They could be lower, or they could be substantially higher.  OCSE doesn’t know!

Local agencies in California used forms that did not always include the federal data elements used by the state agency to report undistributed collections

Page 13 of this report:

OCSE Did Not Hold State Agencies Accountable for Accurately Reporting Undistributed Collections

(I’m looking for the paragraph that says they couldn’t afford to!)

While OCSE is required to audit some child support data, it does not have a process to ensure the accuracy of data on undistributed collections. OCSE is required to audit the reliability of the performance indicators used as the basis for paying financial incentives to state agencies.  Officials told us {{Commonly known as “hearsay”}} they are conducting these audits annually. To ensure the reliability of the data, OCSE selects representative sample cases for a detailed audit and reviews supporting documentation to check for errors.

They just took a partial batch sampling.  Imagine if our food were prepared with this level of oversight….after an outbreak of Undistributed e. coli had been discovered.  Notice they have to check much more carefully when it comes to financial incentives to repay the state agenices.  THIS money, the OCSE seems more alarmed about mistreatment of.  But what about what’s going to the kids?  It seems no one is responsible.
AND HERE YOU HAVE IT — OCSE CANNOT AFFORD TO ACTUALLY MONITOR THE STATES (BUT it can afford extra fatherhood programming….)

Although OCSE’s general instructions for the collection of data used for its annual report reminds state agencies that they should report reliable and complete information, OCSE officials told us they have only reviewed data on undistributed collections in special circumstances. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services and OCSE conducted at least three special reviews of California’s undistributed collections data since fiscal year 1994 that revealed problems with the accuracy and reliability of the data. According to OCSE officials, the agency does not have the resources to routinely review data on undistributed collections in the way it reviews other program data.

CALIFORNIA had shown mess-ups three times since 1994.
ONE of these was brought to federal attention from Prisoner 1824367C at  Men’s Central Jail, although the entire legislature knew about it by then:
ID # 1824367c/o Men’s Central Jail
441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, CA90012
RichardIFine@gmail.com
September 3, 2010
Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20530-0001
Honorable Andre Birotte
U.S. Attorney General
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Honorable Jerry Brown
Attorney General
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
300 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Honorable Steve Cooley
District Attorney
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210
RE:

Request for Federal and State Grand Jury Investigations and Indictments for
Obstruction of Justice and Other Crimes Caused By and Related to the $300
million of Illegal Payments by Los Angeles County and Other California Counties
to the State Trial Court Judges in LA County and Other Counties.

Gentlemen:
I.
Introduction

This formal complaint seeks grand jury investigations and corresponding federal andstate indictments of judges, county supervisors, attorneys and others who participated in thelargest judicial corruption and bribery scheme and “cover up” in American history.

…
The payments began in the late 1980s and have continued through the present.Neither
LA County nor its attorneys disclosed the payments in any case in which LA County was a party.
The judges receiving the payments from LA County also did not disclose such in the cases in
which they were presiding and in which LA County was a party, nor did they disclose such
payments on their Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest, a mandatory disclosure form.
…
Since the late 1980s, LA County has paid approximately $300 million to the state-elected
trial court judges of the LA Superior Court.These payments have been held to violate Article
VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles,
167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), rev. denied 12/23/08.The payments have also been acknowledged
to be criminal in California Senate Bill SBx2-11, effective 5/21/09 (seeinfr a)
NOW he is going to cite several cases in support of his request for a Grand Jury Investigation.  The second of these deals with child support:  $14 million of it!
Honorable Eric Holder, Attorney General
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
September 3, 2010
Page 3

On appeal, LA Superior Court Judge J. Stephen Czuleger was appointed to the panel by designation. Neither Judge Czuleger nor LA County disclosed that he was receiving payments from LA County. I did not know such. The judgment was reversed. The taxpayers lost $250 million.

B.   Silva v. Garcetti

In the case of Silva v. Garcetti and LA County, LASC Case No. BC 205645, I representedJohn Silva against LA District Attorney Gil Garcetti, who was illegally withholding $14 millionof child support monies beyond the six-month statutory limit and refusing to distribute such.

Remember the “180 day” ability to hold these monies, that I mentioned above?  That’s what he must be referring to.  His lawsuit, therefore, is against the County.District Attorneys are paid by the County.  So, if the ruling judge was receiving payments from the county that He/She was ruling ON, that’s a biased proceeding; it’s a conflict of interest.

Neither LA County, it lawyers, nor Judge James C. Chalfant disclosed the LA County payments to LA Superior Court Judge Chalfant.

Garcetti’s office admitted that it had the child support money and had not distributed it.

At the end of the trial, Judge Chalfant dismissed the case.

Upon finding out about the payments to Judge Chalfant after the dismissal, I raised the issue in the appeal, App. No. B 150641.

The Appellate Court refused to hear the issue. I then became aware that Justice Kathryn Doi Todd, who had recently been appointed an appellate
justice, had received LA County payments when she was a LA Superior Court judge. Neither
Justice Todd nor LA County or its lawyers disclosed this information in the appeal.  I raised the
issue in my Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court (S.Ct. Case No. 105221). The California Supreme Court denied review.

LA County women and children lost $14 million, which they should have timely received.

That’s what my friend is talking about. . . . ..

Mr. Fine also represented a class of plaintiffs which Silva represented, on Civil Rights violations, several counts, around this matter but it appears to be “Silva v. Garcetti” that most irritated the judges and lawmakers, resulting in an illegal incarceration of Mr. Fine, Univ. of Wisconsin, London School of Economics, and as I recall probably Harvard as well.   (It’s not your average prisoner that can compose something like this from solitary confinement…)  In fact, here are the credentials (obviously jailbait background):

Richard Fine

EDUCATION: University of Wisconsin (B.S., 1961); University of Chicago (Doctor of Law, 1964); University of London, London School of Economics and Political Science (Ph.D., International Law, 1967); Certificate – Hague Academy of International Law, 1965, 1966; Certificate of Comparative Law – International University of Comparative Science, Luxembourg, 1966; Diplome d’Etudes Superieures du Droit Compare (Faculte Internationale pour L’Enseignment du Droit Compare), Strasbourg, 1967.

ADMISSIONS: Illinois 1964; District of Columbia 1972; California 1973, (State Bar #55259); United States Supreme Court 1972; and various U.S. Circuit and District Courts.

AWARDS: Lawyer of the Decades 1976-2006, Awarded by the California Black Republican Women’s Council and the Judea Christian Alliance; Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition “in recognition of outstanding service to the community”; California State Assembly Certificate of Recognition; California State Board of Equalization Resolution “for outstanding dedication and service to the taxpayers of the community“.

Chronology of Events

I didn’t understand the impact of these sets of cases (it took a while) until, one time, I simply read through this spreadsheet chronology of Mr. Fine’s activities in (Southern) California on behalf of taxpayers.  Maybe we ought to review them as the cries about how broke our state is come from the mouths of some of the same legislators and judicial mouthpieces:

MORE FROM GAO REPORT:

Page 18:

Many State Agencies Reported Holding More than $1 Million from Joint Tax Refunds and Several Hundred Thousand Dollars in Other Types of Undistributed Collections

I hate to minimize the severe and ever-expanding fatherlessness crisis (which of course must be met in kind by federal prevention efforts, a.k.a. fatherhood media campaigns at every level) — however doesn’t it seem that this MIGHT tend to affect the poverty level of families that actually need that child support?  MOreover, as it is the equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle — what goes in, may not come out and is not accounted for — at all — I’m starting to think that this is part of our problem:

MARCH 2004 report on earlier surveys:

In response to our survey, 32 state agencies provided dollar amounts for undistributed collections from joint tax refunds. The median value reported for these collections was $1.8 million. Of these 32 state agencies, 19 reported an amount of $1 million dollars or higher with 3 reporting amounts greater than $10 million dollars. In 15 state agencies this was the largest amount reported for any of the nine types of undistributed collections we listed on the survey. For the 9 state agencies that provided values for all nine types, we determined that undistributed collections from joint tax refunds ranged from 27 to 48 percent of total undistributed collections. Our survey requested data as of June 2003, and OCSE officials explained that the amount of undistributed collections from joint tax refunds is generally higher in March through September.

Many officials cited the potential financial loss as the primary reason they are unwilling to assume the risk of releasing these collections before 180 days.

Naturally they are going to protect their own behinds — because people can sue them otherwise:

 State agencies are fully responsible for payments made in error and must either attempt to recover money that has been distributed to custodial parents or suffer the financial loss that comes from reimbursing the Treasury for the “injured spouse” claims. One state agency we visited, Texas, reduced the time it held collections from joint tax refunds from 120 days to 90 days after analysis of its data showed that the benefit of distributing these collections outweighed the financial risk of holding them.

While high values were consistently reported for undistributed collections from joint tax refunds, our analysis also revealed that the median value of four other types of undistributed collections that state agencies reported exceeded $350,000. These undistributed collections included those received before they were due, pending legal resolution, with an invalid  address for custodial parents, and with data problems.

24 agencies reported collections withheld “pending legal resolution” (may mean a custody issue….) from Min. $9,700 through UP TO $10.2 MILLION, with a median of $431,000.   This represents money that is being held (and probably earning interest for the STate or Counties) while the distressed parents — and children with them — fight it out in court.  Encouraging such fights — which, face it, the Access and Visitation legislation DOES — could prolong that for years.  Do the math (remembering compound interest…. and the declining value of the $$).

So, here comes the OCSE and takes tax money again to solve some problems that its prior practices helped create:

OCSE funded research and provided technical assistance to state agencies to help them reduce undistributed collections. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2002, OCSE awarded three contracts. The first contract awarded in fiscal year 2000, for about $135,000, funded research to identify approaches for reducing undistributed collections in 11 state agencies with large caseloads or amounts of collections. In addition, this contractor reviewed undistributed collections in two New York counties and identified factors in their business processes and automated systems that prevented them from further reducing these collections. According to OCSE, a second contract was also awarded in fiscal year 2000 for about $112,000 that funded research focused on understanding the extent and causes of undistributed collections across state agencies and highlighting best practices for distributing such collections. Additionally, OCSE officials said that a third contract was awarded in fiscal year 2002 for about $300,000 that funded research to review undistributed collections in 5 state agencies.

“OCSE funded” is a misnomer.  OCSE is a public Program office under an “Op(erational)Div(ision) under a Department of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.     From small to large:

Program Office (OCSE)

OpDiv (ACF)

Dept. (HHS)

Branch (Executive).

Public funds to correct policies promoted by government employees (i.e., legislators, and appropriations people) that are helping fleece the public.  THAT makes a lot of sense….

Meanwhile, others jumped on the bandwagon here, for some press releases on Rep. Walsh:

Mothers And Catholics United Members Call On Rep. Joe Walsh To Honor The Lives Of All Children And Pay Financial Obligations

SATURDAY, 30 JULY 2011 17:42 PRESS RELEASE

Fox Lake, IL–(ENEWSPF)–July 30, 2011.  Catholics United members and mothers from the Eighth Congressional District of Illinois gathered in front of Rep. Joe Walsh’s Fox Lake congressional office today to deliver a letter asking the Congressman to act more responsibly when it comes to defaulting on our nation’s financial obligations, especially when doing so adversely affects the lives of children.

However, a recent disclosure of legal documents shows that Congressman Walsh failed to pay child support during a time when he loaned his political campaign $35,000.

“Rep. Walsh claims that he wants to curb federal spending to protect future generations of Americans,said Jeanne Dauray, a mother and member of Catholics United. But this rings hallow in the face of recent disclosures that he’s failed to pay his own child support. Because my father never paid child support, I know firsthand how devastating it can be on families. Joe Walsh should be ashamed.”

In a letter delivered to Rep. Walsh’s office, Catholics United members and mothers from Illinois write:

“As mothers and as people of faith, we know how important responsible fatherhood is to the lives of our children. Therefore it is with great sadness that we ask you to reflect on your past actions and redeem your sense of honor as a father and as a representative.

We ask that you honor the lives of all children, including your own. Do not allow the United States to default on our financial obligations and pay the full child support owed to your family. Failing to do so will only place a greater burden on the lives of children.”

Sure, that should work.  The man was vacationing with a girlfriend {great conservative values}, lied to his wife, preached at the President, and when he got a $175K government job, apparently FORGOT this original 3 children, although previously he’d tried to get custody of them by calling his wife (of 15 years) names during the divorce proceedings. Kind of reminds me of appealing to a batterer to think of his kids….

Not to lose an opportunity, “Catholics United” gathered to tell this Dad that “irresponsible fatherhood” was tarnishing the image:

http://www.catholics-united.org/files/CU-protest-letter-signing.jpg (notice the posters)

(CapWiz site)

Rep. Joe Walsh

Residence: McHenry

Marital Status: Married (Helene)

Prev. Occupation: Investment Banker

Prev. Political Exp.: no prior elected office

Education: BA University of Iowa, 1995; MPP University of Chicago, 1991

Birthdate: 12/27/1961

Birthplace: Barrington, IL

Religion: Catholic

Percentage in Last Election: 48%

Major Opponent: Melissa Bean

Surprisingly?, this shows he voted AGAINST the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood Bill

H.R.2979 – Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 (H.R.2979) Support No Send Message to Rep. Joe Walsh
7/19/2011 MSNBC Transcript of Interview with “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews (Sorry, I couldn’t resist — found this at Project VoteSmart.  Catch the comment about “households” have to balance their budgets……)
MATTHEWS: OK. Let me just ask you three questions. The bill you”re going to vote–you”re going to vote for this bill today, right?

WALSH: Try one at a time, Chris.
(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I can”t get the first answer.

WALSH: Yes, I”m going to vote–

MATTHEWS: Will you tell me why it doesn”t name the cuts?

WALSH: — for this bill.

MATTHEWS: Why doesn”t it name the cuts?

WALSH: It calls for $111 billion in cuts, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Where?

WALSH: And again, in the bill, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Where are the cuts?

WALSH: In the bill. In non-defense discretionary spending.

MATTHEWS: What”s that?

i.e., WHAT “non-defense discretionary spending”?   Walsh doesn’t answer:

WALSH: It”s $111 billion. Chris, you know what that is! Again, you want to
harp on this. I”m telling you for the first time–where”s the president”s plan, Chris Matthews?

MATTHEWS: Right. That”s a great question.

WALSH: Where”s the Democrats” plan?

MATTHEWS: Right.

WALSH: No! But wait a minute!

MATTHEWS: You”ve criticized the president for not having a plan, and you don”t have one. I”m looking at your document. Have you read it?

(Sounds like a Yes/No question to me — left hanging….)
WALSH: I”ll criticize the president for not having a plan. He”s not serious and he”s playing politics.
(Changes the topic when almost boxed in.  ….. revealing….!)

MATTHEWS: OK–

WALSH: For the first time in this town, Chris, the House is going to pass a serious plan to get spending in this town under control! And you want to ignore the most important piece of that, which is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And I got to tell you something. The American people are beyond you on this–

MATTHEWS: OK–

WALSH: — and they”re beyond the president.

MATTHEWS: OK, let–

WALSH: They want us to do something dramatic.

MATTHEWS: OK. Your bill doesn”t specify cuts. It calls in 10 years for reduction in government spending to 19.9 percent of the economy. Are you happy with that number, that would reduce it to, basically, $3 trillion from $3.75? It really doesn”t change it much. But my point to you is, do you really think you”re going to get two thirds vote in the House for a balanced budget amendment, a two thirds vote?

WALSH: Hey, Chris, the fiscal situation now–this president–

MATTHEWS: Will you get a–you said you”re going get a two thirds vote.

WALSH: Yes. Yes! Is so severe that we have a great chance this year to pass this out of the House. Look, 80 percent of the American people believe in a balanced budget amendment. Most states have to live according to one.

MATTHEWS: Right.

WALSH: All households do. This is something Americans understand.

Yep, that was Special, reference to American households, when his contribution to his own has been to run up some debt….

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

July 31, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Posted in Child Support, History of Family Court

Tagged with , , , , , ,

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »